I would appreciate this.
I would appreciate this.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
You may have a consensus here among current members as to what the functions are who have had experience hearing many different sides to them who understand that they apply to each type differently (Fe to ILI is different to ESE), but that doesn't matter, what matters is that your definitions apply to any outsider who supposedly has them and has never heard them described before; an anonymous type.
In order to provide that anonymous type with as objective as possible a description, we should describe each function as described by another function (here is Fe interpreting Te). Since we're describing 'real' aspects of personality and behavior it is best to do so through the bias we all supposedly have through habitual use of these aspects. This will also serve to describe those functions in their interpretations of the others.
If you simply slap down a definition we agree on here, it will theoretically be interpreted at least 16 different ways, as opposed to the one way it would be intended to be interpreted. We must then provide 16 different descriptions to cater to the different biases...
I don't need to provide more context, I think you'll understand what I'm saying.
You'd need a professional level of interest in that case, which we don't seem to have.Originally Posted by Skeptic
Good goal but, not the time for it.
Still, let's remind that the goal is to educate people about what the functions/elements really ARE, not what they appear to be. Granted the biased distortions can be worked out easily enough by just asking an ILI, although I suspect that ILIs do not view their PoLRs alike. They may agree that understanding the nuances of a person's self definition or a disagreement between two people to be a waste of time, but might disagree on what the specific reasons are for it being a waste of time. There might be a hundred different perspectives on that one, a debate in and of itself. At the end of the day, ILIs will just say, "don't lose money over pretty arguments."
We can't really get consensus as regards a type's view on a function, because only a person of said type actually knows what those are about! Before they even begin, they have to take an Alpha NT's word for where to start if they aren't one themselves.
The information elements must correspond to mental processing capabilities of the brain. That they do is a fundamental postulate of information metabolism.
It's looking an awful lot like this is gonna be a situation where the alpha NTs make the call, with corroboratory backup from gammas.
Me being Mr. Categorizer, here's what I see:
Ni subdivides into time (gamma) and something which includes choice...
Te subdivides into order (delta) and possession (gamma)
Ti subdivides into physical qualities (in the scientific sense [beta]) and logical propositions and their relationships (categories) [alpha]
I really don't think Te has anything really to do with logic at all... I think that's a mistake by the socionists where they interpreted strong Ti application by Te types as "Te", where Ti is an ingredient in the selection of business strategy.
Wealth is an externally changeable characteristic of objects. It falls in the domain of Te. So does order -- one object can change another object's position in a group.
Order differs from wealth in that it pairs with a static element, rather than a dynamic one.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 12-31-2010 at 04:15 AM.
it's better to have poorly defined definitions than well-defined ones that are wrong and nevertheless asserted to be right with fanaticism.
You think these are wrong?
Te is definitely logic. Arrangement/correctness/algorithmic/classification.
I really don't think Ti egos have anywhere near the qualms with classifying people that Te egos do. In fact it doesn't seem that you can insist on making people adhere to the same categorical system like a Ti ego would. (or maybe you can, but I'll bet you'd feel regretful as hell about it...)
Whenever a Te type proposes a category that they came up with completely on their own, people ends up arguing with them over it, those people always including Te types with competing systems (see the myriad MBTI variants other than socionics) AND the Ti types who dream of being able to shut them all up and make them agree that reality exists objectively, not just in somebody's head.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 12-31-2010 at 05:48 AM.
order too
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
