Hell I know, I didn't even mention MBTI, and I'm not "none of you fuckers" as well, so tell me what am I not paying attention to, specifically?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
Printable View
Hell I know, I didn't even mention MBTI, and I'm not "none of you fuckers" as well, so tell me what am I not paying attention to, specifically?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
@Maritsa Darmandzhyan, explainQuote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
Oh, it's been a pleasure on my side as well. Summon a fiery dragon while you're at it.
http://funny-pictures-blog.com/wp-co...man-Dragon.jpg
Also, thank you @woofwoofl for your input. :) Helps to know someone else knows what I'm talking about, haha.
That's awesome :)Quote:
Originally Posted by fenryrr
Ti:Fi, as well as Se:Ne, Te:Fe, and Si:Ni, will all fit the same basic template, but contradict in their own way. Simply put, theyre negative pathways of one another, but that is where the similarity ends. This can be found in texts, but its like playing Duck Hunt on hard mode. I can do it if I have time to do so. With that said, I am not even sure this is what Jim means.
So, let me get this straight and not bent - fen and woof both Ti polr bleed blood thicker than steel when confronted with Ti dominants like Jim and Ryan. Fen and woof even share freckles together like Pippi Langstrumpf.
Anndelise has a problem as well and Ti polr, but doesn't share freckles.
Well, it's obvious like people on here say, Jim and Ryan must be Ti dominants. One wasn't so far and has been dual to one freckle, but not anymore.
Case closed.
Why are you so funny Absurd.
What do you mean by "negative pathways?" I tend to see these functional pairings as more parallel opposites that occasionally intrude upon each other's territory, rather than two sides of the same spectrum, which is what you seem to be indicating. I mean, sure they share temperament, so they tend to jostle for psychological elbow room, but I think that's more because they try to fill similar social roles externally, as well as having similar energy levels and even using similar psychological positioning tactics, while maintaining obviously different priorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadae
Personally I tend to think of Fi:Fe, Ti:Te, Si:Se, Ni:Ne as the actual "negatives" of each other because they will just kind of constantly misfire on one another in interaction, and are literally trying to process the same information in completely different ways.
I'm much worse in real life.
It is. The information elements are derived from their opposition rather than from some wholesome independent source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadae
Oh dear Jesus, Jim actually made a flowchart. I totally missed that.
This thread has everything. :hug:
You said you wanted one :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
I referenced you to it especially!!! :(
lol I never said I wanted a flowchart...I think you invented that in your head, my precious :(Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
Oops. Be careful what you wish for Gilly. I hate having to use nested multi-quotes.Quote:
Originally Posted by GillyLike you're actually going to do it :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleJimThen you don't need to take part.Quote:
Originally Posted by GillyYou're the one asking for fucking flowcharts, dude. You can't be serious. If you want to undertake all that crap, more power to you, but this is a hobby and a social outlet for most, including me, and I wouldn't derive much enjoyment from that.Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleJimA process doesn't have to be a scientific one it can simply be a plan of attack. How very academic to believe that it's a mathematical workflow.Quote:
Originally Posted by GillyUnfortunately for your cubist brain, typing is not a scientific process.Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
You misquoted me on the 3rd quote from the middle. You also quoted me stating that you are the only one who wants flowcharts...nothing but love bro :(
Fixed, literally minutes ago and also besides the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
No backing out of it Gilly; there's no point saying someone can't do something when it takes about 15 minutes to do it.
Everything else, including the logical counter-reaction and backing away from your challenge is mental masturbation at best.
rar x2
Jim, produce a list like a Te person and type some people.
:lol: Did I ever say you couldn't do it? I confess I thought you were too lazy, but I also assumed that comment might very well be enough to prod you into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
I haven't backed away from my "challenge;" you made a flowchart, congratulations. I still think your ideas about Socionics are misinformed and tainted with MBTI-ism.
