No, but I'm saying that I think function 7 determines the external order, not function 1. That said, if you're talking about causalty thenOriginally Posted by hitta
So basically you're saying that an INTj doesn't have any external order at all?Your description is inconsistent with my experience. I am not convinced.handles that just fine. The causes may not be correct, but
.
Function 7 isn't consciousNo, but I'm saying that I think function 7 determines the external order, not function 1.So basically you're saying that an INTj doesn't have any external order at all?Your description is inconsistent with my experience. I am not convinced.
I'm gonna use an ENTp as an example here. An ENTp has +Ne and -Ni. Externally an ENTp sees all the possibilities of things. ENTps see different viewpoints. ENTps are open to all kinds of new ideas. This is due to the extroverted side of the (+Ne -Ni) function. Now do to an ENTp seeing all the possibilities of things, ENTps tend to check all the errors in things, ENTps continuously have to make sure that everything is exact. An ENTp could go on forever doing this, because an ENTp will continuously see all the possible errors. This is an example of +Ne to -Ni conversion(although I believe that +Ne and -Ni are the same function). ENTps have sort of a mystical way about them. ENTps have a hidden anxiety about them, due to the fact that they see all the possibilities. Also, ENTps tend to think about the past a lot. ENTps are usually into conspiracies and stuff. I can see it so clearly, +Ne and -Ni are the same thing, and ENTps have both in their main function.
If +Ne were to be internal, it would be -Ni, and vice versa.
Well I actually think that the introversion/extroversion dichotomy is inconsistent. I think an INTj can be extroverted (although they may not test as INTjs, and may test as some other extroverted type). The main difference in the ego block between and ENTp and an INFp is the creative function. The creative function influences the base function. I see different subtypes for types now, as I've stated in another post. Take the ENTp for example, you have a +Ne subtype, a -Ni subtype, a -Ti subtype, and a +Te subtype. According to the adjusted theory of information metabolism, data must go through an extroverted function to an introverted function for data to be subjectively analyzed, and must go from the introverted function to an extroverted function to influence society.i've used "+/-" before, i think when typing Nietzsche, so i'd probably better state my own POV on this.
one way to look at +/-: its relation to the functions expressed in [canonical/8 function] model A is dependent upon the aristocracy/democracy dichotomy. aristocrats have -perceiving, +rational for their [canonical] model A functions. socially involved functions (S and F) are +perceiving and -rational in democrats (out of the canonical 8 functions).
you'll have to use your own imagination a bit with this because a full treatment would make for a very long post perhaps worth an entirely new thread. but tendencies like these i think make +/- useful in better understanding how model A functions favor dualization and quadra values.
for brief example, is a democratic gamma NT with his or her own concrete +Ni plans for profiting off of abstract -Te going to value -Se going into the situation in chaotic pursuit of +Ti? does the inclusive communitarian nature frequently associated with +Fi or the dependable traditionalism with +Te suit gamma quadra values well?
these tendencies seem entirely derivable from model A itself though combined with the descriptions of quadra and dualization. to me +/- is a practical tool of notation sometimes rather than a ground-breaking or even necessary part of the [canonical] model. and i think it would be a major mistake in contradiction with [canonical] model A to say certain +functions and certain -functions are entirely equivalent.
introversion and extroversion define other characteristics that just the certainty/uncertainty, inclusiveness/exclusiveness, etc. prevalent in the +/- descriptions. a large part of introversion/extroversion is where stuff happens, privately in one's own head or publicly in the external world.
i think you'd be hard-pressed to convince anyone that ENTp's and INFp's have the same intuition base for example. maybe +/- suggests that they process data similarly or have similar motivations w.r.t. that base. that's interesting to think about. but the total effect, how each base function manifests itself in reality, seems very different to me, introversion vs. extroversion of each intuition function being a major part of it. not just different rational functions as would be the case if you assumed base equivalency.
how is this for an interpretation?: ENTp and INFp both have +Ne and –Ni in the base, but in ENTp +Ne is much more pronounced. there's an easy way to disprove a more "equivalentist" interpretation: if ENTp and INFp have the same base exactly, then you've just rendered the entire introversion/extroversion dichotomy inconsistent, as well as static/dynamic! doesn't sound like socionics anymore.
as one last example, consider INTj's and ESTj's. i can see some +Te in INTj's in the way many are attracted to developing long-standing canons of external information. INTj's are often at home in academia (more so than ENTj IME) where the integrity of information and the related external institutions is prized. the pursuit of developing their own internal -Ti thought system can greatly benefit from these conditions. -Te attempts to profit off of uncertainty here (rather than reorganize and secure things) are likely going to be frowned upon by the INTj.
but the day an INTj starts being more concerned about these external institutions than developing his or her own internal -Ti thought system, i think that INTj's base isn't an INTj base anymore. instead that is a different type's different base (ESTj).
something like this thought went through my mind too. it seems internally consistent, even if you keep model A as it is now: "base equivalency with creative influence" as we might call it. i don't think it accomplishes anything though. you've just redefined things. functions become more generalized and whatever functions were canonically becomes combinations of functions.
i'm going to agree with the "mental masturbation" cry on this one. and not only does it not seem to accomplish anything in general, i don't see how it even helps the rest of your argument. let's throw it out and focus the rest.
user machintruc suggested those subtypes months ago. i never liked the idea because it seems extremely unparsimonious. it's easy to see how canonical subtypes work because they are simply combinations of any two types of the same temperament in adjacent quadras. just do a weighted average of all the Reinin dichotomies for ENTp and ESTp and you can make an exact blueprint of a creative subtype without butchering model A at all.
here's the problem with your idea as i see it: you're implying a canonical INTj can possible act more -Ti-Ni or +Te+Ne or +Te-Ni. the first two combinations don't even make sense given the existing theory for combining ego bloc functions. the third combination sounds like an ENTj with the +/- signs inversed. but suppose +/- is simply a derivation of what's already known from model A: dualization, quadra values, and all the rest as they relate to the 8 canonical functions. then +Te-Ni is just a canonical type with an incorrect +/- derivation.
Its not really mental masturbation because I am making an exact comparison between the base function of an ENTp and an INFp. I am basically saying that an ENTp is both introverted and extroverted in all its functions, as is an INFp. An ENTp and an ESTp are extremely different in regards to their creative function, an ENTp is -Ti/+Te and ESTp is +Ti/-Te. An ESTp's thinking function would actually be more similar to ENTjs. The difference between an ESTp and an ENTj in the ego block lies in -Se/+Si v.s. +Ni/-Ne. I have also made a model of how I think that the data stream in a type works. I have used an INTj as an example:
Now whether or not you can have a -Ti-Ni subtype or an +Te+Ne subtype, I'm not sure. I'm sure there are types that use +Te and +Ne more and -Ni and -Ti more. These would be the most extroverted and introverted versions of an INTj respectively. There has to be connection with each side of the extroverted and introverted world though; introverted gets its information from extroverted and extroverted gets its information from introverted. So while these subtypes might exist, it would mean that the other functions would not be used.
I don't see how its more messy than original socionics theory. My theory just thoroughly incorporates the concept of information metabolism. You acts as if theres supposed to be a set idea for +/-. I took it and I adapted it. +/- basically states that there is a difference between an the Ti of an INTj and an ISTj. Really my theory has nothing to do with +/-.
Ok
ESTps should theoretically have a dominant dual seeking function for ENTps. ENTps should be attracted to the ESTps -Se. One introverted function is not more introverted than another. Neither is an extroverted function more extroverted than another. A person that tests as an ESTp(although people that do not test as ESTps could be ESTps but they could be introverted) should be extroverted and so should people that test as ENTps. I don't understand your point.
Just because a type uses -Ti and -Ni mostly does not mean that they do not use an extroverted function, all types have to use extroverted function to communicate with the world. Being a -Ti / -Ni subtype doesn't mean that one doesn't use extroverted functions. Saying that would be like saying that in the normal way that a Ti subtype INTj doesn't use Ne.
What I have written incorporates perfectly into socionics, what you're saying here doesn't make sense. I have supplied a model that shows how it works. You're basically saying that it doesn't work with socionics without actually having a reason that it doesn't work with socionics. Hijacking term? The +/- functions have been used before just like I have used them, there are articles on this.
http://forum.socionix.com/lofiversio...x.php?t51.html
The +/- polarity of functions are not Jungian terms.
this seem only to work given your interpretation of the theory, exaggerating the role of +/- as you are. i've never seen it described in any credible type description or other empirical data.
i never said any of that. i said the rational ego bloc function in ETp's is introverted. in ETj's it's extroverted. when an ETp acts rationally it's generally in its head. when an ETj acts rationally it's generally in the external world.
that sounds right, assuming it's an accurate test.
introverted ESTp => not socionics
again, assuming it's an accurate test. an ESTp could surely test introverted if the test is inaccurate, but theoretically i think an introverted ESTp would be nonsense.
jung didn't create +/- but they're compatible with the functions as defined by jung.
your model with +/- is compatible with the descriptions of the +/- functions on that website. but your model also implies things that aren't compatible with the rest of socionics. extroverted INTj's? IJ functions ego bloced with IP? ESTp-seeking ENTp's? EP's that use their rational functions like EJ's? ...
Why is it so hard to believe that their are introverted versions of ENTps and extroverted versions of INTjs? You're basically saying that if this isn't the case that a INTjs thinking function doesn't express itself externally without going through Ne. This makes sense logically, descriptively, and through inspection of the types it completely fits. Its easy to see the -Ni in an ENTp for example. There are traits of the intuitive function in ENTps that can only be introverted. Yet according to modern socionics, intuition in ENTps is only extroverted.
if INTj was ENTj, and the description sounded just like INTj instead of ENTj, then the introverted people would be mis-testing and not the extroverted people, the I/E lettering in INTj is incorrect, and INTj is actually both introverted and extroverted, this is a mistake made by modern socionicsthis misses my point.
first of all, if +Te and +Ne are stronger than -Ti and -Ni, as it seems possible give your INTj subtypes, then that INTj is extroverted. perhaps not all the time. i think the ego bloc is just an approximation anyway and that we occasionally use all our function consciously. but overall, extroversion seems to be the functional preference of this particular INTj of yours. how is an "introverted intuitive thinking judger" an extrovert?
secondly, what i was getting at is why Ti is bloced with Se or Ne in model A, why static functions work well togeather. didn't you read what i said about internal and external values?
I don't get why people keep bringing up the Reinin dichotomies, I mean, I don't even think that true dichotomies exist because technically a type is apart of both dichotomies. Like the positivist/negativist dichotomy. All types are apart of both of them. I'm not sure why people except the dichotomies as god's message to the people. They aren't as great as people think. Also, it does happen both ways. I may be wrong by saying this, but the most common mistesting on this issue is due to the mirror problem. INTjs test as ENTps although they are really INTjs due to the fact that they are actually extroverted. This happens with ENTps testing as INTjs too. I imagine that a lot of people that type as ENTps wonder why they don't exactly fit the description of an ENTp. They probably fit the INTj description more (like about being logical and such) except they know they are extroverted so they just accept that they are ENTp.in addition to the definition and descriptions of INTj that've been used for eons, its Reinin dichotomies seem like a solid reason to write this possibility off as nonsense.
i agree ENTp ego exhibits some -Ni tendencies, INTj ego some +Te, in addition to the canonical ego functions themselves. and the current use of +/- allows for some as well i think. but not as much as an INFp or ESTj (respectively). as soon as you demand that, you screw with the types' dichotomies and the function blocing as i've explained ad infinitum.
this sounds like nonsense. the same subtype theory should apply to all types so whatever mistesting is going given the current theory it seems must happen both ways.
also i wouldn't bet too much on test results meaning much. niffweed and machintruc couldn't get easyTIM to work even a majority of the time and that was using a sample of very socionics-aware people on this forum.
