Ezra is Gamma

[Ezra]

The solution here is to observe people with Fi and Fe, and those who seek these functions.

How can we observe something if we don't understand what it is?

[olduser]

you remind me of this guy. i think you could be gamma. the money thing is really telling.

[Phaedrus]

The phrase, as it stands, is Ti. It makes no difference what he's thinking and what type he is.

No phrase is Ti or some other function -- ever -- and it doesn't matter how it stands. Expat is, as always, confusing his interpretation of a language expression with the real thing.

Whether the phrase is, or is not, Ti depends solely on what goes on in Ezra's head. Any phrase can indicate any function depending on the context.

A language phrase is not identical to a function. And that Expat believes that to use the phrase Ezra in fact used in that context is a strong indication of Ti is irrelevant. It might still not be Ti. We simply don't know for sure, unless we can actually look into Ezra's head.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

No phrase is Ti or some other function -- ever -- and it doesn't matter how it stands. Expat is, as always, confusing his interpretation of a language expression with the real thing.

Whether the phrase is, or is not, Ti depends solely on what goes on in Ezra's head. Any phrase can indicate any function depending on the context.
A language phrase is not identical to a function. And that Expat believes that to use the phrase Ezra in fact used in that context is a strong indication of Ti is irrelevant. It might still not be Ti. We simply don't know for sure, unless we can actually look into Ezra's head.

Yep. Pretty much what I said. A sentence is not Ti, surely it is the processes involved to reach a conclusion that we could monitor as the function(s) utilised.

I think I see what Expat means, but its confusing. Anyone could say that sentence, whatever the function used.

[Phaedrus]

Yep. Pretty much what I said. A sentence is not Ti, surely it is the processes involved to reach a conclusion that we could monitor as the function(s) utilised.

Yes. This is exactly what I have been trying to get people on this forum to understand -- the distinction between language meaning and the object out there in the world that the word/symbol/expression refers to.

The language expression "Ti" and the symbol "" with the same meaning both refer to the same object (which in this case might be a process), and it is that object or process or whatever it is that is Ti/. And the difficulty people, including Expat, seem to have here is to realize that Ti is not the same thing as "Ti". The former is part of the physical (or at least the psychological) world and it exists in people's brains, whereas the latter is an abstract entity that is a part of our language(s). It is extremely important to be clear about this.

I think I see what Expat means, but its confusing. Anyone could say that sentence, whatever the function used.

Yes, you are right and Expat is confused.

[Brilliand]

The language expression "Ti" and the symbol "" with the same meaning both refer to the same object (which in this case might be a process), and it is that object or process or whatever it is that is Ti/. And the difficulty people, including Expat, seem to have here is to realize that Ti is not the same thing as "Ti". The former is part of the physical (or at least the psychological) world and it exists in people's brains, whereas the latter is an abstract entity that is a part of our language(s). It is extremely important to be clear about this.

That's the idea of differentiating elements from aspects. It is certainly true that a given sentence can provide more information of one aspect than of another... although it is also true that the information provided is not necessarily what was meant. In the same way, the elements we use to interpret a sentence are not necessarily the best ones for the purpose - they may just be our favorites.

[inumbra]

I'm confident I could convince you that I'm a logical type. But just briefly, if I have Fe, I should also have a pretty good understanding of Fi. I know what Salawa means; after reading socionics for almost a year, I have a pretty good understanding of functions like Te, Ti, Se and Si, and yet I am pretty fucking clueless when it comes to Fi. And I'm the kind of person who can normally very easily grasp concepts that apply to me, so there's no reason why socionics should be an exception. And it's funny how I understand Se, Si, Te and Ti the most, and people think I'm an SLE. I don't know, it could just be a coincidence, but I think I may just be poor in Fi, desiring of Fe, and adept in Se, Ti, Te and Si, even if I don't value the latter two functions.

1. In general, I easily grasp concepts that apply to me.
2. I have developed a good understanding of Te, Ti, Se, and Si.
3. I still do not have any understanding of what Fi is.
4. (implied) According to model A, if you are strong in Xe, you must also be strong in Xi.

