Fuck you, take me off this list. I understand socionics better than you ever will because you're too ignorant and/or scared to "self-reflect".Originally Posted by hkkmr
Fuck you, take me off this list. I understand socionics better than you ever will because you're too ignorant and/or scared to "self-reflect".
Okay, that I understand. A TIM is essentially an eight-geared machine that converts different kinds of information into different kinds of behaviour at four levels of ability and two levels of deliberate preference.
And and the conversion is reversible. I.E Process/Result.
"Ne" = "Explicit Field Statics" and "Se" = "Explicit Object Statics". "Ne" and "Se" conflict because both are oriented toward "explicit statics", but one is attuned to "fields" while the other is attuned to "objects".
"Si" = "Implicit Field Dynamics" and "Ni" = "Implicit Object Dynamics". "Si" pairs with "Ne" because both are attuned to "fields" and thus they complement one another, and "Se" pairs with "Ni" because both are attuned to "objects" and thus they complement one another.
Fucking moron.
You're so fucking pretentious. Learn some humility, kid.
Ne>Fe>Se>Te is a nice idea with a certain ring to it (pardon the pun) but I can't see it explaining much.... other than you usually have to piss someone off (Fe) before they hit you (Se)
How does one even explain how Te goes to Ne? Also reversing the process with Left types ruins the fragile meaning it might have had. It's also not explained how this works for Introverted IM Elements, which I would say is a rather severe disparity.
I might agree with you on Ne and Si... well, I don't think they're the same but exact opposites that require each other not get out of hand... An SLE's Courage turns to Recklessness without Patience. An IEI's Patience turns to Lethargy without Courage. It's basically where Aristotle's Virtue Ethics comes in.
As for Ne and Se are concerned, you can find Ne and Fe and Ne and Te conflicting just as much, even more in some occasions. I would explain it in terms of Temperament... a Ti or Fi lead is threatened by its opposite temperament (Ne and Se), the chaos defiling the sanctimony. While an LII or EII would be equipped to deal with Ne they are not equipped to deal with Se and are Vulnerable to it. This is why ILEs and SLEs don't actually have much of a problem with each other.
It was still chopping and changing. At least the parts she took were themselves consistent.
The analogy explains why this is, because it's a analogy to a process that works this way while being reversible.
Fields are Introverted. Objects are Extroverted. If you're not doing it right, you're just going to be mocked.
[/QUOTE]
You can't integrate the whole of someone's thought, that's basically impossible, since people change their mind in their lifetime. You can only take bits and pieces, but she didn't put them thru a blender like MBTI.
Well, what is this analogy? I don't think it's going to appear to me in a dream.
True, at least she didn't do that.
[/QUOTE]
No they're not. Properties of fields can be explicit just like properties of objects can be implicit.
No they're not. Properties of fields can be explicit just like properties of objects can be implicit.[/QUOTE]
What do Explicit and Implicit even mean in this context? We use Internal and External, which yes, fields and objects can be either other of but only because Internal does not mean Introverted and External does not mean Extroverted.
The analogy is to thermodynamics. Ne is compression Fe is heat addition Se is expansion and Te is heat subtraction. In this cycle it's a heat engine, in the reverse a heat pump. In socionics, this is a information engine and a information pump. And from this analogy the differentiation of the elements and mechanics of transformations are explained. The introverted elements as I said earlier are complementary parts of a whole which has differentiated due to specialization.(why, I need to think about)
There is actually a very good reason for this analogy philosophically which is Schrodinger's and that is order evolves a preceding level of order, and this level of order will begin to mirror the preceding level of order, the mind can be viewed as also mirroring the preceding levels of order by which it is predicated on. Schrodinger used this idea to predict the structure of DNA in his work What is Life? Of course Aushra didn't use this explanation because she might have encountered it, but I have the benefit of a wider range of reading material.
"Explicit information" is information that originates from the environment. "Implicit information" is information that originates from the brain.
I bolded the part where I didn't know what you were trying to say.
You're using a lot of big words and fancy-sounding concepts here, but ultimately you aren't saying anything at all.
I know. I'm in the background and I'm sorry.You're just not a scientist Lungs.
Every scientist knows that knowledge isn't gained by finding proof, but by believing that the truth is out there, like in the x-files.
Socionics is a theory about science by science for science.
People who don't understand this science are whiny and lack character.
Best thread yet.
Man grows used to everything, the scoundrel!
-Raskolnikov
Process is determined by all the information elements of process types, same for result, negativist/positivist and so on. I don't fully understand the question
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
here you go:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post990559
This sounds very interesting but seems completely irrelevant to our practise of Socionics as a classificatory model. I don't particularly see its bearing on Model A i.e. why IM elements go into particulars slots. Why do we need this analogy of a heat engine to differentiate the IM Elements? I managed to differentiate them in my Introduction with no mention to this. I know what you said by them being complementary but I wouldn't say they're the same whole. I can't see Ni being Kinetic Energy or Si being Potential Energy. If the heat engine analogy doesn't explicitly include the Introverted elements then it only does half the job.
Basically, I can't see why any of this is necessary for Socionics to function or remain coherent. It seems like an interesting background history of how they reached the idea of Model A but not a set of principles that ordains Model A. I would treat it like a modern theoretical cosmologist would treat Heraclitus.
