Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: All information is transmitted in Dynamic form

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default All information is transmitted in Dynamic form

    There is no such thing as a transmission of Ti, for instance. Nor such a thing of Ne, Se or Fi. To transmit these things you have to translate it to information of the Dynamic kind. A lot of the depth of meaning tends to get lost in the process of translating. Hence why communication with Static types tends to be less direct. It usually doesn't make sense to interpret the words of a Static litterally. What they mean is only hinted at by their words.

    I think it may have to be said that all information is ultimately Te and Si...

    For reference:
    Static = Ti, Se, Fi, Ne
    Dynamic = Fe, Ni, Te, Si

  2. #2
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,397
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I partly agree, except I would think that only extroverted information is actually expressed. Do you have an example in mind for irrational information?

  3. #3
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another thing...

    The kind of stuff that Statics are certain of, the pieces of knowledge that they most strongly invest their confidence in (Creating/Limiting/Static info), is stuff of a kind that takes many factual assertions to relate to another person. In jargon: Creating/Limiting/Static information needs to be expressed in many instances of Creating/Empowering/Dynamic information.

    I partly agree, except I would think that only extroverted information is actually expressed. Do you have an example in mind for irrational information?
    A perceiving function is simply expressed in a name. When I say "hotelambush" I am relating introverted perception information.

    Now, try to explain exactly what the thing-behind-the-screens that "hotelambush" refers to constitutes. It will take you many, many factual statements.

    Remember Gotlob Frege?
    Pi = sense
    Pe = reference

    Immanuel Kant?
    Pi = phenomenom
    Pe = noumenom

  4. #4
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,840
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Would that mean that Ni information is based on generalized Si perceptions?

  5. #5
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, something like that. Where Si would order perceptions in the sequence they were given to it, Ni would order them on the basis of their actual properties. Consider a movie/film on the one hand and an actual understanding of an unfolding process on the other. Ni would be able to complete the steps between the images where Si would only be able to tell how the movie begins, progresses and ends. This makes Ni seem more powerful, but lets keep in mind that the necessity to understand makes the Ni way of looking at things more drudging, slower. To Ni the movie would not exist in any absolute way because it is arbitrary; something to be discarded due to it's irrelevance... but this means it can not anticipate things by means of this movie either.
    Last edited by krieger; 01-05-2009 at 01:49 AM.

  6. #6
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm pretty close to explaining how + and - follow from the Clubs with the above story... Just a few missing links...

  7. #7
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,397
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    A perceiving function is simply expressed in a name. When I say "hotelambush" I am relating introverted perception information.
    A name signifies an object, and hence extroverted information.

    Immanuel Kant?
    Pi = phenomenom
    Pe = noumenom
    This is good, but it has nothing to do with the actual transmission of information.

    If I say something like "It feels hot in here", you have no actual reference as to what the temperature actually feels like (), but if I say something objective, like "The temperature is 99 degrees Fahrenheit" (), then something is actually communicated.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    First, as a reminder to labcoat, both Ni and Si are dynamic elements, which by your theory means that they are both communicated.

    Second, I'm at a loss for words. I'll go in the order that the objections come to me. Sensing: both Se and Si are verbalized. Se information, which is everything sensing that does not provoke an inner sensation, is easy. "That building is tall" is technically Se information (it is not Te.)

    Intuition: the most commonly verbalized form of the two intuitions is Ne. Ever read an Ni writer? Notice how they are usually hard to understand?

    Ethics: personal sentiments differ from emotional outbursts. They are both verbalized. And both transmitted.

    Logic: Ti is not transferred through Te. Ever have someone best you in a logical argument when you are both equally informed on the subject? Then you have witnessed a transfer of Ti.

    Saying that static information needs to be translated is bogus. It would mean that the entirety of static information is non-verbal. This is obviously not true as Ti-leading types do happen to talk to people on occasion.
    Surtout, pas trop de zèle.

  9. #9
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    A name signifies an object, and hence extroverted information.
    You are making an argument in favor of my position. A name signifies an object. It does not constitute one in full.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    If I say something like "It feels hot in here", you have no actual reference as to what the temperature actually feels like (), but if I say something objective, like "The temperature is 99 degrees Fahrenheit" (), then something is actually communicated.
    The problem is the vagueness of the former statement, not it's objectivity. It would be objectively verifiable if we knew the tool or heuristic that the person employs to "feel" temperature (which is likely extremely complicated considering it is biologically instantiated) and the criterion the person maintains for "hot". Those things in mind, there is no essential difference in format.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZTCrawcrustle
    Se information, which is everything sensing that does not provoke an inner sensation, is easy.
    In other words, bull-shit. There is no such thing as an "outer sensation" and if something doesn't provoke or constitute a sensation of the only kind there is why is it called "sensation" in the first place?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZTCrawcrustle
    "That building is tall" is technically Se information (it is not Te.)
    I call it Te. To transmit Se you would have to transmit the full identity of the building in question (to the extent one would have the patience to go to that length; normally we suffice with a simplification), which would require multiple factual assertions.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZTCrawcrustle
    Intuition: the most commonly verbalized form of the two intuitions is Ne. Ever read an Ni writer? Notice how they are usually hard to understand?
    I love this word "verbalized" that you are using here. It perfectly captures what I mean we do when we try to transmit Static info like that of Ne. As to Ni types, they are often exacting and precise. In as far as they are vague, refer to the bit of the post where I speculate that all info might in fact be SiTe rather than Dynamic.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZTCrawcrustle
    Ethics: personal sentiments differ from emotional outbursts. They are both verbalized. And both transmitted.
    No disagreement there.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZTCrawcrustle
    Logic: Ti is not transferred through Te. Ever have someone best you in a logical argument when you are both equally informed on the subject? Then you have witnessed a transfer of Ti.
    Nowhere do I say that Ti does not get transfered at all. I see Ti mostly as structural understanding rather than logic. It produces Te out of nowhere and expresses itself in it. Logic is trickier. It is something on a meta level that I'd prefer not to attribute to any term in socionics at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZTCrawcrustle
    Saying that static information needs to be translated is bogus. It would mean that the entirety of static information is non-verbal. This is obviously not true as Ti-leading types do happen to talk to people on occasion.
    For one thing it's a known and well documented fact that we do it less than most types. For another just that a person's strongest assets are non-verbal does not mean they posess no verbal skills at all. Furthermore as I touched on earlier I think Ni and Fe may be non-verbal too, so it's not just the Static functions. Finally, non-verbal does not mean inexpressible, just indirectly expressed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •