clubs are worthless

[Joy]

or alternatively it can be argued that these "bits of mental abstractions" are real world facts

No, they are real world perceptions.

and are used in building the Ti structures and systems.

yeah

though conclusions like i was there for half an hour and no one came so i was alone there for a while i do not see as Ti. i find it difficult to give an example of a Ti system using real world [s:c82aa87941]facts[/s:c82aa87941] *perceptions * in it's building

One example is hierarchy (such as the pecking order in the military, organized crime, royal systems, etc.). The organization of the US government is another example of Ti. There many, many other examples though. After all, Ti is "logical relationships between objects: systems of rules, hierarchies, comparisons of quantifiable properties, logical judgments".

however, actually, take an example of robot with wheels and using tables, Te [s:c82aa87941]facts[/s:c82aa87941], to pick the right rubber for the design, Ti.

I have no idea what you're talking about here...

Te would be the actually activity of the mechanisms in the robot and the actions of the robot itself. Ti would be the system behind it's design, including whatever table of information you're referring to. The strength, monetary value, color, material, etc. of the robot is Se. The things the robot could be used for is Ne. What will most likely become of the robot is Ni. The fact that the noise that it makes is annoying is Si. (And I don't really know how to properly use a Fe or Fi example in this scenario.)

[Joy]

hkkmr, I think I'm going to start a type thread about you

[Joy]

no, Te, [s:5b552660b0]facts[/s:5b552660b0].

Stop using the F word!

Te is not objective "facts".

Check out what I wrote in my description of Te in this thread: "Te is about activity, behavior, and what works. Contrary to popular belief, Te utilizes outside information (from a source that is most likely correct/reliable) not because that's what defines Te, but simply because Te isn't Ti."

If you look at the table as being part of a scientific system (which is what scientific tables are), then it's Ti. If you're talking about a person using the information on table without understanding the scientific reasons and systems behind how the information on the table was decided, it could be Te... but again, that's not the definition of Te (though it is a characteristic of Te), it's just Te > Ti. The only reason descriptions point out that Te uses "external" data (such as from text books or charts) is to point out how it's different from Ti (which would generally understand the concept behind the table, the system which decides the information on the table).

The strength, (material properties is Te, check the definitions, can send you)

Te

monetary value, color,

yes

material,

Te

etc. of the robot is Se.

Yes, send me whatever information you have that would suggest that the external statics of an object is Te.

The things the robot could be used for is Ne.

Ne + Te

I suppose I should have said, "the things the robot could be".

The fact that the noise

Se, though not sure.

Stop taking what I said out of context.

(lol I just realized that I used the word "fact". I used it to mean occurrence though, not "undeniable truth".)

[Mea]

The bottom line is that if your Quadra values are not clear, then you should focus on figuring out that BEFORE giving temperament, club, or any of the dichotomies serious consideration.

I agree with this.

One thing that I feel that is confusing would the the reinin dichotomies. When I first started reading it, I did not fully understand it. It took some time. And I have seen many new users having lots of misunderstandings regarding what each reinin dichotomy means. And when they type by this, the results are just... wrong.

[marooned]

One thing that I feel that is confusing would the the reinin dichotomies. When I first started reading it, I did not fully understand it. It took some time. And I have seen many new users having lots of misunderstandings regarding what each reinin dichotomy means. And when they type by this, the results are just... wrong.

I started reading through the Reinin dichotomies, but then decided they weren't helpful to me at this point... it sort of looked like a datasheet of categorizations... I was having trouble finding any actual pith to them... maybe I didn't spend enough time looking, but I wasn't finding an actual concept that they were coming from... so I've decided to read them later...

[Joy]

One thing that I feel that is confusing would the the reinin dichotomies. When I first started reading it, I did not fully understand it. It took some time. And I have seen many new users having lots of misunderstandings regarding what each reinin dichotomy means. And when they type by this, the results are just... wrong.

You're right that the results are just wrong, but even people who understand the dichotomies can easily (and will) mistype people using them, if that's their typing criteria. The dichotomies are too complicated, too overlapping, and too poorly translated to be of use in typing someone (unless there's a dichotomy that's particularly apparent and unmistakable in them, and even then it should be used to supplement the method used to determine their type rather than as the method itself).

I think some of the newer people here like them because they have no idea what type they are, and using the Reinin dichotomies lets them arbitrarily pick which of the two sounds more like them and then just tally them and voila, they magically know their type without having to actually understand the basics of the theory and how to apply them.

[Joy]

i did not take anything out of context.

I said "the fact that the noise that it makes is annoying" and you took "the noise" out and called it something else. Yes, "noisy" in and of itself is a Se trait.

i agree table is Ti but the data there is Te.

Te includes real world facts though.

(Again, all of the types are "aspects of reality" so I won't use the term "real" to describe any of them.)

Te uses objective information. Objective information in and of itself, however, is not Te. I cannot stress this enough. I'd like to see a definition of Te that says otherwise. Oh yeah, and I'm still waiting for the source that says that the external statics of objects are Te.

i can use bigger text if i want to strengthen my text too.