And even though I don't agree with the dichotomies, my theory fits perfectly with them.
All types are theoretically present in all dichotomies except static/dynamicism(although I think all types might be both according to my theory) and the ones that involve quadra.
INTjs are -Ti and +Ne as defined by modern socionics. -Ti is a negativistic function. +Ne is a postivistic function. An INTj has both. An INTj is both posivistic and negativistic.
if you can't deduce that +Ne is a positivist function, and -Ti is negativist function, from the fact that ENTp is a positivist and a INTj is a negativist, then you need to have your head examined
Knock knock, mr. Hitta... It's exactly opposite in the case of dynamic types...
Positivist means +empowering, -limiting.
Negativist means +limiting, -empowering.
What makes your trick work in the case of static types, is that accepting static functions are always empowering.
For reference:
Empowering = accepting static, creating dynamic, hot perceiving, cold judging
Limiting = accepting dynamic, creating static, hot judging, cold perceiving
where hot and cold mean temperament based extroversion and introversion respectively.
thats irrelevant to my point, no offense but i'm not even sure how to respond to that because it has nothing to do with what i'm saying
Ne+ is not a positivist function, as you litterally put it. Positivism is a characteristic of types, not functions.
+ functions being more positive than - functions is however a possible interpretation of how the signs work. Is that what you meant? You and ifmd are probably miscommunicating if you did.
I don't like to quote things from wikisocion, because I think some of their information is a bit screwy but here it goes
* Positivist types have either a static plus element or a dynamic minus element in base function.
* Negativist types have either a dynamic plus element or a static minus element in base function.
A positivist has a static plus element or a negative minus element. So deductively reasoning, even though its a short jump of reasoning, is that +Ne is a positivist function. On another note, having 4 functions in a block(even though I think its just two, I think that +Ne and -Ni are both one function) does not effect the the Reinin Dichotomies. +Ne and -Ni are both positivist functions.
I see what you're doing now.
It's not really conventional to speak about functions as being 'positivist' is all I'm saying.
Why not? Types are just functions.
Because you're the first one to do it.
I highly doubt that.
I'm having a hard time thinking of a new nomenclature for the types.
You could have an 1LI and a 2LI, or aLI and bLI, but that would be confusing, you could go by the names like analyst critic etc, but that wouldn't explain the functions. I'm really confused on how to set a nomenclature.
Speaking of which, my understanding of this is as follows.
Reinin constructed the dichotomies mathematically in terms of how the traits could be combined dichotomically. This is demonstrated in the Wiki. So, for instance, one obvious dichotomy is one that has Alpha+Gamma vs Beta +Delta. But as far as it goes it doesn't mean anything. It was Augusta who then, looking at the types separated by this dichotomy, and the functions involved, deduced that it was manifested as Democracy vs Aristocracy. At least this is what I get from reading the original (?) article by Reinin and Augusta.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
and i think at this point everyone should highly doubt you. Reinin dichotomies refer to types. it's how they're constructed mathematically! it's how Augusta researched them empirically! to say otherwise goes against every article i've ever read on Wikisocion and the Articles section of this forum. maybe you have constructed your own dichotomies and your own positivism and negativism, but they don't sound like Reinin dichotomies any more.
those are credible community-scrutinized resources i've cited. what resources back up (or even are at least consistent with) the stuff you're saying? other than +/- merely existing, so far nothing else you've said has been found anywhere outside your own head. maybe you should just keep this stuff in there rather passing it off as "socionics" to everyone else's confusion here. or at least pick different name and get it on "Non-socionic Type theories".
maybe you are on to something. but this something is at worst autistic BS and at best NOT SOCIONICS. in either case it is not INTELLECTUALLY HONEST (something HEALTHY INTj's usually value) to keep butchering canonical terminology and then blame us for not understanding your deductions.
Are you mentally challenged? A type is a group of functions. Functions are what make up the dichotomies. If you think otherwise, its a possibility that you aren't capable of rational thought.
