Discuss the differences you've seen between Ti creative (XLE) and Ti base (LXI). give examples.
How does Ti dual-seeking (EXE) manifest itself, specifically? What exactly are they after? Examples would be helpful!
Printable View
Discuss the differences you've seen between Ti creative (XLE) and Ti base (LXI). give examples.
How does Ti dual-seeking (EXE) manifest itself, specifically? What exactly are they after? Examples would be helpful!
LXI uses Ne or Se to help build structural models of external logic(Ti). XLE uses Ti (structural logic) to order a series of Ne or Se perceptions.
I think of it along the lines of information processing goals.
An IJ has the goal of processing the variables of a perceived structure and an LXI has the more specific goal of processing the variables of a perceived explicit logical structure. An LII does that by looking at the possible variables of Ne and an LSI does that by looking at the concrete variables of Se.
An EP has the goal of processing the structure of a perceived set of variables. An XLE has the goal of processing the explicit logical structure of their perceived set of variables. An ILE has the goal of processing the explicit logical structure of perceived possible variables (Ne) and an SLE has the goal of processing the explicit logical structure of perceived concrete variables.
For a more concrete example of Ti, consider a logic tree. A good example of a logic tree exists in Linguistics. When breaking down the structure of a sentence you start with the basic phrase, break that down to clauses which can consist of noun clauses, verb clauses, adjective clauses and prepositional clauses. Next you can break every clause down to sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses and eventually down to the individual parts of speech verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions and interjections. Certainly, each part leads to the next, but Ti breaks it down into a complete structure. An LXI will be more concerned with studying the parts to establish an over-arching law, and an XLE will create a law to understand the parts.
A good way to think of the different approaches is to consider something that Labcoat said in the Alpha forum. An LII will try to find an answer so they know how to solve a problem in the future while an ILE will solve the problem again and again every time it shows up. In this way, the LII is looking for the laws (Ti) so they will always know what to do when encountering a certain set of variables (Ne) whereas the ILE is encountering a certain set of variables (Ne) and then finding the law (Ti) to using them. This also becomes a part of the IJ, decisive, "order" versus the EP, indecisive, "disorder". IJs become more proactive while EPs become more reactive.
As for EXEs, I'm going to leave that for an EXE to describe. I feel I've done my job ;)
BTW, I'm not all-together sold on my wording wrt processing goals. If someone has a better way to word it, I would definitely like to hear it. I'm kind of making due atm.
Ummm... ok, let's try.
First of all, Ti is external statics of fields. This means that Ti is interested in what is permanent about explicit or observable relationships. To me, the perfect exemplification of Ti external statics of fields is a basic physics equation, such as the universal gravitation law (F = (G x m1 x m2)/(r^2)), or P = IV or P = IR^2. All of these physics equations are surprisingly accurate models of how given physical (external) variables interact (fields) in all cases whatsoever (statics), at least until you get into relativity and stuff. That's the basic information content of Ti: how external systems always work. Now, that being said, this focus on theoretical models of external systems, models wherein you can plug in one set of information/data and get another, results in certain behavioral features, which of course feature more prominently in Ti-leading types than in Ti-creative types, and which I will try to detail below.
Ti-leading types are generally much more ordered, organized, and have a degree of rigidity that ILEs and SLEs do not. This does not by any means mean that they have an organized house, or an organized desk, etc. They often (usually?) don't. It does mean that they have a fairly organized way of thinking or going about things. Ti divides the world into internally coherent systems (which necessarily preclude certain things, which is why Ti leading types have either Se or Ne as their polr), and is always fairly certain about the "right" answer, and if not certain about the right answer, certain that there is a right answer that can be reached. Obviously, they are capable of putting certain questions (e.g. how many planets are there outside the observable universe? what was the precise date on which the Iliad was written, and by whom?) into an "unknowable" or even "irrelevant" box, but even then they have to make a distinction between "knowable" and "unknowable", which at least in some small way makes the unknowable thing known, at least insofar as we know that it is unknowable. It is this extremely organized way of thinking that comes so naturally to Ti-leading types. A well-constructed device (meaning well-organized) can bring a Ti-leading type pleasure in the same way that a well constructed sentence (meaning well-organized) can bring an Fe-leading type pleasure (or any type, but I hope you see the connection). Ti delights in distinctions, because distinctions make things more explicit, logical, and clear. This is why analytic philosophy, especially logic, generally takes a Ti bent (continental philosophy, or at least what I know of it, in my opinion takes more of a Ni, gamma NT bent). Aristotle's laws of logic are pure Ti, as pure as the models of relationships found in the laws of physics: A is A, A is not B, Either A or B, etc. All of these are actually *massive* assumptions, but they create an internally consistent system, which, even if it cannot accommodate all the data of real life, can accommodate an awful lot of it.
Now, XLEs, on the other hand, are not as focused on the Ti model of external relationships. They are more focused on the perceptions out of which the models are made. They are concerned with taking their perceptions (either Ne or Se), and creating an explicit Ti system of inputs and outputs not as an end in themselves, but in order to go back out into the world armed with a more explicit set of knowledge, what to do in a given situation, etc. (this may be more true of SLEs than ILEs). For instance, an SLE will often encounter a challenge in life, then, internally (this is an introverted information element after all) think of an explicit logical system covering all examples of a given phenomenon, an overarching law as mn0good said. Then, he or she will use this explicit logical system to understand the situation. He or she will not, generally, just go out and do exactly what the system says he or she should do in every case. XLEs have much more room for adapting on the fly than XLIs, in general. Rather, he or she will use the understanding gained from examining the phenomenon in a logical way as an aid, as extra information, if you will, in confronting the problem the next time. Obviously, I'm not as interested in ILEs, so I don't have as many examples of what they're like, but I think there's a parallel for them.
This is also a great point. For an LSI or LII, the goal is the law, the goal is to understand the experience or phenomenon; that is the end-in-itself. For an SLE or ILE, the law simply allows us greater understanding (and, accordingly, greater or better experience) of the parts.Quote:
An LXI will be more concerned with studying the parts to establish an over-arching law, and an XLE will create a law to understand the parts.
I'm not really sure about Ti dual-seeking either. I relate Ti more to Ni than to Fe, so I'm not really sure how it works for Fe-leading types. I guess Fe-leading types really like an explicit set of rules that tells them what to do (not necessarily needing the volitional pressure to do these things that an Ni-leading types would need, but just the existence of a set of rules: when to do this, when to do that, and one that serves their goals).
Short answer:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ng_(album).jpg
His album is pretty cool.
:8*
this is what I was thinking about I guess. good distinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverchris9
*sigh* thanks you guys for your input. I don't know why I started this thread as I'm really bad at this type of analysis. :D
My mom needs my dad to tell her the time, (well that's more like covering up her Ni polr), it's more like she wants a mental structure. Some sort of mental organization that introverts excel at, especially logical ones. 'Oh it's 7 pm it's time for dinner.' That might sound bland, but to an ESE that's kind of everything. It's so important to them. I'm an INFp so it's like 'Oh my god you alphas are such dorks. It's just dinner.' But to them it's important. Being on time for dinner.
Without that sort of framework and structure mum would go absolutely crazy with her extroversion, without the ability to be grounded.
It sounds as like you might have wanted some like super grand ideal perspective, something that was more 'interesting' than simply being on time for dinner. However, the reason I like socionics is that it's based on reality. It's like magic/reality all in one.
Naw, that's a great example! What I really wanted/needed was examples. Cause I can't think clearly without them. So thanks. :) Something funny--neither my ESE husband nor I wears a watch. So he's always saying "what time is it?" and I'm like "I dunno", thinking "what does it matter and why are you so obsessed with the time?" lol! He keeps telling me we need a clock in the family room even though there's a clock in the kitchen which is connected to the family room and you can see it from there. Anyway, your comment reminded me of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
I'm glad if what I said helped at all, but honestly, you said at the beginning of the thread that you wanted examples, which I am really bad at giving, but I just plowed ahead with my theoretical whatevering anyway, because that's fun for me. But I realized it might not have been particularly helpful for you. That's all by way of saying, don't feel like you shouldn't have started the thread (insert smiley here)! Also, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron
I'll try to think of examples, but since I'm never 100% sure about people's socionics types (and have some trouble connecting specific behaviors to type), I don't know that I'll be able to come up with any decent ones.
This isn't serious, is it? So, one can get dualized by wearing a watch?Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
I think he meant that his mom likes to hear explicit verbalizations of a schedule, which may be vague, but having an ESE mother myself, I understand how this is type related. My mom is queen of the calendar. I can rely on her because she keeps track of dates, appointments, and logistical information. I think this is Si creative. It's like Si included in a linear-energetic (Ej) schema.