I'm not trying to strengthen anything... I'm trying to stress something.

i don't have it now. the guys revamped the site and it got fucking lost, bastards.

That sucks.

Anyway, they are the same who did the reinin experiment in st. petersburg.

huh?

[Joy]

One thing that I feel that is confusing would the the reinin dichotomies. When I first started reading it, I did not fully understand it. It took some time. And I have seen many new users having lots of misunderstandings regarding what each reinin dichotomy means. And when they type by this, the results are just... wrong.

I started reading through the Reinin dichotomies, but then decided they weren't helpful to me at this point... it sort of looked like a datasheet of categorizations... I was having trouble finding any actual pith to them... maybe I didn't spend enough time looking, but I wasn't finding an actual concept that they were coming from... so I've decided to read them later...

there was a couple of good threads on them recently: reinin revisited, Elzo's test, lots of info being discussed all over in other ones, the translations suck.

I haven't read those threads, but I have a hunch that they're what Mea was talking about, at least in part, when she said, "And I have seen many new users having lots of misunderstandings regarding what each reinin dichotomy means."

[Joy]

i did not say material properties are Se. YOU said they are. i read that they are Te

lmao

Okay, I said that the gears and material and stuff are Se, you said they're Te. We agree about what happened (though we still don't agree on whether the external statics of objects are Te or Se). The miscommunication is over the part about noise.

i read that they are Te, again, in that article, whose creators, ok, are the guys whose descriptions of reinin you've been reading all along. perhaps they are wrong, though i will want to see another respectable article to tell me the correct information.

Would you by any chance be able to link me to that article? I may be able to offer an explanation of the context or meaning behind whatever was said about Te. I'm not promising to read it if it's really long though.

[Ezra]

You two (Joy and Smilex) make me happy.

See how being polite and non-antagonistic facilitates the exchange of information and ideas? There's actual dialogue here, of the beneficial and helpful kind.

This is good and what I've been wanting.


/personal interjection

Man you so EII.

I don't know how I could be your conflictor. You're too lovable.

[Ezra]

I said "the fact that the noise that it makes is annoying" and you took "the noise" out and called it something else. Yes, "noisy" in and of itself is a Se trait.

It depends on the motivation for the noise.

[Joy]

Since when do robots have a motivation?

[Enters Laughing]

Since when do robots have a motivation?

Ha ha...the experiment remains a success.

[Minde]

Man you so EII.

I don't know how I could be your conflictor. You're too lovable.

Why, thank you. When you're not cussing me out, you're not so bad yourself.

And I don't know why conflictors couldn't have a liking and/or appreciation for one another. Not that I'm saying you're my conflictor. I'm not sure what you are.

[UDP]

Man you so EII.

I don't know how I could be your conflictor. You're too lovable.

Why, thank you. When you're not cussing me out, you're not so bad yourself.

And I don't know why conflictors couldn't have a liking and/or appreciation for one another. Not that I'm saying you're my conflictor. I'm not sure what you are.

That's right, my duals are awesome.

[Expat]

Te uses objective information. Objective information in and of itself, however, is not Te.

I agree.

I'd add that what makes Te dynamic is the perception, or realization, or judgement, that "objective information" is only valid, or "factual", as it is continually checked against external reality, either against other sources or against its own workability and efficiency - which in the final analysis is the same thing.

I myself have probably over-emphasized the "facts" aspect, but, as Joy said, it's to make the point of Te>Ti. Which becames obvious when you compare Ti PoLR with Te PoLR types. However, I agree that Te is not objective information as such.

[Expat]

Back to the original topic --

The socionics clubs are formed around a person's most likely preferred interests, and therefore most likely professions, hobbies, etc.

So, for instance, in a group such as this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GZdZUouzBY[/youtube]

The quantum theory community of the 1920s, the "founding fathers" of quantum theory: Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, Erwin Schroedinger, Max Born, Paul Dirac, Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie etc etc. All of them, if typed individually, are most likely some kind of NT. And as Bionicgoat mentioned, the crowd in this film looks like "a bunch of NTs" - as would be expected if you put together people who made quantum theory the main activity, and achievement, in their lives.

So at that level clubs make sense. But of course it would be foolish to go the other way and say, "s/he's a famous quantum theorist, hence NT". It is by no means impossible that one of those individuals (although not, I think, one of those I cited above), upon closer examinations, would be a SF.

On this, thehotelambush suggested that Ernest Rutherford may have been an ESFp. I think it's plausible, but even then, it's interesting to note that, at closer examination, Rutherford was far more an empiricist, a lab person, than a theoretical modelist. Men like Paul Dirac - who spent endless days along in his office making calculations and writing - fit the NT club better.

But, I repeat, to say something that, "that woman has to be a NT since she's so much into science" - that would be an unwise thing to do imo.

[Joy]

So... Then an ST "club" would be like... the military? A football team? A labor union? And an NF "club" would be... the Peace Corps? An activist group? A book club? And an SF "club" would be... a cheerleading squad? The PTA? A sorority? Other NT "clubs" would be... A chess team?

