Opposite temperaments - same quadra

[Expat]

Phaedrus, I think what he meant was that the intertype relationships come from studying how the functions should work together, not from trying every possible combination of people and seeing what happens.

Well I don't want to speak for Ezra but I've said similar things as he did, and what I meant by "intertype relationships = functions" is this.

In socionics - as opposed to Jung's typology - the functions and intertype relationships can't be separated. That is, any understanding of, say, as the dominant function of SLEs and SEEs must include the understanding of why that is precisely what IEIs and ILIs crave in others, and what LIIs and EIIs dislike or dismiss in others; and what LIEs and EIEs value but are not confident in. A definition, and an understanding, of in socionics must explain all of the above and more - indeed, for all 16 types. And that goes for all 8 functions.

[Blaze]

What Brilliand said; what you quoted; that was totally right.

did you read what you wrote??? move much?

[Phaedrus]

The body type is not inborn - it is caused, over time, by the working of the brain type. I just meant that the body shape most likely isn't a genetic feature caused by the same genes that cause the brain type.

This is becoming ridiculous. How confused are you, really? Your body type is 100 % inborn. Period.

We have how few genes? The number of genes we have is insane. I don't think it's time to start calling them limited yet. Current estimates are in the 20,000 to 25,000 range - based on brief research, so I'd be willing to consider another number, if you have a source.

I accept that number. It doesn't matter if they are some 10,000 more or so, the number is way to small anyway. With so few genes it is inevitable that two or more of your traits, including the ones in your personality, have to be linked to the same gene, causing a strong correlation between your physical look and your personality. That is the general reason why V.I. works.

You consider yourself ILI, right?

No. I don't consider myself ILI. I recognize myself as ILI. It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of knowledge.

Let's take, for the sake of argument, me as the canonical LII and you as the canonical ILI.

What do you mean by "canonical" in this context? I'm not sure I would consider myself to be a canonical ILI. And I don't have an opinion on what type you might be. As long as I don't find conclusive evidence against LII, I will not dispute your self-typing as LII.

In that case, you are completely unyielding and confident, while I am more in search of absolutes, sometimes rejecting things just because they don't seem absolute enough. on my part and on your part, perhaps? (Breaking things down to the functions will allow me to apply them to all types, in different ways)

It is certainly not on my part. Don't speculate about which functions are involved if you don't know what you're doing.

I consider them sufficient to differentiate "God" from "not God" and "soul" from "not soul." Anything beyond those definitions is a description, and can be disputed without disputing the existence of God or souls.

Let's begin to take a closer look at your "definitions", then.

God: Creator of the universe

A creator is by definition an agent. And an agent is by definition a person, or at least a subject. It is not merely an object that is caused to behave in a certain way. A creator is some sort of person with some sort of intention(s). And every intention, and every act performed by a subject (person), exists in time by definition. It is not possible to imagine an act, or a thought, that is outside of time, because these concepts are both logically connected to the concept time. So, if God really is the creator of the universe, that creator created the universe at some point in time. And that implies, by logical necessity, that time itself must have existed before the creation of the universe -- an assumption that is questionable in light of modern physics but of course not therefore necessarily false.

Do you agree with my analysis so far?


Soul: Part of a human that is capable of consciousness after the body dies

What do you mean by "a human"? It must something different from a body, mustn't it? But what exactly is it? And what is a consciousness? What is that "soul" (consciousness) made of? Since it is, according to you, a part of a human, it must consist of something, and that something exists in time (by logical necessity), because the concept concsiousness is necessarily connected to the concept time. Everything in a consciousness is time related. Thoughts, feelings, etc. cannot exist outside of time. Can we agree on that?

I'm not familiar with those, but from brief research, it looks like Jung's eight types are the eight functions.

They are not. Not any more than the LII is the functions and , and the ILI is the functions and .

Ah - Ti/Ni conflict. By "basis," I mean the most thorough and concise explanation that resulted from the work, not the first step. Usually the first step is a horrible mess.

What you call "basis" here is what I would call "explanation", but English is not my native language. I thought "basis" was used as roughly a synonym for "foundation" or "ground".

Brain structures are not part of Socionics, it's just that most of us hope that they are related in some way.

However, my position is that Socionics stands on its own axioms, and may be useful or useless depending on how well it matches reality.

Socionics as a theory stands on its own axioms. But the big question is whether that theory is a correct explanation of reality. The types are independent of the theory, and they can be observed (and have been observed) before Socionics (the theoretical explanation of the observed types) was invented.

[Joy]

Socionics as a theory stands on its own axioms. But the big question is whether that theory is a correct explanation of reality. The types are independent of the theory, and they can be observed (and have been observed) before Socionics (the theoretical explanation of the observed types) was invented.

Yes and no. Similar traits have been described in different theories, but no two have been exactly alike.

[Ezra]

did you read what you wrote??? move much?

Eh?

[Phaedrus]

Yes and no. Similar traits have been described in different theories, but no two have been exactly alike.

That is totally irrelevant to what I actually said.

[Brilliand]

This is becoming ridiculous. How confused are you, really? Your body type is 100 % inborn. Period.

Many things about how your body develops depend on how it's treated. And posture is almost entirely mental.

My point is that your type genes do not necessarily cause a certain appearance - I agree that VI can often work, I was just questioning your reasoning.

I accept that number. It doesn't matter if they are some 10,000 more or so, the number is way to small anyway. With so few genes it is inevitable that two or more of your traits, including the ones in your personality, have to be linked to the same gene, causing a strong correlation between your physical look and your personality. That is the general reason why V.I. works.

Socionics type requires only four genes, maybe less. Also, many of our visible traits are nurture, not nature - not everything takes up gene space. I think it makes sense to assume that we have as many genes as we need for all of our traits - there's no need for genes to do double duty.

No. I don't consider myself ILI. I recognize myself as ILI. It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of knowledge.

Very well.

What do you mean by "canonical" in this context? I'm not sure I would consider myself to be a canonical ILI. And I don't have an opinion on what type you might be. As long as I don't find conclusive evidence against LII, I will not dispute your self-typing as LII.

I mean someone I can study to make general inferences about the type. If you are the type at all, I don't see why you wouldn't serve.

God: Creator of the universe

A creator is by definition an agent. And an agent is by definition a person, or at least a subject. It is not merely an object that is caused to behave in a certain way. A creator is some sort of person with some sort of intention(s). And every intention, and every act performed by a subject (person), exists in time by definition. It is not possible to imagine an act, or a thought, that is outside of time, because these concepts are both logically connected to the concept time. So, if God really is the creator of the universe, that creator created the universe at some point in time. And that implies, by logical necessity, that time itself must have existed before the creation of the universe -- an assumption that is questionable in light of modern physics but of course not therefore necessarily false.

Do you agree with my analysis so far?

I disagree that an act must exist within time. I have in fact imagined actions outside of time - it could have to do with me being static. The actions can have locations in time, from time's perspective (in which case most of them will come at the beginning), but time is not necessary for decisions, so long as those decisions do not change.

Soul: Part of a human that is capable of consciousness after the body dies

What do you mean by "a human"? It must something different from a body, mustn't it? But what exactly is it? And what is a consciousness? What is that "soul" (consciousness) made of? Since it is, according to you, a part of a human, it must consist of something, and that something exists in time (by logical necessity), because the concept concsiousness is necessarily connected to the concept time. Everything in a consciousness is time related. Thoughts, feelings, etc. cannot exist outside of time. Can we agree on that?

Sorry, no. While I would like to think that our consciousness is based in time, it is not necessary to the definition.

They are not. Not any more than the LII is the functions and , and the ILI is the functions and .

They are. Well, not precisely... but close enough that I would use them interchangeably.

What you call "basis" here is what I would call "explanation", but English is not my native language. I thought "basis" was used as roughly a synonym for "foundation" or "ground".

