A Metaphor for Fe

[Korpsy Knievel]

Honestly, I think we need to find a way to clearly distinguish between these two versions of socionics. Currently, we're confusing the newbies and others by presenting them with two completely contradictory sets of descriptions and typings, and acting like they derive from the same theory. But these are two distinct, internally coherent theories. Surely there are some kind of names we can come up with to distinguish your and Ashton's views on socionics from the views of those who agree with me.

Kindly state the "version" you're adhering to and describe, as a percentage, the degree to which you've perfected its apprehension and application.

Secondly, be advised that by refusing to answer the substance of Galen's post and insinuating heresy you stoop to the fallacious trick of poisoning the well*.

If I understand correctly, your theory posits that unvalued functions don't manifest in behaviour, is that correct? Or is that the old version of the theory?

This passive-aggressive red herring is a continuation of the previous ad hom and its only purpose is to sway the ignorant.

What's refreshing about Galen's post goes well beyond its thoughtfulness, nuance, and subtlety. That is, it's an entirely cognitivist take on IEs, the very atoms of socionics. That places it in strong contrast to the dozens of facile behaviorist arguments thrown around about information metabolism on this forum daily. What makes the latter practice even more absurd is that behaviorism is the very reason that 16chan members disdain MBTI or enneagram enthusiasts.

* Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem.

A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false, relevant or irrelevant) about person A (the target) is presented by another. (e.g., "Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.")
2. Implicit conclusion: "Therefore, any claims made by person A cannot be relied upon".

A subcategory of this form is the application of an unfavorable attribute to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. (For example, "That's my stance on funding the public education system, and anyone who disagrees with me hates children.") Any person who steps forward to dispute the claim will then risk applying the tag to him or herself in the process. In other words, "Everything I say is correct, no matter what you say."

A poisoned-well "argument" can also be in this form:

1. Unfavorable definitions (be it true or false) which prevent disagreement (or enforce affirmative position)
2. Any claims without first agreeing with above definitions are automatically dismissed.

[Krig the Viking]

If I understand correctly, your theory posits that unvalued functions don't manifest in behaviour, is that correct? Or is that the old version of the theory?

Given my understandings of the how IEs work + observations of myself and others, I would say with some vein of confidence that unvalued IEs do not make major/direct manifest.

Didn't this used to be called "Model X"? Are you guys still using that term, or has it fallen out of favour now?

Edit: Does your theory accept the "aspects" of the I.E.s (i.e., Internal Dynamics of Objects, External Statics of Fields, etc.)? If it doesn't, that might be the easiest way to distinguish between the two theories. Otherwise, we'll have to find some other way.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Didn't this used to be called "Model X"? Are you guys still using that term, or has it fallen out of favour now?

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

[Aiss]

Given my understandings of the how IEs work + observations of myself and others, I would say with some vein of confidence that unvalued IEs do not make major/direct manifest.

Didn't this used to be called "Model X"? Are you guys still using that term, or has it fallen out of favour now?

Edit: Does your theory accept the "aspects" of the I.E.s (i.e., Internal Dynamics of Objects, External Statics of Fields, etc.)? If it doesn't, that might be the easiest way to distinguish between the two theories. Otherwise, we'll have to find some other way.

FFS, Krig, are you ignorant or doing it on purpose? I wasn't around for model X but it has been explained a thousand times since Ashton, ann and some others came back that 1) model X is history (I don't know of anyone using it), 2) "aspectonics, stupid!". In fact discussion about the latter was revitalized about that time, the issue having been largely ignored by t16t community earlier, if I recall correctly.

AFAIK the biggest difference between Ashton's - I refuse to refer to a non-existing group you term as "ashtonians" as single-minded entity - socionics methodology and what's generally accepted by you, Marie and many others here is 1) more extensive use of VI, 2) preference for Jungian approach to functions over common behavioral correlation. You can call VI guessing or call behavioralism stereotyping - I happen to do both - but don't try to make up stuff to demonize it.


IOW, what k0rp said.

[krieger]

i wish people used stereotypes more often around here. it would be an improvement over outright incoherence.

the perfect is the enemy of the good.

[FDG]

Just for the record, the first user that made extensive use of "involved" and "abstracted" along with "internal" and "external" and "well-defined" and "not-well-defined" was Smilingeyes. I don't think it has anything to do with "Ashtonian" socionics.

[krieger]

they're just names, all of which flawed and none of which saying much of anything. they're serve mostly as placeholder markers in most peoples' minds, though i'm sure they'll tell you differently.

[FDG]

they're just names, all of which flawed and none of which saying much of anything.

I'm not that sure. The involved / abstracted dichotomy seems to have a direct connection with how a person easily reacts or detaches from the environment, for example.

[krieger]

i prefer NTSF dichotomies and clubs over those. they have more substance to them. better not to take abstraction to the point of overkill.

btw, those dichotomies and clubs are directly correlated:
involved: SF
abstract: NT
external: ST
internal: NF

[Aiss]

Just for the record, the first user that made extensive use of "involved" and "abstracted" along with "internal" and "external" and "well-defined" and "not-well-defined" was Smilingeyes. I don't think it has anything to do with "Ashtonian" socionics.

I said "revitalized" because it was practically non-existent at the time I came here, although obviously there were many old threads about it. In fact it might have been renewed discussion of aspectonics that brought ann back, I don't recall. Either way, implying there's some "socionics" version that people who talk to Ashton are using and which rejects aspectonics and such is a sort of "jews poison wells and kill babies" propaganda (those claims were actually made in middle ages, btw). Whether it stems from ignorance, or desire to discredit people who disagree by all means in order to forward one's own approach to the theory, is another matter entirely.

[anndelise]

I am only posting because my name was brought up.

When I first bumped into the aspects, it was largely dismissed by 16T. While I was trying to understand what the aspects were referring to, smilingeyes was willing to brainstorm with me and that's how the well-defined, not well-defined meaning for internal/external came into play.

Ashton, Sara, and FDG, and a couple of other people were also willing to help me try to figure them out. It was "a new thing" being considered. Even Rick, at the time, said he regretted having put them onto that page on his site, as he felt they were worthless.

I had found the involved/abstract dichotomy, and the continuous/discrete dichtomy on a Russian site, not Rick's.

After coming back from an extended leave, people like Joy, Gilly, and one other person were just starting to explore and make sense of the aspects, much like I'd been put down for doing.

After another extended absence, more people were hesitantly using the aspects, but most dismissed the involved/abstract as meaningless, and noone even seemed to remember the continuous/discrete.

And the last time I came back, and this time, the involved/abstract set is much better accepted and used.

Memes take a while to spread, and people learn new memes, try to understand them, and may even eventually dismiss those memes for other memes. It's not quite fair, imo, to expect others to know when you've changed memes, nor immediately know which memes you are using. That's part of why we communicate...to share and learn the memes of others.

[anndelise]

Given my understandings of the how IEs work + observations of myself and others, I would say with some vein of confidence that unvalued IEs do not make major/direct manifest.

Didn't this used to be called "Model X"? Are you guys still using that term, or has it fallen out of favour now?

Edit: Does your theory accept the "aspects" of the I.E.s (i.e., Internal Dynamics of Objects, External Statics of Fields, etc.)? If it doesn't, that might be the easiest way to distinguish between the two theories. Otherwise, we'll have to find some other way.

This, to me, shows that Krig recognizes a difference, and would like to clarify what the difference is.

I never quite grasped Model X, myself, so I may be wrong, but wasn't part of Model X about the non-ego or non-quadra IE not being part of a person's psyche? I don't know if this was a part of Model X, I do remember that this was a difference between my views and Ashton's. Out of respect, we rarely talked about it with each other.

The second part of Krig's post is a clear sign to me that he's trying to open dialog between he and Galen as to what each consider part of defining IEs. Notice he's talking about trying to distinguish the two theories, and if the aspects aren't the difference, then maybe they could work together to figure out what is the difference.

[Aiss]

^ yeah maybe I overreacted but FTR it takes all of my goodwill to even consider the possibility that someone so active here, and seemingly intelligent, could have possibly missed all of what have been posted and discussed in the last year or so re: aspectonics and model X.

[krieger]

model X is something really basic and hardly even worth giving a name. it just points to the truism that "Creative Ne" and "PoLR Se" are the same thing except in terms of emphasis.

[anndelise]

^ yeah maybe I overreacted but FTR it takes all of my goodwill to even consider the possibility that someone so active here, and seemingly intelligent, could have possibly missed all of what have been posted and discussed in the last year or so re: aspectonics and model X.

Well, for my case....i'd have probably avoided most threads and posts that went into stuff like that...except for reading out of curiosity about how people are using the aspects. But then, I'm not that great at understanding even half the stuff that gets talked about regarding various models. :shuffles away:

[Aiss]

^ yeah maybe I overreacted but FTR it takes all of my goodwill to even consider the possibility that someone so active here, and seemingly intelligent, could have possibly missed all of what have been posted and discussed in the last year or so re: aspectonics and model X.

