Identifying information elements in quotes split

[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?

[xerx]

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

Uh, no, you're fixated on semantics. Otherwise, you wouldn't have thrown a fit when told that a positivist type can have a "negative" base function.

I'm using them in the context of "Bloem's stuff".

Good for you, then we're not talking about the same signs. Good bye and good luck.

[Olduvai]

Uh, no, you're fixated on semantics. Otherwise, you wouldn't have thrown a fit when told that a positivist type can have a "negative" base function.

"Fixated on semantics" is a classic "loser's retort".

Good for you, then we're not talking about the same signs. Good bye and good luck.

Good day, and good riddance. If you choose to ignore my posts, you've three times lost.

[xerx]

"Fixated on semantics" is a classic "loser's retort".
Good day, and good riddance.

If this somehow means you'll never respond to my posts, then it was worth it.

[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

...