Short Type Descriptions

[Gilly]

NO THEY AREN'T, THEY JUST SOUND GOOD

CAN'T ANYONE ELSE SEE HOW FUTILE AND USELESS THIS IS?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Gilly]

Both of you are full of yourselves and shit. Let it go.

[krieger]

In the previous post, you implied that, because Ne people are strong in Ni (and the reverse), Ne and Ni are the same thing, and they, as information elements represent the same things. Wrong, lol. They are different, they are described differently . Also Ni types are different from Ne types, they value and use different information than one each other.

None of that contradicts what I've been saying. Your approach of outlining a very clear distiction between the two intuitive functions is out of alignment with the practical fact that a person who engages in one automatically engages in the other in implicit ways. The real workings of the two are to a far greater extent meshed than you make it seem.

[Bardia]

The one's I read aren't half bad.

[Gilly]

They're not horrible looked at simply as characterizations, but that's all there is to it. You can't type people like this, and it's meaningless as a way of understanding the theory. It just sounds nice.

[Azeroffs]

They're not horrible looked at simply as characterizations, but that's all there is to it. You can't type people like this, and it's meaningless as a way of understanding the theory. It just sounds nice.

It is based completely on the the theory, just simplified. Enough to render it not 100% precise, but still valuable for a simple understanding if you don't already know the theory. It's not meant for typing. It's there for a simple understanding of what a type is.

I don't see what your problem is with it. All you keep saying is that it is oversimplified. Oversimplified being useful in some regards.

I'm sorry but this is just a fucking hyperspeed railway to non-functional oversimplification. It compromises every ounce of theoretical basis that this already-shady theory is held up by. Please stop now before everyone gets brainwashed.

Actually, it is based on functions. I just reworded it to give connections between say Fe base and Fi ignoring so that there could be a more continuous understanding of it.

[Azeroffs]

these are very good

Do you have an opinion on the Ti descriptions considering that you are LSI?

[Gilly]

It is based completely on the the theory, just simplified. Enough to render it not 100% precise, but still valuable for a simple understanding if you don't already know the theory. It's not meant for typing. It's there for a simple understanding of what a type is.

I don't see what your problem is with it. All you keep saying is that it is oversimplified. Oversimplified being useful in some regards.

It's not useful; it's lazy. Like I said, as characterizations, they are fine, but that's like saying it's a nice portrait of a mexican holding a rake; he's not going to do shit for me. And in this case, it's going to make people still living in the ghetto stare at the picture and think they've got a lawn and lots of little chicano slaves. Just because it's easy, doesn't make it good; in fact in this case, it makes it bad.

Actually, it is based on functions. I just reworded it to give connections between say Fe base and Fi ignoring so that there could be a more continuous understanding of it.

I can see that it's based on functions; by non-functional I meant effectively useless.

Teaching people Socionics like this is like teaching a child the English language as though it included words like "omg" or "wtf." It's going to make them lazy in typing, their understanding flawed, and the whole thing completely fucking pointless.

[Azeroffs]

Teaching people Socionics like this is like teaching a child the English language as though it included words like "omg" or "wtf." It's going to make them lazy in typing, their understanding flawed, and the whole thing completely fucking pointless.

If you didn't teach "omg" or "wtf" you would have a more correct understanding of the language, but you would have holes in your ability to communicate with in some circumstances.

My point is that not everything is about correctness and precision. You're right this is useless in fully understanding the theory, but usually people learn slang and curse words of a language before they learn the whole thing if you know what I mean. This has its use in a situation in which you don't want to teach "the whole language." You just want them to understand what you're saying.

NO THEY AREN'T, THEY JUST SOUND GOOD

But, besides them being oversimplified, do you see anything blatantly wrong with them? I'd like to fine-tune it if I can.

[Nexus]

Do you have an opinion on the Ti descriptions considering that you are LSI?

I think that they are spot-on

[Gilly]

If you didn't teach "omg" or "wtf" you would have a more correct understanding of the language, but you would have holes in your ability to communicate with in some circumstances.

My point is that not everything is about correctness and precision. You're right this is useless in fully understanding the theory, but usually people learn slang and curse words of a language before they learn the whole thing if you know what I mean. This has its use in a situation in which you don't want to teach "the whole language." You just want them to understand what you're saying.

But it doesn't HAVE a use; this is like trying to explain a multi-variable calculus proof in the language of basic algebra.

But, besides them being oversimplified, do you see anything blatantly wrong with them? I'd like to fine-tune it if I can.

They can't be right if they're too simple...see above metaphor.

[Azeroffs]

But it doesn't HAVE a use; this is like trying to explain a multi-variable calculus proof in the language of basic algebra.

That could be useful to someone who only understands algebra and isn't interested in learning every aspect of calc.

