Has your overall condition improved or worsened since your learned about Socionics?

[tcaudilllg]

I do think that there is certainly a place for type even in the eventual discussion of our inner selves. (our society as it stands doesn't really find value in the person for their subjective nature, just as it keeps sociopaths locked up in jail with hardly a second thought). It is fruitless to explain to a person that they need to change their behavior if they cannot understand it as a part of them in the first place. (that's the whole deal with PoLR, after all). This is the problem with even waging the discussion of person at all: we expect people to have complete freedom of choice with regard to their behaviors, but a person who does not even understand the nature of what we want them to stop doing has no way to comply. Before expecting them to, we need to eliminate fear from the social sphere. particularly those who foment it with accusations of ill will. But even these have a reason, in that they are only responses to extremism. We must defeat extremism to irrationalize accusation, which in turn will allow a frank discussion of the self. It's going to take three generations to complete, starting with ours.


Intuition vs N:
Intuition as we think about it is awareness of the duality a given function follows after. (for example, using N to produce that which needed by S)

[Nexus]

To clarify for you, I was being sarcastic about SF types, and not when I said F is not emotion, etc. It isn't.

Here's the basic socionic elements and what they are:

= internal statics of objects
= external statics of objects
= external dynamics of objects
= internal dynamics of objects
= internal dynamics of fields
= external dynamics of fields
= external statics of fields
= internal statics of fields

External means visible, measurable, quantifiable, while internal means invisible, immeasurable unquantifiable, or is sometimes referred to as objective and subjective, but I think this confuses things.

Dynamics is the process, change, movement, while statics is the state, current conditions, snapshot.

Objects are objects: things, people, items. Fields are fields, like a field of static electricity, groups, setting, matrix, relationships.

So? What about rationals, who externally control their emotions? And how are emotions less measurable than thought? I think it's pretty easy to say 'I'm this mad', but not 'I'm this logical'. You're also more likely to tell when someone is sad than when someone is wrong.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Nexus]

Where do you see emotions listed in what I just gave you? And what do you mean about rationals externally controlling their emotions?

Okay, let me give you an example of how this works. I'm which means my main information processing is through backed by, or supported with .

is not emotion, but rather "internal statics of fields"
is the "external statics of objects"

So, we'll talk about how I think about a problem. You hand me a word problem to solve say about 2 trains traveling or something, and rather than using methods like calculations and math as my first choice of solving the problem, I'll draw a picture putting the objects and their relationship to each other down first. I'm visually describing for myself the "external statics of objects" or where/how things are now. I'll go back to the problem to find out where they end up, again using "external statics of objects" and in this case I can't use much "internal statics of fields" because the problem is all objective(there's a measurable quantifiable answer and outcome) so I lean on my role function and figure with basic math the answer.

Now, you hand me a different kind of problem, one for which there is no objectively provable right answer. The first thing I do is determine the "internal statics of fields" or in other words I get a feel for what's going on and see how things lay. I'll take the known facts of the matter, how things are, what's the current situation, or in the case of people the state of each person currently "external statics of objects" coupled with the "internal statics of fields" or the underlying situation and those things not laid out or spoken, and once understanding how things are I can apply past experience to suggest a solution.

Both logical and ethical types can solve both problems. Both sensors and intuitors can solve both problems. In the first instance the logical type may have an advantage, and in the second the ethical type might, but it's not a matter of "thought vs. emotion" but rather a matter of how their thinking is applied.

So are you suggesting that you have to rely on your role function for anything that isn't in your experience? Because nothing is, you must generalize (whether by T or F) the present (as perceived by S or N) for it to seem like the past, but I'm not sure if you would consider the present an object or a field. Should I ask someone with external functions for definitions that don't involve examples?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Nexus]

No. I'm not suggesting that at all. I was suggesting that Ti is in fact better at dealing with things like math than Fi is (which is not to say that Fi types cannot do math, even at complex levels, just that Ti is better suited for solving such problems, just as Fi is better suited for things like poetry even though Ti types can both write and understand it very well also)

And Se is an external function, so what do you mean about the examples?