I'm joking... but regardless, I think this is a dangerous concept for this very reason. There are far too many exceptions to the rule, and if someone latches on to this theory the way a lot of the people here seem to latch on to various other Socionics theories, it could easily create a strong, false sense of identity revolving around this Socionics "club" theory. I believe this has already happened to a lot of people to varying extents, especially those who feel they're NTs. I think the whole concept is counter productive when it comes to understanding Socionics, and especially when it comes to typing.

[Ezra]

Yes, me, for example.

What kind of SLE hangs around on the16types discussing a theory of intertype relationships that is just that; a theory? Ti subtype? It is a subtype, not a type unto itself.

Also, my career choice. Sports? No. The military? No. Technician/mechanic/plumber/other physical and practical task? No. Barrister. And this involves a lot of work that is by no means practical, such as preparing for cases and arguing. It's all mentally strenuous; there's no physical labour.

[Joy]

Exactly. Any Beta (besides maybe IEI) would/could do that, and most other types in the Socion could, too. (fwiw though, I think perhaps SLE, EIE, LSI, and ILE might be the most likely types to enjoy arguing so much that they want to make a living out of it )

As for the types that would be intersted in the theory, I think it has to do more with intelligence than anything. Any type could (and do) take an interest in Socionics. No matter who you are, you value either Ti or Fi and Ne or Ni.

[Hugo]

The bottom line is that if your Quadra values are not clear, then you should focus on figuring out that

How?

[marooned]

Exactly. Any Beta (besides maybe IEI) would/could do that...

Clarify at once!

[Expat]

So... Then an ST "club" would be like... the military? A football team? A labor union? And an NF "club" would be... the Peace Corps? An activist group? A book club? And an SF "club" would be... a cheerleading squad? The PTA? A sorority? Other NT "clubs" would be... A chess team?

Not sure about the others, but I guess that most of the girls in a cheerleading squad will be SF; and the fewest of them will be NTs. Not the army -- for instance, I think that both the army and the police are full of INFps. An NF club would be more visible in a group to discuss literature and philosophy.

But, you know, this club thing is, to me, obvious, and that was the point Gulenko and Lytov, among others who wrote about them, made: if you look at any group which has been formed due to a very common interest/activity, you are likely to see different concentrations of the clubs. Now, perhaps this doesn't always work so clearly as with the quantum theory community - in fact, I'm convinced it does not - but it's part of classical socionics, and it's easy to see where it comes from.

I'm joking... but regardless, I think this is a dangerous concept for this very reason. There are far too many exceptions to the rule, and if someone latches on to this theory the way a lot of the people here seem to latch on to various other Socionics theories, it could easily create a strong, false sense of identity revolving around this Socionics "club" theory. I believe this has already happened to a lot of people to varying extents, especially those who feel they're NTs. I think the whole concept is counter productive when it comes to understanding Socionics, and especially when it comes to typing.

I don't disagree, but what else can we do but what we've already done, that is, emphasize the relative value to be given to clubs? It's not as if I or anyone here had invented the concept of clubs in socionics. Anyone who reads socionics online material will find them.

Those who "feel they're NTs" would have found another justification for that, if they feel so strongly about it.

I can point the light to show the way, but in the end people make their own decisions.

[Joy]

Yeah... I was pretty much just venting irritation with the many people who try to type themselves using clubs, or base their self-typings primarily on clubs.

[Jonathan]

I'm late to this discussion, but just a few quick points:

1) When typing others you don't know well, it's much more likely to be undecided between types in the same club than to be undecided between types that are duals or activity partners of each other. Similarly, debates about famous people's types usually are between types in the same club or temperament. It's much rarer for people to say "I think that person's an INFj...no wait, maybe he's an ESTj....wow, it's so hard to tell."

2) In model A, people in the same club have the same strong and weak functions.

3) Typing yourself in terms of what you think you value, that is, what you think is good, can be very misleading, because sometimes people have in their minds that a particular IM element is really good when it's not something that they're strong in at all. And admiring a certain behavior doesn't even necessarily mean it's part of one's super ID block. Actually, people often admire qualities that are associated with more than one quadra, so they can't all be in the super ID block..

[Birds]

So... Then an ST "club" would be like... the military? A football team? A labor union? And an NF "club" would be... the Peace Corps? An activist group? A book club? And an SF "club" would be... a cheerleading squad? The PTA? A sorority? Other NT "clubs" would be... A chess team?

I'm joking... but regardless, I think this is a dangerous concept for this very reason. There are far too many exceptions to the rule, and if someone latches on to this theory the way a lot of the people here seem to latch on to various other Socionics theories, it could easily create a strong, false sense of identity revolving around this Socionics "club" theory. I believe this has already happened to a lot of people to varying extents, especially those who feel they're NTs. I think the whole concept is counter productive when it comes to understanding Socionics, and especially when it comes to typing.

That stuff is only from MBTI/Keirsey... not Socionics.

[Joy]

The problem is the same.