Originally Posted by Dynamicism
I like these, but I'm not sure what is really meant by the bolded. I prefer to start from neutral terms and then work my way up to something applicable, so how would you guys expand on these definitions to make them less abstract?
I thought about "properties," but it seemed too broad. Flux is good; it represents the dynamic aspect better than cohesion, but not so much the subjective element.
Hmm, hasn't it been said before that with Beta groups "you're either in or you're out" and that participation is required. Where as with Alpha groups, you can just leave and walk off and that's fine--it doesn't mean you're "out" of the group (you're not required to participate and aren't bound to the group in any way, you can just come and go and don't have to answer to the group's objectives/ideals)? Anyway I could see there being more obligation and commitment in Se quadras that Ne quadras might find stifling and would see as, in the case of Beta at least, group conformity. With Beta it would be heavier on the side of commitment to the group/ideal/cause/whatever; with Gamma it would be heavier on the side of commitment/obligation in individual relationships.
Sounds good. How do irrational elements come into it, though? If I were to describe myself in these terms, I'd say I use Te with Ni this way, not with Fi. This is purely introspective though.
Doesn't it? Qualitative assessment isn't the same as assessing quality. Let's imagine estimating the value of a diamond. You can examine it and attempt to guess it by it's characteristics ("it seems a good color and clarity"), or measure it - quantifying information about quality - in applicable system and use it to make an estimate ("it's E and VSI"). This is not only explicit, but physical example - an analogy for more abstract/implicit matters.
It's visible in communication - whenever something is seriously discussed, sooner or later definitions of terms involved start. This is especially true in the disciplines you mentioned - psychology, sociology, anthropology - because without clear definitions, two people can discuss completely different things each. Even now we do exactly this, to realize where our viewpoints collide. Introduction of a standard leads to quantification, because standards tend to be quantity-dependent, since quantity is universal and quality isn't. What I mean is, shared information converges to such a standard. It's entirely possible to attempt to communicate your introverted understanding, but it's more of an inspiration thing for others and not something we look for an agreement on or are adjusting for sake of an understanding with others - in this way, it's inherently individual.
Interpretation is independent issue; rational/irrational and internal/external go with both introverted and extroverted, and these matter here.
Thanks. I suppose I should bother some Fi-base next.I'm not really sure, I guess I do put my feelings in relation to myself, as in "that makes me feel ___" or my emotions never seem immediate, always like I've thought about them first and then told you. There's a little of both, I'm not sure they are so distinct from one another really. When I read it I had to think about it.
Sounds right.
There is something noticeably valuable in this observation of the "fxns." I like it, though I'm sure I thought of it before and wasn't sure what to think of it.
The thing people don't get about Te and Fe is that they track causality only from a very subjective point of view. They don't observe how one thing preceedes another on an objectively real plane (I argue that this is a non-sensical notion in modern physics); they just register that one thing is observed prior to the other. Everybody has these ingrained notions about "extrovert" meaning objectivity, but where these functions are concerned this yields a misleading picture.
Te and Fe are both forms of empiricist functions, and that means they are interested in the rational account of sense experience. Sense experience is something initially subjective, but Te and Fe make this experience publicly discutable.
Its all about the conflicting, alternative interpretations of the words objective and subjective. Te and Fe are publicly justifyable, but not primarily concerned with objects in reality the way Ne and Se are.
I saw the list, what I mean is the part where elements work together (i.e. how you describe Fe with Ti and Te with Fi). Like, how do rational ones interact with irrational.
I realize that these are just the standard socionics definitions of the terms, but that doesn't mean they are exempt from criticism. The definitions are problematic from the perspective of Kantian philosophy. The object is something that the subject can only "know" by means of an inference: it is something of which the subject has only images and impressions available, which it needs to piece together in order to form a representation of the object. This means that "object" is by definition only indirectly knowable via an inference and thus in conflict with the definition of "external". This in turn means that "external object" would be a contradiction in terms.Object: Information treated as something discrete and existing outside of one's self; regarded in an objective manner (note: this doesn't mean it literally is objective).
Dynamic: Information viewed with respect to its changes over time.
External: Pertaining to what is explicit, manifest, direct, and/or demonstrable in some way.
Internal: Pertaining to what is implicit, latent, indirect, and/or can only be inferred in some way.
I prefer to define internal/external in terms of internalcy and externalcy of reference. External means that the totality of properties of an entity is refered to, such that the entity is singularly isolated. Internal means that an internal selection of properties is refered to and that the complement of this selection is left unspecified.
