A Metaphor for Fe

[Krig the Viking]

I was trying to logically describe how Internal Dynamics of Objects and Internal Statics of Fields manifest in real life.

Nanashi seems like a good example of an INTp who seems very aware of her moods and emotional self-expression, and Riddy is a good example of an ENTp who knows what people he likes and has very strong opinions about things. Likewise, I hardly care about things like social status. So, something's wrong here.

I don't know anything about Nanashi or Riddy, so I can't confirm or dispute your assessment of them.

All types have access to all functions; an ILE's Vulnerable Fi doesn't mean he has no opinions or sentiments about anything, it just means he's not very good at dealing with such things. Function weakness doesn't mean it's absent in the personality, but that it lacks fine-tuned control and awareness. A person has to focus and concentrate harder to use their weaker functions, which is tiring and produces lower-quality results.

Moral obligation, especially in a general sense, is related to Fi+Ne, while social status is more of an Fi+Se matter.

If what I described is commonly believed, it's because, in my opinion, it's an accurate description of the Information Elements in question.

Sound like an appeal to consensus to me.

If that's what it sounds like there's been a miscommunication. Logic and evidence are the only relevant factors when determining the truth of a matter; the opinion of others is irrelevant. I was merely pointing out that your implication (that ideas are incorrect because they are common) is not necessarily true. Popular opinion is irrelevant either way.

[Galen]

I don't know anything about Nanashi or Riddy, so I can't confirm or dispute your assessment of them.

All types have access to all functions; an ILE's Vulnerable Fi doesn't mean he has no opinions or sentiments about anything, it just means he's not very good at dealing with such things. Function weakness doesn't mean it's absent in the personality, but that it lacks fine-tuned control and awareness. A person has to focus and concentrate harder to use their weaker functions, which is tiring and produces lower-quality results.

Then it appears that we have different conceptions about the nature of IEs, if this isn't painfully obvious to you too.

If that's what it sounds like there's been a miscommunication. Logic and evidence are the only relevant factors when determining the truth of a matter; the opinion of others is irrelevant. I was merely pointing out that your implication (that ideas are incorrect because they are common) is not necessarily true. Popular opinion is irrelevant either way.

Well to be fair I wasn't trying to say common ideas are incorrect. I'm more trying to say that using the notion that an idea is popular neither confirms or denies the idea's veracity. I know that wasn't the point you were trying to make, but I felt that it had to be said.

[Krig the Viking]

I don't know anything about Nanashi or Riddy, so I can't confirm or dispute your assessment of them.

All types have access to all functions; an ILE's Vulnerable Fi doesn't mean he has no opinions or sentiments about anything, it just means he's not very good at dealing with such things. Function weakness doesn't mean it's absent in the personality, but that it lacks fine-tuned control and awareness. A person has to focus and concentrate harder to use their weaker functions, which is tiring and produces lower-quality results.

Then it appears that we have different conceptions about the nature of IEs, if this isn't painfully obvious to you too.

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.

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?

If that's what it sounds like there's been a miscommunication. Logic and evidence are the only relevant factors when determining the truth of a matter; the opinion of others is irrelevant. I was merely pointing out that your implication (that ideas are incorrect because they are common) is not necessarily true. Popular opinion is irrelevant either way.

Well to be fair I wasn't trying to say common ideas are incorrect. I'm more trying to say that using the notion that an idea is popular neither confirms or denies the idea's veracity. I know that wasn't the point you were trying to make, but I felt that it had to be said.

Okay, I'm glad we agree, then.

[thePirate]

Then it appears that we have different conceptions about the nature of IEs, if this isn't painfully obvious to you too.

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.

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?

Well to be fair I wasn't trying to say common ideas are incorrect. I'm more trying to say that using the notion that an idea is popular neither confirms or denies the idea's veracity. I know that wasn't the point you were trying to make, but I felt that it had to be said.

Okay, I'm glad we agree, then.

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.

[Galen]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Are you saying all 'F' functions are qualia, that all qualia are examples of 'F' functions, or some other less stringent claim?

I really don't know the term too well, so I can't say for sure. But from what I'm reading there are some definite comparisons to be drawn between involved IEs and the nature of qualia. Interesting connection.

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.

I'm not trying to make connections to any model. I'm just describing my own musings/connections/observations about the IEs as discrete patterns of cognition and understanding. Not sure where you got any depictions of Model A out of what I wrote.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.