Those definitions don't seem sound to me, and I've always had a problem with referring to Te as "business logic" for example. I mean come on, how many Betas do you see on CNBC analyzing business stuff, or even Deltas for that same matter? Or some ISTj accountant, or even ESFj or INTj or ESTj. - it's something multiple types can do fairly reasonably.Originally Posted by hitta
And, I think DarkAngelFireWolf69 fails to show how these things are actually part of the information elements of socionics. If you want to throw out the information elements, that's fine - but in so doing, you're not talking about socionics anymore. You're creating a theory about something else.
I will take to these definitions DarkAngelFireWolf69 provides when I can see how they tie to the information elements, AND when I see other traits listed - OTHER than universal traits that pretty much any person could do.
I think a serious problem arises especially when you use these traits in describing inter-type relations, where you start to see HUGE inconsistencies when observing ACTUAL PEOPLE.
Also, I've noticed that when you decide something is a certain way (such as when you were discussing symbols), you seem to be unreceptive to alternative considerations, and so locked into a certain viewpoint that you ignore information that would challenge the notions you've accepted and literally turned into cement - like static to the extreme. So you may want to be aware of that and use Ne a little bit - I know you can - you're a Ti INTj (NOT some INFp as some bizarre claim states) - and just maybe consider HOW alternative information can be worked into your understanding. Then compare the considerations with experiences from reality, and if it doesn't check out - THEN you can dismiss it.
In terms of the symbols thing, I think looking at something for pure visual stimulation isn't a symbol. Minde nailed that point:
I also think it is important to differentiate between different levels of symbolism. The way I'm perceiving it (correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to be under the notion that symbols are ALL simplistic or 1 to 1 or something close to it. I would say that the meaning people attach to visual images can be fairly complex, while something like a number is fairly simple. One means one, not zero, not two, not more or less than one, etc. So that's fairly simple. But most people's thinking isn't this simple. Sure, we use words as symbols to represent ideas, but the way a person processes information is certainly not a 1 to 1 type thing. Check out some info on "holonomic brain theory".
But seriously, chill out with this 1 to 1 stuff - you're creating a limiting and imprisoning conception of human reality.
Reply With Quote
.
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"