Well, for my case....i'd have probably avoided most threads and posts that went into stuff like that...except for reading out of curiosity about how people are using the aspects. But then, I'm not that great at understanding even half the stuff that gets talked about regarding various models. :shuffles away:

I was talking about Krig.

[Gilly]

Galen is either extremely ignorant, or operating under a series of false assumptions to be able to say some of the things he said if he is indeed attempting to link his observations with 'Model A'- although, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that whatever he is talking about, preaching, studying, etc, is not "socionics", fundamentally different, and has very little correlative validity. This is the only way to make what he has said here, and in certain other places make sense. If this isn't the case, I would ask for an explanation and evidence as to how you (Galen) arrived at such conclusions.

So, you're fine with calling someone ignorant and condemning what they're saying, though you admit you don't even understand it.

Very nice.

I love how when anyone does this to you, you say "blah blah blah semantics blah blah blah" and yet when you do it you sound as full of shit and self-inflated as ever.

[xerx]

model X is something really basic and hardly even worth giving a name. it just points to the truism that "Creative Ne" and "PoLR Se" are the same thing except in terms of emphasis.

I thought it also didn't include id functions or the role.

Model X also distinguishes between temperament and the leading function (~= mode function [I presume]), since the only thing preventing a Ti-ENTp from being a Ti-INTj is the EP temperament. In Model A temperament is directly correlated to leading function.

At least afacit. I haven't really looked into it much, so I'd appreciate any correction.

[ashlesha]

Didn't this used to be called "Model X"? Are you guys still using that term, or has it fallen out of favour now?

 

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

i dont know a good reason for this to be spoilered. i think this is out of hand.

[mu4]

AFAIK the biggest difference between Ashton's - I refuse to refer to a non-existing group you term as "ashtonians" as single-minded entity - socionics methodology and what's generally accepted by you, Marie and many others here is 1) more extensive use of VI, 2) preference for Jungian approach to functions over common behavioral correlation. You can call VI guessing or call behavioralism stereotyping - I happen to do both - but don't try to make up stuff to demonize it.

I don't think there is a ashtonian "group" and "members" in the same sense that we have say, a administration staff and moderators here.

However there is a significant amount of conversation that occurs outside of this forum in IRC and other venues that result in information being presented in a certain way which is novel to many users here. Say I put a parakeet and had it listen to a bunch of conversations, it's probably going to mimic quite a few of those words and regurgitate them in the way that parakeets do.

People have even more comprehensive mimicry capabilities when they engage in social interaction and these can happen automatically rather then consciously, it's no surprise that friends that are very close and partners that become close and seem very similar and share their own personal language. Neither is it surprising that identical twins often have a very unique language that is their own.

By these sort of natural and intrinsic behaviors that humans engage in, social groups form, collapse and evolve automatically without require any conscious decisions on the part of the interlocutors.

Take a look at this concert video


Over a quarter of a million people are engage in group behavior but that doesn't mean they have a significant intellectual relationship beyond their common interests in prodigy and the environment they are in. However it promotes a level of behavioral synchronicity.

Nevertheless, there are going to be distinct differences in how others will view the people on stage vs the people in the crowd, regardless of what the individuals in the crowd do in other environments.

Coincidentally, ethical functions and the biological and physical process by which this processing occurs is significant in group behavior, community building and other forms of social interactions.

Oh yea.... one more thing.

That video... Fe..

[mu4]

 

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

i dont know a good reason for this to be spoilered. i think this is out of hand.

I sincerely ask you to strive to understand why that comment is both a personal attack and against the forum rules.

This will continue to occur in a very prompt fashion when it is noticed, and Korpsey will be facing stiffer administrative punishment should he continue to troll.

[mu4]

Uh. That was not at all a personal attack; it was a common example of a loaded question.

Should have used a different one. Users are not prohibited from altering or changing their posts after moderation.

[mu4]

Should have used a different one.

Meanwhile a mere few posts up in this same thread, Gilly is openly cursing at and denouncing people as usual lol.

Hypocrisy much?

Do you want me to moderate it? I'm here to serve? Should I moderate Aiss too, or thePirate?

Click this here below you avatar.

[Aiss]

(lots of stuff on behaviour of crowds)

The point isn't that there's a group of people who enjoy talking in irc and maybe even have an inside joke or two, or discuss ideas which are not as popular on the forum.

The point is that those people do not, and never did, as far back as I recall, have anything like a single mind when it comes to socionics, nor even reach consensus this more often than the rest of the community, which is reflected in their typings. And yet that's exactly what is being insinuated, over and over, serving as a convenient excuse not to take anyone seriously if they dare to actually *gasp* talk to someone like Ashton.

