General Principles of the Dominant Functions

[Creepy-female]

I don't see the issue as being concrete so much as dealing with categories, structures and terms . The moment someone places some form and definition, you seem adverse to it and you shoot it down. It seems you like to keep socionics undefined and nebulous. Structure of course means limitations leading to potential stereotypes.

Structure is structure, not God's gift to humanity. However, I don't think Mattie has an issue with structure in general. I think she has issues when structure is wrong. You're acting as if this structure cannot be critiqued once it's formed.

You don't like stereotypes, you've made this abundantly clear in so many ways over the last months. Yet, you have no issues categorizing yourself as ENFp - leading of course to limitations. Seems truly silly.

It's like you're saying

a) Mattie types ENFp
b) cinq categorizes what ENFp means in her mind
c) what cinq has categorized is this "objective" system
d) Mattie is stereotyping herself.

Think for a moment about that, because she's written buckets on her approach to Socionics, and it seems like if you bothered to actually, I don't know, read her writing, you'd understand her views, even if you don't agree with her "objectively". She details her views extensively. I'm actually kind of upset at the way she's sort of throwing all this good coherent writing at apparently blank walls. There is little in her approach that denotes stereotypes. Mattie has the most open, expansive, non stereotypical writing I've seen here, and it still manages to convey information elements in an informative, non-biased way.

I've read Filatova's book and I'm in general agreement with the terms. The are not too different from what Aushra proposed. I think Filatova made it explicitly clear her book was introductory. So, it seems redundant to be so critical of the elementary nature of the book's contents when the author has already admitted it to be. It's almost as if you're jealous. Is the issue the fact that someone has finally defined the functions reasonably - there is no more mystery, new newness anymore? Move on to something else, Mattie.

Holy shit. Just because you and some other people concluded that this book describes the functions reasonably does not make it objective. Quit pushing your understanding of Socionics as if it is the holy grail. Quit projecting on a person whose views are extensively detailed and already admittedly subjective.

[Creepy-female]

No, not an obsession. I've posted in various threads this week, and I happen to be interested in this one in particular because I've just finished Filotova's book and wanted here others views on it. Specially, I'm interested in Melody Man's switch to INFp after reading the book as I know he's struggled for quite a while to identify his type.

Then post on that and quit with the personal attacks. You actually said this

If Socionics is so unproven, hypothetical and abstract, why then would you bother to categorize yourself as ENFp and place it in your personal stats?

at the beginning of thread. Your first post. First post. So give it a rest. I think she read the book too.

[Creepy-cinq]

Structure is structure, not God's gift to humanity. However, I don't think Mattie has an issue with structure in general. I think she has issues when structure is wrong. You're acting as if this structure cannot be critiqued once it's formed.

It's like you're saying

a) Mattie types ENFp
b) cinq categorizes what ENFp means in her mind
c) what cinq has categorized is this "objective" system
d) Mattie is stereotyping herself.

Think for a moment about that, because she's written buckets on her approach to Socionics, and it seems like if you bothered to actually, I don't know, read her writing, you'd understand her views, even if you don't agree with her "objectively". She details her views extensively. I'm actually kind of upset at the way she's sort of throwing all this good coherent writing at apparently blank walls. There is little in her approach that denotes stereotypes. Mattie has the most open, expansive, non stereotypical writing I've seen here, and it still manages to convey information elements in an informative, non-biased way.

Holy shit. Just because you and some other people concluded that this book describes the functions reasonably does not make it objective. Quit pushing your understanding of Socionics as if it is the holy grail. Quit projecting on a person whose views are extensively detailed and already admittedly subjective.

Then post on that and quit with the personal attacks. You actually said this


at the beginning of thread. Your first post. First post. So give it a rest. I think she read the book too.

Wow, a flurry of reaction. I'm curious - is this your general reaction when dealing with LIIs?

[Creepy-female]

Wow, a flurry of reaction. I'm curious - is this your general reaction when dealing with LIIs?

Are you unable or unwilling to respond coherently to the subject matter of an actual point? Socionics doesn't make you the internet Oracle. Use your brain.

[Creepy-cinq]

Are you unable or unwilling to respond coherently to the subject matter of an actual point? Socionics doesn't make you the internet Oracle. Use your brain.

I'm asking you are serious question. You identify yourself as SEE, and LII is your conflictor. Please respond. Is this your typical reaction to LIIs?

[Aiss]

Now, what separates me from you (and cinq, see how she presented herself in this thread) is that I don't need Socionics to be proven true or false to understand the abstract ideas and how it possibly can be applied; along with this understanding, I don't put the way I think objectively over another's, because I don't have any more 'proof' than the next person, along with the 'authorities.' If they do, find the research and this is all done! There will be less ways, if not one way, to do Socionics since it is embedded into reality.

To be honest, I've seen you before lash out at people talking about socionics, as if they believed it or something, while they treated it the same way as you do - effectively doing the same cinq did in this thread, accusing you of using stereotypes when you try not to. And you probably remember my suggestion of potential oversensitivity to Ti information on the occasion.

This is general, not related to your exchange with polikujm, whom I choose to see as being a good Ti-HA in this thread.

[Mattie]

To be honest, I've seen you before lash out at people talking about socionics, as if they believed it or something, while they treated it the same way as you do - effectively doing the same cinq did in this thread, accusing you of using stereotypes when you try not to. And you probably remember my suggestion of potential oversensitivity to Ti information on the occasion.

This is general, not related to your exchange with polikujm, whom I choose to see as being a good Ti-HA in this thread.

If there was ever a misunderstanding I would look to correct it, but from what I remember of what you're bringing up, it comes to the heart of this topic that we're talking about now, and more about one of the earlier responses that I made in this thread. That people say that they don't take Socionics or the stereotypes it presents literally, but still enter conversations and make assessments as if they actually do. I feel like my actions and what I post are consistent with my claims, where if I had an issue with someone, it was because there was that inconsistency. And, again, whether this may or may not be a Socionics-related conflict, and I don't think really provides an excuse. What should happen is coming to an understanding, especially when it comes to being misunderstood, but discussion about topics like these never turn out casual, even when you overtly try to make a connection with the other person.

[Creepy-female]

I'm asking you are serious question. You identify yourself as SEE, and LII is your conflictor. Please respond. Is this your typical reaction to LIIs?

Hmm I think it's my reaction to what I perceive is Ti, but honestly I'd like a better explanation of Ti because being personally linked to objectivity seems so alien and nonsensical to me. It's hard for me to perceive that it is actually a legitimate thought process and not something people are going to yell "just kidding!" about. Mattie's approach seems incredibly reasonable to me, and I don't understand the people who critique her systemization. Her description doesn't concerns itself with making broad "objective" statements so much as it deals with extensively detailing a process. I have never found her writing or arguments difficult to understand, nor felt a need to point out the flaws in her character. It's so unnecessary and demeaning, and so far away from her actual intentions and contributions. I don't see why she has to be insulted for her views. I see your responses as insults even though perhaps you didn't mean them to be so. She's telling you how she is, and exactly how she thinks, and instead of responding to that, you're making seemingly presumptious character assessments instead. I guess I see the use of using Socionics as a categorization tool so you don't have to get into conflict, instead stepping back to observe it before it begins in order to get a better feel for the nature of the conflict, but I still don't understand how it would lead a person to refuse to give an extremely coherent reasonable argument pertaining to the subject material of the thread at hand the time of day.

[Aiss]

@ Mattie & dolphin

The way I see Ti-PoLR - how it looks from outside - is oversensitivity to using categories or models; that is, implicit assumption that since they're by nature limiting, they're somehow wrong and using them will lead to wrong results. Whereas Ti-demonstrative is more about focus on using them skillfully, but without attachment, so that you're never limited by any one of them and gain advantage from it. And from my point of view, it's better to reject them than stick to them beyond reason. But it's also a rejection of their advantages.

And yes, I realize Mattie is "using" model A, but it seems an example of a 1-dimensional case-by-case learning - she sees the usefulness of conceptualization of elements roles in psyche, but it doesn't stop her from continued rejection of the model as such. I'm aware of the risk of my bringing up dimensionality theory triggering this very reaction again, sorry .

What I meant earlier was that Ti-PoLR sometimes treats people's use of models as if they were thinking in terms of them being true, which is not always the case. To me it seems a better approach to freely use them, but some people prefer to unify and perfect them, others to limit their use, and there's no way to agree on what's the best - and trying only leads to endless arguments.

[Mattie]

@ Mattie & dolphin

The way I see Ti-PoLR - how it looks from outside - is oversensitivity to using categories or models; that is, implicit assumption that since they're by nature limiting, they're somehow wrong and using them will lead to wrong results. Whereas Ti-demonstrative is more about focus on using them skillfully, but without attachment, so that you're never limited by any one of them and gain advantage from it. And from my point of view, it's better to reject them than stick to them beyond reason. But it's also a rejection of their advantages.

[...]

What I meant earlier was that Ti-PoLR sometimes treats people's use of models as if they were thinking in terms of them being true, which is not always the case. To me it seems a better approach to freely use them, but some people prefer to unify and perfect them, others to limit their use, and there's no way to agree on what's the best - and trying only leads to endless arguments.

I can generally understand and agree with this. I know it's in my nature to be rather skeptical of categories I don't find usefulness in, or that seem more limiting than informative. I reject a lot of categories that people commonly use here, so this all makes sense in that perspective. Whether that's Socionics-related or not...

And yes, I realize Mattie is "using" model A, but it seems an example of a 1-dimensional case-by-case learning - she sees the usefulness of conceptualization of elements roles in psyche, but it doesn't stop her from continued rejection of the model as such. I'm aware of the risk of my bringing up dimensionality theory triggering this very reaction again, sorry .

I'm not really sure what you mean by this, or what you mean by '1-dimensional case-by-case learning.' If you mean that I can simultaneously entertain Model A while denying its existence until there's satisfactory proof for it, then yes, you'd be correct. Other than that, I have no idea about what you're getting at.

[Creepy-cinq]

Hmm I think it's my reaction to what I perceive is Ti, but honestly I'd like a better explanation of Ti because being personally linked to objectivity seems so alien and nonsensical to me. It's hard for me to perceive that it is actually a legitimate thought process and not something people are going to yell "just kidding!" about. Mattie's approach seems incredibly reasonable to me, and I don't understand the people who critique her systemization. Her description doesn't concerns itself with making broad "objective" statements so much as it deals with extensively detailing a process. I have never found her writing or arguments difficult to understand, nor felt a need to point out the flaws in her character. It's so unnecessary and demeaning, and so far away from her actual intentions and contributions. I don't see why she has to be insulted for her views. I see your responses as insults even though perhaps you didn't mean them to be so. She's telling you how she is, and exactly how she thinks, and instead of responding to that, you're making seemingly presumptious character assessments instead. I guess I see the use of using Socionics as a categorization tool so you don't have to get into conflict, instead stepping back to observe it before it begins in order to get a better feel for the nature of the conflict, but I still don't understand how it would lead a person to refuse to give an extremely coherent reasonable argument pertaining to the subject material of the thread at hand the time of day.

You may have an affinity to how Mattie processes thoughts and ideas, because you think similarly. This doesn't make her thoughts generally coherent. And, I find it ironic that you are raking me over the coals here and criticizing me for seemingly criticizing Mattie. One one hand, you are asking for fair and just treatment, but, see no issues with crapping on me to make the point. It's hypocritical, really.

I like how Aiss puts this:

The way I see Ti-PoLR - how it looks from outside - is oversensitivity to using categories or models; that is, implicit assumption that since they're by nature limiting, they're somehow wrong and using them will lead to wrong results.

I pick up on this frequently, and I don't think -PoLRs realize how much they do this. What they post has more to do with their -PoLR reaction than actually posting something resembling a detached, objective analysis.

[ilikesex]

I don't have any more 'proof' than the next person, along with the 'authorities.' If they do, find the research and this is all done!

one confounding issue which is unrelated to your main point, but also extremely related, is that the potential presence of research that constitutes "proof" of socionics is no guarantee that anyone will agree on how this research should be applied.

[Creepy-female]

You may have an affinity to how Mattie processes thoughts and ideas, because you think similarly. This doesn't make her thoughts generally coherent.

But it doesn't make them generally incoherent either. It just depends on the value you put on certain aspects. Ti and Te are coherent in different ways. Your thoughts for example are not generally coherent because they don't correspond to reality. We could write a little story about Te polr lol. I don't not understand why people are irate with Mattie simply because I like her. Although my subjective thoughts factor into my assessment, again, it isn't a mutually exclusive thing.

And, I find it ironic that you are raking me over the coals here and criticizing me for seemingly criticizing Mattie. One one hand, you are asking for fair and just treatment, but, see no issues with crapping on me to make the point. It's hypocritical, really.

How exactly did I crap on you? By telling you you're not an internet Oracle and to use your brain?

[Creepy-cinq]

But it doesn't make them generally incoherent either. It just depends on the value you put on certain aspects. Ti and Te are coherent in different ways. Your thoughts for example are not generally coherent because they don't correspond to reality. We could write a little story about Te polr lol. I don't not understand why people are irate with Mattie simply because I like her. Although my subjective thoughts factor into my assessment, again, it isn't a mutually exclusive thing.

Please, share the little story about polr. I'd like to hear it. Try to do it without being coached by another member in the background.

How exactly did I crap on you? By telling you you're not an internet Oracle and to use your brain?

To be honest, I barely know you exist on 16types. This is my first exposure to your posts, and I think you'll agree, they were not meant to be positive. So, it's not a stretch here to categorize it as 'crapping on me'.

[Brilliand]

You mean this literally, or by some standard? Because what is written in Filatova's book is not only Socionics, but it is literally proven. Maybe not by some Einsteinian equation that you might someday discover, but in reality where most of us live, yes.

I have a problem with this view - if there is any conflict over what qualifies as "proof," then I require that the stricter definition be taken. In other words, Socionics is not proven, and I ask that you make a distinction between objective proof and sufficient evidence to convince you.

Socionics is currently in a state where it is supported by evidence but not as well-supported as most of us may like, and imo Mattie has decent justification for thinking as she does.

[Creepy-female]

Please, share the little story about polr. I'd like to hear it. Try to do it without being coached by another member in the background.

No.

To be honest, I barely know you exist on 16types. This is my first exposure to your posts, and I think you'll agree, they were not meant to be positive. So, it's not a stretch here to categorize it as 'crapping on me'.

No they were not positive. You were very rude to Mattie. That still doesn't mean I'm crapping on you. (Unless you consider someone telling you to use your brain as crapping on you, in which case I would happily say yes.) But I'm not going to welcome you simply because of some silly do thou unto others clause. You don't play Jesus to just anyone. They have to be important in some way.

