Identifying information elements in quotes split

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ankh

I can teach you to type by analyzing sentences Find me a quote - 1 defining phrase - of somebody, and I'll type them based on the text. A famous person is cool, or just a friend. I'll explain what I look for. It's not too hard. (ofc 1 line may not reveal their true type, but the analysis will be shown nevertheless,)

---

Here's a quote of P.D. Ouspensky, I hope the quote is not too long:
'We know that with the very first awakening of knowledge, man is confronted with two obvious facts:
The existence of the world in which he lives; and the existence of psychic life in himself.
Neither of these can he prove or disprove, but they are facts: they constitute reality for him.
It is possible to meditate upon the mutual correlation of these two facts. It is possible to try to reduce them to one; that is, to regard the psychic or inner world as a part, reflection, or function of the world, or the world as a part, reflection, or function of that inner world. But such a procedure constitutes a departure from facts, and all such considerations of the world and of the self, to the ordinary non-philosophical mind, will not have the character of obviousness. On the contrary the sole obvious fact remains the antithesis of I and Not-I — our inner psychic life and the outer world.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ankh

Awesome quote!


First a recipe for analyzing txt:

The first tool you need to type text, is this:

Se = external statics of objects
Ne = internal statics of objects
Te = external dynamics of objects
Fe = internal dynamics of objects
Ti = external statics of fields
Fi = internal statics of fields
Si = external dynamics of fields
Ni = internal dynamics of fields


You can use the definitions above to analyze texts.


1. Step 1 - identify the body or field that the sentence speaks of. Determine if it's a body or a field.

Objects/fields
Objects are extraverted observations. They exist also with the person talking not present. ex. "the stone is heavy". Fields are introverted observations, they exist only with the person talking present. Ex. "I find the stone heavy". Introverts filter anything this "subjective" way, even more objective information. Extraverts talk as if things are objective, even when talking about subjective topics.


2. Step 2 - determine if the body/field is static or dynamic

Static/Dynamic
Static types talk about states and steps between states, even when talking about changes. Ex. "I met him in New York. We went to LA together, later he moved to Toronto." Dynamic types talk about the changes surrounding the states, even when they talk of static situations. Ex. (hard to make one, as i'm static. the dynamic universe is another dimension completely...) Some EJ or IP make me an example, please?


Both bodies/fields and static/dynamic are normally quite easy to identify.


3. Step 3 - Decide if the body/field has external or internal qualities described.

External/Internal
When you have identified the field or body that is being watched by the person talking, you can try and identify if it is external or internal. This is often hard, as conclusions made of eg. both Ji- functions can be the same. Often I have to look at the totality of the text to determine the most likely functions used. Be careful to not confuse topics on feelings for Fe/Fi and topics on logics for Te/Ti. Ti can easily talk of feelings, but then in an external way.


Those were my own definitions, made for this thread, but they work for the purpose. Be careful not to confuse fields/bodies w Internal/external. The first has to do with subjectivity/objectivity of the way whole observation is presented, the latter has to do with some sort of subjectivity/objectivity of the body/field watched (or rather hidden qualities vs visible qualities).


So, to your quote:



What's the body/field observed?
Is it a body or a field?
Is it static or dynamic?
External or internal?

Try?! (It's a bit of a tricky one, so you could try this one first if you want: "Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm").

---

I love you [internal static of fields ;)] Ananke :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ankh

Awesome quote!


First a recipe for analyzing txt:

The first tool you need to type text, is this:

Se = external statics of objects
Ne = internal statics of objects
Te = external dynamics of objects
Fe = internal dynamics of objects
Ti = external statics of fields
Fi = internal statics of fields
Si = external dynamics of fields
Ni = internal dynamics of fields


You can use the definitions above to analyze texts.


1. Step 1 - identify the body or field that the sentence speaks of. Determine if it's a body or a field.

Objects/fields
Objects are extraverted observations. They exist also with the person talking not present. ex. "the stone is heavy". Fields are introverted observations, they exist only with the person talking present. Ex. "I find the stone heavy". Introverts filter anything this "subjective" way, even more objective information. Extraverts talk as if things are objective, even when talking about subjective topics.


