With his permission: Johannes Bloem

[Olduvai]

Exactly. It's too late though. His self-identity is so wrapped up in his socionics identity. If anybody questions IEE, nice guy goes out the door and he defends his rationalizations with the wrath of 1,000 white women.

And if anybody's self-identity is wrapped up in socionics, it's yours. When you asked me where I got my definitions from and I told you I designed them, you proceeded to post about it in this thread like it fucking matters. Why take the time to do that if I'm just stupid and crazy? Why deliberately "bait" me like that?

Sorry if my ideas threaten your mistaken conception of socionics and by extension, your mistaken conception of yourself, but I am here to spread what I think is the truth, and if that means your obviously-wrong self-typing gets called into question, then so be it.

[Olduvai]

The reason duals are able to balance each other out is that the exact opposite information elements take the same places in Model A.

Duals balance each other out because they notice different "things" about the same "things". Example:

"Ni" = "Implicit Object Dynamics"
"Se" = "Explicit Object Statics"

Notice how both "Ni" and "Se" are oriented toward "objects", but pick out different information about them. One sees the "implicit dynamics" of "objects" while the other sees the "explicit statics" of "objects".

EDITED PORTION
You might say that they complement each other.

[Zero11]

"Ni" = "Implicit Object Dynamics"
"Se" = "Explicit Object Statics"

Notice how both "Ni" and "Se" are oriented toward "objects", but pick out different information about them. One sees the "implicit dynamics" of "objects" while the other sees the "explicit statics" of "objects".

EDITED PORTION
You might say that they complement each other.

Whereas in Model A the ILIs is unconscious and therefore not able to be used by itself ironically it is an Quadra value here to match up the so called Duality in this case the SEE whose is unconscious.

My is pretty much conscious as a frequent compensation due to indulge in sensory pleasures happens. Which could be a bit distorted due to my Sensual/Self-Preservation Instinct.

[Olduvai]

Whereas in Model A the ILIs is unconscious and therefore not able to be used by itself ironically it is an Quadra value here to match up the so called Duality in this case the SEE whose is unconscious.

My is pretty much conscious as a frequent compensation due to indulge in sensory pleasures happens. Which could be a bit distorted due to my Sensual/Self-Preservation Instinct.

U sure you aren't SLI?

[Zero11]

U sure you aren't SLI?

Yes I am sure, why?

[Olduvai]

Yes I am sure, why?

idk, call it a "gut feeling"

[Joy]

Okay. I'm going to stop trying to correlate your system with the traditional system of information aspects because there really isn't one. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

[Zero11]

-

[Olduvai]

I didn't bait you. I tried to have a discussion with you, but you proved that you were too unreasonable to have a discussion with.

No, you randomly asked me via shoutbox where I got my definitions from, despite your having never talked to me prior. I told you that I designed them and you said nothing further. Then, a couple of weeks later, you posted in this thread, claiming that I "pulled them out of my ass". There was no discussion, no consideration. Your sole intent was to trick me and discredit me, like a scheming little weasel.

That's 3 posts in a row that you've cursed at me. Cursing doesn't show clear-headedness or open-mindedness. You still seem to be nitpicky with definitions and more focused on expressing your own viewpoint than listening to anyone.

You're so fucking petty. Sorry if my coarse language offends your delicate ears. If I'm "nitpicking" with my definitions, then you must not think "differentiation of information" is all that important. Is this true?

[Zero11]

Explicit Relation Statics

(static) perceives inherent potential in objects. Objects don't tend to change their nature much over time, though new circumstances can reveal hitherto unnoticed aspects of that potentiality.

potential inside of objects = Relations

Objects are obvious, Relations are not

Source: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...ic_and_dynamic

In this example here: http://www.socionics.us/theory/information.shtml
Objects are derived from Objective/Extraverted (Explicit)
Fields are derived from Subjective/Introverted (Implicit)

The Fields and Objects here are not well thought out like Johannes Bloems versions, they are just other names for Jungian Concepts, less applicable descriptions

2nd Dichotomy:
Objects/Units
Relations/Systems

3rd Dichotomy:
Dynamic
Static

[ashlesha]

johannes why do you use so many quotation marks??????

[munenori2]

So sorry, didn't mean to burn you there

[Kill4Me]

Johannes Bloem: INTp

[Zero11]

Johannes Bloem: INTp

I´m with you on this.

[Olduvai]

I´m with you on this.

I'm flattered, but I assure you I am IEE. Ryene I think is ILI, though.

[Zero11]

I'm flattered, but I assure you I am IEE. Ryene I think is ILI, though.

[Soupman]

I'm flattered, but I assure you I am IEE. Ryene I think is ILI, though.

That analysis is currently fine with the model of socionics you have but your definitions of rationality, extroversion introversion, sensing intuition, logic ethics as well as the convoluted reinin traits will change the more you research and that will alter the way you interpret the facts you've currently got. You'll have another socionics theory. There is a lot more to learn about socionics and intrinsically there are several holes in the theory you'll come to see the more you go deeper into the rabbit hole.

The next interesting point would be looking critiquing the cognitive theories proposed which aim to analyse how different sociotypes actually reason as you'd observe then in real time, plus even more interesting are the messier intertype relation theories since the differences between people's real cognitive styles are more convoluted in reality thus difficult to form a good theory on.

One area you might be interested in is studying how all sociotype evolve their ideas in ways that are unique to their cognition, DarkAngelFireWolf69's awkward cognitive styles become more interesting when that happens. However you may mostly come up with a more radical theory than the one his created since there is a lot to discover on the topic.

[Galen]

I love how I'm always the first whistleblower on all the crazies who come here
You're welcome

[Olduvai]

I love how I'm always the first whistleblower on all the crazies who come here
You're welcome

Fuck off, Gaylen. Go back to socionix and keep pretending you're a philosopher.

[Capitalist Pig]

johannes why do you use so many quotation marks??????

maybe because he speaks mostly hypothetically, or in loose paraphrases. idk I haven't really read many of his posts to be honest