Information aspects

[anndelise]

Please check back in the thread, I focused on what he/she said and I did not completely disagree with his approach - to attach mnemonics to the IAs - but took attitude against his misguidance. I even pointed out that he is justified to make that mistake, assigning "permutations" to because of some descriptions, he could discuss/defend/abandon his view, but he either is dumb or rude - to nonchalantly going further with his bullshit like nothing happened. This is where I had to attack his attitude.

I don't think the issue is with just this thread.
But in this thread, you gave your opinion of Mattie's efforts and interests. But she chose to pursue her interest in this. There is nothing wrong with that. If you held more sway, as in, if your personal opinion meant something more to her, then she might take it into further consideration. But when you make comments such as that one post I responded to, you reduce any credence you may have had with her. And this may result in her choosing to ignore you elsewhere and in other topics as well.

By similar token, this thread may have just been derailed enough to not get back on track.
I apologize, Mattie, for being a part of its derailment.

[Creepy-male]

ITT: Fi egos attempting to preach to a Fi PoLR.

[anndelise]

ITT: Fi egos attempting to preach to a Fi PoLR.

As well as a Ti ego attempting to force Ti polr to Ti.

Obviously Mattie and Pinocchio have different focuses on 'discussions' as well as different intents in 'discussions'. But Socionics already lets us know to expect such differences. As such, it shouldn't be too surprising to him that she would rather focus more on the Fi/Te of the discussion, rather than his focus of the Ti/Fe of the discussion, thereby ignoring his insistence that she Ti it all or drop it.

[Creepy-male]

Well, okay, allow me to rephrase: I appreciate the sentiment behind explaining to Pinocchio what's going on, but it's not an effective means of communicating/resolving the situation. Hence the comment about Fi egos preaching to a Fi PoLR: it's like trying to play music to a rock. I wasn't condemning you, Ann, and I'm sorry if it came across that way

As for using Socionics, I think it's a more flexible and pragmatic approach to remember that it describes how people work; and that, try as you might, some people you just can't coexist with. From watching the forums, it does seem that Deltas like to try to use the theory proactively or as a guidebook, rather than as a description.

But to be fair, I suppose I've just been trained well in managing ILEs (and stubborn ETps in general) by having one as a close friend, and interacting with them and their social interactions at a variety of levels, and from a variety of angles. So, like I said, I understand and appreciate the sentiment, but I'm noting that it won't get you the intended result

EDIT

Not that Isha is a stubborn ETp

[anndelise]

I hadn't interpreted it as condemnation. I just interpreted it as someone also commenting about what was happening, while using socionics terminology to do so. You were commenting on my interaction with Pinocchio, and I was commenting on his interaction with Mattie.


I don't believe that Deltas use the theory as a guidebook, but more as a tool to possibly help solve interactional problems. For the deltan's I've talked with, and myself, we don't normally turn to the theory until we run into a problem. Socionics can a) help us understand what the problem might be stemming from, and b) help us find ways to solve the problem.

Of course, not everyone seeks to resolve interactional problems in the same way, much less resolve them at all. (not you, him...and me...and Mattie) Hence such dead-end conflicts. But it doesn't stop one (me) from trying.

[mfckr]

I keep feeling like I have an obligation to respond to this thread, since I more or less initially started it. But goddam these big blobs of text some of you write.

[mfckr]

= ?
= Corollary?
= Schematic
= Homeostasis
= Permutation
= Induction...
= Resonance
= Emergence…

still needs some work too I think. Corollary isn't doing it for me lol.

For a little while now I've been fond of Homeorhesis as something essentially demonstrative of what 'does', at least in part. Though its such an obscure word, and not very pretty. And 'emergence' likely has more appropriate generalizing power.

I I haven't been able to think of a word that indicates a process and represents , as I kept coming up with noun words like contour and texture. I looked back on Ashton's suggestions on the first page, and they are, from what I can tell, noun words as well, meaning there's less of an idea of what the process of is, and everyone focuses on the outcome of . So we should probably move discussion to focus on as it is the one there is the least grasp on, and finding examples of its process would be most helpful, because I'm coming to understand that might be the IA/IE that is the least understood on this forum (and no, it has little to do with type distribution). So anyone still interested in this thread, please focus on this!

Right. I'm a bit annoyed that after all this time, people are still emphasizing the same lame stereotypes of what the (alleged) motives/outcomes of are, when it really has nothing to do with any of those things whatsoever; "power" and all that nonsense.

I was thinking about this, or a thought similar to this in concern to "cause and effect." This has been a catch-phrase assigned to multiple IAs, I think in this thread it's , but it is possible it's indicative of and . I believe Induction still works for because of the nature of the "cause and effect" it is aware of. The cause is the internal state, which is hidden from direct observation, but the internal state causes external effects, and because types aren't literally psychic, they have to use the external effects to understand the internal state (which, to some people, might make them seem psychic).

Right. I see both of them as having to do with certain kinds of causality (i.e. 'object dynamics'). They both tend to apprehend similar classes of phenomena, yet do so from an entirely opposite orientation.

Now, I didn't have the same ease when it came to applying "cause and effect" to , at least in the manner I did with . The complete reverse would be to look at internal effects to understand the external state, but I don't know if that really is what is, and if so, it could also be considered a sense of Induction. But I'm starting to think this isn't the case; stays completely external, the only reason uses anything external is because it is (apparently) directly associated with the internal, isn't concerned with the external effects of external states, which might be what is about. I wasn't completely confident with Corollary, but it fits with this external effects of external states ideas, because the word implies deduction and consequence, which seem to fit the theme going on at the moment. We could probably find a word with the essence of "cause and effect" for the Dynamic Object category later on, as we get better ideas of what the broader categories can be if we know what's actually in the categories…

I do think actually does gauge certain internal effects/parameters, by proxy via —analogous to the way I see relying on . The dual/complement Ji functions operate in providing a necessary background or framework that helps contextualize Je functions. A subjective process that usually isn't obvious to Je egos (or most anyone else for that matter), especially the EJs who tend to take their own objectivity supremely for granted. Which isn't to say that they're not 'objective'—most are—but in the final analysis you'd find latent Ji significantly influencing their outlooks and determinations. Hence why duality can be therapeutic.

Overall, I think the idea of Emergence covers what is being discussed above; it focuses on the fact that there are parts or information from which a link or pattern can arise from, that they are natural and self-organized, though not readily apparent as such. It realizes that the whole is not the sum of its parts, and the idea of emergence is to be aware of this fact. I would say just read through the wiki article here and see if things seem familiar. In all honesty, it sounds like a mystical or occult feeling wants be retained to , but these qualities aren't inherent, but placed on by those trying to make sense of how IAs/IEs are applicable to life. No matter what, this exercise is going to take away the conventional sense of "magic" that egos tend to apply to , but as someone who likes science, Emergence is pretty magical, though completely natural, to me.

It probably only seems "mystical" to Westerners because we've been indoctrinated from birth into an ontology of "scientific"-rationalism which conceives all phenomena to be explainable by reductions to naturalism where any form of causality must necessarily derive from entirely physical or logical origins, else it does not exist.

[mfckr]

Does no one else find it hopelessly silly is it to attempt to describe IM elements in terms of one-word conceptual fragments?

Don't be dense, they're not mere 1-word conceptual fragments. The idea is to find a word which typifies what that function 'is essentially like' in some way—something that illustrates either its phenomenological character, or some overarching idea thematic to it, or an analogous scientific process whose dynamics are similar in form… etc.

Then of course once a word is settled upon, the conceptual gist of it would be further expounded upon and elaborated, insofar as what/how/why it describes the nature of the function of some given function.

[mfckr]

On one hand, yes, but on the other hand, no. It's not going to especially useful for beginning socionics people, 'cause you really aren't going to be able to take these one word ideas and get straight from the word to the idea it's supposed to encapsulate. That said, once you have a moderate understanding of socionics, this could help you get a little deeper in understanding, by getting the associations and whatever down. Also it's likely to help people who are confused/irritated/misled by terms like static/dynamic and subjective/objective, as it does avoid some of the negatives of using those terms.

I think it could be highly instructive for beginners assuming that these themes could be be sufficiently developed and elaborated.

I think the problem with emergence isn't that it cuts the magic or whatever, the problem is that it focuses too much on the whole, when Ni is really more about moving from parts to whole (in my view, it's rather analogous to how Ti likes to break wholes into their component parts; Ni likes to put parts into their "necessary" wholes). Personally, I really like thinking about Ni in terms of Platonic forms, in particular the idea that a thing is the list of overarching ideas that it participates in. Like, a brown chair is a brown chair because it participates in the form of brown and the form of chair. And by looking at lots of chairs, whatever they all have in common is chair-ness or the form of the chair. I find that this concept has a very pleasing interaction between the whole and the parts: the parts are dependent upon the whole (this relates, imo, to emergence, like the parts aren't the same parts without the whole, or can't achieve the same function independent of the totality in which they are rooted), but we learn the whole through the parts. There's not a short one or two word phrase that encapsulates this view of the forms, though.