It is. I consider the pared-down logical system the foundation.

Socionics as a theory stands on its own axioms. But the big question is whether that theory is a correct explanation of reality. The types are independent of the theory, and they can be observed (and have been observed) before Socionics (the theoretical explanation of the observed types) was invented.

OK - so you are using methods that are not necessarily tied to Socionics to do Socionic typings, and you accuse us of ignorance because we follow the theory more closely?

Socionics has its own understanding of the types that defines the types in terms of the functions. Other understandings of the types may not fit under Socionics.

[Phaedrus]

Many things about how your body develops depend on how it's treated. And posture is almost entirely mental.

My point is that your type genes do not necessarily cause a certain appearance - I agree that VI can often work, I was just questioning your reasoning.

Everything you mention here is irrelevant. A body type is not an individual body, and it has nothing at all to do with postures. You haven't done your homework.

Socionics type requires only four genes, maybe less.

How do you know that? (Another problem is that what you say here is so close to total crap that I am beginning to lose my patience with you.)

Also, many of our visible traits are nurture, not nature - not everything takes up gene space.

Everything that has to do with our type is 100 % nature, 100 % inborn. Other visable traits not related to type are of course irrelevant.

I think it makes sense to assume that we have as many genes as we need for all of our traits - there's no need for genes to do double duty.

You are an ignorant idiot. You don't know a shit what you are talking about here. How the hell can you pretend to know anything about this subject when the fact is that you are just bluffing? What you say here is completely false. Now, please do some study on subjects in which you have opinions.

I mean someone I can study to make general inferences about the type. If you are the type at all, I don't see why you wouldn't serve.

Of course you can do that.

I disagree that an act must exist within time.

You can't disagree with that. It's a logical necessity that an act exists in time. You simply don't understand the meaning of the word "act" if you say such bullshit as you do here.

I have in fact imagined actions outside of time - it could have to do with me being static.

You have not imagined actions outside of time, because that is logically impossibly. If you are a lunatic you might have thought that you have imagined it, but you haven't. There is really nothing more to say about this. Your thinking is muddled and you accept logical contradictions, which makes you look like a retard. Your IQ can't be that high if you really believe that what you say here is true.

The actions can have locations in time, from time's perspective (in which case most of them will come at the beginning), but time is not necessary for decisions, so long as those decisions do not change.

This is sheer nonsense. Your thinking is logically incoherent and muddled.

Sorry, no. While I would like to think that our consciousness is based in time, it is not necessary to the definition.

Yes, it is. Now, please try to understand that you are totally wrong about what you say here. You are totally illogical in your thinking. Your brain doesn't function properly. Fix it. Now.

I consider the pared-down logical system the foundation.

Think again, then. Because you are wrong about that.

OK - so you are using methods that are not necessarily tied to Socionics to do Socionic typings, and you accuse us of ignorance because we follow the theory more closely?

No. That is not what I said. Read it again.

Socionics has its own understanding of the types that defines the types in terms of the functions. Other understandings of the types may not fit under Socionics.

That does not contradict what I have said about the types.

[Slacker]

I'm putting that last reply on my list of posts that show Phaedus is ISTj.

[Phaedrus]

I'm putting that last reply on my list of posts that show Phaedus is ISTj.

Your ability to be wrong about almost everything you happen to have an opinion on and the amount of logical errors in your reasonings are simply astoninishing. You are definitely the ENFp with the least probability of getting it right that I have ever come across.

[Slacker]

Your ability to be wrong about almost everything you happen to have an opinion on and the amount of logical errors in your reasonings are simply astoninishing. You are definitely the ENFp with the least probability of getting it right that I have ever come across.

Since this comes from you, it is a double negative, and therefore becomes a huge compliment. Thank you!

[Ezra]

I'm putting that last reply on my list of posts that show Phaedus is ISTj.

Nicky, I'm really at a loss as to where you see the Ti with Phaedrus. There simply isn't any. He's an idiot.

[Phaedrus]

Since this comes from you, it is a double negative, and therefore becomes a huge compliment. Thank you!

You're welcome!

Nicky, I'm really at a loss as to where you see the Ti with Phaedrus. There simply isn't any. He's an idiot.

It is actually true that I am more likely an idiot than an ISTj.

[Slacker]

Nicky, I'm really at a loss as to where you see the Ti with Phaedrus. There simply isn't any. He's an idiot.

Not all ISTjs are smart.

[Brilliand]

I'm putting that last reply on my list of posts that show Phaedus is ISTj.

Are you sure he isn't just using because I'm using ?

But he is using .

Everything you mention here is irrelevant. A body type is not an individual body, and it has nothing at all to do with postures. You haven't done your homework.

My point is: It is unlikely that the brain type genes are also body type genes (in any visible way). I mentioned the irrelevant stuff to show that I don't consider VI total bunk.

How do you know that? (Another problem is that what you say here is so close to total crap that I am beginning to lose my patience with you.)

Four dichotomies are sufficient to store a socionic type. One gene is enough to express one dichotomy, maybe even two.

Everything that has to do with our type is 100 % nature, 100 % inborn. Other visable traits not related to type are of course irrelevant.

I would expect that visible traits related to type are never inborn, simply because information processing and body type are two very different things. Any correlations that have been discovered are most likely nurture, from the way they have treated their own bodies.

You are an ignorant idiot. You don't know a shit what you are talking about here. How the hell can you pretend to know anything about this subject when the fact is that you are just bluffing? What you say here is completely false. Now, please do some study on subjects in which you have opinions.

It's a conclusion. Consider whatever created humans - God, evolution, doesn't matter which. Would it have started with a set number of genes and fit as much information as it could into those genes, or built up the complete species using as many genes as necessary? I think it's the latter, in case any complaints about having too few genes make no sense.

You can't disagree with that. It's a logical necessity that an act exists in time. You simply don't understand the meaning of the word "act" if you say such bullshit as you do here.

Then let's compare definitions of "act." An act is intentional, and has a result. Anything that is intentional and has a result is an act.

Intentions do not need time to exist, nor do results. The truth of one statement can cause another statement to be true, without any passage of time. For instance, the statements "God is a monkey" and "God created the universe" result in "A monkey created the universe." I didn't have to think through that for it to be true.

You have not imagined actions outside of time, because that is logically impossibly. If you are a lunatic you might have thought that you have imagined it, but you haven't. There is really nothing more to say about this. Your thinking is muddled and you accept logical contradictions, which makes you look like a retard. Your IQ can't be that high if you really believe that what you say here is true.

If I accept contradictions, they aren't contradictions, and I don't much care about contradictions. Logically, I have no good reason to think God can be subjected to either, but he hasn't complained so far.

This is sheer nonsense. Your thinking is logically incoherent and muddled.

My thinking is clear-cut and pure, from my standpoint. I'll accept if you don't want to follow along with , but do not claim that you can disprove God on my terms.

Yes, it is. Now, please try to understand that you are totally wrong about what you say here. You are totally illogical in your thinking. Your brain doesn't function properly. Fix it. Now.

How can you tell me that I've messed up my dominant function? Back down and admit that you can't match me on my own terms. It's no slight to you, it's just that I've trapped you into playing my game.

Think again, then. Because you are wrong about that.

That's like telling a cow to lay an egg.

So you're tracing the history of Socionics every time you type someone?

No. That is not what I said. Read it again.

So you're working from the top down - backwards, from my perspective. I can't in good conscious tell you this is wrong - it seems a terrifically way of doing things. Is that accurate?

[mikemex]

@Phaedrus:

I don't know which type are you (but you seem like an IEE taking a PoLR hit). And it's not something that takes my sleep away at night anyway.

