Identifying information elements in quotes split

[Dutchman]

I can teach you to type by analyzing sentences Find me a quote - 1 defining phrase - of somebody, and I'll type them based on the text. A famous person is cool, or just a friend. I'll explain what I look for. It's not too hard. (ofc 1 line may not reveal their true type, but the analysis will be shown nevertheless,)

Here's a quote of P.D. Ouspensky, I hope the quote is not too long:
'We know that with the very first awakening of knowledge, man is confronted with two obvious facts:
The existence of the world in which he lives; and the existence of psychic life in himself.
Neither of these can he prove or disprove, but they are facts: they constitute reality for him.
It is possible to meditate upon the mutual correlation of these two facts. It is possible to try to reduce them to one; that is, to regard the psychic or inner world as a part, reflection, or function of the world, or the world as a part, reflection, or function of that inner world. But such a procedure constitutes a departure from facts, and all such considerations of the world and of the self, to the ordinary non-philosophical mind, will not have the character of obviousness. On the contrary the sole obvious fact remains the antithesis of I and Not-I — our inner psychic life and the outer world.'

[Amber]

I hope this is a joke.
(internal statics of fields )

I can write you at least a whole paragraph in one chosen style.
(external dynamics of object)

[Amber]

^^^there was no analysis , I was just bringing in some examples. Now really. I hope you don´t expect to spot someone´s type from one or two sentences.

[Amber]

The OP didn't answer why "the world" external to the Self could not be perceived and explored as object of cognition via Ne (inherent potentiality), which , unlike Se, deals less with surfaces :

1. — Perception of the appearance and shape of an object
2. — Perception of the inner content and structure of an object

I suppose it was easier to push in all into an existing form.

I have no idea what type Ouspensky was, but that fragment alone rings static to me. It doesn't deal with changes / processes, but with a state almost taken for granted - antithesis of I and not- I. That rings Ti to me (as static logic or correlation).

[Zero11]

@Johannes Bloem

Which type has which + and - functions?

[Olduvai]

@Johannes Bloem

Which type has which + and - functions?

Positivist types have a "plus" primary/leading function, negativist types have a "minus" primary/leading function.

For example, negativist type IEE has "primary minus-Ne" and "auxiliary plus-Fi", while mirror partner and positivist type EII has "primary plus-Fi" and "auxiliary minus-Ne".

[lemontrees]

Positivist types have a "plus" primary/leading function, negativist types have a "minus" primary/leading function.

For example, negativist type IEE has "primary minus-Ne" and "auxiliary plus-Fi", while mirror partner and positivist type EII has "primary plus-Fi" and "auxiliary minus-Ne".

This is just not true!
Dual pairs contain one negativist and one positivist partner, but by this logic they would have to be the same.

Here's a link to plus/ minus functions.

Here is a description of positivism/ negativism (about halfway down the page.)

[Olduvai]

This is just not true!
Dual pairs contain one negativist and one positivist partner, but by this logic they would have to be the same.

Not sure where you're getting this from. Let's take for example dual pair LII-ESE:

LII
"primary minus-Ti"
"auxiliary plus-Ne"

ESE
"primary plus-Fe"
"auxiliary minus-Si"

In dual pairs, one partner is a negativist and has a "primary minus-" function and an "auxiliary plus-" function, while the other partner is a positivist and has a "primary plus-" function and an "auxiliary minus-" function.

Here's a*link
*to plus/ minus functions.

Thanks, but I require no further reading

[lemontrees]

Not sure where you're getting this from. Let's take for example dual pair LII-ESE:


In dual pairs, one partner is a negativist and has a "primary minus-" function and an "auxiliary plus-" function, while the other partner is a positivist and has a "primary plus-" function and an "auxiliary minus-" function.




Thanks, but I require no further reading

Oh, I see. Perhaps we were talking about different things.
I didn't provide the links for you but rather for the person who had been asking you questions, lol.

[xerx]

Not sure where you're getting this from. Let's take for example dual pair LII-ESE:

LII
"primary minus-Ti"
"auxiliary plus-Ne"

ESE
"primary plus-Fe"
"auxiliary minus-Si"

In dual pairs, one partner is a negativist and has a "primary minus-" function and an "auxiliary plus-" function, while the other partner is a positivist and has a "primary plus-" function and an "auxiliary minus-" function.

That is wrong.

positivist + static = primary plus.
negativist + static = primary minus.

However

positivist + dynamic = primary minus.
negativist + dynamic = primary plus.


Dynamic and static alter the sign.