[Blaze]

The way I see Ti-PoLR - how it looks from outside - is oversensitivity to using categories or models; that is, implicit assumption that since they're by nature limiting, they're somehow wrong and using them will lead to wrong results. Whereas Ti-demonstrative is more about focus on using them skillfully, but without attachment, so that you're never limited by any one of them and gain advantage from it. And from my point of view, it's better to reject them than stick to them beyond reason. But it's also a rejection of their advantages.

What I meant earlier was that Ti-PoLR sometimes treats people's use of models as if they were thinking in terms of them being true, which is not always the case. To me it seems a better approach to freely use them, but some people prefer to unify and perfect them, others to limit their use, and there's no way to agree on what's the best - and trying only leads to endless arguments.

little side bar here on Ti vs Fi...nice succinct way of discussing Ti polr.

doesn't Fi creative kind of put people in relationship categories? isn't that what that flexible distance is all about? just thinking out loud here....

/end side bar

[Creepy-cinq]

No.

That's unfortunate. I would have liked to hear your views on this.

No they were not positive. You were very rude to Mattie. I'm not going to welcome you simply because of some silly do thou unto others clause. You don't play Jesus to just anyone. They have to be important in some way.

What makes you think I want to be welcomed by you? It's totally irrelevant whether you think I'm rude or not. I have no desire to be a member of your inner circle. LOL. This is funny.

Your comment here reminds me of one of my team members. All is good until she perceives me as rude or wrong. Then she jumps on her high horse and is rude in return, purposely excludes me from activities and literally ignores me. The last time she did this, she walked right into my office, grabbed something and walked right out without saying a word, her head held high with all the justification in the world.

Sorry dolphin. I find our interaction here entertaining, considering we are supposed 'duals'. It's rare that I get to interact with an SEE on line like this.

[Mattie]

one confounding issue which is unrelated to your main point, but also extremely related, is that the potential presence of research that constitutes "proof" of socionics is no guarantee that anyone will agree on how this research should be applied.

True, it will spurn a whole new phase of Socionics. So it is interesting to extrapolate about, but since we have no idea what we will actually find (odds are research will be inconclusive), it's hard to really 'prepare.' I think the important part is to realize how mutable Socionics is because there is no factual basis. My point is not about finding Socionics useless because it's not 'real,' but a logical conclusion on why only poli's one method of following authority, anyone's method really, can't be the one true way.

little side bar here on Ti vs Fi...nice succinct way of discussing Ti polr.

doesn't Fi creative kind of put people in relationship categories? isn't that what that flexible distance is all about? just thinking out loud here....

/end side bar

being "logical" categories and being "relationship" categories doesn't seem 1:1 or even real to me, because there are many times you can't apply either. I'm working on some descriptions, and I'd say 'organizes' things based on an internal schema while does with the various resonant feelings it receives.

[Blaze]

being "logical" categories and being "relationship" categories doesn't seem 1:1 or even real to me, because there are many times you can't apply either. I'm working on some descriptions, and I'd say 'organizes' things based on an internal schema while does with the various resonant feelings it receives.

agree, i bet there are a lot of times you can't apply either. Ti and Fi do seem to be roughly equivalent though, even though the nature of the information is different. if you are focusing on one, you can't focus on the other very well.

internal schema...don't agree with this since it implies the schema lies within the Ti ego instead of within the object. is that what you meant?

resonant feelings? i thought Fi was more about the relation between people. although i imagine Fi ego picks up on the nature of relations via the feelings of those involved.

i ask since my perception of creative Fi is that it's constantly putting you in a category of relationship via the control of interpersonal distance. sending you a message, so to speak.

[Mattie]

agree, i bet there are a lot of times you can't apply either. Ti and Fi do seem to be roughly equivalent though, even though the nature of the information is different. if you are focusing on one, you can't focus on the other very well.

I would say they are completely equivalent, and all of the Information Aspects are equivalent. So you have to find terms that, in a broad sense, make them all equally applicable.

internal schema...don't agree with this since it implies the schema lies within the Ti ego instead of within the object. is that what you meant?

As far as my understanding goes, isn't about an Object, it's about the subject (which is the -user). As I've come to understand, all of the Xi IAs are dependent on the user's perspective (of the Fields), while the Xe IAs focus on the Objects themselves. So I definitely think the the schema for which the relational distance everything is from one another does come from within the -user.

resonant feelings? i thought Fi was more about the relation between people. although i imagine Fi ego picks up on the nature of relations via the feelings of those involved.

= relationships is rather colloquial and limited (in my opinion, it seems like I have to tag that on every time I say something around here). I would say that sets up relational distances by organizing how objects affect others, and this is dependent on the -user's perspective. I wrote a little on my perspective on here: Fi Described As "Resonance"

i ask since my perception of creative Fi is that it's constantly putting you in a category of relationship via the control of interpersonal distance. sending you a message, so to speak.

Hmm, for as much as it's worth, I can comment as an -creative type. For me personally, I see -creative manifesting in more of an 'adjustment' manner, by 'moving' Objects (socially most likely) to a more preferable distance to either myself or where ever I sense dissonance. I also tend to use it when giving advice (it's my personal take that we unconsciously 'use' our creative Information Metabolism Element while our leading IME is more in stasis) by asking others if they are aware of the comfortable psychological distances with whatever/whomever.

[Aiss]

I'm not really sure what you mean by this, or what you mean by '1-dimensional case-by-case learning.' If you mean that I can simultaneously entertain Model A while denying its existence until there's satisfactory proof for it, then yes, you'd be correct. Other than that, I have no idea about what you're getting at.

No, that's another matter (and quite obvious unless someone happens to believe in socionics). I meant literally case-by-case, when it comes to models. You accept a single use of this abstraction - for example, placement and role of IEs in model A - but it doesn't extend beyond that. For example when someone tries to apply a different model to achieve it, or apply this model in a different way - let's say to describe society in terms of quadra progression - you seem to treat it as an entirely different case, which is subject to the same negative judgment, on the sole basis of it being a model, as any other categorization you met with would be. Note that it doesn't relate to estimating a model's accuracy or usefulness, but assessing information based on its type. (I'm speculating as to how it works, I may be misinterpreting what I see your actions to be.)

[Mattie]

No, that's another matter (and quite obvious unless someone happens to believe in socionics).

Uh, have you been reading this thread?

I meant literally case-by-case, when it comes to models. You accept a single use of this abstraction - for example, placement and role of IEs in model A - but it doesn't extend beyond that. For example when someone tries to apply a different model to achieve it, or apply this model in a different way - let's say to describe society in terms of quadra progression - you seem to treat it as an entirely different case, which is subject to the same negative judgment, on the sole basis of it being a model, as any other categorization you met with would be. Note that it doesn't relate to estimating a model's accuracy or usefulness, but assessing information based on its type. (I'm speculating as to how it works, I may be misinterpreting what I see your actions to be.)

I would say that you've misinterpreted my actions, and it's the other option you've provided here. I didn't really see quadra progression and such as models to be skeptical of, but I didn't see the source of accuracy or usefulness. With how you and other use it and explain it, there wasn't anything but an 'intuitive understanding' to back how it is relevant enough to use. And for me, that's not satisfying at all; I felt like people were taking qualities and traits that I didn't observe already in the original hypothesis and were basing generalized assumptions onto large topics. What was frustrating for me was that no one could explain how they could justify this use without something like "Isn't the connection obvious?" So it's less about it being a form of categorization to reject and more about superfluous categorization, which is what I was thinking of in your original post. At least on this forum, I feel like people cling on to all sorts of categories for categorization's sake, and that does bother me a bit, as I'm very minimal and specific with which categories I use in concern to Socionics. I'm not sure if that broadly is related to , as I don't really see other valuers saying the same thing on here.

[Blaze]

I would say they are completely equivalent, and all of the Information Aspects are equivalent.

good!

So you have to find terms that, in a broad sense, make them all equally applicable.

do you really think so?

As far as my understanding goes, isn't about an Object, it's about the subject (which is the -user). As I've come to understand, all of the Xi IAs are dependent on the user's perspective (of the Fields), while the Xe IAs focus on the Objects themselves. So I definitely think the the schema for which the relational distance everything is from one another does come from within the -user.

yes Ti is the external statics of fields and Fi the internal statics of fields. both Ti and Fi is experienced through the subject, thereby making them even more similar in terms of the manner in which they function. i was speaking from a wholistic point of view: Ne=focus on the object. in practical application, you can't really separate the leading from the creative.

= relationships is rather colloquial and limited (in my opinion, it seems like I have to tag that on every time I say something around here). I would say that sets up relational distances by organizing how objects affect others, and this is dependent on the -user's perspective. I wrote a little on my perspective on here: Fi Described As "Resonance"

col·lo·qui·al
–adjective 1. characteristic of or appropriate to ordinary or familiar conversation rather than formal speech or writing; informal.

2. involving or using conversation.

well i suppose my use of the word relationship is par for the course on a non scholarly internet discussion forum. i can see you want to converse in a different way.

Hmm, for as much as it's worth, I can comment as an -creative type. For me personally, I see -creative manifesting in more of an 'adjustment' manner, by 'moving' Objects (socially most likely) to a more preferable distance to either myself or where ever I sense dissonance. I also tend to use it when giving advice (it's my personal take that we unconsciously 'use' our creative Information Metabolism Element while our leading IME is more in stasis) by asking others if they are aware of the comfortable psychological distances with whatever/whomever.

this is the same thing as what i was saying about the interpersonal distance. define the bold. who decides what is more preferable and for whom?

[Aiss]

little side bar here on Ti vs Fi...nice succinct way of discussing Ti polr.

doesn't Fi creative kind of put people in relationship categories? isn't that what that flexible distance is all about? just thinking out loud here....

/end side bar

i ask since my perception of creative Fi is that it's constantly putting you in a category of relationship via the control of interpersonal distance. sending you a message, so to speak.

It seems to me that it is Ti attempting to explicitly categorize what Fi is doing, which isn't meant to be categorized and doesn't really make sense this way.

Consider that Fi-creatives don't really think in terms of explicit categories you see them as using. You try to make sense of it by reconstructing these, but because they weren't used for it in the first place, it isn't accurate. For example you may reach a conclusion that a person is categorizing others in some way, but all it means is that you haven't (yet) witnessed a case which would contradict it, not that they necessarily use this category. It's you putting it there, trying to make sense of it. Similarly, Ti-PoLRs try to make sense of models and categorizations in their own way, which is the reasoning I described earlier - possibly wrongly, but Mattie's feedback is encouraging.

(As a side note, that's exactly what I regularly argue with Pinocchio/PP; he constantly attempts to categorize Fi/Te to make sense of it, while it ends up making no sense exactly because of this categorization.)

[Aiss]

Uh, have you been reading this thread?

It's just polikujm in disguise, nothing to worry about.

I would say that you've misinterpreted my actions, and it's the other option you've provided here. I didn't really see quadra progression and such as models to be skeptical of, but I didn't see the source of accuracy or usefulness. With how you and other use it and explain it, there wasn't anything but an 'intuitive understanding' to back how it is relevant enough to use. And for me, that's not satisfying at all; I felt like people were taking qualities and traits that I didn't observe already in the original hypothesis and were basing generalized assumptions onto large topics. What was frustrating for me was that no one could explain how they could justify this use without something like "Isn't the connection obvious?" So it's less about it being a form of categorization to reject and more about superfluous categorization, which is what I was thinking of in your original post. At least on this forum, I feel like people cling on to all sorts of categories for categorization's sake, and that does bother me a bit, as I'm very minimal and specific with which categories I use in concern to Socionics. I'm not sure if that broadly is related to , as I don't really see other valuers saying the same thing on here.

That's what I meant by 1-d Ti I tried to describe, even if it was my intuitive understanding and not quite what I managed to convey. You put it so much better, not that it is surprising. The higher the dimensionality, the more generic the understanding - and therefore useful in new circumstances, while a specific one isn't. It's exactly what I meant by extending it - "generalized assumptions onto large topics". It seems so to 1-d functions, but the higher the dimensionality, the greater the adaptability to context as well - so it isn't really as presumptuous as they'd think. It's equally applicable to other elements, I'm just continuing the Ti theme.

[Blaze]

It seems to me that it is Ti attempting to explicitly categorize what Fi is doing, which isn't meant to be categorized and doesn't really make sense this way.

Consider that Fi-creatives don't really think in terms of explicit categories you see them as using. You try to make sense of it by reconstructing these, but because they weren't used for it in the first place, it isn't accurate. For example you may reach a conclusion that a person is categorizing others in some way, but all it means is that you haven't (yet) witnessed a case which would contradict it, not that they necessarily use this category. It's you putting it there, trying to make sense of it. Similarly, Ti-PoLRs try to make sense of models and categorizations in their own way, which is the reasoning I described earlier - possibly wrongly, but Mattie's feedback is encouraging.

(As a side note, that's exactly what I regularly argue with Pinocchio/PP; he constantly attempts to categorize Fi/Te to make sense of it, while it ends up making no sense exactly because of this categorization.)

i see what you mean. point taken. the long term effects of the actions of Fi creative can result in relationships being categorized by others though. especially when you are interacting with the same people in the same environment again and again. i've often wondered what is the relationship between Fi and politics.

[Mattie]

do you really think so?

I really do; I think that words and language really shape how you perceive something. Because we use a certain vocabulary with particularly connotations, those connotations are going to carry over to the terms we regularly communicate to one another. By using the word 'relationships' when talking about , and 'logic' when talking about , we craft our understandings of these terms by their descriptors, even if we all agree that relationships =/= , etc.

this is the same thing as what i was saying about the interpersonal distance. define the bold. who decides what is more preferable and for whom?

Ultimately, I do, but it's from understanding whatever the situation is and using my best judgment. The 'distance' that I mentioned is best understood in the thread that I cited. I realize it is a bit abstract, but it's the most concise explanation that I have so far.

[Blaze]

Ultimately, I do

precisely.

[Mattie]

precisely.

That would be the same for -creatives as well. It ultimately comes down to their subjective establishment of whatever they apply. Hence why I chose the word Schema.

[717495]

Even Jung said that the question of extroversion/introversion could not be brought to an absolute definition, but to the relative preponderance of one attitude over another. That's a principle Model A is roughly consistent with.

Yes it's possible to see an Ne type identify with many parts of the Ni description. But looking deeper and putting them side by side, the Ni description actually suggests someone who is insular, who bases his understanding of the events in the world almost entirely on his personal imagination.

The Ne description suggests someone who is more extroverted and less reliant on an intricate and extensive personal world as a repository for knowledge. Knowledge should be "discovered." To discover something new implies that it doesn't already exist in your mind. Imagination is too limited and stagnant to tackle the complexity of the universe, and new ideas and external stimuli are always more important.

It certainly doesn't make Ne any less imaginative (in the sense of implying clever or creative), but what the description implies is that they don't apply their personal world or "imagination" with the same total focus and zealousness as Ni types.

I really like this point too, although it has been explained in a variation of ways, gradually growing on me throughout the years, and not only noticeable in the dominant types, but all the others.

When watching an interesting movie for instance, an Ne type will extract an intuitive understanding of all the different things going on, stay interested in it throughout its presentation, and be able to make many intuitive leaps and connections about the movie, solve it within their own Ti or Fi realm. An Ni type bound to also like the movie will gain more of an internal intuitive impression, more or less reflecting their own state, and so more of the appreciation for it comes from the subjective realization of intuition, and not always actually what is there and what is meant, but rather what they want it to mean from imagination, or what they take it to mean from their introverted storehouses of abstract feelings or experiences, conceptually. Objective vs subjective intuition aims. This is of course not to be confused with the other functions, purely for intuition sake. It can be replaced by using the other functions though.

Because intuition is so counter-reality, it often feels to me like Ni on the outside is much more go-with-the-flow and natural, with a tendency to house norms and expectations, an opposite to what it really is on the inside, where as Ne, especially Ne-dominance, always seems like this perched position representing a mobile ahead-of-everyone ideology.

[Aiss]

I really like this point too, although it has been explained in a variation of ways, gradually growing on me throughout the years, and not only noticeable in the dominant types, but all the others.

When watching an interesting movie for instance, an Ne type will extract an intuitive understanding of all the different things going on, stay interested in it throughout its presentation, and be able to make many intuitive leaps and connections about the movie, solve it within their own Ti or Fi realm. An Ni type bound to also like the movie will gain more of an internal intuitive impression, more or less reflecting their own state, and so more of the appreciation for it comes from the subjective realization of intuition, and not always actually what is there and what is meant, but rather what they want it to mean from imagination, or what they take it to mean from their introverted storehouses of abstract feelings or experiences, conceptually. Objective vs subjective intuition aims. This is of course not to be confused with the other functions, purely for intuition sake. It can be replaced by using the other functions though.

Because intuition is so counter-reality, it often feels to me like Ni on the outside is much more go-with-the-flow and natural, with a tendency to house norms and expectations, an opposite to what it really is on the inside, where as Ne, especially Ne-dominance, always seems like this perched position representing a mobile ahead-of-everyone ideology.

I'd rather say it's the reverse, that Ni is interconnecting everything all the time, subjectively as it's only through the subject that connections exists, ultimately - while Ne would rather focus on partial meanings, implied by the context and fitting within it. The point being, Ni acts the part of Ti or Fi, doing the solving, except it takes Te or Fe clues.

But it might be NT vs NF difference, if your current typing matters.

[717495]

Oh, well I wasn't really emphasizing interconnection or implying it as significant for that matter, though to each his own I presume here. I think the large focus was about the reference to imagination and a lack of objectivity, or strengthened subjectivity / personalization, in such intuitive grasps. Perhaps I feel it's more of an Ne thing to have a sense of objective intuitive interconnection, where as Ni does so in the subjective realm of impressions and free associations, creating disorder hence its lack of response, due to either extroverted ethical or logical uncertainties of properness.

[anndelise]

Regarding the Ti and Fi thing...

Ti builds models based on logical principles.
Fi builds models based on affectual principles.

If the GOAL is to 'categorize people', Ti will categorize them based on external logical connections, Fi will categorize them based on internal affectual connections.

Ti is more likely to explicitly state what the relationship is.
Fi is more likely to imply what the relationship is.

Affect changes, constantly. It changes over time, it changes across situations, etc. A person can feel one way towards this situation, and another way in a slightly different situation.

Logical connections don't change as much, and would create problems if it did constantly change.

Both, however, are looking for those connections/relationships that are relatively consistent or stable. Those that don't change that much.

Since logical connections don't change that much, it's fairly easy for Ti to categorize or model something.

But affectual connections do change a lot, which means that there are so few of them that are relatively consistent/stable, making it more difficult for Fi to categorize or model something. And when we do find affectual connections/relationships that are relatively consistent or stable, we're aware that that can change depending on circumstances.

The polrs fit in with this. If you're aware that things change, depending on circumstances, and that building models is difficult to do based on this...always having to be aware of what circumstances might cause changes, etc...there will be a natural resistance to a model that attempts to explicitly state relationships/connections...and that doesn't take into consideration the changes that can/will occur.

If you're focused on logical connections, there will be resistance to the changes that can occur in a model based on circumstantial and affectual changes. It would be easier to ignore such things, even if 'temporarily', so as to better focus on developing the model.

---
There's also a reason that Fi is described as attraction/repulsion or resonance/dissonance, and relational distances.

Instead of the nice clean connections of Ti, where there is no doubt that something is connected, it is or it isn't...
Fi deals with not so clean connections. It's approximative, it's along the lines of a continuum. (examples: How closely connected is this? How close of a relationship does X have to Y? Is it more closely related to X than to Y? or Y than to X, but not really either? etc. And why? Is it because it's resonant to X more than Y? Or is it the dissonance with Y that's pushing it towards X?)

---
I also agree with what Aiss said about 1D.

[Mattie]

Affect changes, constantly. It changes over time, it changes across situations, etc. A person can feel one way towards this situation, and another way in a slightly different situation.

Logical connections don't change as much, and would create problems if it did constantly change.

Both, however, are looking for those connections/relationships that are relatively consistent or stable. Those that don't change that much.

Since logical connections don't change that much, it's fairly easy for Ti to categorize or model something.

But affectual connections do change a lot, which means that there are so few of them that are relatively consistent/stable, making it more difficult for Fi to categorize or model something. And when we do find affectual connections/relationships that are relatively consistent or stable, we're aware that that can change depending on circumstances.

The polrs fit in with this. If you're aware that things change, depending on circumstances, and that building models is difficult to do based on this...always having to be aware of what circumstances might cause changes, etc...there will be a natural resistance to a model that attempts to explicitly state relationships/connections...and that doesn't take into consideration the changes that can/will occur.

If you're focused on logical connections, there will be resistance to the changes that can occur in a model based on circumstantial and affectual changes. It would be easier to ignore such things, even if 'temporarily', so as to better focus on developing the model.

This made a lot of sense, thanks for posting it! It shows why people can get a dynamic feeling from describing even though it isn't Dynamic. I'm still resistant to using 'logical' for , as 'affective' doesn't seem opposite to it at all, yet 'affective' makes a lot of sense for .

[717495]

Sorry dolphin. I find our interaction here entertaining, considering we are supposed 'duals'.

That is fine. Most people don't question your self-typing, they just agree with it. And the ones who disagree are perverted in the mind.

It's just polikujm in disguise, nothing to worry about.

Am I disguised as an INFp, or a different type? Maybe you're disguised as everyone else.

[anndelise]

This made a lot of sense, thanks for posting it! It shows why people can get a dynamic feeling from describing even though it isn't Dynamic. I'm still resistant to using 'logical' for , as 'affective' doesn't seem opposite to it at all, yet 'affective' makes a lot of sense for .

"logical relationships" doesn't mean "truth", nor "correct". It deals with how two things are explicitly related to each other. It follows certain rules to reach 'correct' reasoning, but it says nothing about whether or not it's propositions are true or accurate or not even close.

affective relationships deals with how two things are implicitly related to each other. There aren't really any rules, and things are judged as approximative or 'close enough' (the continuum). How close, or how much resonance there is, can vary in strengths.


Ti can deal with vague-ish (<-I forgot the word i was going for) propositions. It can also deal with propositions changing. (Ti is as aware of propositions changing as Fi is aware of affect changing) Ti can create a 'logical' argument for just about anything, no matter how 'out there' it is...and the argument itself would be a sound argument. (They can also have much more tidy models of the world, heh.)

Fi's models are already vague-ish. So they need the propositions to be accurate. Yes, the propositions can change, but as long as they are explicitly clear, then it helps make the Fi model a little less vague-ish. (Unfortunately, their models aren't very tidy...a little bit here, a little bit there, and SOMEhow it supposedly fits together. )


also, fwiw, both Fe and Fi deal with information of affect. (affect = 'internal' + 'the involvement')

[Logos]

I'd rather say it's the reverse, that Ni is interconnecting everything all the time, subjectively as it's only through the subject that connections exists, ultimately - while Ne would rather focus on partial meanings, implied by the context and fitting within it. The point being, Ni acts the part of Ti or Fi, doing the solving, except it takes Te or Fe clues.

But it might be NT vs NF difference, if your current typing matters.

Partial meanings? Surely it can be no more partial than Ni? If anything, Ni is more about context in which the objects of Ne are situated.

This made a lot of sense, thanks for posting it! It shows why people can get a dynamic feeling from describing even though it isn't Dynamic. I'm still resistant to using 'logical' for , as 'affective' doesn't seem opposite to it at all, yet 'affective' makes a lot of sense for .

But they are not opposites. They are approximates that work in different modes. examines or establishes explicit relations between objects. For example, She is his daughter and he is her father. examines or establishes implicit relations between subjects and objects. For example, she gets along well her father, but he does not like her as much as he does his son.

[Aiss]

Partial meanings? Surely it can be no more partial than Ni? If anything, Ni is more about context in which the objects of Ne are situated.

Same way Te is focused on a part while Ti works with the whole.

And yes to the context comment, though I rather think it's Ni-Se and Si-Ne complimenting each other in a context-content way.

[Logos]

Same way Te is focused on a part while Ti works with the whole.

And yes to the context comment, though I rather think it's Ni-Se and Si-Ne complimenting each other in a context-content way.

Ne can be focused on the whole, but it treats the whole as an object in itself. This is why Ne is associated with the big picture and an ideal. Ni prefers not to treat the objects statically, but through dynamic connections between the objects. I think both Ne and Ni are quite concerned with the whole, but they have drastically different approaches to it, namely the aforementioned static and dynamic distinction.