What the people here don't seem to get

[Hitta]

If two different types have similarities they have to share a common function. Thats what the concept of function is, differences in behavior. If all the functions were the same they wouldn't be so different would they. So take an ENTp, ENTps value originality. Also, take an INFp, they value originality. How could you possibly say that these two types don't share a link when they both value the same thing. They HAVE to value the same function. It HAS to be this way. If you can't see this, then I am wasting my time. This is the fundamental idea behind all of my ideas. You can't say, while using logic, that two different functions behave the same way. This wouldn't make sense.

[reyn_til_runa]

If two different types have similarities they have to share a common function. Thats what the concept of function is, differences in behavior. If all the functions were the same they wouldn't be so different would they. So take an ENTp, ENTps value originality. Also, take an INFp, they value originality. How could you possibly say that these two types don't share a link when they both value the same thing. They HAVE to value the same function. It HAS to be this way. If you can't see this, then I am wasting my time. This is the fundamental idea behind all of my ideas. You can't say, while using logic, that two different functions behave the same way. This wouldn't make sense.

sounds wrong. can't originality take different forms? can't various functions support (or at the very least, not contradict) the essential qualities which define originality?

[inumbra]

If two different types have similarities they have to share a common function. Thats what the concept of function is, differences in behavior. If all the functions were the same they wouldn't be so different would they. So take an ENTp, ENTps value originality. Also, take an INFp, they value originality. How could you possibly say that these two types don't share a link when they both value the same thing. They HAVE to value the same function. It HAS to be this way. If you can't see this, then I am wasting my time. This is the fundamental idea behind all of my ideas. You can't say, while using logic, that two different functions behave the same way. This wouldn't make sense.

I don't really understand what you're getting at. But it seems to me that you have associated "valuing (or not valuing) originality" with one (or more) of the +/- dichotomies for particular IM elements. Whichever one(s) it is, ILEs and IEIs must share it. (That's my guess anyway.)

Remembering the type descriptions you posted before it seems like you would often say something along the lines of "like Xs, Ys have -Wi, and therefore like Xs, Ys enjoy staring at the wall for long periods of time." (Where X and Y are 2 different socionics types and Wi is an IM element)

Now I feel like you're saying, "both Xs and Ys value staring at the wall for long periods of time. It's a fact. They can't each value this and not value the same IM element (the one contributing to a fondness for staring at walls). Therefore, both Xs and Ys have (or, rather "value") the -Wi, and that's why they love staring at walls. This is the fundamental principle behind everything I've been saying all along!"

But it seems that you created these definitions/associations in the first place, and this post of yours is just you verifying your own reasoning to yourself. What I don't see is where it actually connects to the real world.

I mean, if I decide that a=b in my own mind (not based on anything real or sufficiently verified), and then come across the revelation that b=a in my mind as well, that doesn't mean that b and a are *actually* equivalent, just that it's consistent in my own mind the way I defined it.

I can't seem to connect to your ideas for the most part because of this sort of thing... I feel like you arbitrarily define things, and then prove it backwards and forwards to yourself in this "I believe it, therefore it is" sort of way... and then you come up with stuff like all ESIs are hateful and bitter (because they value the + or - whatever)... And then I have a hard time seeing any validity in it at all.

Also, I don't see why valuing originality has to stem from valuing a particular IM element. I also get the feeling that you think that everything under the sun can be explained via Socionics... and I don't think that everything can be (at least not well)... For instance, I think that anyone can "value originality" or be "original" or "non-conformist" (etc.) regardless of their type... although the *way* in which they are or aren't original may be colored by their type...

Maybe it depends on what specifically you mean by "originality."

[tcaudilllg]

When I see Joy, I don't see someone who is particularly "original"; rather, I see someone who has a J.S. Bach kind of scrupulousness about her, someone who is so thorough in what she does that she leaves essentially nothing unsaid. On the other hand looking at discojoe, I see a sense of originality in that he tries funny as hell. Is he original though? Certainly he comes up with original creations, even if his actual methods are lacking in originality. So which are you defining as original, product or method?

[Hitta]

by original I mean singularity. -Ni/+Ne types like to stand out, they like to be viewed as unique or jawdropping, and they usually value things that are. Its neither process or result, its psychological need in comparison to other people. +Ne/-Ni types want to be original. There is a difference though between wanting to be original and actually being original. Information elements do not 100% directly cause results. ENTjs and INTjs may actually do similar things, but they have different needs and different processes.


On another note, I have postulated that Judging functions are the processes, and perceiving functions are the goals. Everyone has 4 functions in their ego block; an EJ, EP, IJ, and IP.

EJ is the method in which we do things or what we do on the exterior.
EP is how we view the exterior, in relative or absolutist manner.
IJ is what we actually do, the internal state. This is the function that dominates our thought processes. Everything we are internally is this function.
IP is what we want to be, or what we view. This is our goal for ourselves. This is what we want to be.

THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF MY THEORY ON INFORMATION METABOLISM.
Every single human being occupies all 4 spaces. Every single human being has to have all 4 of these functions. If you think about how the functions work you would realize this.

It is impossible for a human being to not prefer originality or normalness, analytical or systematic, chaotic or maintained. A person HAS TO VALUE EVERY FUNCTION. There is a side for everyone. I don't see how people can't see this. I keep getting people here to argue with me about it, and they don't even have a reason why I am wrong. I know my model is better than the other one. The old model is asymmetrical. The functions in the old model sound as if people lack antithesis to their ideas. Their is always a counter. If two people value originality, they have to value the same function otherwise there is a duplicate function. For some reason, the people here are possessed that Ni means originality and Ne means originality. The 7 function supposed to be the persons opposite. So if originality is the basic function of a person, how is the persons antithesis originality?!?!? Think please.

[liveandletlive]

ure confusing IM elements and functions. An ENTp's leading function is and an INFj's creative function is . So although they both value and use that as their primary perceiving element, because it is in two different places in each type's Model A, they both use it differently. Also,I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at by saying we value all of the IM elements. If we were to value all of our elements then there would be no Model A or intertype relations or quadras. Everyone would get along swell with everyone and think that what everyone was saying was valid and helpful and useful. This is obviously not the case. Have you ever sat down and had a heart to heart with your conflict or your supervisor?

[Joy]

If two different types have similarities they have to share a common function. Thats what the concept of function is, differences in behavior. If all the functions were the same they wouldn't be so different would they. So take an ENTp, ENTps value originality. Also, take an INFp, they value originality. How could you possibly say that these two types don't share a link when they both value the same thing. They HAVE to value the same function. It HAS to be this way. If you can't see this, then I am wasting my time. This is the fundamental idea behind all of my ideas. You can't say, while using logic, that two different functions behave the same way. This wouldn't make sense.

Everyone values and uses every information element, but that doesn't mean that they value them all equally. "Value" as defined by the English can confuse things when we talk about "not valuing" an information element. When talking about Socionics, we have to take the word "value" within a particular context. When someone doesn't value an information element, it only means that (s)he values that axis more than the other axis of its kind (rational or irrational).

[Expat]

They HAVE to value the same function. It HAS to be this way. If you can't see this, then I am wasting my time.

Who else writes like that? Let me think, let me think --

And yes -- you're wasting your time.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[krieger]

If two different types have similarities they have to share a common function.

Naw. The small-cycle reinin traits also matter. Contraries and super-ego's have extreme similarities due to having matching Process/Result, Democrat/Aristocrat traits. According to your views they would be the most dissimilar of all types, which is something I'd strongly disagree with.

[UDP]

If two different types have similarities they have to share a common function.

Perhaps you should consider that you are wrong, and play devils advocate on your own theories - instead of making it so that everyone else has to, and as such, they are fools an idiots in your eyes. Don't make belief in your own theory an excuse for avoiding objections to it.

[strrrng]

I mean, if I decide that a=b in my own mind (not based on anything real or sufficiently verified), and then come across the revelation that b=a in my mind as well, that doesn't mean that b and a are *actually* equivalent, just that it's consistent in my own mind the way I defined it.

very good point, and very valid here. one must understand what they are basing conclusions on and be wary not to jump to perceived symmetry too soon, because it is not always accurate.

personally, I think hitta is an original thinker, but too engulfed in socionics to see the big picture with people and also a little too apt to simply define things. I think you take the +/- thing too far.

[Ezra]

If two different types have similarities they have to share a common function. Thats what the concept of function is, differences in behavior. If all the functions were the same they wouldn't be so different would they. So take an ENTp, ENTps value originality. Also, take an INFp, they value originality. How could you possibly say that these two types don't share a link when they both value the same thing. They HAVE to value the same function. It HAS to be this way. If you can't see this, then I am wasting my time. This is the fundamental idea behind all of my ideas. You can't say, while using logic, that two different functions behave the same way. This wouldn't make sense.

Not completely. An IEI values Ni over Ne; an ILE is the opposite.

However, both the IEI and the ILE value Ti and Fe. They are simply inept respectively at using them.

I think you take the +/- thing too far.

I agree. Especially after Expat laid it out for me.

It is not classical socionics. Lay off it, hitta. It doesn't aid the theory in any way.

[aestrivex]

hypothesis: Ti is toroidal-X-paramagnetic and Te is phlegmatic-anti/X-diamagnetic.

[aestrivex]

hypothesis: Ti is toroidal-X-paramagnetic and Te is phlegmatic-anti/X-diamagnetic.

it is also interesting to note that if the above hypothesis is circumscribed about a prismatic hypercube of para-diradial eccentricity = 6, the resultant antivector is the p-adic extension of the cross product of the diverging angular momenta and the inverse magnetic field.

[Hitta]

dumb practical mathematician

[Jonathan]

If two different types have similarities they have to share a common function. Thats what the concept of function is, differences in behavior. If all the functions were the same they wouldn't be so different would they. So take an ENTp, ENTps value originality. Also, take an INFp, they value originality. How could you possibly say that these two types don't share a link when they both value the same thing. They HAVE to value the same function. It HAS to be this way. If you can't see this, then I am wasting my time. This is the fundamental idea behind all of my ideas. You can't say, while using logic, that two different functions behave the same way. This wouldn't make sense.

Your logic overall makes sense, to the extent that your system has a certain internal consistency. But your premises are very specific, and it may be a mistake to equate them fully with that of other Socionic systems.

One thing I'm sure you can understand is that there are some qualities that may not be type-related. For example, some ENTps have red hair, and some INFps do too, but that doesn't mean it's because their ego block functions match.

Also, a core postulate in traditional Socionics is that Xe and Xi have similarities....that is, Ne and Ni have some things in common. If it weren't so, there would be no basis for the concept in Model A that one's 7th and 8th functions are "strong" (though not quadra values). The idea that they're strong comes from the idea that, for example, if one is capable at Ni, one must also be capable at Ne (even if one doesn't chose to emphasize it), because they're so inter-related. I understand that statement make little sense in the context of your system, because in your system it doesn't make sense to talk about IM elements without a + or - sign, and because your system defines the IM elements more as overall values, and not as much as specific cognitive skills. But the point is that if you think outside your specific system, then it is entirely possible to conceive of similarities between types that aren't due to having the same IM elements in the ego-block or as quadra-values.

That doesn't mean that you're wrong to want to conceive of a system where all key similarities in the areas you're interested in are produced by matching quadra values. But it won't necessarily match the Socionics other people are talking about, particularly since a lot of people wouldn't necessary agree with your observations regarding which types are "original" and which ones aren't.

[strrrng]

one must not aim for symmetry in the sacrifice of accuracy

[Jonathan]

By the way, another possibility....just to show that there are others....is that the thing that makes ENTp and INFp seem "original" in the way you're talking about really is a common IM Element, but Fe rather than "+Ne". It could be that because both value Fe, they seem enthusiastic about ideas, whereas INTps and ENTjs may actually be original but seem critical rather than enthusiastic, which may appear as not valuing originality, but because of Te rather than because of "-Ne."

[strrrng]

I don't get how you can say ENTp and INFp both value originality because they both value +Ne. The only +Ne for INFp is due to some dichotomy shit that isn't even that reliable. hitta acts like just because one actually has a function they must value it very much. The INFp values Ni. Ne is ENTp's base! they focus on new possibilities, searching for the unknown. Look at quada values. there's a lot of stuff that trumps the +/- system, especially the whole -x/+y thing.

[Jonathan]

I don't get how you can say ENTp and INFp both value originality because they both value +Ne. The only +Ne for INFp is due to some dichotomy shit that isn't even that reliable. hitta acts like just because one actually has a function they must value it very much. The INFp values Ni. Ne is ENTp's base! they focus on new possibilities, searching for the unknown. Look at quada values. there's a lot of stuff that trumps the +/- system, especially the whole -x/+y thing.

I actually don't have a problem with hitta personally observing that INFps may value originality. The problem is that people rely so much on their own personal observations of the small number of people that they know and believe they've typed correctly that it's hard to say who's right.

In any case, I'm not even so sure that the definition of Ne as focusing on new possibilities and searching for the unknown is completely accurate, although it certainly is ingrained in Socionics. There are a few different views on this.

[tcaudilllg]

I don't get how you can say ENTp and INFp both value originality because they both value +Ne. The only +Ne for INFp is due to some dichotomy shit that isn't even that reliable. hitta acts like just because one actually has a function they must value it very much. The INFp values Ni. Ne is ENTp's base! they focus on new possibilities, searching for the unknown. Look at quada values. there's a lot of stuff that trumps the +/- system, especially the whole -x/+y thing.

I actually don't have a problem with hitta personally observing that INFps may value originality. The problem is that people rely so much on their own personal observations of the small number of people that they know and believe they've typed correctly that it's hard to say who's right.

In any case, I'm not even so sure that the definition of Ne as focusing on new possibilities and searching for the unknown is completely accurate, although it certainly is ingrained in Socionics. There are a few different views on this.

apparently has several different modes. If complimented by , it can provide depictions of potential energy. It can also act on 's behest as a ward against looming threats, following intuition in ways best described as very mysterious. (I do this a lot; in fact, I select when to play a given RPG based on intuition and my position on the larger timeline of my life.)

Now about the +/- thing, I do not in my experience seem to switch between - and +; rather, is a kind of advisor, like a guide as to what to think about. "X concept just so happens to be profitable at this point in time to have understanding of, so I'll think about it", is how I go about using my base function. But the two are working together, in an advisor-decider role. When I'm in transcendent mode, I'm focusing on where there is no opportunity for profit at all, and setting my mind to work countering that situation. Things always get dicey when I'm thinking like that though, because my creative elements seem to end up in conflict with each other. Still working on how those battles play out, though hitta's work is helping a great deal with that.