Proposition for agreement on function definitions

[Beautiful sky]

my mom to me, "honey, if you keep everything in it's place and keep it that way, it will make your life easy."

[EyeSeeCold]

I think mathematicians would disagree.

I place my faith in competence & respectability, not position and certification. Let's keep the functions in focus.

ILI:
Ni - Inert state of being; Collecting imprints and being impacted.
Te - Uninvolved observation; Comparing and noticing differences and gaps
Fi - Involved analysis; Identifying and discerning the qualities of the differences and gaps to extract the importance or insignificance of the implications.
Se - Involved movement; Impacting the external world and leaving imprints

Time, according to ILI, is the state of processing new information and receiving its imprints. The less there is to process, the more time seems to slow down. The phenomenon of "foresight" happens due to receiving a similar imprint from the current situation it is processing. is activated, and analyzes the implications of the situation. If good/profitable, act accordingly, if bad/risky act accordingly. Since is the dominant function, it would rather receive than be involved, so usually the bad/risky judgment is made. The exception is, of course, when receives a great stimulus from . This gives effect to the inertia of ILI. The effect of time is lessened when begins to impact the world. The state of being goes from receiving the effect to causing the effect and thus good/profitable becomes the more recurring judgment as the inertia is lessened.

So, from all this, Ni, alone, is nothing but imprints, archetypes. A new impression is juxtaposed with an old one. Being concerned with scarcity and outcomes is due to Te/Fi's profitable/risky judgments being applied to a storehouse of similar situations(archetypes).

In other types it manifests differently. Devalued is the devalued state of processing internal imprints. Devalued types would rather process time externally, in other words, not mentally but physically(being able to see what's happening; no guessing; knowing what time it is; hearing the environment; no tricks up the sleeve).

[tcaudilllg]

By imprints you mean "significant factors"? But I'll be straight with you: I see the functions as 16, not eight. I hardly even try to see them as eight, because at 16 modules you start to see familiar things, not these "as yet unheard of" ideas that you get from considering them as 8. That's just a time waster.

[EyeSeeCold]

I understand why you'd use 16 functions. Alpha and Gamma exist in two different worlds, just like Beta and Delta.

But by imprints I mean imprints. The reason being that the essence of Ni is like a fingerprint scanner. It accumulates many variations of what a fingerprint can look like, and therefore becomes more accurate over time. It's a data processing unit with storage.

It's hard to define in completely concrete words because you lose the imagery.

[tcaudilllg]

I understand why you'd use 16 functions. Alpha and Gamma exist in two different worlds, just like Beta and Delta.

But by imprints I mean imprints. The reason being that the essence of Ni is like a fingerprint scanner. It accumulates many variations of what a fingerprint can look like, and therefore becomes more accurate over time. It's a data processing unit with storage.

It's hard to define in completely concrete words because you lose the imagery.

I think I see what you are saying, now that you are offering the fingerprint analogy. Beta Ni attributes selections of plans to people, basically "attaching" modus operandi to them. It looks at people in parallel and is able to say "this person would do this, but this person wouldn't." Gamma Ni follows up with the actual outlay of events, and matches the event to people whom Beta Ni identifies as willing to perform it, or to create such an outcome. So then I think what you are saying is the ILI looks at the person's Fi attributes, and from that figures what the appropriate Te response should be to the person's activity, to allow them to go through with their intention, in whose name the plan is performed, or to inhibit it by denying access to needed resources.

[EyeSeeCold]

Well that's part of it. To be comprehensive, you'd need a wider perspective. Unless you already see that and are just trying to systematize. The imprints are not always for economics, they can be self-indulgent, or invoke deja-vu.

[tcaudilllg]

Well that's part of it. To be comprehensive, you'd need a wider perspective. Unless you already see that and are just trying to systematize. The imprints are not always for economics, they can be self-indulgent, or invoke deja-vu.

Right but economics is always the means by which the imprinter is controlled, from an IEI-D's perspective: the key to implementing your plan is Te, always.

But that's interesting, in that it seems like ILI is something of an investigator, and in that respect you might need a whole cluster of ILIs, with a wide variety of interests, to figure out who's doing what.

Deja-vu: I like that. That explains what ILI-ILIs do, then, in that they "see this happening before", which would be a clue as to who is doing what.

I'd like to differentiate the attribution of schemes to objects, which is what ILI's Ni base does, from attributions of schemes to object categories, which is what Ti does with Ni as its basis.

