zipped

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Mariano Rajoy]

Last time, I promise. I am almost done getting this stuff, and I think I have the right way to go about everything. It's gonna be a little different, and functions aren't quite exactly the same, as I think some types get screwed by not having the "talented" functions in the current system, where I haven't seen talent and type correlate in the real world (unless you see the talent first, and give them a "talented" type by that, which I will never fucking do, ever. A good friend of mine is INTj and could easily beat the shit out of everyone here. Another friend is INFj and could outsmart anyone I ever knew, ever.)

The functions have alot of flexibility. For instance, Ne is going to be able to "do" Se and Ni, only it isn't really going to be a major goal of that person, nor is it going to be the way that they want to live life all the time. People use thier main functions because they LIKE to, not out of fear or any other such bullshit. (Fear isn't anything stable anyway, you can't build a personality out of it, because it doesn't really exist, you can only have fear when you aren't doing anything.)

The dual seeking function, and hidden agenda can help to completely elminate the need for "flexibility" of the first and second functions, letting the person continously focus on thier strong points, and only just subconciously "accept" information on these functions.

This whole thing is a Ti-sturbation, but I figured, what the fuck, might as well post the shit. Well, here. (I will go into detail on the functions in the next post, but most of this crap isn't anything you haven't seen before, it is mostly just me trying to explain to myself how this shit comes together. Yeah, I'm a dumbass, so sue me.)

Physical Influence
Physical Completeness

Mental Influence
Mental Completeness

Rational Influence
Rational Completeness

Personal Influence
Personal Completeness

Influence: Energy expending, seeks objects and people to act on or take in information from. Focus is on the objective qualities, and deals in information that doesn't need to be simplified.
Completeness: Energy saving, seeks to take information and simplify it in a condensed and personal matter. Focus is on things that are directly important to the person, and the subjective qualities of that information.

Physical: Things that are tangible to the senses, obvious to others or the self. Exists to the Senses. (Direct, Apparent, There)
Mental: Things that exist in relation to memory and time, in an abstract reality. Exists to the Mind. (Indirect, Ineffable, Hints)
Rational: Things that are systematized and able to be proven or disproven. Exists to Everyone. (Controlled, Precise, Determined)
Personal: Things that are personal and unable to be exactly determined or proven. Exists to You. (Moods, Attitudes, Emotions)

Physical and Rational can be anchored to something real (giving them an impersonal quality), and Mental and Personal are too fuzzy to anchor exactly (giving them a personal quality.)

Physical and Mental are traits or states of being, and Rational and Personal are values or actions.

If your thoughts are mostly directed along the lines of determining and using your own traits, you must have an underlying value system, and your actions and states of being indirectly follow from this, and are usually unconcious.

If your thoughts are mostly directed at your own state of being, you must have methods of action that you conciously use, and your trait perception and values indirectly follow from this, and are usually unconcious.

Influence (expendature of energy) and Completeness (conservation of energy) are obviously at odds.

You either look at the world "as it lies" (Physical) or "in your mind" (Mental). One of these will be the "fall back". That is your type.
You can either consider the world as "existing outside of you" (Rational) or "how it affects you" (Personal). One of these will be the "fall back". That is your type.

Everyone can do all 8 of these at any time given a little thought. The difference lies not in "strength" but in "comfort level".

Obviously, the rest of the Socionics shit applys, and I don't gotta go over it...

Extroverts seek influence or the potential for influence mostly, and Introverts seek completeness and things that contribute to completeness.

The "Hidden Agenda" is the most tenuous Extroverted Function for an Extrovert, and the most tenuous Introverted Function for an Introvert, and needs to be satisfied for total outer/inner wholeness.

The "Dual Seeking" is the function that needs to be satisfied in order for the dominant function to return to it's most complete and natural state, and contributes to completing the inner wholeness for an Extrovert, and the outer wholeness for an Introvert.

[Joy]

This nonsense won't make you happy, Trans.

[Mariano Rajoy]

it will if he discovers an underlying principle that ties it all together

[Joy]

it will if he discovers an underlying principle that ties it all together

No.

That's like saying drugs can make you happy.

[Mariano Rajoy]

it will if he discovers an underlying principle that ties it all together

No.

That's like saying drugs can make you happy.

drugs make me happy. as does discovering new things. i see no reason that research is somehow negative; nor do i see the desire, however strong it may be, for understanding as bad in any way.

[Joy]

it will if he discovers an underlying principle that ties it all together

No.

That's like saying drugs can make you happy.

drugs make me happy. as does discovering new things. i see no reason that research is somehow negative; nor do i see the desire, however strong it may be, for understanding as bad in any way.

Okay, so we've confirmed that you have a handicapped perspective.

[Mariano Rajoy]

it will if he discovers an underlying principle that ties it all together

No.

That's like saying drugs can make you happy.

drugs make me happy. as does discovering new things. i see no reason that research is somehow negative; nor do i see the desire, however strong it may be, for understanding as bad in any way.

Okay, so we've confirmed that you have a handicapped perspective.

"i see no reason" is your cue to tell me how my perspective is handicapped.

[Kristiina]

I'm just waiting for him to find the clear and indesputable system between the functions. Right now they are twisted in such ways that make me question everything about socionics.

This system is OK, but I think I need a better understanding of the functions to adapt the system to my own thoughts. is cool. Right now I have been unable to really understand socionics because of the vague descriptions of the functions.

[emeye]

Ah, the functions. Yes, you may have functions in your big city, but here, in the desert, there are no functions--there's just me.

Forgive me, Terry

[FDG]

Ah, the functions. Yes, you may have functions in your big city, but here, in the desert, there are no functions--there's just me.

Forgive me, Terry

(OT) Ni-dominant

[emeye]

Ah, the functions. Yes, you may have functions in your big city, but here, in the desert, there are no functions--there's just me.

Forgive me, Terry

(OT) Ni-dominant

(OT) But the chin, but the chin!

[schrödinger's cat]

Transigent, I found what you wrote interesting. I couldn't understand this bit:

If your thoughts are mostly directed along the lines of determining and using your own traits, you must have an underlying value system, and your actions and states of being indirectly follow from this, and are usually unconcious.

If your thoughts are mostly directed at your own state of being, you must have methods of action that you conciously use, and your trait perception and values indirectly follow from this, and are usually unconcious.

Could you rephrase/explain?

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[anndelise]

So...an NeFi person would be comfortable expending energy by influencing views of the world through indirect hints of what's there, and conserving energy by completing and simplifying personalized affectations?

I'm not quite sure I got the last part right. But the first part makes a huge amount of sense to me. I seem to inadvertently but joyfully spend huge amounts of energy attempting to influence world views of others, without actually stating directly that "this is the way it is". Also, even in my most direct statements, lies quite a bit of subtle suggestions of what might be... and I find it rather annoying that so few people pick up on that. Actually, it seems to be one of my tests of how much and what types of interaction I will have with a person. If they pick up on even some of the subtle possible meanings of what I say, then I'll spend more time with them.

I can also see how this applies to my developing preferences for simplified but complete views of the tangible world and the process of systematizing them. Having a systematized, simple, and complete view of the tangible world allows me to spend more time/energy in viewing the subtle hints and meanings of "what's there" or rather, what might be there.

Anyhoot, this post probably annoyed the heck out of you, Transigent. I'm sorry for annoying you, but not sorry for writing this, nor sorry for your post. I like your post, thank you.


Edited to add: The general direction and content of my posts seem to support the last part of the question above.

[schrödinger's cat]

Transigent, I found what you wrote interesting. I couldn't understand this bit:

If your thoughts are mostly directed along the lines of determining and using your own traits, you must have an underlying value system, and your actions and states of being indirectly follow from this, and are usually unconcious.

If your thoughts are mostly directed at your own state of being, you must have methods of action that you conciously use, and your trait perception and values indirectly follow from this, and are usually unconcious.

Could you rephrase/explain?

Just another crummy attempt at the Static/Dynamic thingy.

Statics: Concious Traits and Values, Subconcious States and Actions
Dynamics: Concious States and Actions, Subconcious Traits and Values

I guess it means to find out which direction your brain "runs" when you are being "your type".

If you are conciously determining the traits of a person (outer or inner) with a focus on your own and thier value systems (logic or ethic) and try to determine the essence of a person or thing with respect to your own viewpoint, then you are a Static.

If you are conciously concerned about your own state of being (outer or inner) with a focus on your own and thier actions and events (logic or ethic) and try to harmonize your own and thier states of being, then you are a Dynamic.

People can do both of these at anytime they want, so it isn't anything definitive.

Thanks. I think I understood that now.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.