But I would like to remind you that it's up to you where and whom you spend your time with and if you don't choose a receptive audience for your ideas, you're probably just wearing yourself and others. At any moment you can apply self discipline and stop coming here compulsively to answer whatever people tells you. That only reveals that you depend too much on the opinion of other people. You don't come here to discuss ideas as much as you come here trying to prove you're right; or worse, trying to prove that you're not wrong. But believe me, most of them don't really care about you and will not respond in a gently way to you; which it seems it's what you need in a discussion: a friendly ear.

I recommend you to spend more time with your real friends outside the forum, if you have any.

[Phaedrus]

Four dichotomies are sufficient to store a socionic type. One gene is enough to express one dichotomy, maybe even two.

There are a lot of traits linked to each of the four dichotomies. And a socionic type is not the same thing as a combination of dichotomies, even though it can be defined in terms of the four dichotomies.

I would expect that visible traits related to type are never inborn, simply because information processing and body type are two very different things. Any correlations that have been discovered are most likely nurture, from the way they have treated their own bodies.

Visable traits related to type are always inborn. We know that the Fragile X Syndrome, which is linked to autistic traits (though not every autistic person has Fragile X Syndrome), is linked to a different shape of the ears. We know that there is a typical, rather easily recognized, look linked to William's Syndrome, and that that syndrome is linked to a specific gene in around 99 % percent of those who have Williams Syndrome (I recall from memory, so I am not 100 percent sure of the details). Quite recently they have seen clear correlations between personality traits in rats (if I recall correctly) and their looks, etc. There is nothing strange about this. There is no way that our personality traits are not linked to physical, inborn body traits.

Consider whatever created humans - God, evolution, doesn't matter which. Would it have started with a set number of genes and fit as much information as it could into those genes, or built up the complete species using as many genes as necessary? I think it's the latter, in case any complaints about having too few genes make no sense.

By saying that you have now definitely proven that you really are an idiot. Further comments are unnecessary.

An act is intentional, and has a result. Anything that is intentional and has a result is an act.

I can accept that.

Intentions do not need time to exist, nor do results.

But not that, because it is a logical impossibility.

The truth of one statement can cause another statement to be true, without any passage of time.

No, because the concept truth is necessarily timeless, whereas the concept cause is necessarily related to the concept time. To say that a statement (whether true or false) can cause another statement to be true (or false) is nonsense. It is a misuse of language.

For instance, the statements "God is a monkey" and "God created the universe" result in "A monkey created the universe." I didn't have to think through that for it to be true.

What is true (correct) in that is not the statement(s) but the logical implication. Logic is not about truth, it is about consequence. It is about what is a necessary consequence of something else, if so and so is true. Whether the premises in a logically valid argument actually are true is irrelevant.

So you're working from the top down - backwards, from my perspective. I can't in good conscious tell you this is wrong - it seems a terrifically way of doing things. Is that accurate?

More or less. It is a Gamma way of coming to correct conclusions. It doesn't fit leading types very well. But what you don't seem to understand is that this "top down - backwards" way of thinking is deductive logic, not inductive. And yet some people like to say that is deductive logic. Here is an interesting article by Gulenko (followed by some interesting comments by forum members) that clearly touches on the differences in thinking we are discussing here:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=12939

[Kristiina]

So you don't agree with the mirror description?



Maybe you're not an EIE, then.



But you're not, are you? You value and devalue the same functions, are as good and crap as each other at the same functions, but the ordering is different. Your ego blocks are switched around.

I don't care what descriptions say, I am an EIE and you don't have to explain basic socionics to me because I'm well above that knowledge level.

Mirrors might have the same funtions, but in a sense, their world view is upside down. People talk like they're assuming the other person is their dual. For example, you assume I'd react like a friendly and flexible INFp, but I don't react that way. When you talk with an ISTj and assume she's INFp, you're in for a disappointment. You expect them to encourage your ideas, but the ISTj just tells you to be more realistic. The information they give you is something you didn't want to hear. You already knew that but you wanted a different opinion. Your mirror tells you exactly what you knew all along but didn't want to believe. For beta NFs, the mirror magnifies the worrying.