2. Step 2 - determine if the body/field is static or dynamic

Static/Dynamic
Static types talk about states and steps between states, even when talking about changes. Ex. "I met him in New York. We went to LA together, later he moved to Toronto." Dynamic types talk about the changes surrounding the states, even when they talk of static situations. Ex. (hard to make one, as i'm static. the dynamic universe is another dimension completely...) Some EJ or IP make me an

---

I will send you examples of Ej and Ip dynamics

I hope this is a joke.
(internal statics of fields )

I can write you at least a whole paragraph in one chosen style.
(external dynamics of object)

^^^there was no analysis , I was just bringing in some examples. Now really. I hope you don´t expect to spot someone´s type from one or two sentences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ankh

What's the body/field observed?
Is it a body or a field?
Is it static or dynamic?
External or internal?

Try?! (It's a bit of a tricky one, so you could try this one first if you want: "Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm").

---

There is the world and psychic life.
World: I would say object, static and external.
For psychic life, I would say field, dynamic and internal.
For the correlation between the world and psychic life I would say field.
So I'm confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutchman

There is the world and psychic life.
World: I would say object, static and external.
For psychic life, I would say field, dynamic and internal.
For the correlation between the world and psychic life I would say field.
So I'm confused.

---

why wouldn´t "world" be internal statics of object

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ankh

Yes! It's good! But "the existance of" makes it less object (body), and if you read on, you'll see it gets more dynamic, so Ni+Te.
What type is this dude? Anyone knows? Might silence AshSun if he's actually ILI...

---

I know Ouspensky well, having read his books.
His picture is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._D._Ouspensky
From his books, I would say he is ILI.
The socionics description of ILI describes him well.
Ankh, that is very impressive to type him from only a few sentences!

The OP didn't answer why "the world" external to the Self could not be perceived and explored as object of cognition via Ne (inherent potentiality), which , unlike Se, deals less with surfaces :

1. http://www.socionics.us/images/eS.gif — Perception of the appearance and shape of an object
2. http://www.socionics.us/images/eN.gif — Perception of the inner content and structure of an object

I suppose it was easier to push in all into an existing form.

I have no idea what type Ouspensky was, but that fragment alone rings static to me. It doesn't deal with changes / processes, but with a state almost taken for granted - antithesis of I and not- I. That rings Ti to me (as static logic or correlation).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AshSun

I have no idea what type Ouspensky was, but that fragment alone rings static to me. It doesn't deal with changes / processes, but with a state almost taken for granted - antithesis of I and not- I. That rings Ti to me (as static logic or correlation).

---

Could be. I don't know, in my opinion, Ouspensky thinks differently from me and I'm Ti. And he wrote about evolution of man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ankh

If you say he's ILI, I believe you. I read now that he was inspired by Gurdjieff, who I believe was an SXE E8, probably SEE. Duality?

---

Gurdjieff is E8, but I hadn't thought about his sociotype yet. Fascinating, SEE seems correct indeed, so Ouspensky (E6) and Gurdjieff would have been duals! They liked eachother, spend many hours together (but eventually broke up).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ankh

Se and Ne are similar. See my thread on Se/Ne for explanation. Se notices external traits of an object. But objects can be abstract. Like an inner world. That's an abstract object. If you talk of external (and static) properties of this inner world, you use Se, ex."my inner world is dark atm". If you talk of internal (and static) qualities of the object, you use Ne. A Ne-ego should give an example.

---

This is wrong. Ne is not "inner" as in "in the mind". Ne is object ...it just goes deeper than Se, deals with more complex and less obvious stuff. Ne can grasp patterns at work in a society , the whole configuration , the "figure in the carpet", so to speak. It can have a holistic view of a whole cluster of myths and stories of a people or ethnic group, for example. Many philosophers were Ne egos, in case you didn't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ankh

We cannot fake other functions. As a static, I talk of change in a static way..

---

I'm not even gonna read your stuff anymore, it's too aberrant. How narrow-minded must one be to think "functions" / IMs / types of people , speaking and thinking style etc. cannot be constructed? What do writers do ....btw. Why do idiots around this forum and others keep on typing characters ? how are characters in books and movies created. Process this kind of (more or less abstract ....kind of not too much so imho ) stuff on your own and you may find smth. different from your "step-by-step" typing method.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ankh

Lol.

---

you can put on Fe...Ni is harder.

[QUOTE=Ankh;994820]Said the Ne PoLR who just lost it cause she couldn't accept that there are things she still doesn't understand.[/QUOTE

must be hard to figure out my type "step-by-step" from my sentences . You seem quite sure I'm Ne polr . Don't take so much for granted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AshSun

This is wrong. Ne is not "inner" as in "in the mind". Ne is object ...it just goes deeper than Se, deals with more complex and less obvious stuff. Ne can grasp patterns at work in a society , the whole configuration , the "figure in the carpet", so to speak. It can have a holistic view of a whole cluster of myths and stories of a people or ethnic group, for example. Many philosophers were Ne egos, in case you didn't know.

---

No, "Ne" is "conditions" or "fields". It has nothing to do with "objects". Here:

Quote:

---

"Ne" = "Explicit Field Statics"
"plus-Ne" = "obvious equalities in or of the conditions"
"minus-Ne" = "obvious differences in or of the conditions"
"state of temperature, 'things together', 'full scene', 'whole impression', 'obvious structure', 'these go together'"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutchman

Yes, analysing texts is what I want to learn. I don't mind being typed, thanks.

---

Ignore all the bad advice in this thread. Here are my definitions of the functions:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"Se" = "Explicit Object Statics"

---

Quote:

---

"plus-Se" = "obvious equalities in or of the objects"
"minus-Se" = "obvious differences in or of the objects"

---

Quote:

---

"physical properties of object (color, shape, texture), spatial location of object, distance between objects"

---

Quote:

---

"Ne" = "Explicit Field Statics"

---

Quote:

---

"plus-Ne" = "obvious equalities in or of the conditions"
"minus-Ne" = "obvious differences in or of the conditions"

---

Quote:

---

"state of temperature, 'things together', 'full scene', 'whole impression', 'obvious structure', 'these go together'"

---

Quote:

---

"Si" = "Implicit Field Dynamics"

---

Quote:

---

"plus-Si" = "deduced doings in or of the conditions"
"minus-Si" = "deduced undoings in or of the conditions"

---

Quote:

---

"change in temperature, 'effect on conditions', 'how conditions will change', 'what developments will occur'"

---

Quote:

---

"Ni" = "Implicit Object Dynamics"

---

Quote:

---

"plus-Ni" = "deduced doings in or of the objects"
"minus-Ni" = "deduced undoings in or of the objects"

---

Quote:

---

"'you're thinking this way', 'you will do this in the future', what an unseen thing does, 'you're doing this because of that'"

---

Quote:

---

"Te" = "Explicit Object Dynamics"

---

Quote:

---

"plus-Te" = "obvious doings in or of the objects"
"minus-Te" = "obvious undoings in or of the objects"

---

Quote:

---

"what this does, what that does, 'I am doing this', 'I will do this', 'why don't you do this', 'it won't do this', 'because this does that', 'I wouldn't do that'"

---

Quote:

---

"Fe" = "Explicit Field Dynamics"

---

Quote:

---

"plus-Fe" = "obvious doings in or of the conditions"
"minus-Fe" = "obvious undoings in or of the conditions"

---

Quote:

---

"'these things are happening', 'we are making these changes', 'these developments are occurring', 'these changes have occurred', 'the conditions are changing in this way'"

---

Quote:

---

"Ti" = "Implicit Field Statics"

---

Quote:

---

"plus-Ti" = "deduced equalities in or of the conditions"
"minus-Ti" = "deduced differences in or of the conditions"

---

Quote:

---

"'because it's against the rules', 'this state will result', 'because of an unseen truth', 'underlying structure', 'unseen property of these conditions'"

---

Quote:

---

"Fi" = "Implicit Object Statics"

---

Quote:

---

"plus-Fi" = "deduced equalities in or of the objects"
"minus-Fi" = "deduced differences in or of the objects"

---

Quote:

---

"this unit is like this, this unit isn't like this, this unseen property is true of this unit, this unseen property isn't true of this unit"

---

---

And here I am using them to analyze one of my own posts:

Quote:

---

Pretty sure this crappy test was made by an ESI. Look:

Quote:

---

Perceived reward: (if you scored highly) Being more attractive makes me happy Being unconventional makes me happy Being rational makes me happy Serving others makes me happy Being alive makes me happy

Dangerous potential flaw(s): (if you scored highly) Elitist, shallow, lacking an internal compass/ethics Discarding customs/traditions that have value Ignoring/ignorance-of your gut/instinct/feelings Being taken advantage of, ignoring self Over contented-ness, over confidence

Dangerous potential flaw(s): (if you scored low) Failure to contribute to the world sufficiently Overly reliant on past wisdom/knowledge Believing what feels right = right/truth Cold hearted, selfish, asshole Depression, poor mental and/or physical health