[Dutchman]

What about these examples (with regard to food or a person)?
Te sees movement
Fe mood
Ne capacities
Se outer form
Ti distance between objects
Fi attraction
Ni future
Si taste/health

[Beautiful sky]

What about these examples (with regard to food or a person)?
Te sees movement
Fe mood
Ne capacities
Se outer form
Ti distance between objects
Fi attraction
Ni future
Si taste/health

Fi -moral program and ethics of relations...how one should conduct themselves in a relationship; I know

[Amber]

What about these examples (with regard to food or a person)?
Te sees movement, activity, algorithm, profit, method
Fe mood, surface feeling indicators, movement of emotion, outer atmosphere
Ne capacities, intrinsic properties , able to capture them as "essence" of a phenomenon, person etc.
Se outer form, will power levels, mobilization, resistance or oppositional intensity
Ti distance between objects, objective correlations, structure
Fi attraction, affinity, subjective distance between people, morals, principles of relating, internal state
Ni future, progression in time, behavioral patterns, strategy
Si taste/health, comfort levels

In very simplified terms ...there is a grain of truth. Some additions. And you can also check this page for more details : http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/functions.html.
For typing people I recommend analyzing behavior, not only words /text and a series of dichotomies. It can give you hints on temperament and lead you directly to functions people use when they process the world around them.

[Dutchman]

In very simplified terms ...there is a grain of truth. Some additions. And you can also check this page for more details : http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/functions.html.
For typing people I recommend analyzing behavior, not only words /text and a series of dichotomies. It can give you hints on temperament and lead you directly to functions people use when they process the world around them.

Thanks for the additions and the link (I visited socioniko.net before, my favorite site remains en.socionics.ru). The reasons to keep my descriptions so short are that I'm still a beginner and secondly I would like to know socionics by head.

By the way, I'm surprised to find this thread now in the General socionics discussion and not only in Introductions where it started. I found out by coincidence.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

By the way, I'm surprised to find this thread now in the General socionics discussion and not only in Introductions where it started. I found out by coincidence.

The mods here will split perceived thread derails when necessary. Your intro thread, minus these posts, should still be in the intro section.

[Amber]

Thanks for the additions and the link (I visited socioniko.net before, my favorite site remains en.socionics.ru). The reasons to keep my descriptions so short are that I'm still a beginner and secondly I would like to know socionics by head.
.

yes, it's a good one, i found this particularly useful when i discovered it : http://en.socionics.ru/index.php?opt...253&Itemid=138

[JuJu]

For edification purposes, maybe a mod could sticky this post. (Even the inevitable post-information pissing contest has quality input from various sources.)

Take a tip from one who's engaged in this sort of thing and has lived to regret it - and one who doesn't have a horse in the race - to greater and lesser extents, there's something of value in each of your different interpretations… Given where it all started, years ago, adrift with babelfish'd Russian translations and holdover notions from MBTI that anyone who smiles is an ethical type, it's been a hell of a journey -- and "land ho!" if everyone keeps pushing. There's no sense letting pride get in the way.

[JWC3]

For edification purposes, maybe a mod could sticky this post. (Even the inevitable post-information pissing contest has quality input from various sources.)

Take a tip from one who's engaged in this sort of thing and has lived to regret it - and one who doesn't have a horse in the race - to greater and lesser extents, there's something of value in each of your different interpretations… Given where it all started, years ago, adrift with babelfish'd Russian translations and holdover notions from MBTI that anyone who smiles is an ethical type, it's been a hell of a journey -- and "land ho!" if everyone keeps pushing. There's no sense letting pride get in the way.

You've come a long way. Good work.

[Olduvai]

That is wrong.

positivist + static = primary plus.
negativist + static = primary minus.

However

positivist + dynamic = primary minus.
negativist + dynamic = primary plus.


Dynamic and static alter the sign.

lolno. "Static" and "dynamic" are properties of the information, "positivist" and "negativist" refer to how the information is expressed.

There is no reason why the signs should differ between static and dynamic.

[xerx]

lolno. "Static" and "dynamic" are properties of the information, "positivist" and "negativist" refer to how the information is expressed.

There is no reason why the signs should differ between static and dynamic.

Consider this:

ESE has -Fe, which is the avoidance of negative emotions.
EIE has +Fe, which is the maximization of positive emotions.


ESE is positivist; EIE is negativist. The change denotes a difference between static and dynamic types.


Plus and minus is intended to give short function descriptions based on Gulenko et al.'s theoretical assumptions about Socionics. Moreover, the concept can be used to represent different facets of the theory:

ex.

