I disagree with that assertion. The world takes on many more nuances and dimensions when you are aware of the abstractions and conceptualizations that are in the world.
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.
I disagree with that assertion. The world takes on many more nuances and dimensions when you are aware of the abstractions and conceptualizations that are in the world.
+1.0000000000000000000000000000000112Originally Posted by Logos
Last edited by Nexus; 07-06-2008 at 02:20 AM.
Hell yeah. Unless you've got a model that predicts the existence of wacky idea A, then wacky idea A is just an idea. After all, there is such a thing as schizophrenia which produces ...essentially irrelevant information. The question arises when facing such crazy ideas as "astrology is real", as to how credible a given idea is and whether or not it is coherent.
Certainly we must be appropriately skeptical of passages such as the following, except when put in the proper context. (being either the (unknown) neurological correlates to the phenomenon, or Hegelian dichotomy theories derived from model B):
(It gets worse... according to Buky, even electoral results hinge on these "magic numbers"...) The point is that this is BULLSHIT, and without socionics awareness the barriers to communication can be very high because one has no way to tell a well thought out idea from bullshit like the above. For Alpha NTs, socionics is kind of like a "portable dual" or a "duality algorithm" that one can use to know the ground from the shit. (you can tell I'm straining for an analogy here)Boukalov A.V.
Psycho-Informational Environment and Structure of Events within the Physical Space-Time. Synchronics
It is shown that the phenomenon of psycho-informational (psychic) environment structuring and quantization (as discovered by the author earlier) manifests itself also in the structure of physical space-time environment on the causal level, thus forming a 'magic row' of numbers: 6(7), 10(11), 16(17), 26(27), 42(43)... which act as indicators of integral patterns characteristic to any given event. As the statistical data processing, related to 850 information on accidents and catastrophes has shown, the number of individuals involved in each such accident has been really correspondent to the 'magic row' numbers. Therefore, it shall be possible to use causal models (analogous to socionic ones) for description of the internal structure of the physical space-time environment, and to create a singular fractal model (B(SIN)) that would include the structures of psycho-informational environment (ψ, I), physical space-time environment (X, T) and energy impulse (p, E). The 'space-time' component of the model is semantically tied to the psychic one and synchronistically (as С.G.Jung put it) influences participants of the event forming indivisible synchronistic event patterns indicated by the number of participating subjects or objects. The B(SIN) model also gives explanation of some paradoxes related to 'recurrence of humane history' and discovered by N.Мorozov and А.Fomenko, and certain other phenomena.
Key words: socionics, structuring of psychic environment, synchronistic model, synchronics, Boukalov 'magic row', synchronistic archetypes, history.
@jxrtes: yes, Bukalov wrote that! Now you know why we don't take Buky's word as gospel around here!
Maybe, but one of the first lessons of Socionics is that the more you use T, the less you can use F.
Feelings aren't always applicable...you have to think sometimes to make sense of the world.
Of course.
.
How so? BTW, that is known as alexithymia.
Good point.
"lifeless and flat" = Fe
.
Not to be devil's advocate, but the world "making sense" could exclusively be an illusion of logic (which I partake in shamelessly, of course).
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I actually took it to be more of a S vs. N view of the world than T vs. F.
I thought the guy was meaning 'lifeless and flat' more in terms of people analysing everything to the point where they don't just feel or experience things without first trying to understand and compartmentalise them. So you miss out on 'real' living and just end up experiencing things in a one-dimensional way.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Yes, thank you. (That "one dimension" is that of analyzation, regardless of the number of forms of mental abstractions one uses.)
Anyways, about the general idea behind this topic: I think the negative effect Socionics has on one's life is directly related to the extent which they identify themselves and others as types. One who thinks "this is the way my mind works on a certain level, but it is not who I ultimately am" won't be as negatively effected as those who very strongly identify who they ultimately are with a type/quadra/dichotomy/whatever.
I believe that feeling is usually expressed using emotions, as a general construct, and thinking with thoughts; so if you have no emotions you are not feeling (though you may have felt before when you did), and if you have no thoughts you are not thinking.
Have you considered ESE? That statement (and a preference for sensation untainted by abstraction or taxonomy) is not characteristic of intuitive-types. Also, your conclusions seem to be based on a subjective measure of 'is this influence bad' rather than 'does this event happen', which is typical of feeling-types:
I have a few different answers.
First of all, there's no chance that I'm ESE, or any sensory type. I'm not asking you to believe me, but stating my stance on the matter based on how different information elements come to play in my mind and life.
Secondly, the things that I'm talking about here aren't ideas that I have always held at the forefront of my mind. My "automatic" mode is Te + Ni.
Lastly... I don't entirely care what type I "am" anymore. I don't doubt LIE, and Socionics is an interesting and (imo) valid theory. However, it's losing its draw for me. I no longer see "my type" as who I am (or who anyone else is).
Type does not define who you are; it defines how well you know who you are and in what ways. Type defines your personality, not your person.
Humans have evolved, it seems, only to observe personality. (or maybe this only applies to thinking types?) You may have many components of who you are, but you will repress those components of which your awareness is poor when in social situations, choosing instead to accentuate your strengths however possible.
So now isn't that supposed to be the domain of the enneagram? What motivations actually exist in people?
.
I agree with Huitzilopochtlis' definition of this. As a general construct I think it is reasonable.
If someone has no emotions at all, one could say they do not possess any F. Everyone possesses some F.
Diana, I believe he is saying that if there is no emotions present at all, then at that moment there is no F. Diana, it is you who does not understand.
Negative.
Ethics is not the same as "feelings". Logic is not the same as "thinking". (Logic and Ethics don't even mean "logic" and "ethics" if you look at the English definitions of those words.)
What those who say "T" and "F" are referring to is pop MBTT, not Socionics.
.
What other type of logic and emotion exists, that requires socionics to be explained? Feeling is an ethical distinction, and thinking a is logical one. What you described is a combination of 'sensing' and 'intuition', it has nothing to do with the conclusions that you derive from the experience of gathering data. Once you do reach a conclusion, you will have thought or felt (this is why T/F dominant types are more likely to make judgments, and S/N types are likely to perceive...BTW feel can also mean touch-response, in which case it is sensory...but we are discussing emotions, which would otherwise be left quite unaddressable by the rest of socionic theory although they have a huge influence on individual behaviors and social relations). And you are the only one that is taking T and F stereotypes to the extreme.
To be ethical you need to feel (thinking alone will not cover all of considerations that are necessary and probably lead you off track or negligent of the other's emotions). To be logical you need to think (there is no other way to do this). They are both dependent on each other to some degree, but a preference to use either one excessively will cause you to behave differently. MBTT is irrelevant, and if you were a proponent you wouldn't cast ambiguous doubts on it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote