Is hkkmr IEE?

[Inguz]

Every single IE demonstrates in combination with the seven other IEs.
E.g ESE is different from EIE I also think that this is pretty useless http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Dmitry-Golihov
So you might not like so much his -creative in combination with -base because your Ne-ignoring

But you get hit by his 4d demonstrative

LSE with very strong imo. Makes the most sense.

IEIs are primed for receiving and understanding Result-Ti which only comes from negativist types such as LII and SLE. It's a 'debugger' type of Ti logic which specializes in working out and resolving internal problems or inconsistencies within any theory or system and eliminating parts that compromise it. This is what you requested in that thread: "these dichotomies don't work (are problematic), should we get rid of them?" Positivist types like LSIs or ILEs despite having Ti in their ego block can only provide you with Process-Ti, which instead of 'debugging' and 'weeding out' is set to adding and growing the complexity of reasoning. This kind of logic isn't going to make a 'connection' to how you understand things. On the other hand an LSI attested that hkkmr explains socionics in the way that was clear to that person, since their logical functions are similar. IEIs and ILEs exist in very different informational streams (benefit and supervision rings), hence the inherent fuzziness of communication in mirage relations.

There's quite a few problems with your hypothesis.

If IEI is "primed for receiving" the type of Ti that comes from LII, then you seem to forget that it is LII that benefit from IEI. Point being that the asymmetrical qualities of benefit ought to clearly indicate that it is not the "Result-Ti" in particular that is being sought.

You are placing words in my mouth, the intent of the thread was to see if anyone have any good arguments for the soundness of all the dichotomies. It may seem trivial but at the same time it appears as if you base your analysis surrounding that assumption, which is not correct.

LSI is supervised by ILE. Would an LSI find that an ILE explains something in a "clear" way when their base is ?

I hope that you do realize that I as an IEI do not share a benefit or supervision ring with any other type of the Beta quadra. I do not experience any inherent "fuzziness" with other types of my own quadra. Do you?

[Olduvai]

The reason why hkkmr appears to use logic is simple: because Ne means "Explicit Statics of Systems" and Ti. means "Implicit Statics of Systems". Thus, someone who is strong in the former but weak in the latter may nevertheless appear to be strong in the latter.

[Olduvai]

Source?

My personal system that explains why Ti egos and Fi egos clash and why Te and Fe egos clash. The "official" definitions (if you can even call them that) are incoherent and lack explanatory power.

[consentingadult]

...because Ne means "Explicit Statics of Systems"...

Not true. In official wording Ne is "internal statics of objects", whatever that means without proper explanation. To put it differently: "the (non-physical) essence of a phenomenon", that which is unalterable about the phenomenon. To view Ne as an information element that builds knowledge frameworks of systems, is a common error. I have explained this in a blog post:

"...It is said of Introverted Thinking (Ti) that it 'evaluates information as to how it fits into a system'. A system in this sense is a 'knowledge framework', where constituting components and their relationships are described. This is similar to how lots of people explain how they see Ne: they draw pictures of objects (often represented by balls or circles) and the relationships (lines) between them: one big expanding universe of interrelated objects! So one might question: "Are Ti and Ne not the same thing?", or "How are they different?" A lot can be said about the differences, but there is only one aspect that is important: Ne doesn't focus on how well information fits into a system. It just compares phenomena with other phenomena, to arrive at insights about these phenomena. In a sense, Ne makes drawings on transparent sheets and then lays the sheets on top of each other in order to compare the drawings and perceive what they have in common and what not.

How well phenomena fit into a system (whether logical or ethical), is of secondary importance, and an effect of Ti or Fi, not Ne. To the Fi-base and Ti-base observers, an Ne-base attitude might lead to inconsistencies and contradictions in knowledge. They fail to recognize that Ne-base, used by itself, does not perceive phenomena as parts of a system."

Ne is NOT systems thinking. But it is understandable that this is how Ne is often understood, because Ne base types are inclined to explain phenomena in context of systems.

[Olduvai]

Not true. In official wording Ne is "internal statics of objects", whatever that means without proper explanation. To put it differently: "the (non-physical) essence of a phenomenon", that which is unalterable about the phenomenon. To view Ne as an information element that builds knowledge frameworks of systems, is a common error.

Two questions: why? and what the fuck is a "non-physical essence"?

"...It is said of Introverted Thinking (Ti) that it 'evaluates information as to how it fits into a system'. A system in this sense is a 'knowledge framework', where constituting components and their relationships are described. This is similar to how lots of people explain how they see Ne

Wait, isn't that what I said? Regardless, I disagree with your conception of Ti. Ti does not "evaluate information as to how it fits into a system", Ti "perceives the system directly". When we say "subjective logic" when we're talking about "Introverted Thinking", we mean "how we perceive things logically". If a logical type relates to another logical type some "subjective logic", the recipient is able to temporarily "perceive things" under that framework, and in that sense you might say they are "relating" to one another. "Implied Field/System/Relation Statics".

: they draw pictures of objects (often represented by balls or circles) and the relationships (lines) between them: one big expanding universe of interrelated objects! So one might question: "Are Ti and Ne not the same thing?", or "How are they different?" A lot can be said about the differences, but there is only one aspect that is important: Ne doesn't focus on how well information fits into a system.

Now you're just being redundant. In fact, since all you're really saying the whole time is "Ne has NOTHING to do with systems", your entire post reeks of redundancy.

It just compares phenomena with other phenomena, to arrive at insights about these phenomena. In a sense, Ne makes drawings on transparent sheets and then lays the sheets on top of each other in order to compare the drawings and perceive what they have in common and what not.

Some might call that a "relationship". A "system" is a "relationship" between two or more "objects".

How well phenomena fit into a system (whether logical or ethical), is of secondary importance, and an effect of Ti or Fi, not Ne. To the Fi-base and Ti-base observers, an Ne-base attitude might lead to inconsistencies and contradictions in knowledge. They fail to recognize that Ne-base, used by itself, does not perceive phenomena as parts of a system."

That's only because an Ne-base would place more emphasis on the trivial aspects of a system, as Ne means "Explicit System Statics". Thus, to a Ti- or Fi-base, for whom "Implicit System Statics" or "Implicit Object Statics" is the leading function, an Ne-base may appear naive, ill-informed, or underdeveloped. A Ti- or Fi-base, by contrast, would be more focused on unstated, one-might-say-"Implicit" properties that are less obvious to the Ne-base due to the concept of "Function Strength".
.

Ne is NOT systems thinking. But it is understandable that this is how Ne is often understood, because Ne base types are inclined to explain phenomena in context of systems.

If Ne-base types explain it as such, who are you to question them? Stop trying to bend Ne to your will, you're just wasting your time.

[silke]

There's quite a few problems with your hypothesis.

If IEI is "primed for receiving" the type of Ti that comes from LII, then you seem to forget that it is LII that benefit from IEI. Point being that the asymmetrical qualities of benefit ought to clearly indicate that it is not the "Result-Ti" in particular that is being sought.

You are placing words in my mouth, the intent of the thread was to see if anyone have any good arguments for the soundness of all the dichotomies. It may seem trivial but at the same time it appears as if you base your analysis surrounding that assumption, which is not correct.

LSI is supervised by ILE. Would an LSI find that an ILE explains something in a "clear" way when their base is ?

From your replies I gather you're relatively new to socionics so you probably haven't read much on benefit and supervision relations. Consider these questions: which way does information flow in these relations? what is the point of benefit and supervision rings?

I hope that you do realize that I as an IEI do not share a benefit or supervision ring with any other type of the Beta quadra. I do not experience any inherent "fuzziness" with other types of my own quadra. Do you?

Shared IEs among four types in same quadra only ensure some diffuse commonality of values between these types, but there are other conflicting factors that contribute to there being 'hiccups' in communication of activities and mirrors. I'll quote a few:

Mirror relations are actually "mutual supervision" replete with mutual correction (reference):

"Thus, Activity is mutual request and Quasi-identity is mutual execution of the request. Similarly, Mirror is supervision/audit of one another, and in Conflict both partners are expecting to be supervised/audited."

Activity partners perceive each other's expressions as too specific or too vague (reference)

"The other problem with these relations is that information between Activity partners always needs some adjustments. One partner may think of it as too foggy and not concrete enough, whereas for the other partner it is too unrefined. Collaboration is also difficult, because partners cannot predict each others behaviour and actions in what seem to be ordinary situations."

Both mirrors and activities lie on different sides of Process/Result dichotomy which contributes to misunderstanding (reference):

"Process and Result types have difficulty having constructive exchanges of information. Their differing preferred modes of information exchange are one of the sources of misunderstandings in social interaction; these differences create an informational barrier between left and right types."

Finally, one of the types in these relations is Rational while the other is Irrational, which is known to create barriers in conversation and trying to understand one another.

All of this has been discussed in the past across multiple threads. If you don't experience any communication problems with your mirror and activity types, then look at how you're typing people. You may be typing the more energetic socially extraverted IEIs as EIEs and more mellow SLEs as LSIs, which is a frequent beginner mistake, then of course you won't be mindful of these intra-quadra divides.

[Inguz]

From your replies I gather you're relatively new to socionics so you probably haven't read much on benefit and supervision relations. Consider these questions: which way does information flow in these relations? what is the point of benefit and supervision rings?

So why don't you just tell me.

Shared IEs among four types in same quadra only ensure some diffuse commonality of values between these types, but there are other conflicting factors that contribute to there being 'hiccups' in communication of activities and mirrors. I'll quote a few:

This wasn't my question at all. I asked about "fuzziness", which I can only assume means being perceived as vague from both ends.

Activity partners perceive each other's expressions as too specific or too vague (reference)

"The other problem with these relations is that information between Activity partners always needs some adjustments. One partner may think of it as too foggy and not concrete enough, whereas for the other partner it is too unrefined. Collaboration is also difficult, because partners cannot predict each others behaviour and actions in what seem to be ordinary situations."

"/.../ too specific or too vague" <-- What does that even mean? Both at the same time? Neither do I find LSIs to be hard to predict. Isn't DarkAngelFireWolf69 an LII btw?

Both mirrors and activities lie on different sides of Process/Result dichotomy which contributes to misunderstanding (reference):

"Process and Result types have difficulty having constructive exchanges of information. Their differing preferred modes of information exchange are one of the sources of misunderstandings in social interaction; these differences create an informational barrier between left and right types."

??? What is the relevance of this? "/.../ one of the sources /.../" is not saying anything at all. It's like saying that skin rashes are one of the sources for criminality. I'm sure that you'll be able to find a causal connection for that somewhere in someone.

All of this has been discussed in the past across multiple threads. If you don't experience any communication problems with your mirror and activity types, then look at how you're typing people. You may be typing the more energetic socially extraverted IEIs as EIEs and more mellow SLEs as LSIs, which is a frequent beginner mistake, then of course you won't be mindful of these intra-quadra divides.

I know that you are trying to help me and that your intention is good but I do perceive you as particularly condescending towards me in this thread. Please stop that.

I am one of those "energetic socially extroverted IEIs" thank you very much. I do look beyond that.

[Simon Ssmall]

Spinal cord pics plz

[consentingadult]

Two questions: why? and what the fuck is a "non-physical essence"?

Wait, isn't that what I said? Regardless, I disagree with your conception of Ti. Ti does not "evaluate information as to how it fits into a system", Ti "perceives the system directly". When we say "subjective logic" when we're talking about "Introverted Thinking", we mean "how we perceive things logically". If a logical type relates to another logical type some "subjective logic", the recipient is able to temporarily "perceive things" under that framework, and in that sense you might say they are "relating" to one another. "Implied Field/System/Relation Statics".




Now you're just being redundant. In fact, since all you're really saying the whole time is "Ne has NOTHING to do with systems", your entire post reeks of redundancy.




Some might call that a "relationship". A "system" is a "relationship" between two or more "objects".




That's only because an Ne-base would place more emphasis on the trivial aspects of a system, as Ne means "Explicit System Statics". Thus, to a Ti- or Fi-base, for whom "Implicit System Statics" or "Implicit Object Statics" is the leading function, an Ne-base may appear naive, ill-informed, or underdeveloped. A Ti- or Fi-base, by contrast, would be more focused on unstated, one-might-say-"Implicit" properties that are less obvious to the Ne-base due to the concept of "Function Strength".
.

If Ne-base types explain it as such, who are you to question them? Stop trying to bend Ne to your will, you're just wasting your time.

You don't know shit. Period.

[Reficulris]

This thread has gone boring since @hkkmr isn't posting wierd pictures anymore....BOOÖOOOOOORRRRRINIINGGGGGG!

[silke]

This thread has gone boring since @hkkmr isn't posting wierd pictures anymore....BOOÖOOOOOORRRRRINIINGGGGGG!

how about instead of complaining about this thread being boring you kick it back into gear by posting more weird pictures of him? when one comrade falls by wayside, another needs to pick up and carry his proud banner

[mu4]

This thread has gone boring since @hkkmr isn't posting wierd pictures anymore....BOOÖOOOOOORRRRRINIINGGGGGG!

Now that' you've gone and said that my pictures are all weird... I'm shy... I don't want to be weird...

[Reficulris]

@hkkmr: No..no..I meant... they make me feel "wierd"... like in a good way!!!

[Amber]

so i've been here for 2 days , but from certain replies of his he's definitely NOT Ti polr.

[Reficulris]

@AshSun: You might need to get acclimated to this forum to start getting the humor.

Oh wait, this thread was completely serious...

shit....

[Amber]

@AshSun: You might need to get acclimated to this forum to start getting the humor.

Oh wait, this thread was completely serious...

shit....

oh that's the lingo for "who wants to fuck hkkmr" ? then hell, no. my answer was still correct.

[Amber]

IEIs are primed for receiving and understanding Result-Ti which only comes from negativist types such as LII and SLE. It's a 'debugger' type of Ti logic which specializes in working out and resolving internal problems or inconsistencies within any theory or system and eliminating parts that compromise it. This is what you requested in that thread: "these dichotomies don't work (are problematic), should we get rid of them?" Positivist types like LSIs or ILEs despite having Ti in their ego block can only provide you with Process-Ti, which instead of 'debugging' and 'weeding out' is set to adding and growing the complexity of reasoning. This kind of logic isn't going to make a 'connection' to how you understand things. On the other hand an LSI attested that hkkmr explains socionics in the way that was clear to that person, since their logical functions are similar. IEIs and ILEs exist in very different informational streams (benefit and supervision rings), hence the inherent fuzziness of communication in mirage relations.

where did you find this distinction between Process Ti vs Result Ti? Not bad.

[Amber]

Due to creative Ni you like to slip in different roles. You really do well as a bunny and I can see how you become one with your role. The role you choose suggests Fe-Ego over Te-Ego because a friendly pink bunny seems more Fe valuing.
So EIE>LIE.

of ffs so that's why my EIE sis can switch from pinkish bunny to high-profile professional in a second

[bolong]

IEIs are primed for receiving and understanding Result-Ti which only comes from negativist types such as LII and SLE. It's a 'debugger' type of Ti logic which specializes in working out and resolving internal problems or inconsistencies within any theory or system and eliminating parts that compromise it. This is what you requested in that thread: "these dichotomies don't work (are problematic), should we get rid of them?" Positivist types like LSIs or ILEs despite having Ti in their ego block can only provide you with Process-Ti, which instead of 'debugging' and 'weeding out' is set to adding and growing the complexity of reasoning. This kind of logic isn't going to make a 'connection' to how you understand things. On the other hand an LSI attested that hkkmr explains socionics in the way that was clear to that person, since their logical functions are similar. IEIs and ILEs exist in very different informational streams (benefit and supervision rings), hence the inherent fuzziness of communication in mirage relations.

Whoaa. This makes so much sense.