Ode to Fi+Se

[Absurd]

Yeah, I think this is Alpha's perception of something that Gamma's wouldn't agree is what alpha's think it is. I mean, this is projected obligation due to alpha's way of processing the information. It's not "a family riunion" it's "I feel pressured into x if I don't do y cuz aunt z will talk to uncle b" etc etc.

That isn't necessary the way gamma operates, it's how alpha's operate when dealing with a gamma context, basically our misunderstanding or failure to process the information easily makes it, in our perception, into something it is not.

No-one in it's right mind would consider a family a ponzi scheme...however, I get where he comes from, it sometimes feels hard to basically try to understand the relationships and thus it becomes something like his "web of obligations".

Am I making sense or am I making it more confusing?

This is circular reasoning. By the same decree you can nullify all of the four quadras "perceptions". Have to disagree. Of course any one is free to make everything subjective...

... and if this Socionics gets the same treatment, well...

[Reficulris]

This is circular reasoning. By the same decree you can nullify all of the four quadras "perceptions". Have to disagree. Of course any one is free to make everything subjective...

you might be on to something. I do make things subjective. But than, you already saw that so you'll probably think this is redundant...

I don't think all quadra's are perceptions, I think all quadra's will look at the other quadra's and have a sub-optimal view of what the quadra values are like. That means, alpha's misinterpret the values from beta gamma and delta and so on. In this sense, i'm kinda telling OP and the others that he's talking about his perception (yes, making it subjective) of those values rather than the meaning those values have for people from that quadra.

it's basically telling OP that his view might be too extreme and telling the respondents to take into account that he looks at the subject through coloured glasses (not necesarilly rose coloured).

Not sure if this eliminates the circularity or makes it worse,

[Absurd]

you might be on to something. I do make things subjective. But than, you already saw that so you'll probably think this is redundant...

I don't think all quadra's are perceptions, I think all quadra's will look at the other quadra's and have a sub-optimal view of what the quadra values are like. That means, alpha's misinterpret the values from beta gamma and delta and so on. In this sense, i'm kinda telling OP and the others that he's talking about his perception (yes, making it subjective) of those values rather than the meaning those values have for people from that quadra.

it's basically telling OP that his view might be too extreme and telling the respondents to take into account that he looks at the subject through coloured glasses (not necesarilly rose coloured).

Not sure if this eliminates the circularity or makes it worse,

I'm not entirely sure about this, but I was of the slant that Betas (socionics wise) 'misinterpret' Alpha stuff and, maybe, take it into extremes. Like I wrote, not entirely sure about this, for you have this commie guy Marx who is commonly(?) typed Alpha NT, and then you have people who are not, for example: Lenin, Stalin, etc. Some may argue those ideas were taken too far and over the top, but in fact, some may not and refer to both as faithful Marxists.

What I am aiming at is OP's view of quadra stuff is in bounds of Socionics, if it were not, it wouldn't be Socionics. A new construct where, say, Gammas and Alphas live in Jehovah's Witnesses paradise. Again, original, religious Socionics scriptures put quadras in this way: Delta+Gamma, Beta+Alpha. Not the other way around.

But liek I wrote, if one wants to treat it all subjective (one is free to), no such construct as Socionics, as we(?) know it and speak of in this very forum, exists.

[Amber]

you might be on to something. I do make things subjective. But than, you already saw that so you'll probably think this is redundant...

I don't think all quadra's are perceptions, I think all quadra's will look at the other quadra's and have a sub-optimal view of what the quadra values are like. That means, alpha's misinterpret the values from beta gamma and delta and so on. In this sense, i'm kinda telling OP and the others that he's talking about his perception (yes, making it subjective) of those values rather than the meaning those values have for people from that quadra.

it's basically telling OP that his view might be too extreme and telling the respondents to take into account that he looks at the subject through coloured glasses (not necesarilly rose coloured).