I must say though that I eat dinner whenever I want it, and I become annoyed when arbitrary timelines are forced on me for such trivial bs (luckily not much of an issue in my family).
This thread reminds me of just how much of a chronomaniac I am. I've worn a watch since I was 12 and it bothers me to no end when I can't know, at any given moment, what time it is and if the plan in the back of my head is on schedule. I've been slightly relegated to timekeeper for this reason, but not too severely. Time is a nice little axis to organize things on. I'm not rigid on keeping to an arbitrary schedule, but I like to know where my time is going and when the next event is going to happen.
:love: Timekeeping.
Although, I must confess that I've used a 2400hr clock so long that I'm never entirely sure if 12 AM or 12 PM means noon.
:lol: this is kinda cute.Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewZ
fwiw, I always like your posts and understand and relate to them so thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by silverchris9
Another one with ESE mom here. (Do ESE's tend to have more children? Or maybe mothers are more likely to seem ESE to their children?). I don't really get Ni as being associated with time, more like how things change, but she does have clocks in every room and yet is often surprised how late it is, so maybe there's something to it.
Ni is more like having a hunch how things/situations are going to work out. Some thoughts that Ni people have: let's not start with this, it will bring us nowhere. Or how politics are doing is only going to turn out bad, cause these people will not like it and won't cooperate, so it's best not to go that direction. Entering a bar and noticing, this is going to become a brawl tonight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiss
So don't take time to llitteraly like watching a clock. It's more future vision orientated.
Yeah, I've always associated Ni with an orientation towards consequence. Seeing how something will play out. Perhaps my all-time favourite example of this is the time when my family was about to head out on a long trip to drop off my step-sister at the train then continue on to my grand-parents. My mom (ILI) warned my step-father that they ought to get gas because she expected that there wouldn't be open gas stations between our town and when we would run out of gas. My step-dad disregarded this warning because he figured the station about 15 minutes out of town would be open. However, when we promptly ran out of gas at that gas station, it was closed. Because it was around Christmas time. And my mom figured that would happen.
This is a frequent occurrence for us. My mom is queen of "I told you so."
yeah I always predict running out of gas! It's happened several times. and ESE husband is like "no that won't happen" and I'm like um, yes it will. I don't even NEED to say "I told you so" anymore. But it annoys him, predictably.
Ahahahaha, the bane of IXI wifehood and motherhood. Always advising, never being listened to ;)
Ti creative types see Ti as something that can be manipulated for their use. They're aware of Ti structures and either use them to their advantage or decide that they're bullshit and ignore/challenge them.
Ti base are pigheaded, like and advocate and follow rules / laws, speculate a lot about things, see connections that are pretty far fetched, paranoid and perfectionists when unhealthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron
Ti creative, i don't know, don't really make an impact.
I like this a lot, and your description of LXIs definitely correlates better to my own personal incorporation of Ti.Quote:
Originally Posted by mn0good
The description above misses the LXI essence of attempting to OPTIMIZE the rules. Ti base is more content to replace an obsolete or inefficient rule with a superior one. An LXI needs to see a rule as appropriate before advocating it/following it A Ti creative might be more inclined to merely find a flaw in a rule but not motion to find a replacement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
I think I see what you're alluding to here. I can relate to the feeling of a well-constructed sentence, as a sequential embodiment of a structure in motion. I think it has to do with Fe 'hitting' all the relevant 'angles' within a Ti structure without sacrificing dynamic effectiveness. Ti egos appreciate this quality; it reassures them that the contained system they have constructed can unfold in an objective form.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverchris9
Removed at User Request
thats a little uncalled for, you dont need to insult a whole group of people to make your pointQuote:
Originally Posted by Pinocchio
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
You sound like some kind of psychological conspiracy theorist here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinocchio
I hate to be the one to say it, but what you've said and what Vero did ARE highly similar. Understanding through logical connections how potentials measure up vis a vis devising some situational law wherein potentials are understood (particularly where this process is conceived as ephemeral, suiting whatever happens to be present at the time, and towards whatever interesting aims are at hand) are more or less synonymous phrases. Now I know English is not your native language, and that you take a lot of pride in your assertions, but seriously dude. Seriously.Quote:
Yes, that conclusion he praised artificially was wrong, this is why I have attacked them here: basically xLE don't create any systems law - they are actually Irrational - but use their Ti to undrstand through connections how the potential (Ne) or strength (Se) of the objects compares with each other.