=> 5. By 1, 3 and 4... If I "have" (or am strong in) Xe, then I also must "have" Xi... In which case I would have a good understanding of Xi (as well as Xe). I have a poor understanding of Fi and how it applies to me... therefore I can't "have" Fe (or Fi).

=> 6. By 1 and 2... it seems I'm strong in (or "have") Te, Ti, Se, and Si (because I was able to easily understand them as they apply to me).

7. Most people think I'm SLE (a type strong in Te, Ti, Se, and Si).

=> 8. By 6 and 7, it seems very likely that I'm strong in Te, Ti, Se, and Si... both by my own experience and by what others have observed of me, though...

(9. It could all be a coincidence.)

I realize that if completely removed from the context, associating the phrase in bold with an IM element () might be kind of sketchy. But regardless of what specifically Ezra was thinking, how is the sort of reasoning outlined above not of a nature?

NOTE: I am not trying to make any claims that what I attempted to outline is what went on in Ezra's mind...

ETA: And even if it is of a nature... how much (if anything) would that say about the one who posted it?

[Phaedrus]

That's the idea of differentiating elements from aspects.

If that is true, how do you define the difference between an "element" and an "aspect"?

It is certainly true that a given sentence can provide more information of one aspect than of another...

And what exactly is an aspect in his particular context?

although it is also true that the information provided is not necessarily what was meant.

It is not clear to me what you mean here.

In the same way, the elements we use to interpret a sentence are not necessarily the best ones for the purpose - they may just be our favorites.

When you put it this way, it seems as though you by the word "element" mean the process in our head (for example the referent to the symbol "Ti" that I was talking about earlier). Is that correct?

But if so, what exactly do you then mean by the word "aspect"? Is it really the case that people by "aspects" only mean indications of the existence of an element? Or do you mean something else? Because if we by "aspects" refer to indications of, or signs of, thought processes (taking place in people's brains), then Expat is still wrong, because every sign, every indication, must be interpreted, and every interpretation can be wrong, which means that it is still incorrect to talk about it in the way he always does. And if so, it also means that my (and Cyclop's) take on it is the correct one.

[Brilliand]

If that is true, how do you define the difference between an "element" and an "aspect"?

An element is the process in the brain, whereas an aspect is the type of information that that process handles.

It is not clear to me what you mean here.

When Ezra uses his dominant function (or whatever) to make a statement, he may unconsciously mix in other aspects that are beside the point - particularly (I would guess) those from his vital ring. If someone picks up on one of those aspects while ignoring the one he was focusing on, that person would be missing his point - even if Ezra doesn't mind.

When you put it this way, it seems as though you by the word "element" mean the process in our head (for example the referent to the symbol "Ti" that I was talking about earlier). Is that correct?

Yes.

But if so, what exactly do you then mean by the word "aspect"? Is it really the case that people by "aspects" only mean indications of the existence of an element? Or do you mean something else? Because if we by "aspects" refer to indications of, or signs of, thought processes (taking place in people's brains), then Expat is still wrong, because every sign, every indication, must be interpreted, and every interpretation can be wrong, which means that it is still incorrect to talk about it in the way he always does. And if so, it also means that my (and Cyclop's) take on it is the correct one.

The aspect is the type of information that the element most easily interprets. As I understand it, there is a real difference in types of information, which largely determines which elements we use for a given task.

Also, information seems to be "tagged" with the functions, in that it comes out differently (different quantity and entropy, so to speak) depending on which function is associated with each element. But now I'm well into my own ideas, so I'd best stop.

[Phaedrus]

An element is the process in the brain, whereas an aspect is the type of information that that process handles.

Good. We agree to mean by the word "element" whatever process (or whatever it is) that is taking place in the brain. But then I wonder if you realize that, if you by the word "aspect" mean "the type of information that that process handles", you are referring to something that is not the same thing as a language expression or a piece of a language expression. An "aspect" now becomes another objective factor -- information -- and Expat's (or anyone else's) interpretation of a piece of language is still not in itself necessarily a correct representation of that information aspect. You still need to interpret what you observe in order to get to the real thing -- the aspect (the type of objective information).

