Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
I'd say +Ti adds to complexity, while -Ti reduces it. But that's just my view on +/- in this case.Originally Posted by Pinocchio
Lol, I think that's +Ti. Not me.
I've stated several times to disregard Reinin, grr. What I say has nothing to do with that guy, I pretty much disagree with most of his dichotomies' descriptions.Correctly - well partially, the strongest long-term goal is the Base type function. But I was talking about the justification of Process/Result, not of +/-.
I assume that you're talking about Process/Result here.
If this empirical observation exists, I agree with you, I just reminded you that Reinin dichotomies are based on E/N/T/p combinations. Why? Because it appears that this "evidence" is actually a confirmation bias:
- first, noticing that +/- combined with Accepting/Producing matches Process/Result
- assuming that the "vortex" idea actually applies to these types.
Unless you or someone manages to prove that dialectic/holographic relates to this "dichotomy" - aka. prove as much as possible based on the type descriptions that this kind of separation actually applies to these types - you can't convince anyone. You keep insisting for a while that this is based on factual evidence - where is this evidence?
Edit: if you're not talking about Process/Result, the association between those ways of thinking and +/- remains to be justified as well. What I said in my previous post was connected to the justification of Process/Result, not this one, though.
I mean that the dichotomy which divides type in these two groups exists. By mentioning "mathematics of socionics", I was referring to the fact that Gulenko claims forms of thinking origin in empirical observation, and so does evolutionary/involutionary dichotomy used to explain them. I don't know if you've read that article after all; I think it's worth it to get through machine translation in this case. I myself agree with a lot of observations made.
There's no proof, there are only people that want to prove everything. Prove you exist, for example. You can be a part of my hallucinations, after all... and let's not even start on solipsism. Evidence, on the other hand, could be had. Whether it's convincing or not is another matter. In my opinion, difference between these types exist and can be described as developmental vs conclusive. (+) builds upon, (-) takes away (yes, it's in accord with signs, but it isn't the source of this understanding). Complication vs simplification - both have their uses.
(Come to think of it, what I wrote earlier about +Ti and -Ti might exactly be a difference in looking at them out of context and in context of an evolutionary type. I'll leave it as it is, though.)
I never said anything about not understanding these dichotomies. I only said these dichotomies apply to function placement, but don't touch upon their pairings except when combined, and cannot address this issue without deducing more from their mix.Hmm... Accepting/Producing is not so easy to understand, indeed.
But Valued/Unvalued, hey, you just mystify it - and people mystify it. It is actually what it's said "valued" and "unvalued", (almost) literally. To know my opinion on the matter, you may read this (more than one post), it's too much to talk about when people have different views on it.
Accepting is about acknowledging something at face value. One suffices with phenomenal data on the topic when making a decision.
Producing is about piecing information together so as to arrive at a noumenal representation (ideally; in practice this is of course a futile endeavor, which is why Producing functions are vulnerable to supervision).
you people really need to start catching up with me where these things are concerned.
I'm not going to just catch up with that, since it goes against my understanding of IEs, especially Ni and Te, in this order. You're going to have to explain better if you want me to reconsider.
One thing we know about Producing functions is that they are vulnerable to supervision. Why is this?
Because they can be wrong. There is a risk involved in establishing knowledge with regard to them.
Accepting functions decide on the basis of truisms: things that can not be contested. This is why they can't get supervised.
Removed at User Request
I prefer a simpler explanation for supervision, even if it's less sophisticated. I don't see producing functions' vulnerability to supervision. How do creative, mobilizing and demonstrative work in supervision, in your theory?
Its not like conflicting functions never disagree with eachother. They are just in the right position to criticize each other.
I don't think functions can be thought of as being "active". Only people can, and types are closest thing in socionics to which activities can be ascribed.
Producing functions being vulnerable to supervision is basic socionics theory: when two people meet, one with an Accepting function that conflicts with the Producing function of the other, the guy with the Producing function gets supervised. The Producing function is always what one gets supervised due to.
Creative, mobilizing, etc aren't the most useful terms for an explanation. What matter is whether the Producing function is Static or Dynamic. Producing Dynamic functions signify data that one doesn't instantly want to decide on the basis of, data that gives a sense of being interesting as topics of further investigation. It the end result, Producing/Dynamic information is like the puzzle pieces that get fit toghether. Producing/Static is the end result: an abstract representation formed from the piecing toghether of the data.
should be "agree"Its not like conflicting functions never disagree with eachother.
Jesus christ, SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Source please, preferably one with explanation?
IMO saying that producing functions are vulnerable to supervision is like saying that all sensory types tend to be spontaneous because SEEs are.
You can explain supervision perfectly well without involving accepting/producing dichotomy. Just by what base and PoLR are (without involving the other six. *If* all these functions were involved, I'd see your point. But it seems 1st - 4th interaction is enough, and any other influences are minor.