Edit: next mn0good will say that she said the same thing as me and I am actually a troll who wants to take on her with every occasion.
Removed at User Request
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
Methinks some people would call these Ni thoughts paranoid. And yes, that's partly what I meant by "how things change".Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
fyi, mn0good's mother is ILI, not EIE.
ACTUALLY, YOU MENDACIOUS FUCK, I SAID YOU HAD NO REASON TO QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THEIR ABILITY TO RELATE TO EACH OTHER IS VALID BECAUSE THE REASON YOU POSITED AS A POTENTIAL ESCAPE ROUTE, BEING THAT THEY *MIGHT* NOT HAVE SPENT ENOUGH TIME AROUND EACH OTHER TO BE ABLE TO JUDGE, IS RIDICULOUS BECAUSE THEY HAVE BOTH BEEN HERE FOR LONGER PERIODS OF TIME THAN YOU AND HAVE INTERACTED TOGETHER FOR YEARS BEFORE YOU EVER KNEW EITHER OF THEM. THAT IS NOWHERE EVEN FUCKING CLOSE TO 'ADMONISHING YOU EARLIER THAT YOU ARE NOT RIGHT BECAUSE "YOU DON'T HAVE AS MANY POSTS AS THEM.'" WANNA TALK ABOUT FUCKING REASON? QUOTE ME PROPERLY, ******. JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU CONNIVING PIECE OF SHIT, I'VE HAD IT ABOUT UP TO HEAR WITH YOUR TWISTING OF WORDS AND UTTERLY DISINGENUOUS BULLSHIT. YOU FUCKING MAKE ME WANT TO BREATH FIRE. YOU THINK YOU ARE SOME KIND OF ALMIGHTY PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE JUDGE OF RIGHT OR WRONG ON ANY LEVEL RELEVANT TO YOUR SOCIONICS TYPINGS IF YOU CAN WRAP IT IN A LITTLE FUCKING BOW THAT YOU HOPE FLIES UNDER THE RADAR, BUT IT FUCKING DOESN'T, YOU JUST LOOK LIKE A FUCKING STUBBORN IDIOT, AND THE SOONER YOU REALIZE THAT, THE SOONER YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO REFINE YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING AND ACTUALLY FUCKING GRASP WHAT THE FUCK EVERYONE ELSE AROUND YOU IS TALKING ABOUT. CHRIST ALMIGHTY.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinocchio
See, all people here at the 16types are a little bit crazy. No one of us is normal. We must accept that.
Removed at User Request
fwiw, I personally like you and JuJu because you both take socionics seriously and obviously care about spreading the correct knowledge to other people. It just seems like the way both of you go about it is very alienating to alot of people here; the way you guys convey information is prone to start confrontations or arguements. atmospheres like that generally aren't the most conducive to learning, and obviously with people of all 16 types around, theres bound to be disagreement and such, but it just gets silly when it reaches a certain degree.
theres something called a student mindset, its what it sounds like, approaching a topic like a student would, 'I have knowledge but theres still more to learn' (which, lets face it, pretty much everyone on here can do with refining their socionics knowledge). what you and JuJu take is more of a masters mindset, basically 'I have this all figured out, I'm here to teach you' which comes off condescending and IMO probably is deterring your own learning aswell. it does create a gap between people that is generally more annoying, than beneficial, to work with
I think Pinnochio takes socionics seriously on an intellectual level, whereas JuJu only takes it seriously insofar as it inflates his self-image. This is why pinnochio doesn't annoy me. He is also very logical, so even if his posts are dogmatic at times, the substance of most of his ideas can't be ignored. Also, the attitudes toward conflict are different: pinnochio doesn't care how people feel about him; JuJu is ceaselessly attuned to it.
Removed at User Request
Yeah, that's cool. Some people would use the former as a pretense to ignore the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinocchio
I think it works -- sheds light on the basic motivations for the respective Ti egos; namely, accumulating information to systematize completely and utilizing conceptual structure to actively organize external variables.Quote:
So, about the topic, sorry to interrupt. Umhh... what do you think about the traveler/cartographer example?