This definition is fully compatible, in fact, equivalent, to the terms "well-defined" and "not-well-defined" that have seen use on this forum in the past.
How does Te compare to this though? The Je fxns are supposed to be needed to be seen as objective, right? So Te needs to be seen as objective, though Ti only needs to be stated (in a framework sort of way)? I've always had a problem with both of these things personally, ah but I guess I don't really see how logic can be "subjective," since I figure if I can explain it to someone, they will understand it too and most people will agree that it makes sense. Idk, I still don't really understand the differenceI'd rather just have simple definitions about what each one is, instead of systemizing things like this. I would cohere things if I had definitions in front of me, like "what you said or did seems like Ti" or "what you said or did seems like Fi." Or the "experience" of these functions. Are you saying that Ti is less based on just experience and more based on explaining things in secondary forms? Because the point of "explaining" something so it's "explicit" would be that you make sure others also understand it too, right?
So it kind of gets a feel for things by themselves instead of contrasting them side by side with other related things, and possibly explores those deeper alien areas which can't be compared. Can you give me an example of what a "contextual framework" might look like?
For some reason, I can't really ground this in my mind. Can you give me a quick comparison toand
within this system you've outlined so I can visualize this a bit more? It just seems to be the most abstract one (to me) and I can only think of stereotypical ways to observe it. Otherwise, I like this set up and would like to think on it more it see how it relates to how I understand IEs. It's been a constant tweaking, but productive.
has just been one the IEs (
is the other) that has been the hardest for me to describe, so I assume I don't have the firmest conception (and why I'm the most reluctant to type Betas most likely). I came up with something similar a couple months ago:
Was meant to be a quicky rather than a claim, but I guess I'd have to incorporate what ideas I find interesting with the lists you both provided into this. I think I'm starting to understand what Aiss means by qualitative/quantitative, or at least my attachment to the words, but it seems more like something I should accept rather than understand, so I'm trying to dig in more.
I think, at least in this thread but possibly elsewhere, that there's a bit of confusion of what's meant by objective and subjective in relation to IEs. I think people should look at it as objective and subjective, making note that there is a detached object and an observing subject, respectively, not someone being unbiased or stuck in their own personal view.
yup
yes
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I'd also add that they try to be objective, and through that more open to external input, like a differing point of view, synthetizing perspectives in an attempt to eliminate subject's influence.
indeed. however, you said it much better. :wink:Hmm, hasn't it been said before that with Beta groups "you're either in or you're out" and that participation is required. Where as with Alpha groups, you can just leave and walk off and that's fine--it doesn't mean you're "out" of the group (you're not required to participate and aren't bound to the group in any way, you can just come and go and don't have to answer to the group's objectives/ideals)? Anyway I could see there being more obligation and commitment in Se quadras that Ne quadras might find stifling and would see as, in the case of Beta at least, group conformity. With Beta it would be heavier on the side of commitment to the group/ideal/cause/whatever; with Gamma it would be heavier on the side of commitment/obligation in individual relationships.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
whatever you need to believe gill but we both know better and so does everyone else. as a matter of fact, i think who you really are comes forth quite clearly in this thread. that said, i'm done with this conversation.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
I refuse to accept it as
blah blah blah, I'm an insecure bitch who just wants to be heard, blah blah blah...take your presumptuousness elsewhere.
I would say it's more Ni than anything else. It's not just that I like it or whatever, but the attitude of it, the way it deals with meaning and simultaneity of it make me think Ni. It's a lot how I think. So far all aspects of Fe that I've heard of seemed unnatural to say the least (not including the quotes you posted).
Well, how would it be delivered in a
Ok I understand now about theYes, it is heavily dosed w/and that's exactly why I thought it would be an interesting example. Because in spite of its content, I think the method of delivery itself is more reflective of
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 06-11-2010 at 11:01 PM.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I would say so of the first Dali quote, but I don't see how Fe manifests in the one discussed here. Then again, I'm far from a fan of Fe. Any giveaway clues?Yes, it is heavily dosed w/
^ It seems to me that you focus on philosophical vs scientific approach here. While I agree it has basis in reality through suitability and correlation, I wouldn't say they're mutually exclusive, especially as far as verbal expression is concerned. The two people you quote both take the scientific turn, with no philosophical approach in ILI flavour. I can see it as potentially more cynical towards people and toying with words rather than emotions they're meant to induce, and it's in accord with the quote in question. Not saying it's no Fe, but I see no significant Fe influence here. Sure, if author was Fe-dominant it can hardly be free of it, but it affects its value as an example of such none the less.
