Re: Fe as organic causality
Quote:
Originally Posted by labcoat
The discrepancy between Phaedrus' oppinion and that of the community seems mainly due to Phaedrus' (possibly justified) unwillingness to acknowledge 'organic causality', eg. the phenomenom that no matter how hard one screams what the 'proper' way of handling a system like the MBTI is, people will treat it the way they have for as long as they remember, and will evaluate statements made about the system in accordance with this.
That is part of it, but it's not the whole story.
Most people here - the community, if you will - eventually drop Myers-Briggs after they have more or less mastered Socionics, although MBTT "hangovers" very often remain. Phaedrus's insistence in referring to MBTT seems to stem from his conception that MBTT descriptions have insights into types beyond those available in Socionics descriptions, hence the frequent reference to Paul James's INTP description. The discrepancy in opinion - as I see it - has to do with whether that is true or not. I happen to think that it is not true, that MBTT descriptions create far more confusion than clarification, and that - if you have to rely on descriptions at all - the Socionics ones are more than enough, and more than diversified enough.
What you mention compounds on the problem: regardless of how good "official" MBTT materials may be - even though I am inclined to doubt even that, from what I know of, for instance, their definitions of Intuition, for instance - the fact remains that most people will arrive here with a low-quality Myers-Briggs typing, which is not necessarily of much use for Socionics typing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by labcoat
'organic causality' seems to me a broad catagorization all the mechanisms driving the Fe function. After all, what is social evaluation of emotion really? "If I say X, person Y will react in way Z." Conversely, Ti, the function of structural (or should we say, inductive?) causality, runs paralel to it, orienting by it entirely...
Yes, but I'm not sure if it applies to this case -- it has to do simply with the way MBTT is available online.
Re: Fe as organic causality
Quote:
Originally Posted by labcoat
The discrepancy between Phaedrus' oppinion and that of the community seems mainly due to Phaedrus' (possibly justified) unwillingness to acknowledge 'organic causality', eg. the phenomenom that no matter how hard one screams what the 'proper' way of handling a system like the MBTI is, people will treat it the way they have for as long as they remember, and will evaluate statements made about the system in accordance with this.
'organic causality' seems to me a broad catagorization all the mechanisms driving the Fe function. After all, what is social evaluation of emotion really? "If I say X, person Y will react in way Z." Conversely, Ti, the function of structural (or should we say, inductive?) causality, runs paralel to it, orienting by it entirely...
That's interesting...If it's done in such a calculating way, why is it not Te? I mean, suppose a person says, "I want to accomplish X; and to get there, based on knowledge, etc., I see that doing Y will be the most efficient and effective way to accomplish it." Now that, phrased with the word "doing," sounds kind of Te; but if we substitute "saying" instead of "doing," all of the sudden it becomes Fe?
Now, to reconcile this with what I see as the intent of what you're saying....It seems to me perhaps that Fe involves so many disparate calculations related to communication and people's likely reactions that they can no longer be handled by Te, but must be guided by Ti. Now that's an interesting thing too. But you see that there must be a finer, or more precise way of distinguishing the two here....Surely a way of reasoning that's Te-like can't become Fe merely because it's logic related to situations involving communicating with people, as opposed to logic related to some other area (?).
Re: Fe as organic causality
Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Most people here - the community, if you will - eventually drop Myers-Briggs after they have more or less mastered Socionics
It seems like most people drop socionics once they learn how they influence people/how others will react to them as well. Someone else noted that sites like these are filled with high school students, losers, etc. It seems like socionics fills a gap in the social development of those who are "immature"/socially handicapped.
Re: Fe as organic causality
Quote:
Originally Posted by science as magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Most people here - the community, if you will - eventually drop Myers-Briggs after they have more or less mastered Socionics
It seems like most people drop socionics once they learn how they influence people/how others will react to them as well. Someone else noted that sites like these are filled with high school students, losers, etc. It seems like socionics fills a gap in the social development of those who are "immature"/socially handicapped.
To be "social" in the everyday use, especially in the typical high-school environment in western society, is connected to being confident in a few functions, especially :Fe: and :Se: and perhaps also :Fi: . Those who are less confident in the use of those functions will look for solutions connected to the functions they are more confident in, such as :Ti: , :Te: , :Ni: or :Ne: .
Likewise, in a hard-science environment those who are less confident in the use of the latter functions will turn to the "social functions", such as developing connections with those who could help them.
There is no mystery to this, so I don't really see much point in your remark.
As for dropping MBTT for Socionics, I just meant that the latter is a superior system.
Re: Fe as organic causality
Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
To be "social" in the everyday use, especially in the typical high-school environment in western society, is connected to being confident in a few functions, especially :Fe: and :Se: and perhaps also :Fi: . Those who are less confident in the use of those functions will look for solutions connected to the functions they are more confident in, such as :Ti: , :Te: , :Ni: or :Ne: .
It is not a matter of functional intake in my opinion. It seems as though all people have the capability for self development in every area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Likewise, in a hard-science environment those who are less confident in the use of the latter functions will turn to the "social functions", such as developing connections with those who could help them.
Socionics is not hard science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
There is no mystery to this, so I don't really see much point in your remark.
My comments weren't particularly directed at you as you have made it quite clear that it is not your intention to absorb every possible mindframe but only those which you find "useful" or what have you. I was just using your observation to point out that the superiority of socionists is pretty much the same as that of people who follow mbti (ie nonexistent).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
As for dropping MBTT for Socionics, I just meant that the latter is a superior system.
Socionics doesn't accurately reflect the person on an individual scale and it is full of superstition/mythology in its description of the motives of the classifications of people as it sees them. It is inferior to having the capability to know and reflect all personal forms of interaction.