---

Look at how detailed those "Potential Flaws" are. Notice how there are two possible "Potential Flaws" for every one possible "Potential Benefit", except all the "Potential Benefits" are actually the same thing: "makes me happy". This whole test is "Implicit Object Statics" of the "minus" variety. "minus-Fi" can be thought of as "the implied incompleteness of an object", and it commonly manifests as talk of "an object's shortcoming or weakness". "minus-Fi" is also the leading function of ESI.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem

Look at how detailed those "Potential Flaws" are. Notice how there are two possible "Potential Flaws" for every one possible "Potential Benefit', except all the "Potential Benefits" are actually the same thing: "makes me happy"

---

Quote:

---

"minus-Ne" = "Explicit Field Statics" = "obvious differences in or of conditions"

---

Quote:

---

"descriptiveness of potential benefits" < "descriptiveness of potential flaws"
"number of potential benefits" < "number of potential flaws"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem

This whole test is "Implicit Object Statics" of the "minus" variety. "minus-Fi" can be thought of as "the implied incompleteness of an object", and it commonly manifests as talk of "an object's shortcoming or weakness". "minus-Fi" is also the leading function of ESI.

---

Quote:

---

"plus-Fi" = "Implicit Object Statics" = "deduced equalities in or of objects"

---

Quote:

---

"every claim made by these results" = "minus-Fi"
"minus-Fi" = "the implied incompleteness of an object"
"the implied incompletness of an object" = "an object's shortcoming or weakness"

---

---

@Johannes Bloem

Which type has which + and - functions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zero11

@Johannes Bloem

Which type has which + and - functions?

---

Positivist types have a "plus" primary/leading function, negativist types have a "minus" primary/leading function.

For example, negativist type IEE has "primary minus-Ne" and "auxiliary plus-Fi", while mirror partner and positivist type EII has "primary plus-Fi" and "auxiliary minus-Ne".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem

Positivist types have a "plus" primary/leading function, negativist types have a "minus" primary/leading function.

For example, negativist type IEE has "primary minus-Ne" and "auxiliary plus-Fi", while mirror partner and positivist type EII has "primary plus-Fi" and "auxiliary minus-Ne".

---

This is just not true!
Dual pairs contain one negativist and one positivist partner, but by this logic they would have to be the same.

Here's a link to plus/ minus functions.

Here is a description of positivism/ negativism (about halfway down the page.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemontrees

This is just not true!
Dual pairs contain one negativist and one positivist partner, but by this logic they would have to be the same.

---

Not sure where you're getting this from. Let's take for example dual pair LII-ESE:

Quote:

---

LII
"primary minus-Ti"
"auxiliary plus-Ne"

ESE
"primary plus-Fe"
"auxiliary minus-Si"

---

In dual pairs, one partner is a negativist and has a "primary minus-" function and an "auxiliary plus-" function, while the other partner is a positivist and has a "primary plus-" function and an "auxiliary minus-" function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemontrees

Here's a*link
*to plus/ minus functions.

---

Thanks, but I require no further reading :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem

Not sure where you're getting this from. Let's take for example dual pair LII-ESE:


In dual pairs, one partner is a negativist and has a "primary minus-" function and an "auxiliary plus-" function, while the other partner is a positivist and has a "primary plus-" function and an "auxiliary minus-" function.




Thanks, but I require no further reading :)

---

Oh, I see. Perhaps we were talking about different things.
I didn't provide the links for you but rather for the person who had been asking you questions, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem

Not sure where you're getting this from. Let's take for example dual pair LII-ESE:

Quote:

---

LII
"primary minus-Ti"
"auxiliary plus-Ne"

ESE
"primary plus-Fe"
"auxiliary minus-Si"

---

In dual pairs, one partner is a negativist and has a "primary minus-" function and an "auxiliary plus-" function, while the other partner is a positivist and has a "primary plus-" function and an "auxiliary minus-" function.

---

That is wrong.

positivist + static = primary plus.
negativist + static = primary minus.

However

positivist + dynamic = primary minus.
negativist + dynamic = primary plus.


Dynamic and static alter the sign.

What about these examples (with regard to food or a person)?
Te sees movement
Fe mood
Ne capacities
Se outer form
Ti distance between objects
Fi attraction
Ni future
Si taste/health

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutchman

What about these examples (with regard to food or a person)?
Te sees movement
Fe mood
Ne capacities
Se outer form
Ti distance between objects
Fi attraction
Ni future
Si taste/health

---

Fi -moral program and ethics of relations...how one should conduct themselves in a relationship; I know ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerx

That is wrong.

positivist + static = primary plus.
negativist + static = primary minus.