I don't know. As I said earlier, it's not that I say it's no Fe, but I can easily imagine ILI saying that, so it's probably down to interpretation. I see what you mean about the tempo and that's what I read there as well, but if what you mean by enhancing effect is some sort of emotional appeal, it's the part I'm not very attuned to and my appreciation of it differs.Mm, hard to explain. It's in the tempo of the writing when you read it, the way it seems to rapidly flit back and forth (which likely enhances its effect I imagine). It comes across a bit more animated than I would expect from say, a
Not a good example of Fe, I think, one way or the other.
It'sI refuse to accept it as
Sincerely Yours,
Beyond the clouds. Beyond the sun.
The Rebel without a cause.
By "not mutually exclusive" I meant exactly differing sample. (And I never said the quote was cynical.)
I was speculating about potential significant differences between IEI/ILI in this "philosophical" approach (not a good descriptor on second thought, but it'll do), which aren't really applicable to the quote.
They all seemed to be very descriptive, I don't know how it's really distinctly
This is about right, I think. Te tries to convey truth explicitly, bluntly, with the goal being to describe in a concrete, almost scientific manner, with emphasis placed on naming things properly and truthfully, whereas Fe is more concerned with the effect it has, the artistic truth, if you will, of a statement, of transmitting emotions, with the resonance of subjective experience being the primary barometer of effectiveness in communication. With Te, words are both a means and an ends, whereas with Fe, words are the means to an end, the end being direct internal experience. I remember once someone asked me about my writing technique, and the best way I could describe it to them was that my aim is to never say anything explicitly, but that the art of writing was rather to encircle the point you wish to make, to indicate it from every direction without naming it explicitly, to guide the reader to see what was already there within themselves, with the words acting only as a mirror, a medium or conduit from their own mind to their own heart.
I can easily see ILI using the same style, that's the problem. Maybe my English doesn't give it much credibility, but when writing (esp. fiction) and not discussing a theory, this difference isn't nearly as superficial. Or I simply enjoy this aspect of Fe, though the idea seems strange.
I identify a lot with it - again, in context of non-scientific writing. Which is why I don't really see how that works on Te/Fe axis. I agree with Te being more direct and explicit, also in writing, but it doesn't mean not encircling the point - although come to think of it, in Te case it could be more akin to obfuscating. With the exception of emotionality, it seems more similar than different. It's more directed at mind than heart, in the terms you use, but not conveying the point explicitly - I'd rather say it's the use explicit observations as a method of conveying, encircling a more implicit point.
(Yes, I realize this whole argument shows focus on describing it in a concrete, almost scientific manner, with emphasis placed on naming things properly and truthfully. That's actually the difference between discussion and writing as such that I mean... I find it hard to equal the latter with Fe of all elements, though perhaps this encircling, indirectness is more part of Ni nature of the content, with directness in style.)
Last edited by Aiss; 06-12-2010 at 08:27 AM.
That's a bit crass, but a well-worded and appropriately guided statement nonetheless.“I feel that a real living form is the natural result of the individual's effort to create the living thing out of the adventure of his spirit into the unknown—where it has experienced something, felt something it has not understood, and from that experience comes the desire to make the unknown known. By unknown I mean the thing that means so much to the person that he wants to put it down—to clarify something he feels but does not clearly understand. I some way feel that everyone is born with it clear, but that with most of humanity it becomes blasted, one way or another...”
Some Gamma Irrational?“Some things just come to me in dreams. But I can write a bunch of stuff down after you leave . . . about, say, the way you are dressed. I look at people as ideas. I don't look at them as people. I'm talking about general observation. Whoever I see, I look at them as an idea—what this person represents. That's the way I see life. I see life as a utilitarian thing. Then you strip things away until you get to the core of what's Important . . . in the larger scheme of things, the government is irrelevant. Everybody, everything can be bought and sold.”
Ahaha, Nixon was ESI.“Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism—which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful.”
Thanks, I've looked at those. Looks like it's time I got up to date on Wilson's writing. I don't see anything I'd call Fe there, though. Possibly it's just supervision - some people claim all your supervisor says sounds good, although I don't really get it from EIEs on this forum.