My freckles are real though, not inked on. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
Remember that Jungian libido is the accumulation and direction, the drawing in and expulsion, of psychic energy exchange predicated on object-subject relations, of cathexis and catharsis, charge and discharge, absorption and effusion. Information metabolism as used in socionics is roughly the same thing, but stripped of its connotations of bourgeois mysticism and replaced with spiritually sanitized, mechanistic terms acceptable to Soviet conceits of scientism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
"True observers of nature, although they may think differently, will still agree that everything that is, everything that is observable as a phenomenon, can only exhibit itself in one of two ways. It is either a primal polarity that is able to unify, or it is a primal unity that is able to divide. The operation of nature consists of splitting the united or uniting the divided; this is the eternal movement of systole and diastole of the heartbeat, the inhalation and exhalation of the world in which we live, act, and exist."
J.W.-v. Goethe, Doctrine of Color
Paul Bishop, Analytical Psychology and German Classical Aesthetics: Goethe, Schiller and Jung:
Volume 2: The Constellation of Self
Paul Bishop, The Dionysian Self: C.G. Jung's Reception of Friedrich Nietzsche
So the data-directing operation of extrovert/introvert function pairs like Si:Se, Fi:Fe, etc. can be viewed in this manner. The apparent contrariness of their actions results from eddy current-like turbulence* produced by the situationally changing rhythm of their inputs and outputs as currents pass back and forth through the same "organs" or conduits.
* "The term eddy current comes from [...] currents seen in water when dragging an oar breadthwise: localised areas of turbulence known as eddies give rise to persistent vortices. Somewhat analogously, eddy currents can take time to build up and can persist for very short times in conductors due to their inductance." - wikipedia
I have real freckles too. Identibros?!?!?! :love:Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
This is pure gold. This post should be stickied.Quote:
Originally Posted by k0rpsy
The only minor detal I will comment, I tend to see the struggle of opposites more a thing between the two functions inside a block, instead the same kind of function (they're technically not opposites, but compete). For example: Ne=fragmenting, expanding; Ti=uniting, converging. That would cause the "oscillation" inside psychological processes. This still applies to functions of opposite attitudes, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by k0rpsy
In a pure "mirror" sense, I agree.
:Ne: isn't associated with expansion in socionics. It's associated with compression. It is the state of rest and hidden potential. However what :Ne: does provide imo is a perception of connectable fragments which are rationalized/related thru :Ti: association or :Fi: association.Quote:
Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
I had missed that, it's really really good I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
As expansion I meant creating possibilities, compared with Ti which tends to unify them as a single entity. I'm less interestend in fitting socionics definitions than correlating all of this with though processes (this does not prevent me for being wrong, of course).Quote:
Originally Posted by hkkmr
For example, Se=expansion and Ne=compression according to you (probably). I disagree; I think the nature of both functions should be the same in origin but "deviated" in the road, so to speak.
I would respectfully disagree. :Ne: is a perceptive information element, and the possibilities are simply there to be seen. :Ne: base function types get their ideas spontaneously from the unconscious, this is often the way it is described. It is not the deliberate creativity of rationality or the subjective uniqueness of introverted perceptive functions. However all :Ne: base types will have a introverted rational element as their "creative" function and strong introverted intuition.Quote:
Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
I'm not trying to fit socionic definitions but based on people that exist and how they describe their thought processes, this is how :Ne: is often experienced. And I am of course relating my own thought experiences as well.
Se=expansion and Ne=compression is not according to me, but according to the creation of this typology, almost everything is based on the thermodynamic analogy that is explicit in how information transforms from one information element to another.
Unconscious still exists in the brain, so there should be a process, mechanism, that creates the ideas it offers. The fact the perception is a more transparent process than judging does not imply that it's not a process. Creating possibilities (expansion) is IMO perfectly compatible with this, being a valid interpretation of a perception. A way of expressing it: you're not aware of new options until they're generated. But they're still somehow generated, so I see no contradiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by hkkmr
OK, sorry if my comment sounded bad. My intention was only to point my particular purpose.Quote:
I'm not trying to fit socionic definitions but based on people that exist and how they describe their thought processes, this is how :Ne: is often experienced. And I am of course relating my own thought experiences as well.