However

positivist + dynamic = primary minus.
negativist + dynamic = primary plus.


Dynamic and static alter the sign.

---

lolno. "Static" and "dynamic" are properties of the information, "positivist" and "negativist" refer to how the information is expressed.

There is no reason why the signs should differ between static and dynamic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem

lolno. "Static" and "dynamic" are properties of the information, "positivist" and "negativist" refer to how the information is expressed.

There is no reason why the signs should differ between static and dynamic.

---

Consider this:

ESE has -Fe, which is the avoidance of negative emotions.
EIE has +Fe, which is the maximization of positive emotions.


ESE is positivist; EIE is negativist. The change denotes a difference between static and dynamic types.


Plus and minus is intended to give short function descriptions based on DarkAngelFireWolf69 et al.'s theoretical assumptions about Socionics. Moreover, the concept can be used to represent different facets of the theory:

ex.

Duals share the same sign, which gives us a way to represent the process ( + ) / result ( - ) dichotomy.

A sign is shared across supervision (e.g. LSE >> SEI >> EIE >> SEE >> LSE ) and benefit (e.g. EII >> SEI >> LSI >> ILI >> EII ) rings.



^ the above definition is infinitely more useful than replacing the word positivist with a "+" and negativist with a "-". Just go already if that is your contribution to this forum; kindergarten is that way ====>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutchman

What about these examples (with regard to food or a person)?
Te sees movement, activity, algorithm, profit, method
Fe mood, surface feeling indicators, movement of emotion, outer atmosphere
Ne capacities, intrinsic properties , able to capture them as "essence" of a phenomenon, person etc.
Se outer form, will power levels, mobilization, resistance or oppositional intensity
Ti distance between objects, objective correlations, structure
Fi attraction, affinity, subjective distance between people, morals, principles of relating, internal state
Ni future, progression in time, behavioral patterns, strategy
Si taste/health, comfort levels

---

In very simplified terms ...there is a grain of truth. Some additions. And you can also check this page for more details : http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/functions.html.
For typing people I recommend analyzing behavior, not only words /text and a series of dichotomies. It can give you hints on temperament and lead you directly to functions people use when they process the world around them.

This is bullshit (and no, I don't want to be typed on the basis of this lol)

^^^ the man was humbly asking about practical applications of socionics, confessing it´s not easy to type. So FGD´s advice : give it up, man, there´s no point in trying to type people, life is crap, only BS around. Better kill yourself than think of sociotypes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AshSun

^^^ the man was humbly asking about practical applications of socionics, confessing it´s not easy to type. So FGD´s advice : give it up, man, there´s no point in trying to type people, life is crap, only BS around. Better kill yourself than think of sociotypes.

---

I was talking with the OP and telling him that typing by quotes is BS.

There are contradictions on plus/minus. I've read it both ways, so it's basically which source you choose to believe.

However, i thought fields was an introvert thing, and objects extrovert. Are all N elements field related?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AshSun

In very simplified terms ...there is a grain of truth. Some additions. And you can also check this page for more details : http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/functions.html.
For typing people I recommend analyzing behavior, not only words /text and a series of dichotomies. It can give you hints on temperament and lead you directly to functions people use when they process the world around them.

---

Thanks for the additions and the link (I visited socioniko.net before, my favorite site remains en.socionics.ru). The reasons to keep my descriptions so short are that I'm still a beginner and secondly I would like to know socionics by head.

By the way, I'm surprised to find this thread now in the General socionics discussion and not only in Introductions where it started. I found out by coincidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pookie

There are contradictions on plus/minus. I've read it both ways, so it's basically which source you choose to believe.

However, i thought fields was an introvert thing, and objects extrovert. Are all N elements field related?

---

In socionics' aspects, Xi=fields, Xe=objects
But not in BloMeonics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutchman

By the way, I'm surprised to find this thread now in the General socionics discussion and not only in Introductions where it started. I found out by coincidence.

---

The mods here will split perceived thread derails when necessary. Your intro thread, minus these posts, should still be in the intro section.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerx

Consider this:

ESE has -Fe, which is the avoidance of negative emotions.
EIE has +Fe, which is the maximization of positive emotions.

---

But "information elements" and "socionics in general" have to do with "information processing", while "avoidance of negative emotions" and "maximization of positive emotions" have to do with "behavior". Furthermore, you're assuming we already agree that ESE has minus-Fe and EIE has plus-Fe, which clearly isn't the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerx

ESE is positivist; EIE is negativist. The change denotes a difference between static and dynamic types.