I agree, and I don't mind him likewise. It's fun to argue with him because I can allow myself to be more dramatic like he will do lolQuote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
In the enneagram you'd definitely be 6w5. The inquistitor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinocchio
Being crazy is the only thing that keeps me sane.Quote:
Originally Posted by polikujm
No. He doesn't have the shaky, compensatorily aggressive feel that people like you and discojoe exhibit in confrontation. He's much more like a 7w8: blithe, seemingly totally un-invested in conversation unless it serves either for his entertainment or ego, bluntly refusing to question himself in any manner, never giving any signs of giving ground even when confronted with the obvious truth, and deflecting everything he can't actually respond to with humor.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
Ephemeros, the fact of the matter is, not everyone agrees on their interpretation of Socionics even when it comes to typing people in real life, so positing that you can know someone's type who you not only have never met in person, but also don't know a lot about generally, and don't even speak their same native language (not only just something to do with your skill in the language, but the simple barrier that arises as a result of you not being as attached or subjectively attuned to a language other than your own, and thus not as able to interpret nuance, context, or general meaning as precisely), especially when your motives are right out in the open, makes it kind of hard to take you seriously. You're just too overtly overconfident with insufficient information or input, in my opinion.
...wow, didn't see that coming...Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
Removed at User Request
making sure what you will be saying is in fact true (by learning more about it)
is this Ti?
I like this description of the 7w8. heh. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
Removed at User Request
Pinocchio is concerned with intents, loyalties, authority, lies, etc far too extremely to be anything other than 6. Arguing with him is like constantly trying to prove you aren't a sneaky lying bastard lol. His self-righteousness is very strong, but I don't mind it really. At least you know that he does really care about the truth even if he is stubbornly wrong.
6w7 then, sp.../so I'd say.
Back to Ti...
This is true. I like to say that Te is the "rules" and Ti is the "rules of rules".Quote:
Ti's learn a set of rules previously which guide them in decision-making, so they usually make their mind easily, Te's, on the other hand take all knowledge about something as a endless refinement.
Anyway, it is not related to either Te or Ti the habit of telling something knowing or not knowing enough about it, in my observations that Ti just tend to be extreme: I know or I don't know.
A Te ego has to work through each problem as a unique puzzle. This is because they are inducting the rules, "learning the ropes" as they go. They can do specific skills very well, but when introduced to a new skill they take longer to learn it.
A Ti ego is always figuring out how "rules" function as abstractions, rather than specific concrete imperatives, that complete a task. I reduce things to as simple an abstraction as I can get (whilst retaining the "idea"). If, when I reduce the process, it turns out to be the same as another process, then I will view them as conceptually the same thing (This is Ne as well). It's like simplifying two equations and finding out that they are the same equation when reduced. I don't see it as necessary to know all the detailed steps (rules), because I'm more focused on connecting the current ruleset to other rulesets.
I have noticed that saying that two different concrete tasks might as well be the same because they can be reduced to the same abstract rules, really irritates Te egos's. Obviously, anyone can be abstract or use simplifications mathmatically, but to actually see complex situations in this way is another matter, only for the Ti-er.
Removed at User Request
This is dead on IMO. It relates to a general concept I had been toying with recently, regarding Te and Ti pertaining to left- and right-brain operations, respectively. Te is linear, sequential and separate from the observer; structure is seen as something embedded in reality that must be mapped out with exaction in order for understanding to be complete ("These are the objective standards"). Ti's structure is integral, thus reality is formatted in a more present-based, holistic manner; underlying relations either meld or discord with the subjective 'feel' of this structure, and can vary, build or recede according to the interrelations of all aspects in a situation (synthesis produces more general solutions).Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
What you said about Ti with Ne... how do you think it varies with Se (or Ni)? I usually find that with alphas, we can instinctively find similar parameters to operate within, but that I can never communicate perceptions in readily complete form without them being dissected and seemingly compartmentalized. In this way, beta Ti seems more condensed and based on external effect, while alpha Ti seems more open-ended and determined by a mutable subjective perspective.
this is really good guys, thank you!
