INTjs and social conventions/practices

[mimisor]

Socionics is definately limited. I get the feeling from time to time that people expect it to explain the whole of personality and thought and intertype relations to explain the whole of sociology.

well, maybe they should stop expecting, don't you think?

[Kirana]

That's means that you believe that some things cannot be explained.

part of the Ne, Cone. it is a possibility. on the one hand, we want to understand everything, but on the other if there is this possibility, then we can't understand everything. so the clash maybe encourages this possibility to be focused on more than it ought to be for us?

[Kirana]

"just knowing" - i don't think i constantly talk this way. once in a while, i do, but it's rare. usually when i just know, i mean " i know this stuff so damn well that if you want me to extract the line of reasoning it would be inconvenient to me so just take my word on it". but if you made me extract the reasoning i could.

[Rocky]

*sigh*

...ok...

Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.

...

This thinking easily loses itself in the immense truth of the subjective factor. It creates theories for the sake of theories, apparently with a view to real or at least possible facts, yet always with a distinct tendency to go over from the world of ideas into mere imagery. Accordingly many intuitions of possibilities appear on the scene, none of which however achieve any reality, until finally images are produced which no longer express anything externally real, being 'merely' symbols of the simply unknowable. It is now merely a mystical thinking and quite as unfruitful as that empirical thinking whose sole operation is within the framework of objective facts.

Whereas the latter sinks to the level of a mere presentation of facts, the former evaporates into a representation of the unknowable, which is even beyond everything that could be expressed in an image. The presentation of facts has a certain incontestable truth, because the subjective factor is excluded and the facts speak for themselves.

...

[UDP]

"just knowing" - i don't think i constantly talk this way. once in a while, i do, but it's rare. usually when i just know, i mean " i know this stuff so damn well that if you want me to extract the line of reasoning it would be inconvenient to me so just take my word on it". but if you made me extract the reasoning i could.

It's so nice to hear that from another person. I should have cards that I can hand out to people that say something to that effect. Maybe that would help them understand me a little more. Or like.... .... a signal. And not the bird, either.

[UDP]

@rockys post...

solid