---

http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__...why-84103d.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerx

Plus and minus is intended to give short function descriptions based on DarkAngelFireWolf69 et al.'s theoretical assumptions about Socionics. Moreover, the concept can be used to represent different facets of the theory:

---

So if the concept of "plus" and "minus" functions can be used to represent different "facets of the theory", then it is perfectly acceptable for me to use the signs to represent "positivism" and "negativism".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerx

ex.

Duals share the same sign, which gives us a way to represent the process ( + ) / result ( - ) dichotomy.

---

"Process" and "result" I think refer more to the "qualia" of information processing; that is, the "what it is like" aspect of "being type XXXx". I think "positivism" and "negativism" relate more to how information is presented by "type XXXx". It's easy to spot a "positivist" or a "negativist" if you know what to look for, and that's why I use "plus" and "minus" to denote "positivism" or "negativism".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerx

A sign is shared across supervision (e.g. LSE >> SEI >> EIE >> SEE >> LSE ) and benefit (e.g. EII >> SEI >> LSI >> ILI >> EII ) rings.

---

Nothing new or noteworthy about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerx

^ the above definition is infinitely more useful than replacing the word positivist with a "+" and negativist with a "-". Just go already if that is your contribution to this forum; kindergarten is that way ====>

---

"Infinitely more useful" how? And how is "replacing the word positivist with a '+' and negativist with a '-'" any different than replacing the word process with a "+" and the word result with a "-"? U no make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutchman

What about these examples (with regard to food or a person)?
Te sees movement
Fe mood
Ne capacities
Se outer form
Ti distance between objects
Fi attraction
Ni future
Si taste/health

---

With regard to the preparation of a cheeseburger:
Te: "take a spatula and flip the patty, it's crackling and starting to burn a little bit. also, the ketchup is running low"
Fe: "the patty is cooking and the condiments are being assembled, but we're out of ketchup"
Ne: "this condiment goes here, that condiment goes there"
Se: "these tomatoes are bigger than usual, and their hue is slightly fainter"
Ti: "this condiment goes here and that condiment goes there because these gastronomic standards apply"
Fi: "the cook is frustrated right now because he is overwhelmed with orders"
Ni: "the cook is gonna throw his spatula again"
Si: "if we go at six o'clock the place will be swamped"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

In socionics' aspects, Xi=fields, Xe=objects
But not in BloMeonics.

---

you're retarted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem

you're retarted

---

Better to be tart than bitter! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem

But "information elements" and "socionics in general" have to do with "information processing", while "avoidance of negative emotions" and "maximization of positive emotions" have to do with "behavior". Furthermore, you're assuming we already agree that ESE has minus-Fe and EIE has plus-Fe, which clearly isn't the case.

"Process" and "result" I think refer more to the "qualia" of information processing; that is, the "what it is like" aspect of "being type XXXx". I think "positivism" and "negativism" relate more to how information is presented by "type XXXx". It's easy to spot a "positivist" or a "negativist" if you know what to look for, and that's why I use "plus" and "minus" to denote "positivism" or "negativism".

---

The terms " + " and " - " don't exist, they don't mean anything. They're just a notation -- a shorthand -- used to represent DarkAngelFireWolf69's function descriptions.

You're trying to decipher deep meaning from a notation. You might as well try to gain insight about a person from their phone number.

That's what makes your theory stupid.

Quote:

---

So if the concept of "plus" and "minus" functions can be used to represent different "facets of the theory", then it is perfectly acceptable for me to use the signs to represent "positivism" and "negativism".

"Infinitely more useful" how? And how is "replacing the word positivist with a '+' and negativist with a '-'" any different than replacing the word process with a "+" and the word result with a "-"? U no make sense.

---

They're both shorthands, but the original is more descriptive in the context of DarkAngelFireWolf69's stuff. It makes it easier to visualize intertypes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerx

The terms " + " and " - " don't exist, they don't mean anything. They're just a notation -- a shorthand -- used to represent DarkAngelFireWolf69's function descriptions.

You're trying to decipher deep meaning from a notation. You might as well try to gain insight about a person from their phone number.

---

No dude, I'm just using that notation to represent the deep meaning of "positivism" and "negativism".

A positivist says "yeah" to information. A negativist says "yeah, but". It's pretty easy to spot in people and that's why I use "plus" to denote "positivism" and "minus" to denote "negativism".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerx

That's what makes your theory stupid.