I'm fairly certain any piecing together that's done in my case is Ni-work, and that it's my dominant function. Additionally, Ni and face value in the same sentence sound like seeing you and Pinocchio married. No offense meant to either. Creative Te is producing, but it doesn't mean piecing things together, it means (for me) the missing pieces. What now?Creative, mobilizing, etc aren't the most useful terms for an explanation. What matter is whether the Producing function is Static or Dynamic. Producing Dynamic functions signify data that one doesn't instantly want to decide on the basis of, data that gives a sense of being interesting as topics of further investigation. It the end result, Producing/Dynamic information is like the puzzle pieces that get fit toghether. Producing/Static is the end result: an abstract representation formed from the piecing toghether of the data.
(I think you may be slightly biased by having external base and internal creative.)
It follows from the intertype relations. Do I really have to source this? INTjs are supervised by ESTps, ESFps by ISTjs, etc. This is all standard socionics.Source please, preferably one with explanation?
You can not explain it in a simpler way, because relative to my method, PoLR is itself a redundant term. By saying "Creating Ne is vulnerable to Accepting Se", I make the claim that "Se PoLR is vulnerable to Base Se" redundant. Most of the model A is redundant this way. You can explain everything using just the two ego functions (although involving the Weak Valued ones can be useful sometimes).You can explain supervision perfectly well without involving accepting/producing dichotomy. Just by what base and PoLR are (without involving the other six. *If* all these functions were involved, I'd see your point. But it seems 1st - 4th interaction is enough, and any other influences are minor.
Well I'm not responsible for the way you have been interpreting things so far. All I can do is recommend you to interpret things in terms of you piecing things together using Te and using Ni only to get a quick first impression of things. Although the quick Ni view is present during the whole integration process aswell.I'm fairly certain any piecing together that's done in my case is Ni-work, and that it's my dominant function. What now?
I know what supervision is, thanks.
Actually, I see your view as redundant. Some things involve many functions. Sometimes one or two dictate the nature of relationship. See my example with S types and spontaneous types. Unless you can point out that it works for other producing functions, it's overgeneralized.
Another thing is that I don't believe all function characteristics can be derived from positioning dichotomies. On the contrary, in this case I rather see dichotomies as incomplete.
I cannot see how "piecing things together" would be possible using Te, nor how Ni can stop itself from it. I mean, weaving things together is basically the nature of Ni. Maybe I misinterpret what you mean by these terms, but I can't see it work (while I have no problem with accepting/producing as such).All I can do is recommend you to interpret things in terms of you piecing things together using Te and using Ni only to get a quick first impression of things. Although the quick Ni view is present during the whole integration process aswell.
Its what you did in the post before your last. You raised articulated objections to my claims. Articulated sentences are always related to rational functions. Irrational ones prefer to just denote things in single words.I cannot see how "piecing things together" would be possible using Te
It just understands phenomena on the basis of what it currently sees of them. It doesn't need to piece anything together because it always immediately has what it needs to understand what it observes.nor how Ni can stop itself from it.
That's how I understand Te as producing - it's used in communication.
I don't exactly agree with this speech pattern, based on other people.
If you mean the fact that base is automatic, "always turned on", primary and unavoidable means of seeing the world - all of which I agree with - you chose a terrible phrase to express it. And I kinda disagree on "immediately" part - it happens all the time. I still think you're affected by your own external/internal combination, by the way.It just understands phenomena on the basis of what it currently sees of them. It doesn't need to piece anything together because it always immediately has what it needs to understand what it observes.
I think Base and Creative are both always on, but the Base is always successful where the Creative has to fail (stumble/apologize/question) a million times before it gets things right. The reason is because the Base function has less idealistic aims.If you mean the fact that base is automatic, "always turned on", primary and unavoidable means of seeing the world - all of which I agree with - you chose a terrible phrase to express it. And I kinda disagree on "immediately" part - it happens all the time. I still think you're affected by your own external/internal combination, by the way.
I see the ability to apply quadra progressions to archetypal patterns in literature (Gilly already has demonstrated some specifics in Avatar and The Matrix). This is loosely based off of Northrop Frye's theory of archetypes outlined in Anatomy of Criticism.
First, each quadra has its own hero archetype (the hero doesn't necessarily belong to the quadra because it's fiction, but he represents certain quadra ideals).