I don't care if you don't care what a particular person's opinion is. I care that people are found to be guilty by association. I care that people are hesitant to speak up because they know they'll be treated this way if they're thought to be connected to That Group. I care that in the end, it's not about any real phenomenon like your group behaviour remarks, but just a tool to dismiss others' ideas without taking the trouble of considering them first. It might be convenient, but it's only effect is reinforcing one's own ideas by the means of effectively ending free discussion.

[Absurd]

[ashlesha]

Uh. That was not at all a personal attack; it was a common example of a loaded question.

Should have used a different one. Users are not prohibited from altering or changing their posts after moderation.

lol, i dont know if you're even trying to hide your little personal grudge or not, but if you are you're doing a really crappy job of it.

[EyeSeeCold]

(lots of stuff on behaviour of crowds)

The point isn't that there's a group of people who enjoy talking in irc and maybe even have an inside joke or two, or discuss ideas which are not as popular on the forum.

The point is that those people do not, and never did, as far back as I recall, have anything like a single mind when it comes to socionics, nor even reach consensus this more often than the rest of the community, which is reflected in their typings. And yet that's exactly what is being insinuated, over and over, serving as a convenient excuse not to take anyone seriously if they dare to actually *gasp* talk to someone like Ashton.

I don't care if you don't care what a particular person's opinion is. I care that people are found to be guilty by association. I care that people are hesitant to speak up because they know they'll be treated this way if they're thought to be connected to That Group. I care that in the end, it's not about any real phenomenon like your group behaviour remarks, but just a tool to dismiss others' ideas without taking the trouble of considering them first. It might be convenient, but it's only effect is reinforcing one's own ideas by the means of effectively ending free discussion.

(not necessarily a direct response to the above poster)

As far as groupthink goes, how many people are actually purported to associate with Ashton as part of a clique and have had their opinions dismissed?

Who are the people that are hesitant to speak up?

[ashlesha]

aiss!

[mu4]

The point isn't that there's a group of people who enjoy talking in irc and maybe even have an inside joke or two, or discuss ideas which are not as popular on the forum.

The point is that those people do not, and never did, as far back as I recall, have anything like a single mind when it comes to socionics, nor even reach consensus this more often than the rest of the community, which is reflected in their typings. And yet that's exactly what is being insinuated, over and over, serving as a convenient excuse not to take anyone seriously if they dare to actually *gasp* talk to someone like Ashton.

I don't care if you don't care what a particular person's opinion is. I care that people are found to be guilty by association. I care that people are hesitant to speak up because they know they'll be treated this way if they're thought to be connected to That Group. I care that in the end, it's not about any real phenomenon like your group behaviour remarks, but just a tool to dismiss others' ideas without taking the trouble of considering them first. It might be convenient, but it's only effect is reinforcing one's own ideas by the means of effectively ending free discussion.

I've talked on IRC quite a bit as well as on cam, but I'm not associated with "That Group".
I might be associated with Krae whom I had many wonderful conversations with and have no problem with that association, despite his animosity with Turks whom I quite like, esp the food.

Perception is a bitch, unfortunately, there are reasons why perceptions persist regardless of their validity. As I mentioned, mimicry, common language characteristic, these can be noticed by others and lead them to their perceptions, right or wrong. Those that are able to seperate themselves with distinguishing characteristics and novel behavior can naturally separate themselves from association.

There have been many people who've shuffled thru the various IRC channels and stickam and tinychat that have at various points been associated and disassociated themselves from these perceptions.

Take someone like hitta, who has been a constant in the many venues of interaction outside of this forum, he has always maintained a independence and lack of association with any sort of group.

He is even sort of a mascot for this forum, despite the fact that he rarely posts and often has posted against this forum in the past. This is because he has distinguished himself from the crowd and has attained a stage so to speak.

[Aiss]

Thanks but I kinda don't feel like becoming another hitta.

[mu4]

lol, i dont know if you're even trying to hide your little personal grudge or not, but if you are you're doing a really crappy job of it.

Why would I hide my personal problems with Korpsey? I think he's a troll and abuses others.

However, he is allowed here due to my tolerance for people I don't like and that they can often offer valuable insight and information which he does occasionally.

As long as he does not troll and abuse others, there will be no reason for to moderate him.

[mu4]

Thanks but I kinda don't feel like becoming another hitta.

You seem a very capable and independent person all on your own, why would you want to be hitta....

Why would anyone want to be hitta... hitta

[Korpsy Knievel]

I sincerely ask you to strive to understand why that comment is both a personal attack and against the forum rules.

And I ask you to explain it without engaging in more hand waving, projection, or deceit.

There is nothing personal but self defense in answering repeated calumnies with truth. Spreading innuendo soils the slanderer even more than its target. As someone who is tasked with upholding propriety and decorum and has proclaimed a personal investment in these values Krig should be above such scurrilous tactics.

This will continue to occur in a very prompt fashion when it is noticed, and Korpsey will be facing stiffer administrative punishment should he continue to troll.

And you, having a very personal axe to grind, as well as a tendency toward idée fixe and confirmation bias, will continue falling haplessly into the snares of your illusions. Your comedic performance on stickam last night revealed much about your rational failings, and the argumentum ad baculum you've issued now has no moral power since it's being wielded to protect a lie. That this deception by and against the ignorant is being perpetrated on a forum that purports to investigate the truth of human perception is beyond contemptible. It's quite telling that you'd rather rid yourself of the man who mocks your folly than to divest yourself of hubris itself. For shame.

[ashlesha]

As long as he does not troll and abuse others, there will be no reason for to moderate him.

pointing out fallacies is not trolling. you're trying to hide the fact that you're not impartial by pretending his comments are "abusive."

[Aiss]

As far as groupthink goes, how many people are actually purported to associate with Ashton as part of a clique and have had their opinions dismissed?

Who are the people that are hesitant to speak up?

Do a search for "ashtonite" or something.

Since they don't want to be notice, I'd have to be an absolute idiot to name them.

aiss!

<3

[mu4]

pointing out fallacies is not trolling. you're trying to hide the fact that you're not impartial by pretending his comments are "abusive."

I'm not impartial, I'm not sure if anyone can possibly ever be.

Obviously, I don't welcome korpsey here, doesn't mean he is not allowed to be here.

We differ on what we view trolling as, that's fine.

If you have any post you think is trolling or against the forum rules, it is your right to report it.

[anndelise]

However there is a significant amount of conversation that occurs outside of this forum in IRC and other venues that result in information being presented in a certain way which is novel to many users here. Say I put a parakeet and had it listen to a bunch of conversations, it's probably going to mimic quite a few of those words and regurgitate them in the way that parakeets do.

People have even more comprehensive mimicry capabilities when they engage in social interaction and these can happen automatically rather then consciously, it's no surprise that friends that are very close and partners that become close and seem very similar and share their own personal language. Neither is it surprising that identical twins often have a very unique language that is their own.

By these sort of natural and intrinsic behaviors that humans engage in, social groups form, collapse and evolve automatically without require any conscious decisions on the part of the interlocutors.

Wouldn't a similar mimicry be occuring each time someone references the supposed Ashton's groups or Ashton's followers? or what model x was, or what this supposed group believes?

[Korpsy Knievel]

Perception is a bitch, unfortunately, there are reasons why perceptions persist regardless of their validity.

The reason in this case is largely the repetitions of vague falsehoods that exploit the dark irrationality inherent to all human minds, a coercive instrument that has been used to stir entire nations against the world or even against themselves.

As I mentioned, mimicry, common language characteristic, these can be noticed by others and lead them to their perceptions, right or wrong.

Likewise the growing and paranoid cult of those who assert the sinister influence of a certain group without producing actual evidence. From my vantage they're merely attempting to protect the sanctity of an orthodox catechism from intrusions by challenges from the real world.

Those that are able to seperate themselves with distinguishing characteristics and novel behavior can naturally separate themselves from association.

The only real unifying thread I've noticed is an emphasis on cognitivism over behaviorism and a greater application of Jungian functions to socionics models, primarily the vaunted Model A. In most other regards you're simply seeing what you prejudicially prefer to see.

Lastly, my rough play and leg pulling often has an instructional purpose, and if I target some people more than others it's because they are simply so often wrong. That this should occur so frequently among the more intelligent members of this community (and I include myself among the errant as well) is a neverending source of amusement to me. The whiners among you should be flattered that I regard you as worthwhile sparring material and seek to help you bring yourselves to reason.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

From my vantage they're merely attempting to protect the sanctity of an orthodox catechism from intrusions by challenges from the real world.

You're not allowed to do that. You're just insecure so you try to poke other people. As long as you post here with us, you're just as much of a person removed from the 'real world' as the rest of us. What do you mean from your vantage? You post at different altitudes then the rest of us??? lmao. You are so insecure.

[717495]

Heh.

I can't wait till this theory gets more popular.