---

No, you're stupid, and inb4 you're a towel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerx

They're both shorthands, but the original is more descriptive in the context of DarkAngelFireWolf69's stuff. It makes it easier to visualize intertypes.

---

I'm using them in the context of "Bloem's stuff". You said it yourself:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerx

Moreover, the concept can be used to represent different facets of the theory

---

And what the fuck does "visualize intertypes" mean, anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem

No dude, I'm just using that notation to represent the deep meaning of "positivism" and "negativism".

---

Uh, no, you're fixated on semantics. Otherwise, you wouldn't have thrown a fit when told that a positivist type can have a "negative" base function.

Quote:

---

I'm using them in the context of "Bloem's stuff".

---

Good for you, then we're not talking about the same signs. Good bye and good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerx

Uh, no, you're fixated on semantics. Otherwise, you wouldn't have thrown a fit when told that a positivist type can have a "negative" base function.

---

"Fixated on semantics" is a classic "loser's retort".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerx

Good for you, then we're not talking about the same signs. Good bye and good luck.

---

Good day, and good riddance. If you choose to ignore my posts, you've three times lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem

"Fixated on semantics" is a classic "loser's retort".
Good day, and good riddance.

---

If this somehow means you'll never respond to my posts, then it was worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerx

If this somehow means you'll never respond to my posts, then it was worth it.

---

You don't mean that.

Anyway, since I think I might've missed the essence of one of your objections, I'd like to elaborate a bit on an earlier point of mine:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem

A positivist says "yeah" to information. A negativist says "yeah, but". It's pretty easy to spot in people and that's why I use "plus" to denote "positivism" and "minus" to denote "negativism".

---

I assign "plus" and "minus" to specific functions because I think an "individual function" can be either positivist or negativist. A "positivist" or "plus" function says "yeah" to information, whereas a "negativist" or "minus" function says "yeah, but" to information. Consider this example:

Quote:

---

My boss is LSI. LSI has primary plus-Ti and secondary minus-Se (I'm using "secondary" instead of "auxiliary" now because it is an easier word to type). One night when I was closing, he asked me if I had completed zoning my area. I told him yes, and he responded by pointing to an aisle I had forgotton to zone and saying "doesn't look like you zoned this". In this aisle there were boxes that were slightly out of place or completely knocked over, items (objects) were in the wrong places, shit was just a big mess. Here is my definition for "minus-Se":

Quote:

---

"minus-Se" = "obvious differences in or of the objects

---

---

So basically, a "positivist type" is a type with a "positivist" or "plus-" primary function and a "negativist type" is a type with a "negativist" or "minus-" primary function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutchman

Thanks for the additions and the link (I visited socioniko.net before, my favorite site remains en.socionics.ru). The reasons to keep my descriptions so short are that I'm still a beginner and secondly I would like to know socionics by head.
.

---

yes, it's a good one, i found this particularly useful when i discovered it : http://en.socionics.ru/index.php?opt...253&Itemid=138

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem

With regard to the preparation of a cheeseburger:
Te: "take a spatula and flip the patty, it's crackling and starting to burn a little bit. also, the ketchup is running low", don't just sit there doing nothing, kitchen help is hired and paid to work.
Fe: "the patty is cooking and the condiments, are being assembled, honey, but we're out of ketchup" , says the mother in a smooth silky voice to her son while throwing a quick and mean glance at her daughter
Ne: "this condiment goes here, that condiment goes there" , lemme tell you how we could combine it all differently from the standard recipe to get a more original and exquisite taste
Se: "these tomatoes are bigger than usual, and their hue is slightly fainter" , chooses the fresher ingredients, grabs the spatula cause they notice their mom is kinda tired and slow
Ti: "this condiment goes here and that condiment goes there because these gastronomic standards apply" , chooses to add ingredients at a time they know to be most fit from their experience, not "by the book", compares vegetables according to size, measures their quantities, adapts everything required in the right proportion to the bigger overall quantity needed due to a large nr. of guests
Fi: "the cook is frustrated right now because he is overwhelmed with orders" , he screams at others and that's not how people should treat each other , thinks the Fi person to themselves at that moment
Ni: "the cook is gonna throw his spatula again", he's gonna make a fuss as he usually does when he gets to this stage of the cooking , cause he could use a third hand; he's gonna scream and shout for about 4 minutes, one should take that damn spatula and deal with it all better in order to avoid waste of time and energy
Si: "if we go at six o'clock the place will be swamped" let's taste this to see if it's how it should be, yes, it taste great, let's take a seat till it's over, standing is not good for your legs when you're older

---

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem

I assign "plus" and "minus" to specific functions because I think an "individual function" can be either positivist or negativist. A "positivist" or "plus" function says "yeah" to information, whereas a "negativist" or "minus" function says "yeah, but" to information.