The whole is = to the sum of its parts, its just that most people forget about certain elements that should be consider "parts". Oxide is negative, but it is also positive, if you ever studied quantum physics you would know that. There are no absolutes. A lamp isn't just a lamp. It can be anything technically(depending on relativity). Dichotomies exist I suppose, but a type isn't limited to one side of the dichotomy. Although, I'm still having trouble understanding what Reinin Dichotomies has to do with my theory.i never said they weren't! here this is what i've been referring to:
here's a "rational thought" if you've any space left in your autistic cave: "the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts". virtually all elements are composed of both positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons, but that doesn't render the concept of positively and negatively charged ions meaningless.
given the canonical definitions, INTj is negativist in the same way Oxide is negative. i don't see how any amount of prattling on about functions will change that.
It's not just reductionism, its the law of conservation of energythis is "greedy reductionism". it is impractical for problem solving to ignore higher level patterns that emerge from the smaller parts. it does a lamp salesmen little good to put lumps of clay on his store shelf and tell his customers that in 10^10000000000 years it will probably reorganize into a designer light fixture.
if you've ever used chemistry on the job you would know just how ridiculous you are being.
the variations in extroversion, staticness, etc. for the subtypes would make them inconsistent with the canonical dichotomies.
Most chemistry doesn't examine the internal qualities of massive particle
and besides extroversion, everything from the reinin dichotomies fits my theory
Chemistry analogies, hmm.
Sodium Chloride is neutrally charged overall (i.e. 0), but is composed of Sodium ions (Na+) and Chlorine ions (Cl-). It would be wrong to say that Sodium Chloride is made up of Sodium and Chlorine, what with Sodium Chloride being a relatively harmless compound, Sodium being explosive in contact with water, and Chlorine being an extremely toxic gas.
Basically, you can't take apart NeTi and make it Ne+ and Ti-, simply because they are never that way - you always have Ne in the Ego block with Fi or Ti, and you always have Ne or Se in the Ego block with Ti - you never experience functions completely separately as Ti+ or Ti- - Ti is always part of a compound Ego.
Actually, this is prolly better:
FYI, that plus or minus model, which you call "true model A", simply says that the functions get the + or - signs according to the other function in the block.
So, if you look at the table, you will see that for instance the "first"as in Delta. The same goes for all the signs.
So it's helpful, perhaps, to illustrate that the functions are different according to the block they are in; but it does not actually provide any new information. It's actually redundant, if you understand model A.
Now I'm getting confused.
I thought about this last night, and came up with the following question: can a positive form of an element use a negative form's data? That is, can something conceived via +Te be used by -Te, and vice versa?
The reason why sodium chloride is harmless is because the atoms actually change that create this "whole". The "whole" is still the sum of its parts. Everything happens for a reason. You can't just combine two particles together and say hey, this is different. The particles that combine to make it are different, as well as the whole. If you want to be technical and theoretical about it, you could actually manipulate sodium and chloride to combine as -Na and +Cl. You would have to make some large manipulations to the electrons though. This is basically what happens with the functions in a way. You have -Te that groups with +Ni. And you have -Te that also groups with +Si. +Te groups with -Ni and -Si. Now the reason why the functions change polarity when group with the same function in different instances is unknown, I'm doing a lot of thinking about it. I guess its because of the other functions that make up the personality. Maybe that is the manipulation. But then the question would be, what puts those functions in their place. And you still have a paradoxical situation. Theres a reason for everything though. Maybe one day we'll figure out the paradoxes of reality(and non reality). But I can 99% assure you that a sub block in a type is composed of an extroverted and introverted version of a function.Chemistry analogies, hmm.
Sodium Chloride is neutrally charged overall (i.e. 0), but is composed of Sodium ions (Na+) and Chlorine ions (Cl-). It would be wrong to say that Sodium Chloride is made up of Sodium and Chlorine, what with Sodium Chloride being a relatively harmless compound, Sodium being explosive in contact with water, and Chlorine being an extremely toxic gas.