I'm saying that your examples do not clarify much in the way of the static/dynamic, eternal/internal, and object/field dichotomies, and I thought it was perhaps because your reasoning was internal, because the definitions you gave me were circularly reasoned. To simplify this matter, does poetry act on you by any way that is not emotional and cannot also be described by Ti?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Nexus]

Yes, indeed it does.

Would you care to elaborate, or is this phenomena so internal that you cannot describe it, though you are otherwise sure that it is not emotional (which is something that is also very internal if nothing else and by your own standards).

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Nexus]

While some poems do envoke emotion, and so appeal to my heart, others appeal to my mind and something besides emotion. I feel neither sad nor happy, bewildered, angry or joyful or scared, no emotional response, and still there is meaning, interpretation, and something communicated that cannot be adequately described. Attempts merely hint at the meaning rather than fully disclose it.

And yes before you ask, this is different from intuition.

Well it sounds suspiciously like thinking....in fact, it is! Possibly not coherent thoughts, but it is your own responsibility to have coherent thoughts...

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Nexus]

Ahh, LOL, of COURSE it's thinking! That's what I've been trying to tell you.

So if there are two responses to poetry (thought and emotions) and two functions processing poetry (thinking and feeling), what do you suspect is going on?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Nexus]

There are not two functions processing it. Thinking and feeling are not functions. Fi and Fe are ways of processing thought as much as Te and Ti are ways of processing thought. Fi and Fe are not emotion. Emotion is the reaction people have to events, thoughts, etc, and while it may possibly be easier to handle something as nebulous and slippery as emotion with Fi and Fe, they are not emotion themselves, and Te and Ti are not thought.

Ok, well you lost me.

1. Socionics is a theory to describe the causes of behavior.
2. Thought and emotions cause behavior.
3. ?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

Socionics is about the way people process information.

[Nexus]

Thought can cause emotion, and emotion can cause thought as well, but that doesn't mean anything.

But to go along with you implication there and finish it for you in a different direction than you were trying to lead:

3. The same behaviors can be caused by very different thought patterns and emotional response. And very different behaviors can be caused by the same thought patterns or emotional response.

4. Socionics doesn't describe specific behavior, but instead attempts to explain relationships between people and how the way we process information influences these relationships.

5. There are 8 information elements which describe different aspects of information gathering.

6. The way these elements are arranged and used determine type.

I sincerely loathe to sound like the many people on this forum who make this blatant assertion, but you are mistaken: the temperament has nothing to do with information gathering, it only involves your most general tendencies in the absence of contextual information. Socionics does describe specific behavior, these descriptions are found in the descriptions of the behaviors of each type, each subtype, each quadra, and even the functions themselves. Human relations are only a subset of human behaviors: those that involve other people as opposed to those that do not. Another subset of behaviors is information-gathering, such that you can choose not to gather information, or you can choose to gather information and behave in a way that allows you to do so. A person's holistic behavior pattern is different if it is dominated by thought or emotion, even if there is not enough time for these differences to manifest; however this is irrelevant. Predicting personalities requires definite precursors which can signal the onset of a change in behavior. The two causes of voluntary response addressed in socionics are 'feeling' and 'thinking'.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

It wouldn't make a difference, aside from making me sound like I'm talking about pop MBTT instead of Socionics. Equating Fe/Fi with "feelings" is a better example of confusing a term with the English definition of a word.

I'm joining this one late as i've recently logged in. I'm curious though, why do you object to the term feeling when applied to the F dichotomy?

[Nexus]

I'm really curious. How can you choose not to gather information? Like even your choice to desist from gathering information would be the result from your previous information gathering experiences that made you decide to stop gathering it. ???

Yes, but once you close your eyes so that you cannot see what's going on, you have a choice to start looking again.

[Nexus]

You're speaking in riddles. And you didn't answer my original question.

You say that information gathering is a subset of human behavior. Your premise is that you can choose not to gather information. Well of course you can choose not to gather it, but then you'd have to be doing nothing at all, all the time. There are some people who do nothing all the time I suppose, but it isn't a natural state for humans. And it's nothing to base a theory about human behavior on, like you claim, let alone information processing. Information gathering is an inherant part of our natures as humans, like breathing, it's often unconcious.

While you can't stop the process of phototransduction unless you sever the optic nerve by ripping your own eyes out, you can turn the visual signal into noise by flashing bright lights in your eyes. It doesn't matter that you can sill see...it matters that you cannot sense whatever is liable to freak you out (F) or make you realize (T).

[Joy]

I'm joining this one late as i've recently logged in. I'm curious though, why do you object to the term feeling when applied to the F dichotomy?

It doesn't really matter if you call it "F" or "feeling" or "bologna sandwich" (other than that it suggests that we're not talking about the same theory). The problem is how you define what you're calling it.

The definition has been explained by multiple people multiple times in this topic, so if you'd like a description of that then reading over the posts on the past few pages of this topic is my recommendation.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

It doesn't really matter if you call it "F" or "feeling" or "bologna sandwich" (other than that it suggests that we're not talking about the same theory). The problem is how you define what you're calling it.

The definition has been explained by multiple people multiple times in this topic, so if you'd like a description of that then reading over the posts on the past few pages of this topic is my recommendation.

Of course it matters. If you are defining the F dichotomy as a bologna sandwich then it is meaningless. I do not understand your point. Feelings is a word which describes the F dichotomy. And using this word does not make socionics MBTT.

[Nexus]

So you're saying that this is a natural state for humans? Having your visual signals impaired, walking around senseless? You're saying that information gathering is not the central theme of Socionics because it can be impaired?

Behavior can be impaired, and manipulated as well. But that is much more natural to the human race. They can conciously choose to manipulate their own behavior. But I don't see how they can conciously choose to deprive themselves of their senses, unless they have a death wish.

So why would you base Socionics on that, and not information gathering?

You can use a sensory deprivation tank, but I never said that socionics does not rely on information-gathering, I said that the temperament (E/I & j/p) is not directly affiliated with the information-gathering functions (S/N). The decision-making functions (F/T) must act as intermediaries, and if they have preserved an ideal temperament over time they are unlikely to alter it unless dire circumstances arise.

How you feel about someone is not a behavior, only what you do with how you feel is.

This is incorrect. Since you have decided to limit your understanding a priori with your own illusionary distinctions and diverge from the accepted standards of mainstream psychology, I will simply ignore your comments. Furthermore, the only way to distinguish a type is by using typical behaviors. Anything else lacks objectivity and is worthless for such an enterprise.

Just stare at a moving flashlight for a couple of seconds, Diana, and you'll see just how wrong you are..............

:wink:

LOL

Of course it matters. If you are defining the F dichotomy as a bologna sandwich then it is meaningless. I do not understand your point. Feelings is a word which describes the F dichotomy. And using this word does not make socionics MBTT.

After she said that abstract logic makes the world boring I stopped taking her seriously.

[Joy]

Of course it matters. If you are defining the F dichotomy as a bologna sandwich then it is meaningless.

Reread what I said.

I do not understand your point. Feelings is a word which describes the F dichotomy.

Again, reread what I said.

"Feelings" is a name, not a description. "Bologna sandwich" is a name, not a definition.

And using this word does not make socionics MBTT.

Of course it doesn't. It appears to make what you're talking about MBTT, but there's no way it could make Socionics MBTT.

[Logos]

Of course it matters. If you are defining the F dichotomy as a bologna sandwich then it is meaningless. I do not understand your point. Feelings is a word which describes the F dichotomy. And using this word does not make socionics MBTT.

But the "F" is imported into Socionics from MBTT. Socionics uses EXI and EXE to indicate leading Extroverted and Introverted Ethics and not Feelings.

[Nexus]

But the "F" is imported into Socionics from MBTT. Socionics uses EXI and EXE to indicate leading Extroverted and Introverted Ethics and not Feelings.

Here ethics does not refer to anyone's own sense of morality, but the moral framework that arises as a result of making subjective value judgments (which eventually become cultural norms). This can be divided into feeling good about what is considered moral and bad about what is considered immoral.

[Joy]

Here ethics does not refer to anyone's own sense of morality, but the moral framework that arises as a result of making subjective value judgments (which eventually become cultural norms). This can be divided into feeling good about what is considered moral and bad about what is considered immoral.

Actually, here Ethics means Fe/Fi. (You're talking about English definitions, not Socionics definitions.)

[Creepy-Cyclops]

But the "F" is imported into Socionics from MBTT. Socionics uses EXI and EXE to indicate leading Extroverted and Introverted Ethics and not Feelings.

The use of it does not make socionics MBTT. The word and the dichotomy is applicable in socionics.

[Nexus]

Actually, here Ethics means Fe/Fi. (You're talking about English definitions, not Socionics definitions.)

Yes, but I have spent the last three pages of this thread arguing that they are one and the same. I suggest that you go back and read it.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Nexus]

We're not talking mainstream psychology now are we? We're talking about socionics. If that's a problem for you, that it isn't mainstream, take it up with the Russian folks who invented the system.

And if anyone is limiting their understanding with assumptions, it would be you. You keep insisting that it all comes down to thought and emotion and thought is T and emotion F which is so very clearly wrong in this particular non-mainstream theory. There are certainly other theories in which that would be true. This unfortunately for your argument, isn't one of them.

Also, socionics is not objective. It never has been, and I doubt that it can be. What it does in my opinion is attempt to explain how we interact, the way we think, and possibly why someone reacted a particular way to another. Where people are coming from and how they got there in other words. Type descriptions do well enough for this, but it does not mean that the particular behavior described is a universal for each type. Like has already been mentioned several times by different people: the behavior of two people can be similar for very different reasons, and two people of the same type can react differently to the same circumstance. Socionics is not a behavior predictor. While you can garner clues about a person's type from their behavior it doesn't tell everything and in some cases can lead you entirely the wrong direction especially if you don't understand their motives for the behavior.

Like I said, if you don't have an objective comment to make I'd rather not hear it. There are people who use socionics objectively (meaning that they know what they're talking about and don't need to compensate with elsuive reformulations), and if you are going to side with the Russians, take note that they were literal and very specific not only in type behaviors, but also social relations, clothing, facial expressions, and even facial features...like I said, if you don't have a sound argument don't bother making one.

[Joy]

I quit.

[Joy]

Like I said, if you don't have an objective comment to make I'd rather not hear it. There are people who use socionics objectively (meaning that they know what they're talking about and don't need to compensate with elsuive reformulations), and if you are going to side with the Russians, take note that they were literal and very specific not only in type behaviors, but also social relations, clothing, facial expressions, and even facial features...like I said, if you don't have a sound argument don't bother making one.

Diana, this person is not going to comprehend what you're saying. Attempting to communicate with him does not appear to be worth the effort.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Logos]

The use of it does not make socionics MBTT. The word and the dichotomy is applicable in socionics.

I did not say that it makes Socionics into MBTT, but rather it was my way of indicating that the term that has imported into Socionics should not be used in an MBTT context, but a Socionics one. In this context, Socionics understanding of "Feeling" =! the MBTT understanding of "Feeling."

[Joy]

I suspect that H is one of those people who instead of admitting he may be wrong would go back and alter the history books to reflect his own version. He's already tried to retype both you and FDG to match his opinion, and now he's trying to reframe me as well as non-objective rather than making any attempt to actually understand. Purposeful ignorance in order to claim rightness.

Maybe so. All I know is that further attempts at communication will result in more harm than good.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Reread what I said.



Again, reread what I said.

"Feelings" is a name, not a description. "Bologna sandwich" is a name, not a definition.



Of course it doesn't. It appears to make what you're talking about MBTT, but there's no way it could make Socionics MBTT.

Feelings is a word used to describe what takes place in the rationial function of F. Feelings and ethics are words describing the same rational process of F.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Nexus]

I suspect that H is one of those people who instead of admitting he may be wrong would go back and alter the history books to reflect his own version. He's already tried to retype both you and FDG to match his opinion, and now he's trying to reframe me as well as non-objective rather than making any attempt to actually understand. Purposeful ignorance in order to claim rightness.

Also, socionics is not objective. It never has been, and I doubt that it can be. What it does in my opinion is attempt to explain how we interact, the way we think, and possibly why someone reacted a particular way to another.

I am trying to understand...so socionics isn't objective, but it is when you explain it?

That is the opposite of my understanding.