I even joked about it once, but that was in context of someone's attempt at summarizing PoLRs.Maybe you're INFp.
I don't think I qualify as Fe ego - I don't do well socially, I send the wrong signals most of the time, can't read body language, etc. On the other hand, I appreciate efficiency (... ok, so the truth is I'm just lazy and want to get things done with as little effort on my part as possible) and factual accuracy (especially in scientific or similar context), skepticism. I also have the tendency to look for as much information about a subject as possible to get the image of it, and - stereotypically - find examples of Beta STs comments such as in latest Maritsa thread objectionable, if not exactly offensive to me personally. External dynamics of objects seems about right for what I do - I can see where things lead, where the conversation goes, but not the more subtle emotional clues. That's not to say I'm not emotional myself, but I can't fine tune the expression of it and attempt to contain it inside instead.
Intertype relations make more sense for ILI, too.
The more I read into this, the more it resonates with my view. Yet I can't completely agree with it as a whole. It kind of reminds me of my understanding of Enneagram, too.
People as ideas... no, not exactly, not at all in some sense. It would require much too much simplification. Utilitarian, yes, but there's a lot of it that's important in the larger scheme of things, not just ideas people represent, but what they just happen to do as well. I see the stripping things away part, it's just I don't believe in getting it all down to create a world of ideas, so to speak.“Some things just come to me in dreams. But I can write a bunch of stuff down after you leave . . . about, say, the way you are dressed. I look at people as ideas. I don't look at them as people. I'm talking about general observation. Whoever I see, I look at them as an idea—what this person represents. That's the way I see life. I see life as a utilitarian thing. Then you strip things away until you get to the core of what's Important . . . in the larger scheme of things, the government is irrelevant. Everybody, everything can be bought and sold.”
I can't but agree with the point about government and people.
Political correctness, yuck.“Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism—which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful.”
Interpreting it separately from this point, I'd say that I'm allergic to populism and useless rhetoric, so yes, I disagree with the use of invectives in journalism, but that's more because of holding it to certain standards (which people of said profession manage to compromise anyway) that avoidance of critique or such. I suppose that's the intended meaning of this excerpt, so I'd say I disagree with using emotional appeal to manipulate people, though I can see how it's one way to fight populism with their own weapon.
Do you people sleep? lol
Nixon VIs pretty solidly as a rational sensor to me; I have no ESIs to put him up against, but it makes decent sense as far as I can see. If I went on VI alone, I would probably stick him as LSE, though. Who would you put him up to for SLEs?
Actually my closest bet to Nixon for VI would be Laurence Fishburne:
I slept between 5:30 and 7:30, and awoke feeling slightly drowsy but overall well rested.
This is when I'd do some concerned henpecking, but I'm sure neither of you would appreciate that
For some reason I take this multiple ways, and I'm not sure why, but I can see all of
I see few similarities between Trump and Nixon. To me, Trump seems fake but so bad at it that its kind of endearing, generally lighthearted, and he has the feel of being much more focused, concentrated. Nixon, on the other hand, seems stern, anxious, and has to try to be lighthearted. This comparison actually cements my opinion that Nixon is Fi valuing.
In the first photos, Trump seems eager, confident, and focused; Nixon seems physically relaxed and has an air of billiousness.
In the second photos, Trump is plastering on a fake smile and isn't hiding it well at all; Nixon is doing the same, but seems like he is tapping into a sort of inner vulnerability to give it some credibility.
In the third set, Trump is making a lighthearted, exaggerated gesture of a feigned exercise of power; Nixon is giving a stern reprimand, with an undertone of fear.
In the fourth set, Trump exhibits a boyish sense of entitlement, a certain arrogant brattiness that is common in Se types; Nixon shows an almost childish jokiness, like he is trying to get people to go along with him. They both show an immature side, but Trump's is ingenuous and off-putting, while Nixon's is forced and intended to provoke agreement while letting out passive aggression.
In short, I'm pretty sure I see the similarities you are getting at, but I think on anything more than a superficial level, they show more difference between the two than similarity.
Well, at first it reminded me of an internal track of SiTe, the need to explore the unknown and understand what it does or means for the person involved. Having feelings that they cannot put words to, and have to go through visceral experiences to understand them. But then I was like, huh, maybe that writing is more NiTe'ish like, because
Sure wouldn't.This is when I'd do some concerned henpecking, but I'm sure neither of you would appreciate that
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