Which does not make it automatically correct.Quote:
Se=expansion and Ne=compression is not according to me, but according to the creation of this typology.
That's just a mere theory, an unproven theory. I consider it useful explaining apparent characteristics of how information is presented. But I'm quite skeptical about the premise that information exists as aspects that could be managed as single different entities and transform between them.Quote:
almost everything is based on the thermodynamic analogy that is explicit in how information transforms from one information element to another.
The fact that you could find a thermodynamic phenomenon that resembles in apparance to what this hypothesis says does not make it necessarily correct or even slightly correlated with reality. The same way the Sun is not a wheel just because it's circular. Correlation does not imply causation.
Well a theory is not going to prove itself, but disregarding the axioms would mean invalidating essentially all of socionics. So everything you would be saying would have to be prefaces with it not being socionics. That is of course ok, I'm just trying to avoid a terminological confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
If you wish to redefine the aspects from this axiomatic standpoint, you're starting a new theory based on Jung, and you're welcome to that.
You're essentially creating a new theory, a mere theory, and a unproven one at that. The question is which theory is a better approximation of reality. I'm not going to debate canon with you since I don't really care but I find that the core analogy of socionics with information process approaching the operation of thermodynamic processes as an important one, and you can choose to disregard it but I would view such a new theory as poor as I view MBTI and other Jung based typology.
This simple analogy explains and predicts intertype relations, provides a mechanism for differentiation of information elements and every single aspect of socionics. The basis for this analogy is in my opinion philosophically sound as it echos Schrodinger's analysis of life and the creation of orderly systems. I don't think there is any proof to be offered for a lot of these things, we're only dealing with apparently working hypothesis at best. I think in the future with more objective measuring instruments for type and the ability to evaluate quality of relationships between individuals, a proper working hypothesis could be developed.
Isn't it interesting say how "Information behaves like Thermodynamics" explains elegantly Jungian psychology, Freudian psychology, the classical temperaments, operand conditioning, and probably many other observations and possibilites....
I find it incredibly interesting. ^_^
It was all so good until people started using 'thermodynamics' without refering to the flux of physical measurable energy.
^ That avatar deserves a like.
Using my own words against me? How dare you...:pQuote:
Originally Posted by hkkmr
Well the fact that socionics is a more complex system than MBTI/JCF does not imply it's more correct, more accurate. The best system fits better in reality, makes better predicitions, but when they're tested properly.Quote:
The question is which theory is a better approximation of reality. I'm not going to debate canon with you since I don't really care but I find that the core analogy of socionics with information process approaching the operation of thermodynamic processes as an important one, and you can choose to disregard it but I would view such a new theory as poor as I view MBTI and other Jung based typology.
It's soooo easy to fall in self-confirmation bias and other kind of errors. The observer cannot see the internal processes which are happening in the test subject. The only thing we can do is to observe external manifestations (behavior, expressed thought patterns, etc) and try to correlate them. But you have an observable characteristic A which can be attributed to causes C1, C2, C3... Soc-type X implies C2. So the observer tends to adopt C2 as an answer. But MBTI could say it's C3. Both are valid answers. Which one is correct?
Are soc-definitions of functions more accurate than MBT/JCF? They're more symmetrical taking in consideration underlying premises, but not neccesarily more accurate, real. Functions correlate in both systems with more or less broad sets of manifestations. JCF function X will not completely overlap with soc-X. No X dom would fit in archetypal X leading. Soc-observer would think "well, it's still X function and the non-fitting is circumstancial", when in fact the user could be closer to archetypal JCF-X than Soc-X (or any other function, or cause).
Not to speak logical fallacies. Non falsifiable->cannot prove wrong->assumed as valid. Or things like this:
Attachment 1763
And you (any you, not you in particular) end thinking that purple and green are essentialy the same when in fact, they're not. It's not only neccesary to test if hypothesis are true or not, but to determine how much.
Yes any idea I could offer would equally be an hypothesis. But I would like to make my own versions of the concepts in a way they could be more easily and accurately falsifiable (or potentially falsifiable) and also fit better in known real ways of processing information. Socionics is IMO like alchemy; alchemists could make some simple reactions, but their hypothesis although a bit functional, were essentialy wrong. They were created without taking in consideration real knowledge about what was happening (not available those times) and without proper methodology. Only when the latter was satisfied (Lavoisier) real progress manifested.
Obviously any idea I or anyone could produce could be a big bunch of crap. But I think this is the correct way of dealing with the issue.
Bolded keywods: dude you're without a doubt a Ti valuer. This is one of the reasons I also think I'm a Ti valuer. I find Ti products more beautiful. This has not changed in myself even if I've learnt to distrust and correct my inclinations to accept ideas because of aesthetic considerations.Quote:
This simple analogy explains and predicts intertype relations, provides a mechanism for differentiation of information elements and every single aspect of socionics. The basis for this analogy is in my opinion philosophically sound as it echos Schrodinger's analysis of life and the creation of orderly systems. I don't think there is any proof to be offered for a lot of these things, we're only dealing with apparently working hypothesis at best. I think in the future with more objective measuring instruments for type and the ability to evaluate quality of relationships between individuals, a proper working hypothesis could be developed.
Isn't it interesting say how "Information behaves like Thermodynamics" explains elegantly Jungian psychology, Freudian psychology, the classical temperaments, operand conditioning, and probably many other observations and possibilites....
I find it incredibly interesting. ^_^
The "working part" of socionics explaining intertype relations does not require information metabolism premise. It "works" because it was the only system which cared enough for developing this aspect. The premise is easy: everybody have some kind of strength and weakness, and we're biologically inclined to feel attraction to those people who compensate ourselves without attacking our self-identities. This could be done with multiple systems, from MBTI to enneagram. It works but only statistically and only slightly above random considerations. Case by case it's another issue, and it's subdued to typing correctly...
Classic temperaments do not require information metabolism.
The premise is that information behaves like energy. There are some very good reasons for why this phenomena occurs. ^_^Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
Socionics is not more complex than MBTI or JCF, it has more deductions. But the theory it self is far simpler. In MBTI/JCF each element/function is a axiom, every description is a axiom. The structure of Socionics is deducible from a few simple axioms. All of this from saying that information behaves like energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
Socionics is closer to falsifiable than MBTI or JCF due to intertype relations. The #1 problem in socionics is measurement, there is no way to measure type with a high level of accuracy. However in double blind experiments with married couples, who the individuals were married to was not known to the typers. The number of couples who were in the same quadra was over 60% with duality representing the highest number and the number of couples in conflicting quadra was under 10%, even if the typing mechanism was human and prone to error, This is statistically significant by a very large amount and the methods used are similar to methods used in social sciences research. There is a article about this and I will find it later. However not all study produced this sort of results, and so you have to keep repeating the experiments until something reproducible is achieved. And that takes time and the efforts of a lot of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
If you know something slightly above random considerations, that's actually rather significant. Intertype relations requires "type" and thus typing by some means, and socionics provides for intertype relations thru a very small number of axioms. Making this a simple system.Quote:
Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
"The premise is easy: everybody have some kind of strength and weakness, and we're biologically inclined to feel attraction to those people who compensate ourselves without attacking our self-identities." This axiom is deduced from socionic axioms and is thus part of socionics, but what basis do you have to say this?
You had engines before the carnot cycle too.Quote:
Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
The question isn't that certain things work, but "why?, "how?".
A theory is a explanation, a abstract and generalized way of thinking about something. Nothing true requires a theory to work, it just works, but a theory helps us humans understand, to design and to think about the problem in a constructive fashion. Until I find a better theory, this is a pretty good one. It's simple, let me reiterate, this is a simple theory. It is JCF and MBTI that are complex, as the basis for those theory is non-existent apart from descriptions and unrelated axioms.
I only like socionics because of the model, a model that I can build almost entirely without socionics canon. The thing is socionics still has a few things that it offers I have no direct replacement for in other studies, and that makes me want to figure out how to make the association. Also other studies do not have as comprehensive a model as socionics, do not make the kind of intertype predictions that exist in socionics. Socionics is a more macro explanation and that present some issues but also benefits.
The thing about socionics is that it's unlikely to contain all the answers, but you need to find the breaking points in the theory and destroy them so you can figure out what's wrong with it. I have no interest in making socionics a religion or a science(unless it's actually at that level of quality). The purpose is to destroy what is capable of being destroyed in this study and figure out what is left. However if you destroy a few core axioms, nothing is left, you will need to go somewhere else.
A lot of individuals get stuck in this topic because they can't advance, but they can't go somewhere else either, but that doesn't mean everyone is stuck or not advancing.
I set Socionics apart from everything else and I'll tell you why.
There are two aspects to any person: essence and behavior.
Easiest way to explain behavior is to imagine a physical space with points moving through it. If they go up they behave, say, "isolated", if they go down they behave "social", if they go left they behave "orderly" if they move right they behave "random". Etc. By combining the position of such points we get a type in pretty much all typological systems.
Socionics is different because it uses the same space but doesn't define a type by its coordinates. It defines a type as a vector. A vector, as you probably know already, is unique because it is defined by it's direction and magnitude. So you can move the vector through space and it will seem many things but its essence always remains the same no matter where it is.
Typology based on behavior improves with complexity: the more dichotomies you come up with, the more accurate it is. On the other side, typology based on essence strives for simplicity: it's about reducing personality to its minimal expression.
There is no limit about how far you can go about complexity and this is why there are so many behavioral typological systems. But simplicity has a limit and that limit is probably Socionics.
Essence typology describes tendencies and behavior typology describes states.
I would say that Socionics isn't that seperated from other typology especially not jungian typology.
Also in relation to modern science/techniques, sociotype is hypothetical a(or a set of) eigen-vector/eigen-face of an individual.
I would say that socionics is not seperate from everything else because essentially every single predicative model/technique being used today in marketing including Google PageRank involve determining the eigenvector/set of eigenvector of some object and comparing it to the eigenvector/set of some individual in determining compatibility. The techniques for data gathering and specific algorithms are varied and different between the various enterprises who engage in this sort of analysis but inevitably there is a component of that include principal component analysis and singular value decomposition.
Essentially socionics would be the prediction of the results of this analysis between (individual to individual) thru observation of existing relationships that exist in the world. After all most of it's descriptions are from observation and only associated with the model out of neccessity.
We are going to have to disagree, thermodynamics explicitly relates to physically measurable process where energy is exchanged; energy being a homogonous but transferably universal form. Watch out, there are engineers everywhere just waiting for someone to say 'Thermodynamics'! I would prefer to label it 'information leading to behaviour modification' because we are really describing whether a person becomes excited or aggitated or calmed by another persons actions and statements, aren't we? But I guess someone decided to call it energy exchange and thermodynamics to feign science at some point in time and now we all must live with the consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by hkkmr
When I (breifly) observe personality modifications by how people react to information, information is presented from one party which elicits a psychic response; information is not energy and energy is certainly not transfered in a measurable form from Party A to Party B; sure energy is expended and a change in behaviour or actions can 'sometimes' be seen to be gained by the recepient, but there is no stipulation that this change does not originate from the inner psyche and although energy has been expended it could disipate entirely without impact. There is an interaction with the inner persona that is more revealing that being both the personality and temperament which are occasionally at odds and this interaction can be entirely spontaneous.