---

Nope. Positivist types can also say "yes, but.." to what they are being told.

link - Positivists are better at assimilating affirmative experiences. They are inclined to "convert" negative experiences into positive ones (they try to find the "silver lining"). They speak more of the positive and try to present negative moments on a positive background ("Yes, this is a problem, but..."—then continue to paint a positive picture).

You haven't thought this through very well, have you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silke

Nope. Positivist types can also say "yes, but.." to what they are being told.

link - Positivists are better at assimilating affirmative experiences. They are inclined to "convert" negative experiences into positive ones (they try to find the "silver lining"). They speak more of the positive and try to present negative moments on a positive background ("Yes, this is a problem, but..."—then continue to paint a positive picture).

You haven't thought this through very well, have you?

---

You're a moron.

Quote:

---

Positivist types are more inclined to spot similarities and draw analogies ("they are so alike", "y is just like x" etc.), while Negativist are inclined to instead look at contrasts or alternatives ("they are nothing alike!"). Figuratively speaking, if Positivists are shown the front side then they will be looking at the front side, while Negativists will try to look at its inverse. If this inverse is not readily apparent, they will start searching for it. Thus Negativists do not seek to present a "negative" or "pessimistic" view of things, but simply the inverse or the alternative one.

---

"Front side" = "yeah"
"Inverse" = "yeah, but"

Regarding choice of words, i think there are a few things that stand out amongst the IEs.

Se - Direction, Observational perspective. Means to accomplish an end. "I saw blah blah" "Here, all you have to do is blah blah"
Te - Fact-form. Differs from Se, in that certainty is removed from the senses. Objective because the criteria for rightness is outside his perspective. The scoreboard doesnt lie. "The Sun is a star, stupid."
Ne/Ni - Pattern/Insights, just like the Intuitive stereotype. However, i've noticed with Ne a lack of relaying the patterns upon themself, when speaking. Ni, there's a reference to self in the pattern/insight almost always. An individual is mentioned. I think it's the dynamic aspect of it.

Positivist converge points together. Negativists make clear divergences.The former attempts to tie all the strings together. The Latter attempts to unravel the knots.

Both have their purposes and placement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem

You're a moron.

---

Aw, don't be so bitter that you can't explain anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silke

Aw, don't be so bitter that you can't explain anything.

---

Did you not read the rest of the post?

Again: moron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ankh

We cannot fake other functions. As a static, I talk of change in a static way. As a dynamic, Ouspensky talks of states/truths in a dynamic way.

---

YES

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem

Did you not read the rest of the post?

Again: moron.

---

I'm glad you're around Johannes. Socionics(and Jungian typology in general) really doesn't have enough people stirring the pot and redefining things to suit themselves while pretending they're talking about the same thing. Are you into the new age phenomenon at all? You can start a school of Socionics called Bel'Air, and lavish the uninitiated with your princely knowledge.

For edification purposes, maybe a mod could sticky this post. (Even the inevitable post-information pissing contest has quality input from various sources.)

Take a tip from one who's engaged in this sort of thing and has lived to regret it - and one who doesn't have a horse in the race - to greater and lesser extents, there's something of value in each of your different interpretations… Given where it all started, years ago, adrift with babelfish'd Russian translations and holdover notions from MBTI that anyone who smiles is an ethical type, it's been a hell of a journey -- and "land ho!" if everyone keeps pushing. There's no sense letting pride get in the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuJu

For edification purposes, maybe a mod could sticky this post. (Even the inevitable post-information pissing contest has quality input from various sources.)

Take a tip from one who's engaged in this sort of thing and has lived to regret it - and one who doesn't have a horse in the race - to greater and lesser extents, there's something of value in each of your different interpretations… Given where it all started, years ago, adrift with babelfish'd Russian translations and holdover notions from MBTI that anyone who smiles is an ethical type, it's been a hell of a journey -- and "land ho!" if everyone keeps pushing. There's no sense letting pride get in the way.

---

You've come a long way. Good work.

Thank you.

There's some stellar production on here this season, and it's a sight to behold.