Last edited by Jack Oliver Aaron; 01-10-2014 at 03:44 PM.
Sorry about that, I meant "fields and objects can be either of them"
Okay, it looks like Explicit and Implicit are pretty much identical in meaning to External and Internal.
In which case, it's clear that Intuition and Ethics are Implicit/Internal while Sensation and Logic are Explicit/External.
How can you find the rule it's just a general collective effort of all the Information Elements?Process is determined by all the information elements of process types, same for result, negativist/positivist and so on. I don't fully understand the question
The good Reinin dichotomies have a clear rule, for instance, a Merry type is one that has Fe and Ti in the valued blocks and Te and Fi in the subdued blocks.
Now, try and represent the Process/Result dichotomy in a way that's simple like this.
Ni and Se are not the same thing, and in fact opposite. Internal Dynamic Field vs External Static Object
Si and Ne are not the same thing, and in fact opposite. External Dynamic Field vs Internal Static Object
Specialization in one IE suppresses the opposite info leaving it incomplete.
However their combination forms a whole where both internal and external exist, static and dynamic exist and object and field exist. This is what is complementary about the object, information that one IE lacks is filled by the other IE.
If you think that this is background history, then you're sorely mistaken. This is the mechanics of socionics, the means by information transforms and why the IE conflict.
conflicts with
because these are not directly transformable from one to the other. As does the other elements. In this analogy, Socionics becomes a mechanical model of information processing.
Intertype relations exist because of this conflict and need for an intermediate step between conflicting IE and the complementary natures of different IE. I care very little if you think you're a modern cosmologist, because you're not, and this is not Heraclitus. This is a mechanical way of thinking about information processing and has a lot more value for thought experiments and simulation than what you think you're proposing. With this analogy, you can even imagine minds which do not conform with Model A's structure but still produces information transformation thru a different structure with varying benefits and problems. You could theoretically imagine an individual with 2 mental blocks or 6, in which the transformations of thought occur. The structure of transformation is not restricted to Model A, although might be the most easy to comprehend one. As far as the theory of socionics, this is what makes it work. If you want to discard it, you are not doing socionics and are just doing MBTI++ or some other typology. If you invent a better theoretical explanation I might be interested in hearing it as it might be useful for thought experiments and simulation. As far as the practice of socionics, my ability to thought experiment and simulation the mind mechanically is of great use to me in my life as I use this study in many ways to analyze why people think what they think and how they arrive at their conclusions. This is of great use in my profession. I use many other psychological methods as well.
You can choose to ignore this aspect of socionics, and focus on simply using what you think you know about this study in the fashion you find best, but do not seek to canonize this and present it as something authoritative. That is a vanity born of ignorance.
Process types transforms information like a information (heat) engine
Result types transforms information like a information (heat) pump
I think you might need to learn physics, because heat engines and heat pumps have quite different applications. The fact that you can't explain Process/Result in this most basic of fashions means that your understanding is incomplete.
This is the extreme basics of extreme basics. You might not accept it, but this is what socionics says.
um, why?
From socionix:
Logical Fallacy
False Analogy: Asserting that X is like Z, and that since Z has property Y, then X also has property Y.
Fairly ubiquitous practice in Socionics when discussing the theory and what different concepts mean. Aushra herself often employed false analogies when discussing information metabolism and functions (though it's not certain how literal these were meant to be taken).
Example: "Se is like Kinetic Energy. Kinetic Energy pertains to movement. Therefore Se pertains to movement." (paraphrase)
You're such a pompous fucktard.
That's called argument from authority and is only invoked by those who think they know better than others. It was used by Christians, by the Communists, etc. There will always be fools who think they possess the ultimate truth. New concepts, same old modus operandi.How many times have we been caught in pointless arguments due to a difference in opinion on how Socionics works?
An answer to the solution is the forming of a World Socionics Society, a group for all socionists to unite under and affiliate the various Socionics societies around the world to.
The WSS operates with the use of an established canon for Socionics based on the Classical Socionics found on Wikisocion. It accepts Model A as the foundation of Socionics and only canonises those dichotomies or qualities directly deducible from the structure of Model A and function and IM element dichotomies. This would rule out more controversial theories such as VI, subtypes (including DCNH) plus/minus elements and the Butterfly Model as well as a few of the Reinin traits such as Positivist/Negativist, Process/Result and Asking/Declaring.
Theories that are not canonised are not ignored however but would be accepted into the canon once empirically demonstrated to be the case through the running of tests in scientific conditions (something the WSS would wish to oversee for the purposes of improving and expanding Socionics).
The WSS would also propose a universalised (and perhaps optimised) set of terminologies for Socionics discussion.
Here is a link to the group page for people interested in taking part in the Socionics revolution
http://www.facebook.com/groups/584205738265813/
In the search for knowledge, the first and most important premise is intellectual honesty. And assuming that you're right and the others wrong is a prejudice like any other. It's pride to be precise, a human emotion. Because it is a difficult pill to swallow, the idea that you might be on the weak side of an argument. To admit that you might be the one who doesn't understand. Only a honest person is capable of admitting such possibility. That's what Diogenes of Sinope was seeking and never found: an intellectually honest man. Not one who has hidden interests (such as proving that he's smarter than others) but the one who's willing to seek and accept the truth, whatever it is (even that there is no truth).
[| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
I'll help you set it up Jack. This society for psychological research.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