And you're right: I really don't stop to think about who could be "up to" what. I guess that's how ILIs see all their mysterious connections: X behavioral pattern indicates object Y. The ILI is a master of clues. Trying to think through why I don't pay attention to that...

Another thing though I'm puzzling over: Ti attributes Ni to categories... ah I see: Ti determines which schemes are true for which objects by invoking propositional logic, then Ni can use the truth value as a base by which to filter its field of considered objects in light of events.

[EyeSeeCold]

Right but economics is always the means by which the imprinter is controlled, from an IEI-D's perspective: the key to implementing your plan is Te, always.

Agreed.

But that's interesting, in that it seems like ILI is something of an investigator, and in that respect you might need a whole cluster of ILIs, with a wide variety of interests, to figure out who's doing what.

Deja-vu: I like that. That explains what ILI-ILIs do, then, in that they "see this happening before", which would be a clue as to who is doing what.

Yes, investigator is appropriate. I, myself, have used it before to describe my tendencies. Though, to really get anything done between a bunch of ILIs, I think a complementary perspective would be needed, LIE or SEE.

I'd like to differentiate the attribution of schemes to objects, which is what ILI's Ni base does, from attributions of schemes to object categories, which is what Ti does with Ni as its basis.

Object categories? In a sense it is already similar to that. For example: seeing a new chair. "I know this is a chair, because I know what chairs usually look like." Wouldn't that be a category? Or is my focus too close? What what I be looking at if I zoomed out? Speaking of my perspective on the issue, of course.

And you're right: I really don't stop to think about who could be "up to" what. I guess that's how ILIs see all their mysterious connections: X behavioral pattern indicates object Y. The ILI is a master of clues. Trying to think through why I don't pay attention to that...

Yes, this happens due to heavy accentuation of . ILI seems to alternate between mystic---investigator---observer---economist.

Another thing though I'm puzzling over: Ti attributes Ni to categories... ah I see: Ti determines which schemes are true for which objects by invoking propositional logic, then Ni can use the truth value as a base by which to filter its field of considered objects in light of events.

Systematized archetypes? Sort of like an organized arsenal?

[tcaudilllg]

Object categories? In a sense it is already similar to that. For example: seeing a new chair. "I know this is a chair, because I know what chairs usually look like." Wouldn't that be a category? Or is my focus too close? What what I be looking at if I zoomed out? Speaking of my perspective on the issue, of course.

Seems like that would be alpha Si-based categorization. Think of Picasso: if Picasso were to draw a chair, would you recognize it as such? Picasso defies norms of visual object identification.

Yes, this happens due to heavy accentuation of . ILI seems to alternate between mystic---investigator---observer---economist.

That's interesting. The mystic perspective is not unique to ILIs or even Ni types (despite what Jung suggests in his Ni description): I've known at least one LII who perceives "faeries", "devils", and makes frequent use of the tarot.

Systematized archetypes? Sort of like an organized arsenal?

What do you mean?

[EyeSeeCold]

Seems like that would be alpha Si-based categorization. Think of Picasso: if Picasso were to draw a chair, would you recognize it as such? Picasso defies norms of visual object identification.

Well as having the concept of a chair - legs for support, an optional back for support, an area to sit on, I think that's . But Picasso's fragmentation is by and large Si/Ne.

That's interesting. The mystic perspective is not unique to ILIs or even Ni types (despite what Jung suggests in his Ni description): I've known at least one LII who perceives "faeries", "devils", and makes frequent use of the tarot.

I think it's all intuition based(free, chaotic thought). Though there's an obvious difference. Ne/Si I think is more susceptible to detailed fantasy, while Ni/Se is more susceptible to the primordial concept of evil/holy.

What do you mean?

It was an attempt to understand, but I think it get it now. In a true/false system, Ti will consider the various definite choices in a certain event. e.g. Iff x is true, x = group 2. If x is false, x = group 1 OR group 3.

I may have screwed that up somehow but I'm sure you can see past my errors .

[tcaudilllg]

Actually I think mysticism is attentiveness to the relations of objects to each other, particularly whether the relationship is positive or negative, facilitating or constraining. Whether it permits healthy growth or condemns it to stagnation. It's the observation of the information itself, and how bits of the information influence the growth of the whole network, for the good or the ill.

I know that sounds very delta Si-ish... maybe that's because mysticism takes different forms depending on the element. The point is that most people entertain mystic propositions as a guide post for their lives, but they don't actively create them for themselves. Mysticism involves symbols, signs that suggest growth potential. It also involves a great deal of delusion, belief in connections where there are none, and abstracting away from form. Symbologism is a trade in and of itself -- you may see it in literature, in music (very often), or even in a video game. It's an idea that suggests a union between two elements, particularly dual elements. Symbologists are of course mysterious people, people who often won't reveal things about themselves for no obvious particular reason. They like living in mystery.

It'd be difficult to do a study comparing mystics of different types, but even before such a thing is attempted there must first be an idea of what the elements are in their concrete forms. But yeah I'd point to Jung and David Gergen as good examples of mystics.

Now that LII who I mentioned had a very specific definition of a faerie: a relational catalyst which seemed to pervade positive energy around it. And a demon, she considered a progressively pervasive and negative system of events, like the man hitting the wife which makes the boy kick the dog which bites the cat which shreiks and wakes the baby. Or a virus would be a similar analogy. She saw demons as inhabiting people who live troubled lives.

Well as having the concept of a chair - legs for support, an optional back for support, an area to sit on, I think that's Ni. But Picasso's fragmentation is by and large Si/Ne.

I think that sounds TeSi, actually, in that each part of the chair has a specific function. I count delta Si as two things, function and the relationship of object functions to each other, that is their impact on the continuance of the functionality.

[tcaudilllg]

Alpha Si, the element, I consider as having two parts, qualia and the aesthetic qualities of the qualia, the relations of qualia of the same category to each other.

It seems like qualia (and sensations) can be grouped based on which IM element effects them, and this is what SEIs specialize in doing. (not the grouping, but the use of different variants of qualia in the same group to "build" new qualia variants).

The alpha Si IM relationship to EM can be expressed thus: "X IM qualia/sensation is manifested by EM element Y, such that a change in Y will produce a change in X".

[tcaudilllg]

In my view, Delta Si the function is most concerned with the concept of need: objects, particularly living ones, have need for objects which can fulfill functions necessary to the continuance of their processes. The role of SLI as a craftsman is secondary to their role as assessors of need: in their view there may be a specific need for an information element depending on the situation. Te serves their purpose to the end of gathering the materials -- the organ -- to satisfy this need. SLI would of course craft a chair, after gathering the required resources, specifically to meet specific needs.

Gamma Se I see as the principle of right, which when considered as applying to objects produces the notion of entitlement. There is an unambiguous relationship of gamma Fi (value/equity) in that one has a right to that which one has value for. In times of scarcity, the greater the potential value of the thing to a person, the greater their entitlement to it. In disputes, beta Se is of course the deciding factor, the basis for SEE's notorious aggression. Value is determined by drive, the delta form of Fi.

Consider:

Beta Se (Strength) <-> Gamma Se (Right) <-> Gamma Fi (value) <-> Delta Fi (Drive)

Need can be a basis for right, but equity is typically demanded on basis of an unfulfilled drive. SEE argues that strength secures the right, which enables the obtainment of the object which has value, which satisfies the motive. SEE is a very reactive, impulsive creature which is motivated primarily by the pursuit of personal and community freedom, by which they believe they can potentially satisfy their drives and impulses. (if they have the force to acquire the object they seek).

The matter of their relation to objects is more clearly illustrated in the following diagram:

Beta Se (Aggression) <-> Gamma Se (Entitlement) <-> Gamma Fi (Equity) <-> Delta Fi (Desire)

If there is any discipline to which the SEE can make an unambiguous claim, it would be sociology.

[EyeSeeCold]

Interesting. I like the words you used, except for Aggression/Strength, I'm not sure how you deduced that.

Does it come from Ti/Se = Observable Tangibles? In that way it seems Se is done for the sake what you can explicitly see. Whereas Fi/Se = Valued Tangibles, which acquires based on underlying worth.

Beta Se: terminates in the physical.
Gamma Se: terminates in the emotional.

Correct?

[tcaudilllg]

Interesting. I like the words you used, except for Aggression/Strength, I'm not sure how you deduced that.

Does it come from Ti/Se = Observable Tangibles? In that way it seems Se is done for the sake what you can explicitly see. Whereas Fi/Se = Valued Tangibles, which acquires based on underlying worth.

Beta Se: terminates in the physical.
Gamma Se: terminates in the emotional.

Correct?

Correct. There is a pattern to the two subgroups in the context of the quadra elements. See to manage a function's content, you have to have two perspectives, one with respect to how the element "belongs" to an object, and one on how that object relates the aspects with belong to it to other object's aspects of that element. So an object "is" strong or weak (relative to a standard), and when its strength is brought into relation with another object's strength, you have a struggle, the outcome of which . A similar story with sensation: an object has color, hue, texture... specific qualia. When one's senses come into contact with an object's qualia, then you have sensation.

It's just a matter of looking at the terms used to describe each element and saying, "well, which of these relate to me and only to me, such that I would be unaware of the rest if I didn't have any relations at all with anything else?"

There is also a political basis for the distinction: liberals and theoconservatives, for example, tend to focus on rights, where progressives and "neocons" tend to focus on the practical implications of those rights, asking where they should be curtailed and what not. As a progressive, I tend to think more calmly and carefully about how far rights should extend, and less calmly about whether rights should even be had. I can get very, very emotional when the matter of rights comes up, because on the one hand it's personally threatening (possibly) and on the other there is simply something about defending that which is personal to many people that I find very self-actualizing. You look at Martin Luther King as a liberal exemplar: he insisted on the rights, but it was the promise of equal opportunity which really stirred his heart. On the conservative side you see a disconnect between the conductors of the Iraq war and social conservatives on civil rights matters: George W. Bush thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, but Dick Cheney, who has a gay daughter and has never preached to a soul that I know of, seems not to have a dog in that battle. So liberals and theocons tend to look at themselves more in isolation, and progressives and neocons tend to look at "the big picture". There again, there may be a disagreement between those two groups about what "big picture" actually means.

My point: there is a function inside a function which processes these subcategories, and its strength relative to the other such functions is a typology in and of itself.

[EyeSeeCold]

Ah I understand where you going with this: precision. I wonder though, is this really advancing the system in terms of overall progress? I ask because being able to produce consistent results is great but how exactly would this improve Socionics' ability to be applied in reality?

[tcaudilllg]

Ah I understand where you going with this: precision. I wonder though, is this really advancing the system in terms of overall progress? I ask because being able to produce consistent results is great but how exactly would this improve Socionics' ability to be applied in reality?

The political dimension is only relevant to the purpose of studying socionics, and intervening in personal-specific manners. However, the object/relations subdichotomy is useful for the simple purpose of thinking about the elements themselves. You don't need the political aspect to be able to get a sense of how a person is thinking, but you do need to be able to trace the relationships between aspects to really understand an argument at the element level.

I see politics as a dimension of personality. When trying to apply any personality theory in a practical setting, the more in touch you are with the person you are trying to apply it to, the better. I think it may be reasonable to point out to someone who is failing to appreciate the good points in an opposing argument that they may not be giving equal weight, because political divergence is a key reason for fights between conflictors.

Finally, there isn't much reason not to just go the extra mile. After all, I don't think there is anything beyond the political level. The potential to get a concrete understanding of the nature of conflicts between people, beyond the intuitive, is worth the extra layer of detail.

One more thing: the relations between these "subelements" is worth investigating, because there are peculiar and unobvious relations between them which, when apprehended, shed light on such problems as obfustication, delusion, and complex phenomena.

Maybe I just like knowing about it, although I do think that one can become more philosophically balanced by asking "what's missing" from a philosophical argument in concrete, informed terms.

Anyway, back to the topic. I don't believe we have discussed Fe, have we? Seems like alpha Fe is self, and beta Fe is mood. These seem like the most impenetrable concepts of the bunch. (but that may be because I'm an LII)

[Beautiful sky]

It's not possible because Boukalov et al. have screwed it up from the start. I'm sure my system is correct, but unless the professionals offer something identical to it I just can't persuade the gammas to go along with it.

Or can I?

Forget the logic thing. Te is business logic... OK. But it's not classification and here's how I know: classification is an internally apprehended static relationship between two objects. There is nothing externally dynamic about it because nothing can change the classification save something which transforms the object itself, and it has nothing to do with objects but with the relationships between them. So classification CANNOT be Te.

Classification is not Te, it is Ti, this is why I've typed Director Abbey SEI and Ti valuing activation, because, she has stated several times about how she classifies things...and I tried to tell her that was not Te and that I don't value Ti over Te.

EyeSeeCold can you not see beyond a model, to see the real truth?

Alpha Ti comes in two bits, the truth/falseness of propositions as they relate to an object and, once the truth/falseness has been established, the grouping of objects who have common true/false characteristics into categories, such that by observing that one proposition is true about an object, you can extrapolate that a whole host of other propositions are also true about it -- IF the categorization which is the basis for the implied set is not overly broad/glitteringly general.

Overreaction to/use of glittering generalities is the definition of weak alpha Ti.

^ He can't build a concept out of it. He probably considers it as just one part.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Rick's site already has the functions and what they mean. They are objective and accurate. You find out your type by understanding what the functions mean and what the theory says and not trying to twist it into what you want them to mean.

http://www.socionics.us/theory/information.shtml

Yes the descriptions might sound 'too vague' but that's what the theory is based upon. It's a personality theory based on what type of people you subjectively get along with. In the human working world though, and in all ways- this is huge, of course.

If you want to start talking about things more deeply, at least get the fundamentals right. Whatever you say can't clash with the above information or the whole thing is shit. (which may be a possibility but I disagree. People just don't understand it) More than likely you're just the one that is shit. (NO offense or anything it's nothing to get worked up either way it just means you're refusing to understand something.) It's not like it's anything really that important.... because you will naturally fall into the relationships you secretly desire anyway.

[EyeSeeCold]

The political dimension is only relevant to the purpose of studying socionics, and intervening in personal-specific manners. However, the object/relations subdichotomy is useful for the simple purpose of thinking about the elements themselves. You don't need the political aspect to be able to get a sense of how a person is thinking, but you do need to be able to trace the relationships between aspects to really understand an argument at the element level.

For the bolded part, I agree completely. "Looking at the parts is useful to understand the structure". However macroscopic/microscopic arguing is all a matter of perspective. We can split hairs into oblivion or we can be so oblivious that we don't know what we're talking about.

I see politics as a dimension of personality. When trying to apply any personality theory in a practical setting, the more in touch you are with the person you are trying to apply it to, the better.

Yes, but where does it end? When do you stop analyzing and start optimizing?

I think it may be reasonable to point out to someone who is failing to appreciate the good points in an opposing argument that they may not be giving equal weight, because political divergence is a key reason for fights between conflictors.

Yes, although current Socionics theory accounts for this to an adequate extent, in the form of differing valued elements.

Finally, there isn't much reason not to just go the extra mile. After all, I don't think there is anything beyond the political level. The potential to get a concrete understanding of the nature of conflicts between people, beyond the intuitive, is worth the extra layer of detail.

One more thing: the relations between these "subelements" is worth investigating, because there are peculiar and unobvious relations between them which, when apprehended, shed light on such problems as obfustication, delusion, and complex phenomena.

I agree, that's why we need more people working on this, especially in English. To work on all the aspects instead of just precision.

Maybe I just like knowing about it, although I do think that one can become more philosophically balanced by asking "what's missing" from a philosophical argument in concrete, informed terms.

No one's stopping you. I'm sure everyone appreciates your work ethic(or natural gifts). I've said it before, you're the only active member working to advance the theory in and of itself.

Anyway, back to the topic. I don't believe we have discussed Fe, have we? Seems like alpha Fe is self, and beta Fe is mood. These seem like the most impenetrable concepts of the bunch. (but that may be because I'm an LII)

Other words for thought: temperament and character. I think "mood" can be improved but I have no objections. As for Alpha, how about "atmosphere"?

^ He can't build a concept out of it. He probably considers it as just one part.

Admittedly, yes. It takes work for me to get down and see how everything relates to one another in tcaudilllg's systems. It's a matter of perspective-shifting.

Rick's site already has the functions and what they mean. They are objective and accurate. You find out your type by understanding what the functions mean and what the theory says and not trying to twist it into what you want them to mean.
http://www.socionics.us/theory/information.shtml

Yes the descriptions might sound 'too vague' but that's what the theory is based upon. It's a personality theory based on what type of people you subjectively get along with. In the human working world though, and in all ways- this is huge, of course.

tcauddilllg has not twisted them, rather, he is trying to fine tune them. Even I think the functions as is are too broad to be applied to every quadra. At least with Quadra specific functions you can understand why valuers of a certain function do not agree on the same aspects of reality.

If you want to start talking about things more deeply, at least get the fundamentals right. Whatever you say can't clash with the above information or the whole thing is shit. (which may be a possibility but I disagree. People just don't understand it)

The fundamentals are already understood the work being done here is to understand the fundamentals of the fundamentals.

More than likely you're just the one that is shit. (NO offense or anything it's nothing to get worked up either way it just means you're refusing to understand something.) It's not like it's anything really that important.... because you will naturally fall into the relationships you secretly desire anyway.

Ad hominem?

[jughead]

Frankly I think Tcaud is the single person who's advancing socionics at all as far as i know. (visibly at this moment so to say) He's doing his job at Ti. JohnDoe never did his hot chick database despite its acknoledged drawbacks. Boo.

On a side note there is eyetracker technology that exists now that could potentially be used to track the eyes pattern and could possibly reveal the eye movement patterns that extract the extroverted functions, possibly the introverted as the eyes still move in accessing memory and so forth. Far out but these things always pop up in my head when I have knowledge of them. The actual implementation would be a bitch just like all the other things and no one has made a leap to do any of them.

[jughead]

Basically when tcaud talked about the +- particualy gamma se it struck a chord with me that basically we are talking about the same thing he just has a far more developed logical sense and syntax to base it off of. I started a shitty thread about Se being possesiveness because of my dealing with gammas and there materialism being manifested as charging you for possesions and asserting there "rights" through family ties/bond/social expectations etc. (excuse me but gamma nts jewing me and trying to push me around for the above reasons).
PLus and minus Ni also has always made sense to me, though people bitch about gulenkos ineptitude I think +- is the best we have at discerning function basis in quadras.

I have trouble dealing with gamma se as I believe I'm the sole beta around and frankly you could say it boils down to lack of expireience and dealings with beta sts to have confidence in beta se. It angers me so much in dealing with gammas that i revert to archaic beta se and basically have the urge to just fight the person because i feel they are basically subverting me through my weaknesses and it would be better to just throw us into a cage match and the stronger prevails.

[tcaudilllg]

Jughead I'd like to ask you about that "archaic" beta Se of yours. (in another thread)

Been thinking about Fe... Gulenko says that -Fe tries to minimize negative emotions. +Fe tries to create positive emotions. Of course ****** was an ENFJ and he cultivated hate, so I'm not really sure if that's accurate. More than anything else I would argue that sentiments are a means to a general +Fe end of controlling others' perceptions of oneself -- e.g. looking good and by extension, making one's enemies, whether real or imagined, look bad. Or perhaps the projections are a means to the achievement of a positive mood, not really sure.

Also worth nothing: people agree that MLK and Muhammad that were both ENFJs... neither seems to have been particularly concerned with creating "good moods", just with transforming perceptions.

I suppose the best way to minimize a negative emotion would be to reduce irritability and to induce, by whatever means, tendency to look upon the disliked favorably. I don't see how this can happen without giving a great degree of special attention to people, the same which seems ESEs forte. Seems like ESEs (the sane ones) balance trying to bring out the best in a person with navigating around their... buttons. EyeSeeCold mentioned in the "where are the ESEs" thread (see Alpha subforum) that ESEs like to go to church... I guess hearing a person voice their regrets as they recount confrontations with people in full makes them.

My sister is an ESE. I remember a few years ago I was in her room, and she had 30-40 stuffed animals, each of whom she "knew" by name. All of them where either strikingly soft or profoundly cute, giving me the feeling of walking into a parallel universe. When she was younger, I would notice her carrying around stuffed animals for weeks after she acquired them. She would tell my mom (an LII) about the various imagined needs of the animals and what they were like "inside". After she "figured out" an animal's characteristics enough that she felt she "knew" them, she lost interest and moved on to the next "unknown" animal. Seems like she'd also take animals with her in pairs when she traveled, where one was a personal choice of hers, and the other was chosen based on its imagined relationship to the first. (She argued that the first would be lonely without a "friend")

But it just goes to show you how deeply ESEs think about relationships between people.

[EyeSeeCold]

Have you considered Alpha Fe = atmosphere?

Also, though Alphas may attend church, in my non-Fe ness, I can only see it as a "fake" thing. Betas are serious about it, I think, for the Se/Ni realness of the imagery..

Also, are you going to get your site back up?

[tcaudilllg]

Have you considered Alpha Fe = atmosphere?

Also, though Alphas may attend church, in my non-Fe ness, I can only see it as a "fake" thing. Betas are serious about it, I think, for the Se/Ni realness of the imagery..

Also, are you going to get your site back up?

I think "atmosphere" is a good word. I agree with you. It ties together Fe and Si very well, actually.

I'll probably get it back up today.

[Beautiful sky]

Fe is emotional atmosphere.

[tcaudilllg]

I just helped an SLI find her type tonight. These really work.

I believe there is a strong enough argument for self and disagreement (relative to another person) as internal object dynamics, given that changes in the brain may create changes in either, as may persuasive arguments in that they shift the neurological state of the mind and with it, the direction of mental energy. That we believe ourselves changing and inconstant, we are changing and inconstant. Mood and sentiment are of course dynamic.

Distance and being, while not unchangeable, are static for the duration of their consideration, just as true/false propositions are observations of an object's state. The way I see it, movement can only be judged according to a frame of reference. Einstein of course concluded the same years ago, but when you consider the situation from a cognitive informatics standpoint you really aren't left with any other conclusion. I considered movement as something individual to objects, with their position also being a private attribute of the same, but the simple fact of the matter is that you can't reckon either of those without another object, even a hypothetical one, as a point of comparison.

Augusta says Te is mass. I agree in as much as mass is a measurement; however, matter is something apart from a measured quantity. I believe matter to be beta Ti, and mass to be a gamma Te measurement of beta Ti. The chief role of beta Ti seems to be the observation of objects. If the goal of alpha Ti is to "knowledgeable", it is the role of beta Ti to "be aware". I think this is a point where Gulenko does not differentiate between quadra forms of the elements: beta Ti -> alpha Ti does result in the "breaking down", dissection of an object's properties, it's component properties; and Alpha Ti -> beta Ti, conversely, is the intentioned construction (manufacture?) of an object based on properties desired for it. But neither of these are the elements themselves. In fact, that I can tell the professionals are hurting bad from not having enough betas in their group, in that they aren't getting decent input on what it means to be beta. The LSIs, accordingly, appear to be a markedly misunderstood group, most commonly painted as "inferior LIIs", which they are not. But, I think this carries over from MBTI more than anything.

Is it just me, or do the elements have more to do with perception, and their relationships with judgment?

[EyeSeeCold]

I believe there is a strong enough argument for self and disagreement (relative to another person) as internal object dynamics, given that changes in the brain may create changes in either, as may persuasive arguments in that they shift the neurological state of the mind and with it, the direction of mental energy. That we believe ourselves changing and inconstant, we are changing and inconstant. Mood and sentiment are of course dynamic.

I thought this was implied from "internal"? Either way, a logical argument for it relating to tangible processes wouldn't hurt.

Distance and being, while not unchangeable, are static for the duration of their consideration, just as true/false propositions are observations of an object's state. The way I see it, movement can only be judged according to a frame of reference. Einstein of course concluded the same years ago, but when you consider the situation from a cognitive informatics standpoint you really aren't left with any other conclusion. I considered movement as something individual to objects, with their position also being a private attribute of the same, but the simple fact of the matter is that you can't reckon either of those without another object, even a hypothetical one, as a point of comparison.

"Distance" and "being" of what exactly? Do you see them as general factors of Information Metabolism theory?

Augusta says Te is mass. I agree in as much as mass is a measurement; however, matter is something apart from a measured quantity. I believe matter to be beta Ti, and mass to be a gamma Te measurement of beta Ti. The chief role of beta Ti seems to be the observation of objects. If the goal of alpha Ti is to "knowledgeable", it is the role of beta Ti to "be aware". I think this is a point where Gulenko does not differentiate between quadra forms of the elements: beta Ti -> alpha Ti does result in the "breaking down", dissection of an object's properties, it's component properties; and Alpha Ti -> beta Ti, conversely, is the intentioned construction (manufacture?) of an object based on properties desired for it. But neither of these are the elements themselves. In fact, that I can tell the professionals are hurting bad from not having enough betas in their group, in that they aren't getting decent input on what it means to be beta. The LSIs, accordingly, appear to be a markedly misunderstood group, most commonly painted as "inferior LIIs", which they are not. But, I think this carries over from MBTI more than anything.

Interesting, I must think about this.

With Alpha, I see the presence of Ti/Ne to mean observable intangibles. So not so much "knowledge" as it is "intelligence", because knowledge is knowing, while intelligence is exceeding. Ti/Se, as reasoned before, means observable tangibles, so Beta Ti is focused on exceeding in the physical realm, my word of choice is dexterity.

Is it just me, or do the elements have more to do with perception, and their relationships with judgment?

If we are speaking of the same thing, I agree. I never before considered the inter-connectedness of the functions.


Damn. I had something else I want to discuss... Oh well.

[tcaudilllg]

I see motion and distance as dynamic relationships between beta Ti aspects (masses or "beings"). Space is the static relationship between masses.

To evaluate any relationship, I think you need a point of reference, a stipulated "absolute" by which to compare. "X is soft" compared to what?

[EyeSeeCold]

In general communication, is Alpha and Delta impersonal while Beta and Gamma personal? I'm trying to figure out the preferred atmospheres of the quadras.

[tcaudilllg]

In general communication, is Alpha and Delta impersonal while Beta and Gamma personal? I'm trying to figure out the preferred atmospheres of the quadras.

What do you mean by "impersonal" vs "personal"?

[EyeSeeCold]

Alpha seems more focused on the projection of thoughts and not engagement in discussion.
Delta seems to be neutral, preferring to sit back and monitor free exchanges of opinions.

Gamma seems more closed off, preferring familiar interlocutors and intimate discussion.
Beta seems open but personal in that the group is closed off, but anyone is encouraged to speak.

[tcaudilllg]

Very interesting... I agree with you. You've made valid propositions.

[krieger]

I see Fe as something connected to "atmosphere" when paired with Ni only. Si is too tangible and specific to be referred to by that word. Fe paired with Si is more like the qualitative evaluation of the experience or presentation of a thing.

Alpha SFs actually don't literally connect well to atmosphere at all in my experience. When they are in a group, they still act as if living in their own, personal, ideosyncratic world. It's Ni/Se that places the specifics (external) of the moment in the "sharable" position (extrovert function).

[krieger]

The whole notion that Alpha is a quadra that forms "groups" is something I suspect is wrong. A group of alphas seems to me only ever a group in the most literal sense of the word, i.e. a number of people in close proximity. The alpha "group" doesn't in any way act like a unity, because each of it's members is acting from a very abnormal, idiosyncratic vantage point. There is just a huge contradiction between alpha being the quadra with the weirdest members and at the same time something inclined to form "groups" in the sense of multiple people with common (or even by choice collectivized) ideas or aims.

[EyeSeeCold]

@labcoat, I agree. If Alphas project, then having a bunch of them together wouldn't really constitute an atmosphere but random noise. Something has to be said more similar to atmosphere though, like room energy. tcaudilllg said "Self", but I don't see where Self and socially-inclined correlate.

@he died with a felafel Gamma being democratic relates to the aspects of power in that Quadra. Gammas are closed off due to having certain personal values, subjective ethics, either you are valued, or unvalued.

[tcaudilllg]

@labcoat, I agree. If Alphas project, then having a bunch of them together wouldn't really constitute an atmosphere but random noise. Something has to be said more similar to atmosphere though, like room energy. tcaudilllg said "Self", but I don't see where Self and socially-inclined correlate.

Think "compatibility".

On the matter of social inclination, consider what LIIs DON'T do: they don't pay attention to every bit and parcel of the people around them. ESEs know a lot of things about many people. Especially when young, LIIs are removed to their heads.

LSEs know what people can bring to an organization; ESEs know what they are like inside. To calm an emotional situation between two people, you need to know two things: 1) what the disagreement is, and 2) what personality conflicts are causing the disagreement. To know why people dislike each other, you must know what each person knows about the other. This requires investigation. Once you determine what each person knows about the other, you can then bring about disarmament, whether by criticizing either party for projecting their own faults onto someone else, or by correcting the individual's impression of the other person. This, too, requires investigation so as to obtain intimate knowledge about either party. (knowedge of either person's "self")

As a general rule, ESEs are "fun" people: they understand that the best way to keep tensions low is to distract people from thinking about them, and so they will try to create "fun" distractions. In the course of these distractions they may pick up little details about the warring parties, trying to get to the heart of the disagreement and figure out a way to "end" it. Their mirror, SEI, will instead use this information as an argument for either party to "stop with the racket" and change to make either side more pleasant to the other. Of course SEI is called "the Mediator" for a reason: changes of behavior are far more effective in resolving conflict than trying to get people to "look in the mirror". Still they need the details that only ESE can provide to figure what changes will succeed, because... they're introverts!

Consider this diagram:

Fe (self) <-- Si (aesthetic) \ Si (qualia)
|           /
|          /   
|         /     
|        /
Fe (compatibility between two people)

[EyeSeeCold]

From that point of view, "Self" makes sense, except for ILE, which seems to need just a stimulus.

Also, it makes sense from the perspective of Gamma, as having everyone tuned in to the same emotive wavelength is too robotic, and, basically, irritating.

Oh and in terms of Internal Dynamics of Objects, louder = better? lol. It seems so in ESE's case yet they get offensive when someone is loud back. Must be because they see themselves as the controller. I need to think on this, it seems there's hierarchy in Quadras.