Not sure if this eliminates the circularity or makes it worse,

I think he just looks through a pair of Socionics glasses which can be taken off anytime. Most things that people value come from life experience, not Quadras, from things and activities they are accustomed to and from their own set of cognitive schemes, tastes and dispositions. And if you still want to think in Quadras, how do you deal with "complications" that derive from one being raised in a fruitful outta-Quadra environment. Explain that, if you can.

[Esaman]

I think he just looks through a pair of Socionics glasses which can be taken off anytime. Most things that people value come from life experience, not Quadras, from things and activities they are accustomed to and from their own set of cognitive schemes, tastes and dispositions. And if you still want to think in Quadras, how do you deal with "complications" that derive from one being raised in a fruitful outta-Quadra environment. Explain that, if you can.

I am to forever wonder why do I have to shovel through such crap here.
Socionics is unproven theory. Some people found it to reflect their experience and so be true to significant degree. Why is there an other kind of people here is a question.

As to your question. There are whole lot of circumstance and qualities of people to such a process, including the ones that exacerbate or diminish the conflicts of informational metabolism. Not only there are NTR things but expression of type/element itself is not singular. You can put your projection of simple mindedness and apply it to yourself.

[Amber]

I am to forever wonder why do I have to shovel through such crap here.
Socionics is unproven theory. Some people found it to reflect their experience and so be true to significant degree. Why is there an other kind of people here is a question.

As to your question. There are whole lot of circumstance and qualities of people to such a process, including the ones that exacerbate or diminish the conflicts of informational metabolism. Not only there are NTR things but expression of type/element itself is not singular. You can put your projection of simple mindedness and apply it to yourself.

You can put your complete absorption of a random simplistic system like socionics aside and apply it to yourself. Socionics is an "idealistic" model, to say the least, believing in unproven things is not exactly something that entitles you to preach them.

[Esaman]

You can put your complete absorption of a random simplistic system like socionics aside and apply it to yourself.

Now that is flop of a comeback. I already do apply socionics to myself. Also you maintaining that socionics is simplistic when I just said how it is so only in your mind.

Socionics is an "idealistic" model, to say the least, believing in unproven things is not exactly something that entitles you to preach them.

Again Socionics for me works as interpretation (naming really) of actual experiences.

Discussion of theory in a forum specific for that purpose does not constitute preaching. Butting in there with banal ignorant rebuttals does.

[Amber]

Now that is flop of a comeback. I already do apply socionics to myself. Also you maintaining that socionics is simplistic when I just said how it is so only in your mind.
Again Socionics for me works as interpretation (naming really) of actual experiences.

Discussion of theory in a forum specific for that purpose does not constitute preaching. Butting in there with banal ignorant rebuttals does.

It wasn't a comeback, I don't care what you think of Socionics, don't waste your time with this kind of stuff, really. I don't consider it a valid system, nothing in my life has gone according to their predictions and profiles and intertype relationships. Don't fret thinking that you may have some "Ti" to offer.

[Absurd]

I think he just looks through a pair of Socionics glasses which can be taken off anytime. Most things that people value come from life experience, not Quadras, from things and activities they are accustomed to and from their own set of cognitive schemes, tastes and dispositions. And if you still want to think in Quadras, how do you deal with "complications" that derive from one being raised in a fruitful outta-Quadra environment. Explain that, if you can.

If you're not any Quadra nor ascribe to Quadras you're just wasting your and other people's precious time. In fact, the 'I can count to potato show' you're entertaining me with is enough example that when you allegedly "disregard" those Quadras, you stick to Clubs. When you stick to Clubs and favour one over another you immediately give off info that you favour particular Quadra over another.

Socionics be with you and maybe after 100 years you're going to type yourself.

[Reficulris]

Considering HP cog's association with perspective, this may be yet another indicator of HP cog for you.

Do you, or @Johannus Bloem have good sources about cognition styles? I have little idea about what holographic cognition is!