[Nexus]

But it doesn't HAVE a use; this is like trying to explain a multi-variable calculus proof in the language of basic algebra.

They can't be right if they're too simple...see above metaphor.

I disagree, many theorems have equivalent proofs in different branches; it is like giving the instructions to program a VCR in English, Spanish, German, and Chinese...1 idea can be expressed in many different ways depending on how you look at it (as far as subjective thought/ is concerned; if you have an objective enterprise/ then 1 method may be far more useful than another)

[Galen]

These are really good in their simplicity.

Feeling - They are in constant focus on their personal connection to reality. The expression of this feeling is seen as unnecessary and commonly cheapening of these personal feelings.

I thought I was the only one who felt like this haha

[Azeroffs]

I thought I was the only one who felt like this haha

I'm pretty sure that's a common sentiment among Fi-base.

[Galen]

I'm pretty sure that's a common sentiment among Fi-base.

Regardless, it's something I connect to very well, and a sentiment I've never really heard anybody else express.

[Gilly]

I disagree, many theorems have equivalent proofs in different branches; it is like giving the instructions to program a VCR in English, Spanish, German, and Chinese...1 idea can be expressed in many different ways depending on how you look at it (as far as subjective thought/ is concerned; if you have an objective enterprise/ then 1 method may be far more useful than another)

It's not a different language, though; it's just a dumbed down version of the same thing. It's nothing new or original; just the same shit in a smaller box. Try cutting the English language down to 20 words and see how effectively anything subjective is conveyed.

[Azeroffs]

Regardless, it's something I connect to very well, and a sentiment I've never really heard anybody else express.

I am considering ESI after looking solely on the Reinin Dichotomies.
After much consideration I think I must have introverted ethics because I do have a lot of feelings, ups and downs and I feel pretty intensely to the point where I can get physically ill even. But I come off as unfeeling because I don’t readily show my feelings to everybody. In fact I hate it when people do that as I tend to equate very public displays of emotions as being insincere. (the reasoning behind it being that If you truly feel as intensely as you claim to do you would not share it so readily with the world because it is too personal)

It makes sense as Fi-base Fe-role.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Nexus]

It's not a different language, though; it's just a dumbed down version of the same thing. It's nothing new or original; just the same shit in a smaller box. Try cutting the English language down to 20 words and see how effectively anything subjective is conveyed.

It is not the end, but a means, a process; 1 more subjective outlook...

[Azeroffs]

Indeed, but the second part only, the first part is Fe. Nevertheless, if you check more carefully her latter sentences, you will notice something: "I don’t readily", "I tend to equate", "very public", "share it so readily". It is clear that she usually feels the urge to express emotions (Fe), but the decision or idea is completely rational (as in rational).

Fi types talk about such things in absolute terms and are decisive against this Fe "showing off". They don't need a reason to restrain their explosive/dramatic emotion because they don't have them, they don't understand them and they're against them by default.

I don't think it's that absolute. Everyone expresses emotions at times. Even Fe-PoLRs. Frankly, nothing in socionics is absolute. Even if they don't naturally, they will at times just to get along. It's normal. If people didn't adapt to others no one would get along.

Btw, there is a decent control over id-elements. They are just typically acted out without conscious thought. Demonstrative to a much greater extent, but the ignoring as well.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Azeroffs]

Fi-base certainly doesn't have the same burst as Fe-egos, but to say they don't ever act that way is ridiculous. Most Fi-base prefer factual interchanges, but they won't shy away from emotional exchanges when forced to.

[thePirate]

Completely wrong. Ne deals with the potential of things or situations, Ni deals with the possibilities of actions, of development.

Possibilities are rather the options of how to do things, where potential is what can be good for something.
For example, in case of an unexpected catastrophe Ne could tell what can be a safe place, while Ni could tell the paths, how could such a place be reached, or if something like that could be reached or not.

If you want a rule of thumb to remember:
- Ne = potential, "what could ...?"
- Ni = possibilities, "how could ...?"

I actually think this is a pretty good definition. I mistyped myself for about a year as IEE because the word possiblities was thrown around without differentiating it from 'potential'.

Potential in this sense having a 'practical' context; the usage of word suggesting actively doing something about it

Possibilities in the sense of having an 'abstract' context; the usage of the word suggesting understanding something to which practical usage may or may not be used; but its not the primary intent

Labcoat, is your only problem with this that it it isnt explained too deeply? I feel like its adequate enough for both users to be able to make a difference, and it makes sense as per functional usage:

Ne - expands - sees potential - draws out idea after idea after idea

Ni - contracts - sees possibilities - narrows down choices

There are certain types who use both, but the way they use it is different. Certain types use one or the other as a primary mode of being; while the other function more of a concious 'tool' that may come in handy but the same need isnt felt to use it.

I do agree that everyone expresses emotions, but I find Fi types to be much more rigid in their use of emotional expression; when they do express emotions its usually one dimensional; if you spend time with Fe egos and Fi egos little nuances in tone and expresssion that those strong in Fe give off aren't present in Fi types; micro modulations, smoothness in emotional transitions, etc.

o.o that's my current understanding anyway.

[Gilly]

It is not the end, but a means, a process; 1 more subjective outlook...

...which happens to oversimplify things.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Labcoat, is your only problem with this that it it isnt explained too deeply?

To tell you the truth, I think there is so much wrong with the way people generally speak about functions on the forum that it's better to tell them they are wrong for a simple reason that for the real one. In that sense, yes, "not explained too deeply" is a good way to describe the flaw.

The whole thing about expanding/contracting is related to Accepting/Creating. It's the Accepting function axes that expand (from Limiting Dynamic - a single observed occasion - to Empowering Static - a large number of possible states of affairs) and the Creating function axes that contract (from Empowering Dynamic - a large number of observed occasions: pieces of evidence - to Limiting Static - a single possible state of affairs).

"Possibility" is mostly a matter of Empowering + Static. It's not surprising that Ephemeros links it to his base function, altough doing so is most definitely wrong. Accepting Se is as much a function of possiblity as his Ne is, nevermind that the only possiblities it ranges over are "stereotyped/prototyped" ones.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

"Possibility" can't be static, you shameless demagogue! A possible thing requires action, change, a process to be fulfilled. But it's fucking obvious without any hairsplitting, anyway. Go shoot yourself!

lol. You're associating Ne with possibility yourself, yet it can't be Static? Who is being the nutty demagogue here?

Possibility refers to a positable state of things. That is why it is associated with statics.

The reason why it is also related to Accepting/Empowering/Static is because it is half of what happens when a person first encounters (= Accepting) a situation: s/he has certain pieces of knowledge at his/her disposal that are known only by virtue of being picked up at that instance (Limiting/Accepting/Dynamic), and s/he finds him/herself with the oppurtunity to generate a large number of possible hypotheses (Empowering/Accepting/Static) on the state of the world from said data.


What's interesting is that you are actually confirming another statement of mine with your words: Ne and Ni are very closely related. To posit a possible state of things is to instantly raise questions as to how that state comes about. And that is why people who focus on Ne end up focussing on Ni as a matter of consequence. And why people who value Ne must naturally also value whatever way it is in which Ne type use Ni in the process of ruminating.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Then here is your rebuttal:

Possibility refers to a positable state of things. That is why it is associated with statics.

[krieger]

Or let's argue a completely different way:

"Potential" can't be static, you shameless demagogue! A potential thing requires action, change, a process to be fulfilled. But it's fucking obvious without any hairsplitting, anyway. Go shoot yourself!

[Azeroffs]

The word possible is ambiguous here. I see what you both are saying and neither of you are wrong.

Ne and Ni both deal with possibility, just possibility based on certain criteria. The best way I can describe it is that Ni sees possibilities based on what is considered to be objectively real(Se) and Ne sees possibilities based on what is subjectively observed(Si). As a result possibilities based on reality creates a sense of future possibility. "What can I assume if everything is exactly as it appears?" Possibility based on observation creates a sense of originality of observation or seeing how something could be different than what it is. Potentially possible in other words. "What can be if X is what I have observed." Both essentially ask "What is possible?"

Just for fun:
Se: "What is exactly as is if X is what I assume?"
Si: "What am I observing if not everything is exactly as it appears?"
Both ask "what is?"

[krieger]

I think a distinction between "possible state of affairs" and "possible happening" should also be made.

[Brilliand]

"Possibility" can't be static, you shameless demagogue! A possible thing requires action, change, a process to be fulfilled. But it's fucking obvious without any hairsplitting, anyway. Go shoot yourself!

A possibility and the action required to bring about that possibility are not inseparable from each other...

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[ArchonAlarion]

The word possible is ambiguous here. I see what you both are saying and neither of you are wrong.

Ne and Ni both deal with possibility, just possibility based on certain criteria. The best way I can describe it is that Ni sees possibilities based on what is considered to be objectively real(Se) and Ne sees possibilities based on what is subjectively observed(Si). As a result possibilities based on reality creates a sense of future possibility. "What can I assume if everything is exactly as it appears?" Possibility based on observation creates a sense of originality of observation or seeing how something could be different than what it is. Potentially possible in other words. "What can be if X is what I have observed." Both essentially ask "What is possible?"

Just for fun:
Se: "What is exactly as is if X is what I assume?"
Si: "What am I observing if not everything is exactly as it appears?"
Both ask "what is?"