Yeah, it's not just the number of perspectives the person takes into consideration, it's also how the person takes these into consideration. Is it a real alternative or an opposing viewpoint, for example.Originally Posted by anndelise
So why exactly would gamma be more objective than delta (or vice versa?) in terms of Socionics?
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Hmmm, I suppose that I should have added to my natural bias post that perhaps an "objective" person is one who realizes that their perceptions are limited and thus takes that biasness into consideration.
Also, I don't believe that any one quadra is more "objective" than another, nor more "subjective" than another.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
omfg.
Correct, insofar as the color red also has nothing to do with the color yellow, or my right hand has nothing to do with my left hand. But in the magical world of Context we see connections between things and they begin to have things to do with one another, such as a person who is not being objective also being illogical. Boom! A connection between objectivity and logicality is born. People seperate the two too far. A person who is technically being logical, but who fails to see reality and ends up getting themselves hurt wasn't being logical, because they were attempting to help themselves instead of hurt themselves.To be objective means to be without bias. It has nothing to do with logic.
To be objective means to see the object. It doesn't have to do with bias; That was a retarded and perverse thing to say. You can be totally biased about something and still be objective, whereas one cannot be objective without logic.sorry.
Um... gee, maybe because thinking is different than DOING? A person who goes on a killing spree used a subjective, illogical reasoning process to justify his actions, whereas the human brain is naturally chaotic (our understanding of it is borderline incorporeal) and exempt from this type of classification. I'm talking about when someone DOES something.Not true, a person can Ne all over the place and throw out possibilities and be perfectly (no, not perfectly! hehe) objective in considering all possibilites.
You CAN be 100% objective. It is easy. Here is an analogy to assist your half-assed understanding of the concept:So Joy is right, when it comes to taking a position and arguing it, nobody can be 100% objective because nobody can take into account all possibilities and nobody can entirely move away from personal bias. But that has nothing to do with logic or universal truths.
Person A is asked to memorize every detail of a painting by Person B.
Person A informs Person B that every detail of the painting has been memorized.
Person A is confident that every detail of the painting has been memorized.
Person B points out a detail of the painting and asks Person A if he remembered it.
Person A admits that he did not.
Therefore, the only way for Person A to know if he has not been "objective" is for Person B (or anyone) to point out a detail of the painting that he has not remembered, but until then...
HE IS NOT BEING ILLOGICAL BY HAVING CONFIDENCE IN HIS PERCEPTION OF THE PAINTING, because he knows what he knows . He is being perfectly objective, regardless of whether or not he actually knows everything. He is seeing the object, from his perspective, and using that information logically. He is being objective. If you want to get into some Kantian discussion of "the thing in itself," go ahead, but that is not relevant to what I am saying. And you are totally wrong, Kim.
"Objectivity means to not be mean and biased." ahahaha
A person is being SUBjective (think: focused on the subject rather than the object) when they are reasoning outside the boundaries of logic, or the object.
Not to say that you weren't being objective, Kimmie. Just think of me as person B.
I will argue this straight to hell, because I am 100% correct.
That's a misuse of those two words.
Seeing something from every perspective can't be equated with "objectivity" because we don't know if that is required to be objective (as you used the word).
It's just horseshit speculation.
You are not making any sense whatsoever. I still don't see the connection between logic and objectivity as you are trying to make it out. Just because you think there is one doesn't mean there is one. This is what I call subjective reality. :wink:But in the magical world of Context we see connections between things and they begin to have things to do with one another, such as a person who is not being objective also being illogical. Boom! A connection between objectivity and logicality is born. People seperate the two too far. A person who is technically being logical, but who fails to see reality and ends up getting themselves hurt wasn't being logical, because they were attempting to help themselves instead of hurt themselves.
To be objective means to see the object. It doesn't have to do with bias; That was a retarded and perverse thing to say. You can be totally biased about something and still be objective, whereas one cannot be objective without logic.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Kim, you have no idea how to have a discussion. You just stonewalled and acted like you made a point. You said nothing.You are not making any sense whatsoever. I still don't see the connection between logic and objectivity as you are trying to make it out. Just because you think there is one doesn't mean there is one. This is what I call subjective reality. :wink:But in the magical world of Context we see connections between things and they begin to have things to do with one another, such as a person who is not being objective also being illogical. Boom! A connection between objectivity and logicality is born. People seperate the two too far. A person who is technically being logical, but who fails to see reality and ends up getting themselves hurt wasn't being logical, because they were attempting to help themselves instead of hurt themselves.
To be objective means to see the object. It doesn't have to do with bias; That was a retarded and perverse thing to say. You can be totally biased about something and still be objective, whereas one cannot be objective without logic.
Intelligence plz.
That's interesting...I seem more Alpha than Gamma from that list. What do you make of the fact that we were coming up with all sorts of ideas on SGs site and SG (INTj) was intent on shooting them all down? It seems as if the INTps were coming up with the new ideas, and the INTj was criticizing them.Phaedrus:
Alpha (ENTp) comes up with new ideas - Gamma (INTp) criticizes them.
Alpha makes references to logic - Gamma makes references to facts.
Alpha takes a subjective stand - Gamma takes an objective stand.
Alpha seeks understanding - Gamma seeks knowledge.
Alpha seeks Meaning - Gamma seeks Truth.
More often than not, on forum posts, people who self-identify as Alphas seem to be explaining Socionics theory as it's supposed to be understood, and maybe fleshing it out a little. A lot of what seems like bold, *new* information comes from self-identified Gammas, such as you, SmilingEyes, and Expat.
At least, it certainly seems to me that you come up with new ideas.The idea that the resolution between MBTI and Socionics is to say that what appears in MBTI as Ti is Ni in Socionics and what appear in MBTI as Ni is Ti in Socionics is an idea, isn't it?
How would you define the difference between understanding and knowledge?
First, adherence to reality has little or nothing to do with type. Producing a result or process is universal in socionics. It all depends on how much effort is put into thinking, and of course valuing results.
@Joy, people don't decide what is objective.
What is the difference between good and bad information? The answer is simple, but answering it yourself will be more potentThat's interesting...I seem more Alpha than Gamma from that list. What do you make of the fact that we were coming up with all sorts of ideas on SGs site and SG (INTj) was intent on shooting them all down? It seems as if the INTps were coming up with the new ideas, and the INTj was criticizing them.Phaedrus:
Alpha (ENTp) comes up with new ideas - Gamma (INTp) criticizes them.
Alpha makes references to logic - Gamma makes references to facts.
Alpha takes a subjective stand - Gamma takes an objective stand.
Alpha seeks understanding - Gamma seeks knowledge.
Alpha seeks Meaning - Gamma seeks Truth.
More often than not, on forum posts, people who self-identify as Alphas seem to be explaining Socionics theory as it's supposed to be understood, and maybe fleshing it out a little. A lot of what seems like bold, *new* information comes from self-identified Gammas, such as you, SmilingEyes, and Expat.
At least, it certainly seems to me that you come up with new ideas.
How would you define the difference between understanding and knowledge?
Objective is anything you haven't formulated an opinion on.
Maybe I would have thought that too some months ago. Those descriptions of the differences between Alpha and Gamma, written by Alphas, are somewhat misleading, I think. At least they are not that easy to identify with if you are a Gamma.That's interesting...I seem more Alpha than Gamma from that list.
But now I can see much more clearly than before that almost everything that I have thought, written, or "created" in my courses in philosophy, literary theory, the Swedish language, or whatever, has been some sort of critique of what others have done. I have pointed out mistakes, logical fallacies, ungrounded assumptions. I have claimed that this or that theory, or system, or model, or opinion, is false, inconsistent, wrong for some other reasons, and so on.
I don't create new theories, I try to reform already existing theories or make syntheses of two or three or many theories. That's what I'm doing in the world of types too. I try to comprehend everything, every typology, every theory that has been put forward. I compare them, try to find mistakes in them, try to connect them if I think that that's the way to go, and so on. I am not like the Alphas, who either invent the system (Socionics, for example) or stick to the first model they encounter and happen to like (I'm slightly provocative here, I know ...
We came up with all sorts of critical objections, counter-arguments, empirical facts, whereas SG was the one who didn't want se his "beloved" theory being criticized by some "idiots", who thought that they were clever. What a heresy! Who do you think you are, smart guys? Leave our model alone! If you are not with us, you are against us! Compare with what Jung says about the introverted thinking type's paranoid tendencies.What do you make of the fact that we were coming up with all sorts of ideas on SGs site and SG (INTj) was intent on shooting them all down? It seems as if the INTps were coming up with the new ideas, and the INTj was criticizing them.
Okay, I'm exaggerating here. I don't think that SG or anyone else of the INTjs on his or this forum is paranoid. But I have seen such tendencies in other INTjs, both in real life and in famous people. Those with strong Ti invent models, their own models, which often can be quite original and interesting, but the inventors are not particularly willing to listen to critique of their models.
Yes, but we are (or at least I am) mostly pointing out things based on information that we have induced from facts that we have collected from the world that is outside of the theory. The Alphas come up with things they have deduced from premises and assumptions from within the theory or from their own (sub)consciousness.More often than not, on forum posts, people who self-identify as Alphas seem to be explaining Socionics theory as it's supposed to be understood, and maybe fleshing it out a little. A lot of what seems like bold, *new* information comes from self-identified Gammas, such as you, SmilingEyes, and Expat.
I don't know, in a sense maybe. But it could be more of an observation, or an induction, that is based on the fact that I am able to see a pattern from having collected so much information from various sources during some time now. But maybe someone else (perhaps with strong Ti or strong Ne) would have connected the dots much quicker and more easily, if they had bothered to collect all that information in the first place and had been more willing to critically examine and question a lot of things. What is guiding me in the process is my (supposedly) strong Ni, which prompts me to never give up my quest for beauty and harmony even if it seems to be very far away. (OMG! Who does he think he is? A poet? A plea writer or something?At least, it certainly seems to me that you come up with new ideas. The idea that the resolution between MBTI and Socionics is to say that what appears in MBTI as Ti is Ni in Socionics and what appear in MBTI as Ni is Ti in Socionics is an idea, isn't it?)
I thought before that I was also seeking an understanding, but I now believe that was is meant by "understanding" in this context, when someone from Alpha is using the word, has more to do with what I mean by Meaning.How would you define the difference between understanding and knowledge?
You understand something if you know what it means ... to you, to the world, to mankind ... How can this be interpreted? How can we use this theory in this context? How can it be meaningful to us?
My approach is different. I now understand(!) that I have always been seeking knowledge. You have knowledge of something if you have a justified true belief of it. Knowledge is by definition the same as justified true belief (even though some Alpha philosophers have been trying to redefine the concept of knowledge, or the concept of truth, or they can't see that they are two different things). When you have knowledge of something you are dependent on the objective world. The world has to "cooperate", otherwise you might have justified beliefs but no real knowledge. So, the concept of knowledge is logically linked to the concept of truth, and truth is never subjective. Truth is always objective in the sense that we, as human beings, are not the final arbiters of what is true and what is false. Protagoras (with his Homo mensura idea) could not have been a Gamma.
yeah...
Address my first argument directly and we'll talk. The secret is in deconstructing the opponent. I told you why logic and objectivity are not inherently related. You countered with "they are because I say so."
But let's leave it. You cannot hold an argument without ad hominem bullshit anyway. It's boring and pointless. Have a good day.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
You're disgusting Kim. No wonder you don't have a family.
yeah...
Address my first argument directly and we'll talk. The secret is in deconstructing the opponent. I told you why logic and objectivity are not inherently related. You countered with "they are because I say so."
But let's leave it. You cannot hold an argument without ad hominem bullshit anyway. It's boring and pointless. Have a good day.
What is so difficult about explaining yourself and what you mean? Why do you ALWAYS resort to personal attacks when challenged? You have never proven credibility nor a developed and insighfult use of theyou keep claiming you have. You are one example of those people who constantly talk about their abilites but don't put them on display. I simply said that I don't understand how logic and objectivity are related and explained what I perceive objectivity to be. Your answer did not make sense to me and read like "I think this is true, so it is and it is objective." This I said. So muster the patience and make yourself more clear.
If you want to be taken seriously, especially with regards to being a logical thinker, don't throw in the towel every time there is a challenge. But perhaps you don't want to come across as such. In that case, all power to ad hominem.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
"The Alphas come up with things they have deduced from premises and assumptions from within the theory or from their own (sub)consciousness. "
Then explain how it's possible for an ENTp to construct a system of psycho-social dynamics such as Socionics from mere deduction WITHOUT using materials outside of a pre-existing theory and inducing truths from them.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Sorry to interrupt... but any ideas on why dominant Ne = reserve?
Don't take it so literally. (Oops! I'm starting to sound like SG here ...Then explain how it's possible for an ENTp to construct a system of psycho-social dynamics such as Socionics from mere deduction WITHOUT using materials outside of a pre-existing theory and inducing truths from them.) Both Alphas and Gammas use both deduction and induction. I was trying to emphasize a point by exaggerating their differences. But I think the tendency is there to see.
Yeah, sorry about the thread hijack, Cat.
I wonder...isn't it true that ENFps are paranoid about how other people perceive them? And wouldn't that make a person reserved? Perhaps Fi goes into overdrive and acts like a Fi PoLR (since the same is true for ENTps)?
And perhaps I'm rambling. Just brainstorming. Any thoughts?
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
I think we're worried about the potential negative consequences of what we do and/or say in some situations. Seeing potential in things doesn't just mean positive potential, does it?[/quote]
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Phaedrus:
I'll have to reread your post a few times to see how much of it applies to me as an ENFp. But I identified with some of what you wrote (though it may not have applied to you...as I said, I'll have to reread a few times)
Applying what you wrote to one ENFp's pov:
I have always felt bad because I don't consider myself "creative" in that I seem unable to come up with anything new. Mostly what I do is..."rearrange".
It's like, when I'm reading something nonfiction, I notice that there are these underlying similarities with something else I've read, and I try to figure out how the two things fit together.
When I'm trying to learn a new skill, I get all...heebeejeebee...because what's being taught is done so...complicated...when if they just changed this, used this word, whatever, then it would be much simpler and more intuitive for others to learn from. I have always done well in environments in which I'm allowed to interpret or modify what's being taught as a way of aiding fellow students.
I'm not very good at stating what the underlying similarities are, though. I feel it, I can see it...but I can't seem to actually put them into words. This is one of the most frustrating things to me because when i turn to someone for help in allowing me to ...pop out possible ideas..and helping me to evaluate/analyze them, i really have no one to turn to. With most of the people i'm close with, I usually feel as if I'm being forced to prove some thought....like..i have to say things exactly right for them to even consider discussing the topic with me. It's so frustrating to me that I wind up withholding some of my thoughts and passion for the subject. (Which fits in with the shy/reserved Ne topic of this thread.)
Sorry, these were just some thoughts that fit in with what you last wrote. Thank you for writing that.
--
Any other ENFp's feel similar?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
It's OK. I wasn't hinting, btw; I've hijacked one or two threads myself, so as long as I get the answers I want, y'all can talk about whatever you like on the side.Yeah, sorry about the thread hijack, Cat.
So, everyone, for those of you who came later... Anndelise had a very plausible-sounding (well, to me) theory about this. Can anyone else relate to it? If you haven't got the time, just post "yes" or "no". I'd find it interesting to hear if ENTps can relate to it as well.
"I think we're worried about the potential negative consequences of what we do and/or say in some situations. Seeing potential in things doesn't just mean positive potential, does it?"
I think it depends on whether or not you try to.
And I think ENTps primarily use induction via internal convictions to arrive at their truths, similar, though not entirely, the the form of induction INTps use to arrive at truth.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Hell, yes. It's a great answer to my question, btw. Thanks.
Shroodinger's Cat: I think shyness may also be related to Fi. Fi types have a habit of withdrawing if they feel like they are being personally attacked (or something like that). I have even seen the most outgoing ESFP act like this. Go figure.