I think what you're exemplifying is more the β-flavor of ; the γ manifestation seems quite a bit different in that it rarely communicates through use of discrete and extrinsic forms as you've done above. A distinction between the two quadras that I think makes perfect sense in light of the contrasting information aspects, something that ultimately boils down to an issue of vs. … but I don't feel writing about it. Words. If you want, I'll explain in better depth.

All I can think of for Se is directive or direction. I think of direction because Se seems to me to be inherently towards something, as part of its extreme outer focus.

I think Se is poorly understood because Se is the most obviously tied to something that everyone experiences. It's literally Sensing directed outwards, so it would seem that it's basic structure must be sense perception, like seeing things. But obviously everybody sees things, whereas it seems like not everybody can tell what other people are feeling. So it's really unclear what it's basis is. It's unclear how you get from "sense perception" which everybody has, to the things we commonly associate with Se egos, like directness, bluntness, effectiveness, capacity to "get things done," surplus of will power, focus on power dynamics, force (or even negative things like "control freak," pushy, demanding, or bossy). The closest thing I can get to understanding how Se works is to think of it in terms of interpreting all information as sense perception. The things you can perceive with your senses can be easily manipulated or moved, size generally indicates power (ease or difficulty to move/cause change in).

I don't think is something that everyone experiences… besides the matter that no one who isn't is actually going to know what its like, so who are they to say? And we have a real dearth of types around here unfortunately. But anyway, whatever it 'is', I conceive must be something uniquely identifiable which only egos/valuers are actually capable of experiencing. Naturally, I would assert that the same principle holds true for every other function as well.

Also, what do you think of "force" for Se? I'm thinking "force" in the physics sense. It's a noun but it also implies motion. Perhaps there's some big word in physics-lingo implying a specific kind of force that would be appropriate?

"Force" seems most generally applicable to +.

Induction is fine for Fe, I suppose, but it doesn't seem to be at the heart of it. I mean, Fe egos may be using an inductive method, but that only captures the bit where you understand internal by external. What about the bit where you use the external to affect the internal? That's as important a part of Fe as anything. I guess the real problem is that I just don't like it.

Hmm. I bet you could think of a good one to use.

[Mattie]

For some reason I didn't notice replies to this thread.

still needs some work too I think. Corollary isn't doing it for me lol.

I'm totally lost on that one, I think I have the least amount of inspiration for it as a word, maybe once I see the interaction/comparison between and , and possibly , I'll get a better idea.

Right. I'm a bit annoyed that after all this time, people are still emphasizing the same lame stereotypes of what the (alleged) motives/outcomes of are, when it really has nothing to do with any of those things whatsoever; "power" and all that nonsense.

I think I might have found a word, I'm not particularly in love with it because it doesn't really give off a particular vibe to me just yet, but I think it's at least on the right track: Assay. It is a verb and I can't really find a more appropriate form that rolls off the tongue easier, but if you look to the multiple definitions, I think you can see what I'm getting at. I also was thinking about Anatomization, but I don't think is really about dissecting rather than something else, or maybe it could be. It's just a bit of a morbid word lol

I do think actually does gauge certain internal effects/parameters, by proxy via —analogous to the way I see relying on .

But the word is really wanting to capture on it's own. I don't think it's until the IE stage that and really start to depend on one another.

I don't think is something that everyone experiences… besides the matter that no one who isn't is actually going to know what its like, so who are they to say? And we have a real dearth of types around here unfortunately. But anyway, whatever it 'is', I conceive must be something uniquely identifiable which only egos/valuers are actually capable of experiencing. Naturally, I would assert that the same principle holds true for every other function as well.

I was thinking about something along these lines recently, about how each of the types actually experiences the IAs. My best answer was through the function definitions: I don't think -leads really experience except on rare occasions, because if is just how the world is to them, then how can really exist? Especially if the leading function is a more passive role, doesn't seem like it would come up naturally, and even when it does, it would probably be rationalized through ? I think those with vulnerable are aware of and can spot when it's around, maybe even try to use it. But I don't think they would naturally experience it either, just be aware of it's existence. Outside of your role and vulnerable functions, you'd be pretty aware of the rest of the IAs associated, except maybe your suggestive. The suggestive is that "?" that you know meshes well but not only can you not produce, you're not entirely sure what it is or where it's coming from, just that it exists.