Definitely better
Maybe a little bit better
Maybe a little bit worse
Definitely worse
I don't really think about Socionics all that much, so this poll doesn't really apply to me.
Okay, I'll say it once more, this time more bluntly.Originally Posted by Cyclops
My point was that you are indeed free to call Fe and Fi whatever you want to call them; however, calling them "F" or "Feeling" makes you sound like you don't know much about Socionics. Whether you believe this should be the case or not is irrelevant to the outcome.
I'm done.
Last edited by Joy; 07-07-2008 at 12:40 PM.
The last few pages have ascertained that feelings is what F functions are involved with. I challenge anyone to explain to me why F functions does not utilise feelings.
I challenge you to explain to me how Te and Ti functions do NOT utilize feelings.
T functions use feeling to provide positive reinforcement for correctly formulated ideas. The use of F functions ends there for logical types, that is why they are not considered dominant.
That is your definition. Perhaps you may found a new branch of psychology based on your own definitions. However, we were all supposing that the discussion dealt primarly with socionics, probably this was the cause of our misunderstading.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Actually that's been around since Ivan Pavlov, another Russian, and won the Nobel Prize in 1904, so hopefully there will be room for it in socionics.
Ah, so you were speaking about Pavlovian conditioning. Basically you think that for thinking types feeling is only used as a way to understand which theories are worth using through positive reinforcement? This perspective has an enormous number of flaws; reinforcement is not always objective when it comes from people (and you cannot exclude this possibility), thus the theories of the logical types are a la mercé of public opinion, instead of being purely adherent to the reality of the objective world. In fact, by this token thinking function become a mere tool for the hands of the feeling functions of everybody except the thinking type.
I still think you should take your time and study socionics more. Or, if you really think you have already understood it completely, posit yourself with less arrogance, such as very many smart members (take imfd95) have done so far.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Actually it seems that what you have described is often exactly the case, so my theories now have real evidence. Thanks!
So worse. I can't find out what I really like in life and it bugs me. I thought of suicide a few times. Not out of feeling sorry for myself, just for the simple fact of feeling useless/expendable.... realizing how utterly pointless everything is.
I really loved someone before but I think if I met him again I would just be awkward and my hopes would be shot down and I wouldn't like him like I used to and in reality it would just be harsh and weird like 'why am I doing this?' All the magic I once felt, that power... that epicness.... just gone. What I felt wasn't real, or didn't amount to anything. I was just being a pathetic little fantasizing boy.
Plus I'm finally getting that being a social hermit is no way to live even if I think it makes me stronger and that I don't need other people... but I'm stubborn.
I was told I just needed to go out and do these practical things, and I did them...but I'm still not happy. I feel like nobody is really getting me and it's so scary sometimes... and lonely. But whatever. I know what I want has to be earned some way.
I try to make myself useful still, despite being a sad and tortured soul. I mean... I help out other people a lot I still don't feel any use or power out of it. Funny enough I get all really giddy when other people can help me, but I can't do the same to others and feel satisfaction. My selfishness is killing me....but I don't know how to connect even when I want to so badly.
Oh well. Everybody's fucked up! =)
.
Ice cream is good, I love vanilla.
Hmm. I thought I neededor some sort of
or
but that
post really helped. Thanks Diana. You have an uncanny ability to know what people need, not giving into the delusions of what they think they need. And I need that!
Umm...the ice cream thread is in the Alpha Quadra sub-forum.Ice cream is good, I love vanilla.
Hmm. I thought I needed
Huitzilopochti, are you that stuck in your Ti that you can't see what FDG is saying? You're trying to equate basic emotional reactions to a function, when in reality, they are completely separate. "Ethical' functions do not = emotions, and "logical" functions do not = reason. Reason and emotion are things that have developed in humans throughout evolution; information metabolism is in a different context than what FDG was referring to. Names like ethical and logical are just simplifications that are supposed to make the functions easier to understand.
And please don't bullshit me with cherry-picked Ti frameworks as well.
4w3-5w6-8w7
.
It may seem like Ti to you, but my distinctions are empirically falsifiable and supported with logic. You have no proof that thoughts are not the result of the logical function. FDG asked me how ethical functions might exclusively cause an adrenalin rush, and I gave him a response (in fact it was his first post on this thread to address me). He hasn't refuted it yet, so I am wondering if you can.
@tcaudilllg
I was on the brink of declaring Boukhalov an absolute fraud even before reading your message. Possibly though, he is just one of the confused souls who think their ideas hold merit when in actuality they are trailing off into Obscurantism Hell. Whatever.
Not following the ongoings in the thread with much effort, but there were some things that caught my attention...
Mention of Pavlov's reflex: my own findings point out that what socionics is ultimately about is prediction. All that the type determines is how we organize our view of "states" and how we connect these with "transitions". Given that a type is simply a principle by which a person induces laws and deduces predictions from these, a LOT of human behaviors, including how emotional reaction is implied by organizing "something" as "internal judgment" or "feeling" would immediately be explainable in terms of simple Pavlov reflexes. If the state has proven bad, mark the state as bad. If a state is likely to LEAD TO a bad state, mark that state as bad too. If a transition is likely to LEAD TO a bad state, mark that as bad, etc. Human nature in a nutshell.
Feeling types understand the world in terms of emotional/social mechanisms. I don't see how this is controversial. It is the filter through which they see the world and the domain in which just about everything they notice about the world is contained. It allows them to live productive lives and to function effectively just about everywhere as long as they can avoid too technical a focus. And, yes, more feeling means less thinking. I could be citing this from "official" (hah, as if there is...) socionics material.
We obviously are all here (on this forum) because we see the world in similiar lights, and we're called upon to work together for a common goal that will help other people positively. What else could it be?
.
I absolutely agree with your conclusion that socionics is based on measurable behaviors and predictive value. Much of the argument from Diana is that it is neither, though she has no evidence for supposing so. Many, like FDG, Logos, and strrrng, claim that there is not a correlation between socionic functions and psychological decision-making functions (emotion and thought), though this would render socionics quite inept at explaining behavior and thus social relations, and leave doubt as to why each function is classified with the name it has and what it actually does within the socion of each type. They seem to think that we believe that each 'psychological' function is absolute, but it is obvious that there is only a hierarchical tendency that they refuse to acknowledge. I have already demonstrated that each element of a dichotomy is at least partially responsible for the optimal employment of its polar opposite.
How can you process information ... how can that be really tested though? It's all about how you really see things, which doesn't mean jack shit in the physical sense. I've done so many varied physical stuff, but I'm still Sam... It's just hopeless idealsm to think that thoughts/actions are always perfectly aligned. More of the secret bullshit or hippie nonsense that if you just think pure and holy you will get what you want...
I think it's more like this. It's not about how much you feel or what you feel for the thinking/feeling thing it just relates to everything you do and how you respond to people and how you manipulate events to get the kind of outcome and payoff that you want. Sometimes this means exaggerating or emo-ing feelings/thoughts, sometimes it means repressing them.
You remind me of my parents, who thought that college would help me want to get a job. Hell no! It's a love of learning for its own sake, and that is important but the drive to make a physical, viable real concrete choice comes from within or from basic impulses. And in truth it doesn't really ever change the core of you are. But many of us hate ourselves so we feel that it can... cure that inner weakness we all wish we didn't had.
*Shrug*
Explain this more. People already know how I feel about dichotomies, you don't want to hear that rant again *g*. But yes you are just describing why the little black circle is in yang and the little white circle is in yin even though yin is mostly black and yang mostly white. Or is it the other way around? Who cares, you know what I mean... but see, that's the beauty/paradox/engima of it. How can something be wrong/evil, devil/angel and have those all seem to serve one common united goal. Because it's human and beautiful? LOL I don't know.I have already demonstrated that each element of a dichotomy is at least partially responsible for the optimal employment of its polar opposite.
Even though people perceive 'men' and 'women' as different as HETEROsexual, a penis actually is more like a vagina than it is different (and vice-versa... ) so people that are always 'I'M SHY SO I NEED A ROUGH THROAT FUCKER' honestly depress me. Seriously, they just make me sad because I feel they... I don't know.
But this allows us to think that life is mundane-ness all the same so we need the conflict, the difference, the intrique. Well uhh maybe you do. I don't think I do. But since I'm a progressive, I can't really buy into the whole differences thing too much since it seems well all evil and Republican to me.
Anyways you have interesting insight but you didn't really say anything new and original. In fact you just are really saying what everybody else is and it's hard to really feel captivated by anything it is you're trying to do. Not trying to insult you... I just um. Yeah.
That is only the way that you process information. First of all you did not answer me after you insulted me on my typing thread. Second of all I am a Republican. Third of all, whether my proposition is new is irrelevant, and it is not what everyone else has said because everyone else is either arguing with me (other than Cyclops and Labcoat), or like you, asking me to clarify (thus I doubt your claim to have heard it before). As for your traits: tactical because they focus on the manipulation of methods (repression/exaggeration, feeling/thinking) without regard to a specific goal ('outcome' or 'one common united goal'), decisive because comfort (emotion) is 'repressed' in favor of an incentive ('payoff'), process because results (thoughts/feelings) are ignored in favor of continuous involvement ('manipulation'), and static because there is a generalized attitude ('everything you do...') with reference to the way things tend to be ('and in truth...'). You also seem declarative, your question was really a lead into your discussion. Decisiveness puts you in Beta or Gamma. The rest point to ISTj, closely followed by INTp. I'm not really good with Reinin traits yet so I could be wrong.
Synchronicity is phenomena not noumena, it can be seen during fMRI and is merely the long-term potentiation that occurs between two engrams that are isolated in the neural network and happen to represent a statistical fallacy known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (in schizophrenia it is known as apophenia). It is probably easier to represent such a phenomenon than even the most mundane but accurate thought using physical systems alone.[/i]
Hell I knew that, I just posted that one article to get some debate action.
It seems like quackery, even without looking at the article or its evidence. Ok, I'm very sorry to go all Ne on this topic...
...but, to play devil's advocate, supposedly these "magic numbers" have statistical significance from observation (I'd like to see him provide this btw). As long as the incidents being studied involve human beings (and esp. human institutions), it might be possible to retrieve certain repeating patterns by piggy-backing off the socionics model of inter-type interaction.
...I don't agree with his idea of applying socionics directly to a study of space-time, unless this is restricted to looking at the perception of space-time objects/fields by human subjectivity. OTOH, I've been thinking a lot lately about the subjectivity of space-time events in the context of defining human creativity as the ability to internalize and subjectively modify these direct objects. Creativity as the ability to twist the basic predictive faculty of the organism, while still retaining some basic sine qua non of the object being worked on. Idk, his ideas could be useful... if only for some inspiration.
...but his idea of directly and rigorously applying Jung's synchronisity is pure bullshit methinks, unless he's willing to derive this type of determinism from string theory, or some other fundamental postulates about reality. Especially because Jung's synchronisity is essentially an idea about noumena... and goes well beyond empirical psychology. Anyway, I can't see a way to defend it. Even as possible TeNi observation it seems dubious.
I cannot say, but socionics influence on the personal level can filter into national policy based on the attributes of the dictator or the amplification of the tendencies of common people:
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...tional_quadras
How about a separate thread about whether your condition has improved or worsened after reading this thread
ILE - Ti.
That's Perfect! Why don't you go make that?
Because my
ILE - Ti.
Definitely better
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
If your condition has improved, all the better for you. If your condition has worsened, see a doctor. A system should never have any negative impact on your health, be it psychological or physical.
Not everything can be cured by seeing a doctor/therapist, there are a lot of other different solutions. I'm just saying people always say 'see a therapist!' cause they're too lazy to help the person themselves (Don't get mad you know I'm right) But that's okay, it's not up to them anyway but the person actually suffering lol.If your condition has worsened, see a doctor. A system should never have any negative impact on your health, be it psychological or physical.
Who knows, maybe going off to a kenya village for 2 weeks will cure all their problems. You just don't know sometimes. But I know I don't need no sissy shrink!
I agree. People think they need deeper inner reflections when really it's the opposite, change your EXTERNAL environment. It really helps. As long as the external environment is compatible with you, of course, but just pick a place where everybody has similar ideals. Not lifestyles or superficial stuff, but ideals and thoughts and 'inner things.'
But with insane gas prices and limited traveling options this might not be practical. A mere vacation could do wonders I think. But I suggest go alone actually, or with 'new people.' If you go with people with 'old energies' you might just be taking along the old energy from your old town with you, you know?
This isn't a 'change your job' thing either, more like change your place... which usually means changing jobs but... anyways, I think more people need to understand that this solution kicks ass.
Let me guess: bad experience.
Somewhat. There's just really nothing wrong with most people, even when they think there is. The horrible part is the people who actually could use a shrink avoid them like the plague, and the people that don't need them give them too much of their energy.
You're probably right.
Generally, I have a lot of extremely disturbing ideas about society that - if unleashed - they'd probably lock me up for. There's also a lot of danger of them getting into the wrong hands. In essence, I think it's about the counterphobia of society.
I was already locked up for my beliefs. So been there, done that. I think it's necessary in some respects but I think learning to get along with each other and meshing what can be meshed (and gently ignoring but not attacking what can't be meshed) is the only thing that works, basically speaking.
For example you would never show your grandmother that throat gagging site you showed me, another male peer your own age. At least I hope you wouldn't. Just a small example of how we all need to sacrifice ourselves for a greater good. Unfortunately. I love my best friend dearly but I can't be my 'complete self' around her, even as great as she is. Such an ideal doesn't exist- we probably only get to experience that when we die.
Anyway I'm just rambling now lol.
Once I can finally put away skepticism about what type I am, then I might say it has improved my life.
For now, though, I don't know my type, so I don't know what my intertype relations to other people are.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