Removed at User Request
What do you mean by "the human dimension"? Perhaps it's an issue of democracy/aristocracy, somewhat related to the meat/soul metaphor from the other thread (alphas seeing individuals evolve naturally, betas seeing evolution as a guiding force for individuals).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinocchio
Good question - "learning more about" something implies extroversion, seeking something external. :Ti: would be involved in making sure what you will be saying is true by virtue of how it follows from other, already established premises or things you know. What you're talking about can usually be attributed to :Te:.Quote:
Originally Posted by matilda
@redbaron, IMO the difference between creative and base :Ti: is usually pretty clear. :Ti: base people like perfecting and refining existing knowledge and systems, creating a sense of certainty, whereas :Ti: creative people tend to either work outside of existing systems or blatantly go against them, creating chaos. Examples would be rules or procedures of any kind. :Ti: leading people also tend to be more straightforward, in the sense of saying exactly what they are thinking -- kind of like an internal monologue that can be turned on or off (this has to do with introversion). Behavior-wise, :Ti: creative people respond and adapt more to the situation around them (irrationality + extroversion). :Ti: leading people are also way more cautious/neurotic about social etiquette, e.g. saying the wrong thing to someone (:Fi: role).
The "dinner time" example B&D gave is perfect - I think EXEs in general are just looking for certainty about things, like they know they can count on you to be level-headed and consistent no matter what the situation is. I generally have an idea about how things should be, and ESEs appreciate that. (Along the same lines, sometimes :Ti: dual-seeking turns into dogmatism.)
They also like attention, and in return offer entertainment :p
You may worsen your progress in the creative in order to get the mode right.
-Guy Smiley
Removed at User Request
Yeah, that makes sense to me. Alphas seem much more inclined to first relativize and then organize an entire breadth of perspectives; so that, when it comes time to agree or disagree, the important issue is what context you are operating from, how all your viewpoints tie together, etc. (implicit assumption: everyone is in it together, though they act as individuals with respectively differing goals). With betas, the context and perspective is taken as implicit for each person, with the consequent attitude of ideological certainty that prompts directed action; agreed-upon ends presuppose alignment of perspective (implicit assumption: people operate on their own, but are bound to those with whom they share the same goal).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinocchio
Removed at User Request
Yes. The ST aristocratic values seem to carry an inclination towards condensing things. The NF axis is much more divergent, essentially refining conceptions and vision through ambiguity without ever coming to a concrete conclusion; this breadth of perspective reassures STs of the correctness of their imposed structures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinocchio
I can see what you mean about democrats wanting to know the "why," as they are more concerned with how things naturally manifest, and don't want to overlook information for the sake of implementation.
hm, interesting. Gammas' hair-splitting is probably more internal, almost like a distillation through Ni+Fi. From there, Se+Te seals off objective boundaries, while remaining open to additional information that could be refined, etc.Quote:
The interesting thing is that this shows that Gammas also hairsplit, which I was doubting so far. But if I think again, while the Alphas hairsplit the past (eg. "why have you done this?" - even if a solution was found) the Gammas hairsplit the future (eg. "what are you going to do in the future?"). Basically Alphas are inclined to punish the guilt even if the events have passed - assure that it would not happen again, while Gammas ask for official commitment - assured reliability. Basically two types of assurance, this assurance is an Internal nose smelling External affairs :).
I suppose I could see this. Gammas seem to assume less potential for a correct conceptual viewpoint to be arrived at and act as a beacon for action; in this way, they are probably more lenient of flaws in action, if only because the main goal is tangible efficacy, which doesn't require ideological-based punishments for slip-ups. It is ironic that alphas' open-ended, idealistic attitude would lead to harsher punishments, but makes some sense. :lol:Quote:
Imo this makes sense with the association I make between political parties and quadras:
- liberals Alpha: total freedom, harsh punishments
- social-democrats Gamma: regulations and obligations to direct people's actions, but mild punishments.
Well yes, if any punishment is to actually be dealt out, all benefit from the infraction has to be eliminated; given that we don't often know for sure what the benefits were, the penalties have to be rather draconian. :Ti: as opposed to :Fi: to keep people in line means that the "wrong" behavior has to be made impractical, rather than ethically discouraged. Beta, I suppose, does this as a constant maintenance, whereas Alpha tries to realign the universe when it crosses a (much looser) boundary - trying to counteract the potential benefits of a misdeed rather than the immediate benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
Also, almost unrelated: Chaotic gods are harder to appease.
Expanding this further...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinocchio
NT=Exploring facts [things that work]
ST=Recognizing facts [things that work] at face value
NF=Exploring feelings [ambiguities]
SF=Recognizing feelings [ambiguities] at face value