Basically, you can't take apart NeTi and make it Ne+ and Ti-, simply because they are never that way - you always have Ne in the Ego block with Fi or Ti, and you always have Ne or Se in the Ego block with Ti - you never experience functions completely separately as Ti+ or Ti- - Ti is always part of a compound Ego.
Actually, this is prolly better
FYI, that plus or minus model, which you call "true model A", simply says that the functions get the + or - signs according to the other function in the block.
So, if you look at the table, you will see that for instance the "first"
So it's helpful, perhaps, to illustrate that the functions are different according to the block they are in; but it does not actually provide any new information. It's actually redundant, if you understand model A.
There can be a huge difference in the chemical properties of atoms and ions.
If orange juice says it contains Calcium, it doesn't mean the element Calcium, because if it did, the orange juice carton would explode when the Calcium was added to the juice. Calcium ions in the body are not as harmful to the human body - they are actually of great benefit.
Well technically an ion is a manipulated atom or vice versa. They are still individual parts though.
Compounds with chemical bounding can't conduct electricity, as there are no free ions - atoms can't conduct electricity. Metal can conduct electricity because the electrons that pass the electricity through the metal are free to do so - ionic compounds like sodium chloride can only conduct electricity well when dissolved in water - there are various such differences between ions and atoms, even though an electron weighs 1800 times less than a proton. Atoms are not the same as ions - there is always an energy difference when converting between atoms and ions and vice versa.
Actually compounds and atoms can both produce electricity, they just require manipulation to do so.
Atoms need an extra amount of 'manipulation' to conduct electricity - in fact, they need a chemical reaction.
nah, an atom can produce electricity without a chemical reaction, i'm just not sure if the scientific population has a means to do it yet
Making an electron free to move from an atom in order to conduct electricity would strip the electron from the atom, so that it wouldn't be an atom - even if it could stay an atom by some procedure I can't imagine, it would take a vast amount of energy, say compared to passing a current through an ion - an ion and an atom are different, and to get from one to the other takes energy, so they can't be considered as equal entities.
Excellent. Now we are on the same page.The reason why sodium chloride is harmless is because the atoms actually change that create this "whole". The "whole" is still the sum of its parts. Everything happens for a reason. You can't just combine two particles together and say hey, this is different. The particles that combine to make it are different, as well as the whole. If you want to be technical and theoretical about it, you could actually manipulate sodium and chloride to combine as -Na and +Cl. You would have to make some large manipulations to the electrons though. This is basically what happens with the functions in a way. You have -Te that groups with +Ni. And you have -Te that also groups with +Si. +Te groups with -Ni and -Si. Now the reason why the functions change polarity when group with the same function in different instances is unknown, I'm doing a lot of thinking about it. I guess its because of the other functions that make up the personality. Maybe that is the manipulation. But then the question would be, what puts those functions in their place. And you still have a paradoxical situation. Theres a reason for everything though. Maybe one day we'll figure out the paradoxes of reality(and non reality). But I can 99% assure you that a sub block in a type is composed of an extroverted and introverted version of a function.Chemistry analogies, hmm.
Sodium Chloride is neutrally charged overall (i.e. 0), but is composed of Sodium ions (Na+) and Chlorine ions (Cl-). It would be wrong to say that Sodium Chloride is made up of Sodium and Chlorine, what with Sodium Chloride being a relatively harmless compound, Sodium being explosive in contact with water, and Chlorine being an extremely toxic gas.
Basically, you can't take apart NeTi and make it Ne+ and Ti-, simply because they are never that way - you always have Ne in the Ego block with Fi or Ti, and you always have Ne or Se in the Ego block with Ti - you never experience functions completely separately as Ti+ or Ti- - Ti is always part of a compound Ego.
Actually, this is prolly better
FYI, that plus or minus model, which you call "true model A", simply says that the functions get the + or - signs according to the other function in the block.
So, if you look at the table, you will see that for instance the "first"
So it's helpful, perhaps, to illustrate that the functions are different according to the block they are in; but it does not actually provide any new information. It's actually redundant, if you understand model A.
Mass is energy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote