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.'

[Beautiful sky]

Awesome quote!


First a recipe for analyzing txt:

The first tool you need to type text, is this:

Se = external statics of objects
Ne = internal statics of objects
Te = external dynamics of objects
Fe = internal dynamics of objects
Ti = external statics of fields
Fi = internal statics of fields
Si = external dynamics of fields
Ni = internal dynamics of fields


You can use the definitions above to analyze texts.


1. Step 1 - identify the body or field that the sentence speaks of. Determine if it's a body or a field.

Objects/fields
Objects are extraverted observations. They exist also with the person talking not present. ex. "the stone is heavy". Fields are introverted observations, they exist only with the person talking present. Ex. "I find the stone heavy". Introverts filter anything this "subjective" way, even more objective information. Extraverts talk as if things are objective, even when talking about subjective topics.


2. Step 2 - determine if the body/field is static or dynamic

Static/Dynamic
Static types talk about states and steps between states, even when talking about changes. Ex. "I met him in New York. We went to LA together, later he moved to Toronto." Dynamic types talk about the changes surrounding the states, even when they talk of static situations. Ex. (hard to make one, as i'm static. the dynamic universe is another dimension completely...) Some EJ or IP make me an example, please?


Both bodies/fields and static/dynamic are normally quite easy to identify.


3. Step 3 - Decide if the body/field has external or internal qualities described.

External/Internal
When you have identified the field or body that is being watched by the person talking, you can try and identify if it is external or internal. This is often hard, as conclusions made of eg. both Ji- functions can be the same. Often I have to look at the totality of the text to determine the most likely functions used. Be careful to not confuse topics on feelings for Fe/Fi and topics on logics for Te/Ti. Ti can easily talk of feelings, but then in an external way.


Those were my own definitions, made for this thread, but they work for the purpose. Be careful not to confuse fields/bodies w Internal/external. The first has to do with subjectivity/objectivity of the way whole observation is presented, the latter has to do with some sort of subjectivity/objectivity of the body/field watched (or rather hidden qualities vs visible qualities).


So, to your quote:



What's the body/field observed?
Is it a body or a field?
Is it static or dynamic?
External or internal?

Try?! (It's a bit of a tricky one, so you could try this one first if you want: "Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm").

I love you [internal static of fields ] Ananke

[Beautiful sky]

Awesome quote!


First a recipe for analyzing txt:

The first tool you need to type text, is this:

Se = external statics of objects
Ne = internal statics of objects
Te = external dynamics of objects
Fe = internal dynamics of objects
Ti = external statics of fields
Fi = internal statics of fields
Si = external dynamics of fields
Ni = internal dynamics of fields


You can use the definitions above to analyze texts.


1. Step 1 - identify the body or field that the sentence speaks of. Determine if it's a body or a field.

Objects/fields
Objects are extraverted observations. They exist also with the person talking not present. ex. "the stone is heavy". Fields are introverted observations, they exist only with the person talking present. Ex. "I find the stone heavy". Introverts filter anything this "subjective" way, even more objective information. Extraverts talk as if things are objective, even when talking about subjective topics.


2. Step 2 - determine if the body/field is static or dynamic

Static/Dynamic
Static types talk about states and steps between states, even when talking about changes. Ex. "I met him in New York. We went to LA together, later he moved to Toronto." Dynamic types talk about the changes surrounding the states, even when they talk of static situations. Ex. (hard to make one, as i'm static. the dynamic universe is another dimension completely...) Some EJ or IP make me an

I will send you examples of Ej and Ip dynamics

[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.

[Dutchman]

What's the body/field observed?
Is it a body or a field?
Is it static or dynamic?
External or internal?

Try?! (It's a bit of a tricky one, so you could try this one first if you want: "Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm").

There is the world and psychic life.
World: I would say object, static and external.
For psychic life, I would say field, dynamic and internal.
For the correlation between the world and psychic life I would say field.
So I'm confused.

[Amber]

There is the world and psychic life.
World: I would say object, static and external.
For psychic life, I would say field, dynamic and internal.
For the correlation between the world and psychic life I would say field.
So I'm confused.

why wouldn´t "world" be internal statics of object

[Dutchman]

Yes! It's good! But "the existance of" makes it less object (body), and if you read on, you'll see it gets more dynamic, so Ni+Te.
What type is this dude? Anyone knows? Might silence AshSun if he's actually ILI...

I know Ouspensky well, having read his books.
His picture is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._D._Ouspensky
From his books, I would say he is ILI.
The socionics description of ILI describes him well.
Ankh, that is very impressive to type him from only a few 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).

[Dutchman]

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).

Could be. I don't know, in my opinion, Ouspensky thinks differently from me and I'm Ti. And he wrote about evolution of man.

If you say he's ILI, I believe you. I read now that he was inspired by Gurdjieff, who I believe was an SXE E8, probably SEE. Duality?

Gurdjieff is E8, but I hadn't thought about his sociotype yet. Fascinating, SEE seems correct indeed, so Ouspensky (E6) and Gurdjieff would have been duals! They liked eachother, spend many hours together (but eventually broke up).

[Amber]

Se and Ne are similar. See my thread on Se/Ne for explanation. Se notices external traits of an object. But objects can be abstract. Like an inner world. That's an abstract object. If you talk of external (and static) properties of this inner world, you use Se, ex."my inner world is dark atm". If you talk of internal (and static) qualities of the object, you use Ne. A Ne-ego should give an example.

This is wrong. Ne is not "inner" as in "in the mind". Ne is object ...it just goes deeper than Se, deals with more complex and less obvious stuff. Ne can grasp patterns at work in a society , the whole configuration , the "figure in the carpet", so to speak. It can have a holistic view of a whole cluster of myths and stories of a people or ethnic group, for example. Many philosophers were Ne egos, in case you didn't know.

[Amber]

We cannot fake other functions. As a static, I talk of change in a static way..

I'm not even gonna read your stuff anymore, it's too aberrant. How narrow-minded must one be to think "functions" / IMs / types of people , speaking and thinking style etc. cannot be constructed? What do writers do ....btw. Why do idiots around this forum and others keep on typing characters ? how are characters in books and movies created. Process this kind of (more or less abstract ....kind of not too much so imho ) stuff on your own and you may find smth. different from your "step-by-step" typing method.

[Amber]

Lol.

you can put on Fe...Ni is harder.

[Amber]

[QUOTE=Ankh;994820]Said the Ne PoLR who just lost it cause she couldn't accept that there are things she still doesn't understand.[/QUOTE

must be hard to figure out my type "step-by-step" from my sentences . You seem quite sure I'm Ne polr . Don't take so much for granted.

[Olduvai]

This is wrong. Ne is not "inner" as in "in the mind". Ne is object ...it just goes deeper than Se, deals with more complex and less obvious stuff. Ne can grasp patterns at work in a society , the whole configuration , the "figure in the carpet", so to speak. It can have a holistic view of a whole cluster of myths and stories of a people or ethnic group, for example. Many philosophers were Ne egos, in case you didn't know.

No, "Ne" is "conditions" or "fields". It has nothing to do with "objects". Here:

"Ne" = "Explicit Field Statics"
"plus-Ne" = "obvious equalities in or of the conditions"
"minus-Ne" = "obvious differences in or of the conditions"
"state of temperature, 'things together', 'full scene', 'whole impression', 'obvious structure', 'these go together'"

Yes, analysing texts is what I want to learn. I don't mind being typed, thanks.

Ignore all the bad advice in this thread. Here are my definitions of the functions:

"Se" = "Explicit Object Statics"

"plus-Se" = "obvious equalities in or of the objects"
"minus-Se" = "obvious differences in or of the objects"

"physical properties of object (color, shape, texture), spatial location of object, distance between objects"

"Ne" = "Explicit Field Statics"

"plus-Ne" = "obvious equalities in or of the conditions"
"minus-Ne" = "obvious differences in or of the conditions"

"state of temperature, 'things together', 'full scene', 'whole impression', 'obvious structure', 'these go together'"

"Si" = "Implicit Field Dynamics"

"plus-Si" = "deduced doings in or of the conditions"
"minus-Si" = "deduced undoings in or of the conditions"

"change in temperature, 'effect on conditions', 'how conditions will change', 'what developments will occur'"

"Ni" = "Implicit Object Dynamics"

"plus-Ni" = "deduced doings in or of the objects"
"minus-Ni" = "deduced undoings in or of the objects"

"'you're thinking this way', 'you will do this in the future', what an unseen thing does, 'you're doing this because of that'"

"Te" = "Explicit Object Dynamics"

"plus-Te" = "obvious doings in or of the objects"
"minus-Te" = "obvious undoings in or of the objects"

"what this does, what that does, 'I am doing this', 'I will do this', 'why don't you do this', 'it won't do this', 'because this does that', 'I wouldn't do that'"

"Fe" = "Explicit Field Dynamics"

"plus-Fe" = "obvious doings in or of the conditions"
"minus-Fe" = "obvious undoings in or of the conditions"

"'these things are happening', 'we are making these changes', 'these developments are occurring', 'these changes have occurred', 'the conditions are changing in this way'"

"Ti" = "Implicit Field Statics"

"plus-Ti" = "deduced equalities in or of the conditions"
"minus-Ti" = "deduced differences in or of the conditions"

"'because it's against the rules', 'this state will result', 'because of an unseen truth', 'underlying structure', 'unseen property of these conditions'"

"Fi" = "Implicit Object Statics"

"plus-Fi" = "deduced equalities in or of the objects"
"minus-Fi" = "deduced differences in or of the objects"

"this unit is like this, this unit isn't like this, this unseen property is true of this unit, this unseen property isn't true of this unit"

And here I am using them to analyze one of my own posts:

Pretty sure this crappy test was made by an ESI. Look:

Perceived reward: (if you scored highly) Being more attractive makes me happy Being unconventional makes me happy Being rational makes me happy Serving others makes me happy Being alive makes me happy

Dangerous potential flaw(s): (if you scored highly) Elitist, shallow, lacking an internal compass/ethics Discarding customs/traditions that have value Ignoring/ignorance-of your gut/instinct/feelings Being taken advantage of, ignoring self Over contented-ness, over confidence

Dangerous potential flaw(s): (if you scored low) Failure to contribute to the world sufficiently Overly reliant on past wisdom/knowledge Believing what feels right = right/truth Cold hearted, selfish, asshole Depression, poor mental and/or physical health

Look at how detailed those "Potential Flaws" are. Notice how there are two possible "Potential Flaws" for every one possible "Potential Benefit", except all the "Potential Benefits" are actually the same thing: "makes me happy". This whole test is "Implicit Object Statics" of the "minus" variety. "minus-Fi" can be thought of as "the implied incompleteness of an object", and it commonly manifests as talk of "an object's shortcoming or weakness". "minus-Fi" is also the leading function of ESI.

Look at how detailed those "Potential Flaws" are. Notice how there are two possible "Potential Flaws" for every one possible "Potential Benefit', except all the "Potential Benefits" are actually the same thing: "makes me happy"

"minus-Ne" = "Explicit Field Statics" = "obvious differences in or of conditions"

"descriptiveness of potential benefits" < "descriptiveness of potential flaws"
"number of potential benefits" < "number of potential flaws"

This whole test is "Implicit Object Statics" of the "minus" variety. "minus-Fi" can be thought of as "the implied incompleteness of an object", and it commonly manifests as talk of "an object's shortcoming or weakness". "minus-Fi" is also the leading function of ESI.

"plus-Fi" = "Implicit Object Statics" = "deduced equalities in or of objects"

"every claim made by these results" = "minus-Fi"
"minus-Fi" = "the implied incompleteness of an object"
"the implied incompletness of an object" = "an object's shortcoming or weakness"

[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

[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 ====>

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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"

[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!

[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.