When Ezra uses his dominant function (or whatever) to make a statement, he may unconsciously mix in other aspects that are beside the point - particularly (I would guess) those from his vital ring. If someone picks up on one of those aspects while ignoring the one he was focusing on, that person would be missing his point - even if Ezra doesn't mind.

Yes, but we still don't know whether that "someone" (for example Expat) is picking up what is really taking place in Ezra's brain, or whether Expat's interpretation of what type of information Ezra's brain is analyzing is incorrect. There is no way out; you are always interpreting what you observe, and Expat's statement is not necessarily correct. Expat believes (here I am interpreting what one of Expat's language expressions indicates about what is taking place in Expat's brain) that it really is Ti, but if he is right in that claim, then it must really be a Ti aspect that Ezra is analyzing -- which is still not the same thing as a language expression.

The aspect is the type of information that the element most easily interprets. As I understand it, there is a real difference in types of information, which largely determines which elements we use for a given task.

Also, information seems to be "tagged" with the functions, in that it comes out differently (different quantity and entropy, so to speak) depending on which function is associated with each element. But now I'm well into my own ideas, so I'd best stop.

We are really talking about different things here. You say yourself that an "aspect is the type of information that the element most easily interprets". But by saying that, you seem to be confusing the concept "information" with the your own interpretation in the same way Expat is confusing things. It is not the type of information that the element interprets, it is a string of words that the element interprets. A string of words is not information until it is interpreted correctly, because a string of words is -- in itself -- essentially meaningless.

The meaning of that string of words is dependent on what kind of meaning the person who wrote them wanted to attach to them. A correct theory of language meaning is intentionalist. But Expat (and maybe you too) seem to be a proponent of an externalist theory of meaning according to which a string of words, a language expression, has a meaning in itself that is independent of what the speaker/writer intended to convey. Such an externalist theory of meaning essentially dismisses the context as irrelevant, pretty much in the exact same way as Expat is dimissing what other people say about what intentions they had when they wrote the text that Expat interprets. He seem to think that his interpretation is more relevant, and that it can so to say "overrule" what was going on in people's brains when they wrote the text. And that is one of Expat's biggest mistakes, both in terms of having a correct view on language and language meaning and in terms of using a reliable typing method, because such an externalist theory of meaning inevitably fails.

Expat is confusing his own interpretation with the external object. He doesn't seem to be able to see that they are not necessarily identical. And since they are not necessarily identical, many of Expat's conclusions about what types people are (based on his interpretations of what functions they have used in their posts) are simply incorrect, because his conclusions do not follow logically from the premises.

[Shazaam]

Oh dear. Another day, another mental masturbation.

For what it's worth (absolutely nothing ;p), I usually agree with Phaedrus and I kinda wish he had more support but then again, Expat can surprise me sometimes with how smart he is too. I would just like to say that I like Expat's direct, concrete knowledge and ability to discern accurate information from facts (if that makes sense) and I like Phaedrus' ability to understand love and general concepts waaaay better.

*humbly grazes flowers in the field with dolphin* =p

My attempt at mental masturbation:

The processing of the integral 'mindsglhssfjv' or like some Russian prostitute you just met and want to throat fuck, is diluted from the fact that she is without a doubt- a filthy dyke. Taking into further context within itself, not joking even when one tries to humorize - intense seriousness of the matters, relates to Expat - or as we all know 'The Second coming of ******.' Picking on good-natured idealistic college students seems to be specialties of the Gamma quadrant and all [blablabla russian masturbatory text], as they devoid all types of lesuire and excellent hearted-ness preferring to be like a Fat White Greedy Republican Anti-Joo at all costs, totally annoying the Fags and the Liberals - everybody else that actually acquires the True Soul. The processing Mind Soul, or hidden soul- delved deep, is a neurotic charateristic of the chamberisms of Fi. These are the types that think they are correct when they stab people or put them in concentration camps. Scary, albeit in an easily-made-fun-of-way. As such 'mindsghllsflv' like some Russian prostitute you want to throat fuck, just needs to get laid and learn how to dance.