Duals share the same sign, which gives us a way to represent the process ( + ) / result ( - ) dichotomy.

A sign is shared across supervision (e.g. LSE >> SEI >> EIE >> SEE >> LSE ) and benefit (e.g. EII >> SEI >> LSI >> ILI >> EII ) rings.



^ the above definition is infinitely more useful than replacing the word positivist with a "+" and negativist with a "-". Just go already if that is your contribution to this forum; kindergarten is that way ====>

[Olduvai]

Consider this:

ESE has -Fe, which is the avoidance of negative emotions.
EIE has +Fe, which is the maximization of positive emotions.

But "information elements" and "socionics in general" have to do with "information processing", while "avoidance of negative emotions" and "maximization of positive emotions" have to do with "behavior". Furthermore, you're assuming we already agree that ESE has minus-Fe and EIE has plus-Fe, which clearly isn't the case.

ESE is positivist; EIE is negativist. The change denotes a difference between static and dynamic types.

Plus and minus is intended to give short function descriptions based on Gulenko et al.'s theoretical assumptions about Socionics. Moreover, the concept can be used to represent different facets of the theory:

So if the concept of "plus" and "minus" functions can be used to represent different "facets of the theory", then it is perfectly acceptable for me to use the signs to represent "positivism" and "negativism".

ex.

Duals share the same sign, which gives us a way to represent the process ( + ) / result ( - ) dichotomy.

"Process" and "result" I think refer more to the "qualia" of information processing; that is, the "what it is like" aspect of "being type XXXx". I think "positivism" and "negativism" relate more to how information is presented by "type XXXx". It's easy to spot a "positivist" or a "negativist" if you know what to look for, and that's why I use "plus" and "minus" to denote "positivism" or "negativism".

A sign is shared across supervision (e.g. LSE >> SEI >> EIE >> SEE >> LSE ) and benefit (e.g. EII >> SEI >> LSI >> ILI >> EII ) rings.

Nothing new or noteworthy about this.

^ the above definition is infinitely more useful than replacing the word positivist with a "+" and negativist with a "-". Just go already if that is your contribution to this forum; kindergarten is that way ====>

"Infinitely more useful" how? And how is "replacing the word positivist with a '+' and negativist with a '-'" any different than replacing the word process with a "+" and the word result with a "-"? U no make sense.

What about these examples (with regard to food or a person)?
Te sees movement
Fe mood
Ne capacities
Se outer form
Ti distance between objects
Fi attraction
Ni future
Si taste/health

With regard to the preparation of a cheeseburger:
Te: "take a spatula and flip the patty, it's crackling and starting to burn a little bit. also, the ketchup is running low"
Fe: "the patty is cooking and the condiments are being assembled, but we're out of ketchup"
Ne: "this condiment goes here, that condiment goes there"
Se: "these tomatoes are bigger than usual, and their hue is slightly fainter"
Ti: "this condiment goes here and that condiment goes there because these gastronomic standards apply"
Fi: "the cook is frustrated right now because he is overwhelmed with orders"
Ni: "the cook is gonna throw his spatula again"
Si: "if we go at six o'clock the place will be swamped"

[xerx]

But "information elements" and "socionics in general" have to do with "information processing", while "avoidance of negative emotions" and "maximization of positive emotions" have to do with "behavior". Furthermore, you're assuming we already agree that ESE has minus-Fe and EIE has plus-Fe, which clearly isn't the case.

"Process" and "result" I think refer more to the "qualia" of information processing; that is, the "what it is like" aspect of "being type XXXx". I think "positivism" and "negativism" relate more to how information is presented by "type XXXx". It's easy to spot a "positivist" or a "negativist" if you know what to look for, and that's why I use "plus" and "minus" to denote "positivism" or "negativism".

The terms " + " and " - " don't exist, they don't mean anything. They're just a notation -- a shorthand -- used to represent Gulenko's function descriptions.

You're trying to decipher deep meaning from a notation. You might as well try to gain insight about a person from their phone number.

That's what makes your theory stupid.

So if the concept of "plus" and "minus" functions can be used to represent different "facets of the theory", then it is perfectly acceptable for me to use the signs to represent "positivism" and "negativism".

"Infinitely more useful" how? And how is "replacing the word positivist with a '+' and negativist with a '-'" any different than replacing the word process with a "+" and the word result with a "-"? U no make sense.

They're both shorthands, but the original is more descriptive in the context of Gulenko's stuff. It makes it easier to visualize intertypes.

[Olduvai]

The terms " + " and " - " don't exist, they don't mean anything. They're just a notation -- a shorthand -- used to represent Gulenko's function descriptions.

You're trying to decipher deep meaning from a notation. You might as well try to gain insight about a person from their phone number.

No dude, I'm just using that notation to represent the deep meaning of "positivism" and "negativism".

A positivist says "yeah" to information. A negativist says "yeah, but". It's pretty easy to spot in people and that's why I use "plus" to denote "positivism" and "minus" to denote "negativism".

That's what makes your theory stupid.

No, you're stupid, and inb4 you're a towel.

They're both shorthands, but the original is more descriptive in the context of Gulenko's stuff. It makes it easier to visualize intertypes.

I'm using them in the context of "Bloem's stuff". You said it yourself:

Moreover, the concept can be used to represent different facets of the theory

And what the fuck does "visualize intertypes" mean, anyway?

[Amber]

With regard to the preparation of a cheeseburger:
Te: "take a spatula and flip the patty, it's crackling and starting to burn a little bit. also, the ketchup is running low", don't just sit there doing nothing, kitchen help is hired and paid to work.
Fe: "the patty is cooking and the condiments, are being assembled, honey, but we're out of ketchup" , says the mother in a smooth silky voice to her son while throwing a quick and mean glance at her daughter
Ne: "this condiment goes here, that condiment goes there" , lemme tell you how we could combine it all differently from the standard recipe to get a more original and exquisite taste
Se: "these tomatoes are bigger than usual, and their hue is slightly fainter" , chooses the fresher ingredients, grabs the spatula cause they notice their mom is kinda tired and slow
Ti: "this condiment goes here and that condiment goes there because these gastronomic standards apply" , chooses to add ingredients at a time they know to be most fit from their experience, not "by the book", compares vegetables according to size, measures their quantities, adapts everything required in the right proportion to the bigger overall quantity needed due to a large nr. of guests
Fi: "the cook is frustrated right now because he is overwhelmed with orders" , he screams at others and that's not how people should treat each other , thinks the Fi person to themselves at that moment
Ni: "the cook is gonna throw his spatula again", he's gonna make a fuss as he usually does when he gets to this stage of the cooking , cause he could use a third hand; he's gonna scream and shout for about 4 minutes, one should take that damn spatula and deal with it all better in order to avoid waste of time and energy
Si: "if we go at six o'clock the place will be swamped" let's taste this to see if it's how it should be, yes, it taste great, let's take a seat till it's over, standing is not good for your legs when you're older

...

[FDG]

This is bullshit (and no, I don't want to be typed on the basis of this lol)

[Amber]

^^^ the man was humbly asking about practical applications of socionics, confessing it´s not easy to type. So FGD´s advice : give it up, man, there´s no point in trying to type people, life is crap, only BS around. Better kill yourself than think of sociotypes.

[FDG]

^^^ the man was humbly asking about practical applications of socionics, confessing it´s not easy to type. So FGD´s advice : give it up, man, there´s no point in trying to type people, life is crap, only BS around. Better kill yourself than think of sociotypes.

I was talking with the OP and telling him that typing by quotes is BS.

[Pookie]

There are contradictions on plus/minus. I've read it both ways, so it's basically which source you choose to believe.

However, i thought fields was an introvert thing, and objects extrovert. Are all N elements field related?

[anndelise]

There are contradictions on plus/minus. I've read it both ways, so it's basically which source you choose to believe.

However, i thought fields was an introvert thing, and objects extrovert. Are all N elements field related?

In socionics' aspects, Xi=fields, Xe=objects
But not in BloMeonics.

[Olduvai]

In socionics' aspects, Xi=fields, Xe=objects
But not in BloMeonics.

you're retarted

[anndelise]

you're retarted

Better to be tart than bitter!

[Pookie]

Regarding choice of words, i think there are a few things that stand out amongst the IEs.

Se - Direction, Observational perspective. Means to accomplish an end. "I saw blah blah" "Here, all you have to do is blah blah"
Te - Fact-form. Differs from Se, in that certainty is removed from the senses. Objective because the criteria for rightness is outside his perspective. The scoreboard doesnt lie. "The Sun is a star, stupid."
Ne/Ni - Pattern/Insights, just like the Intuitive stereotype. However, i've noticed with Ne a lack of relaying the patterns upon themself, when speaking. Ni, there's a reference to self in the pattern/insight almost always. An individual is mentioned. I think it's the dynamic aspect of it.

[JuJu]

Thank you.

There's some stellar production on here this season, and it's a sight to behold.