Can you explain this? Convictions? Do you mean Ti? Like they already know what they want to "be", so they chase after the "truth" that way?
What a load of crap, you hulking bohemoth of foulness. Total hypocritical bullshit. You YOURSELF just resorted to personal attacks on me. Unbelievable. Go have Ashton's babies and die.What is so difficult about explaining yourself and what you mean? Why do you ALWAYS resort to personal attacks when challenged? You have never proven credibility nor a developed and insighfult use of the
If you want to be taken seriously, especially with regards to being a logical thinker, don't throw in the towel every time there is a challenge. But perhaps you don't want to come across as such. In that case, all power to ad hominem.
"Can you explain this? Convictions? Do you mean Ti? Like they already know what they want to "be", so they chase after the "truth" that way?"
Not Ti, Ne. Ne is the means by which they derive _possibilities_, navigating them through convictions(Ni, or at the very least their beliefs, be them formalized or intuitive), and giving them form through Ti.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Yes, I can relate to that. Great summary!
I have a few ideas about how my Fi works in those scenarios. More about that later!
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
But doesn't Ne navigate aimlessly, *without* a distinct conviction?
Yeah, thus it has to be tempered by something, namely its foil, Ni. That could be Ti tempering it though, I'm not sure.
And, to clear the matter up a bit: I did NOT mean that Ne is a collection of convictions, sorry.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
If alone? 200% Ne would be scary
But wouldn't ENxP be tempered more by outside forces... such as chasing after every new thing? More of like an impulse?
"But wouldn't ENxP be tempered more by outside forces... such as chasing after every new thing? More of like an impulse?"
How's that an example of an idea being tempered...?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
oh... umm... you got me mixed up, I meant tempted.
But I wouldn't know what tempers them... come to think of it... have I ever seen an ENTP really angry?
They get really bitchy if efficiency lags.oh... umm... you got me mixed up, I meant tempted.
But I wouldn't know what tempers them... come to think of it... have I ever seen an ENTP really angry?
I would have said that ISTJ is most likely to bitch about efficiency. ENTPs are more chaotic, and don't mind if things get out of hand/wasting some time/energy/etc... as long as the ride is good.
Spend some time with one or two ENTp's. Theyre far more serious than they lead on. The only ISTj I know says I'M!!! to serious... and to, "lighten up and laugh." Then she criticizes me for my intentfully tasteless humor =/ lol.
It depends how interested they are in what's going on and the type of thing that's holding it up.
ENTps get irritated when someone uses Fi to criticize one of their ideas/theories. They become defensive when someone criticizes their ability to use Fe. They also get irritated when people try to emotionally blackmail (aka guilt trip) them.
That's interesing...can you give an example? Do you mean when someone makes a criticism that you can't argue against? Like:ENTps get irritated when someone uses Fi to criticize one of their ideas/theories.
Unfair critic: You just don't have it.
Victim of unfair criticism: What do you mean? What don't you like?
UC: Some people have it, and some people don't.
VUC: But what's "it"? What the heck are you talking about?
UC: It's just no good.
VUC: But what isn't good about it? Tell me what you don't like.
Or are you talking about something else entirely???? I want to understand what the potential conflict between Ne and Fi looks like, at least in the case of an ENTp.
This is interesting empirical feedback. I think Phaedrus, in explaining the difference between Alpha and Gamma, was to an extent explaining the difference between N and T.anndelise:
I'll have to reread your post a few times to see how much of it applies to me as an ENFp.
MysticSonic:
I think ENTps primarily use induction via internal convictions to arrive at their truths, similar, though not entirely, the the form of induction INTps use to arrive at truth.
N, both Ne and Ni, is very close to the concept of induction.
T, both Te and Ti, is very close to the concept of deduction.
Moreover, the concept of newness is an illusion. Every type configuration enables people to create something out of something that was already there. Each type's product is new in its own way. When you don't know the source of something, it seems new. Some people, mostly ENTps, strive to maximize the illusion of newness as an aesthetic ideal, just as other types use feeling, logic, etc., as their aesthetic ideal.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