Alpha: Romantic Hero: innocent, idealistic (Fe/Ti), usually associated with nature (Si) and untapped potential (Ne). Ex. Luke Skywalker
Beta: Flawed/Tragic Hero: often mirrors the romantic hero, but is flawed in some way that produces his downfall. Ex. Hamlet
Gamma: Anti-hero: this hero is skilled and experienced (Se), pragmatic (Te), followed by a checkered past (Ni), and does some morally questionable things, nonetheless usually has some sort of moral code (Fi). Ex. Rick Blaine in Casablanca
Delta: Reluctant Hero: hero that has heroism thrust unwillingly upon him; his quest is simply to restore order and stability. Ex. Frodo
The hero embarks on a quest that can follow on of four basic patterns: romance, tragedy, satire/irony, or comedy. Quadra progression of each as follows:
Romance: This begins right after a shift from an age of stability (Delta) to one of new ideas (Alpha). The hero is introduced (usually the romantic hero). The start of the conflict is where the shift from Alpha to Beta takes place, where the battle lines are drawn, goals are clear, and the hero embarks on his quest. Most of the story takes place in the Beta phase and during the slow shift from Beta to Gamma, where power and experience is gained (Se) and Fe/Ti idealism and innocence is replaced with knowledge (Te) and relationships with the hero's companions (Fi). The hero is often guided by some wise deity or sage or whatnot, representing Ni. When the hero reaches the culmination of power and knowledge, he is fully in the Gamma phase and must soon make a choice. Once the right choice is made, the forces opposing the hero are vanquished and we see the beginnings of a new order of Delta stability begin to rise. The Romantic Hero becomes and important part of the new order, the Tragic Hero dies accomplishing his goal, the Anti-hero is redeemed, and the reluctant hero fades away.
Tragedy: The tragedy follows the exact same formula as the romance, except that the Romantic or Reluctant hero is defeated, allowing the forces opposing him to triumph, or the Tragic hero or anti-hero make the "wrong" choice. Either way, the progression is reversed into a regression back to violence and Beta as everything the hero fought for is undone. This story favors the Tragic hero.
Satire/Irony: The satire is usually a mockery of the romance, and so is begins when a corrupt or ineffective Delta society begins to degenerate and regress into Gamma. This story favors the Anti-hero. As the power struggles get worse, the chaos eventually leads to a violent and chaotic Beta age. As Beta shifts into Alpha, compromises are made and new ideas implemented so to return to the stability of a Delta order, an order that is essentially the same as the one at the beginning, reinforcing the idea of the vicious cycle. The occasional satire involves the hero resisting the regression at the Alpha stage in some way and making a choice to return to Beta. The damage done by the regression begins to be undone.
Comedy: The comedy is essentially an Alpha hero in a restrictive Delta society. He usually meets a girl that society restricts him from being with. In effort to be with the girl, he temporarily reforms the society into a more accepting Alpha version. In doing so, he sets in motion a chain of events that, with the help of opposing Gamma forces, go too far into a Beta age that lose him the girl. He then has to defeat the Gammas in order to return to his Alpha age and get the girl back.
Stan is not my real name.
I figured I would do an archetypal pattern/quadra progression analysis of the Lord of the Rings trilogy because I love it. On of the reasons LotR is so good is because Tolkien actually studied archetypal patterns in myths, so when he set out to create his own he manipulated the patterns. In quadra progression terms, he created a ring that progresses one way through the quadras and another that progresses the opposite way simultaneously.
The first ring (pun intended, btw) is the one of Middle Earth itself, and its heroes, namely Aragorn and Gandalf. It begins at the end of the Third Age, where Delta stability has past and Gamma practicality is taking hold as everyone tries to fulfill their own subjective agendas. The elves are leaving Middle Earth, the kingdoms of men are crumbling. Gandalf and Aragorn are more or less the Anti-hero template: powerful, experienced, pragmatic, with rough pasts and moral codes. With the emergence of the Ring, the conflict starts to become clearer (reaching the Se/Ni axis with the sending of the fellowship), and they both must learn to embrace idealism over practicality while they unite the men of Middle Earth against Sauron, shifting fully into Beta during the Two Towers and with the onslaught of war. As they relearn their idealism and come closer to the Fe/Ti axis, they also start to replace their old skills with new Ne potential (Gandalf becomes the white wizard and Aragorn starts becoming to embrace his kingly destiny). They reach their full potentials on the Ne/Si axis when they assault the Black Gate just before the Ring is destroyed. After the war ends, they set up a new Alpha society based on newfound freedoms and potentials and reverence to nature.
The second ring goes the opposite way, and is the story of the hobbits. They start out in a very stable, simple, practical Delta society: the Shire. As the Ring comes to them and they leave the Shire, they slowly learn their own latent potential to make a difference in the world. They also grow in their idealism. For them, the Fe/Ti axis is height of their idealism and the final good-bye to the comfort of the Shire (Si) in favor of action (Se) that supports long term life (Ni). This is when Frodo decides to take the Ring and his friends refuse to stay behind (notice that this coincides with the Se/Ni axis in the previous loop). So of course the rest of their adventures are part of a grand beta conflict, War of the Ring, etc., etc., Frodo drops the Ring into Mount Doom at the Se/Ni axis, temptation and power is ultimately resisted in favor of long-term good. Then they all go home and find Saruman has taken over the Shire. This is their gamma phase, where they use all the experience and knowledge they have gained to practically and efficiently supplant him and restore Delta stability to the Shire.
Stan is not my real name.
Interesting I like this, people should relate socionics more to literary analysis.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote