Sorry smilingeyes

[Rocky]

I know you said that you're showing less and less interest in this stuff, which is ok, but I had to bring attention to your work again. This (obviously) came up in another thread, so I decided to bring up another discussion on it (mathematical-socionics). Yes, for people who don't remember this is from a very old thread, and what I'm quoting below is basically the beginning (I think?) of all this talk about dichotomies on this forum.

What I'm going to do is look at each dichotomy, and see what type I end up with. Other people can do this too. Here it is;

If

Ni equals I am object in the future.
Ne equals I am subject in the future
Si equals I am object at the moment
Se equals I am subject at the moment
Te equals Object-of-thought is subject and acts in clearly defined way [quality].
Fe equals Object-of-thought is subject and acts in not-clearly defined way [quality].
Ti equals Object-of-thought is object and can act in clearly defined ways [quality].
Fi equals Object-of-thoughts is object and can act in not-clearly defined ways [quality].

and

Model A = true

then

Ti => Fi => Se => Ne => !Te => !Fe => !Si => !Ni
= the division of conscious vs. subconscious

and

If

Attribute + -
X1 Intuition Sensing
X2 Logic Ethics
X3 Statics Dynamics
X4 Extroversion Introversion

and

X5 = X1*X2 Democracy Aristocracy (alpha + gamma) (beta+delta)
X6 = X1*X3 Judiciousness Resoluteness (alpha+delta) (beta+gamma)
X7 = X2*X3 Cheerfulness Gravity (alpha+beta) (gamma+delta)
X-7 = X1*X4 Carefree Calculating (EN + IS) (ES + IN)
X-6 = X2*X4 Compliance Obstinacy (ET + IF) (EF + IT)
X-5 = X3*X4 Irationality Rationality J / P
X-4 = X1*X2*X3 Taciturn Narrative (ENTP, INTJ, ESFP, ISFJ, ENFJ, INFP, ESTJ, ISTP) (ESTP, ISTJ, ENFP, INFJ, ENTJ, ENTP, ISFP, ESFJ) (rings of benefaction) (restrained action) (fanatical action)
X-3 = X1*X2*X4 Positivism Negativism (ENT, ESF, INF, IST) (ISF, INT, EST, ENF)
X-2 = X1*X3*X4 Tactics Strategy (NP+SJ) (NJ+SP)
X-1 = X2*X3*X4 Construct-creating, Emotion-creating (STP, NTP, NFJ, SFJ) (NTJ, STJ, SFP, NFP)
X0 = X1*X2*X3*X4 Process (the left ring) Result (the right ring) (rings of supervision)

and

Model A = true

then

Democracy equals things that happen in the future are clearly defined and things that happen now are not-clearly-defined.
Aristocracy equals things that happen now are clearly defined and things that happen in the future are not-clearly-defined.

Here, the democracy explaination sounds better (though I identify more with aristocracy, I think).

Judiciousness equals I am object at the moment but subject in the future.
Resoluteness equals I am subject at the moment but object in the future.

Resolute.

Cheerfulness equals things can act in clearly defined ways but act in non-clearly defined ways.
Gravity equals things can act in non-clearly defined ways but act in clearly defined ways.

Gravity.

Carefree equals I am object now or my action is defined by how I can act now or I am subject in the future or the object-of-thought acts in the future.
Calculating equals I am subject now or my action is defined by how object-of-thought acts now or I am object in the future or the object-of-thought can-act in the future.

Calculating.

Compliance equals object-of-thought acts in clearly defined way or object-of-thought can act in non-clearly defined way or my reaction causes object-of-thought to act in not-clearly-defined way or my action causes object-of-thought to have capability to act in clearly defined way.
Obstinacy equals object-of-thought acts in non-clearly-defined way or object-of-thought can act in clearly defined way or my reaction causes object-of-thought to act in clearly-defined way or my action causes object-of-thought to have capability to act in not-clearly defined way.

Obstinant.

Irrationality equals I define object-of-thought.
Rationality equals object of thought defines me.

Irrational.

Taciturn equals my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a clearly defined way (ENTP)
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future (INTJ)
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a non-clearly-defined way (ESFP)
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now (ISFJ)
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react in the future (ENFJ)
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (INFP)
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way (ISTP)
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react now (ESTJ)

Narrative equals
my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a clearly defined way (ESTP)
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now (ISTJ)
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a non-clearly-defined way (ENFP)
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future (INFJ)
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react now (ESFJ)
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (ISFP)
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way (INTP)
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react in the future (ENTJ)

Taciturn (ISTP?).

Positivism equals my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a clearly defined way (ENTP)
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react in the future (ENTJ)
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react now (ESFJ)
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a non-clearly-defined way (ESFP)
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future (INFJ)
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (INFP)
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way (ISTP)
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now (ISTJ)

Negativism equals my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a clearly defined way (ESTP)
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react now (ESTJ)
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a non-clearly-defined way (ENFP)
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react in the future (ENFJ)
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way (INTP)
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future (INTJ)
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (ISFP)
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now (ISFJ)

Again, definately positive.

Tactics equals I define object-of-thought in the future or am defined by object-of-thought now.
Strategy equals I define object-of-thought now or am defined by object-of-thought in the future.

Really don't know.

Construct-creating equals I define object-of-thought in a clearly defined way or non-clearly defined action of object of thought defines me.
Emotion-creating equals clearly-defined action of object-of-thought defines me or I define object-of-thought in a non-clearly defined way.

Construct-creating.


So, I'm...

Alpha/Gamma ?
Gamma/Beta
Gamma/Delta
IN
IT
P
ENTP, INTJ, ESFP, ISFJ, ENFJ, INFP, ESTJ, ISTP
ENT, ESF, INF, IST
?
STP, NTP, NFJ, SFJ

... in other words, halfway ISTP and halfway INTP.

[XoX]

... in other words, halfway ISTP and halfway INTP.

Nah. You are ISTp logical subtype. So you have huge hole where usually is and it is harder to differentiate whether or is your leading function. Your physical nature and style of confrontation suggests ISTp to me. Are you victim or careful erotic type? I don't think you are victim. And your aristocratic style is more ISTp. You are a damn ISTp. Foxes are ISTps. ISTjs are Wolves. INTps are well I don't know what they are..cranky kittens perhaps

[Gilly]

Aristocracy (Beta/Delta)
Cheerful (Alpha/Beta)
Judicious (Alpha/Delta)
Carefree (EN/IS)
Compliant (IF/ET)
Irrational (duh) (P)
Taciturn
Strategy (NJ/SP)
Positivism
Construct creating (STP, NTP, NFJ, SFJ)
Result (?)

...anyone care to take a stab at what this says?

[XoX]

Aristocracy (Beta/Delta)
Cheerful (Alpha/Beta)
Judicious (Alpha/Delta)
Carefree (EN/IS)
Compliant (IF/ET)
Irrational (duh) (P)
Taciturn
Strategy (NJ/SP)
Positivism
Construct creating (STP, NTP, NFJ, SFJ)
Result (?)

...anyone care to take a stab at what this says?

Quick take on first 10 categories (I didn't take into account Result because I'm not sure how it affects)

1. ISTp 8/10
2. ENTp 7/10
3. ESTp & INFp 6/10
others 5/10 or less

I think you are one of ISTp, ENTp, ESTp, INFp. Most likely ISTp or ENTp. You have considered the other three but have you ever seriously considered ISTp?

[Rocky]

Are you victim or careful erotic type?

More careful.

And your aristocratic style is more ISTp.

Yeah, I was thinking aristocracy was better for me, but "Democracy equals things that happen in the future are clearly defined and things that happen now are not-clearly-defined" describes me better then the oppostie. If I pick democracy, I'm one more INTP>ISTP, if I pick aristocracy, I'm one more ISTP>INTP. No ISTJ though. Not that I ever though I was ISTJ. Just that the functions and so on work better for me.

EDIT: I'll choose strategy, ("I define object of thought now"), which gives me another one for SP.

Foxes are ISTps. ISTjs are Wolves.

You remember that?

[Gilly]

ISTp?

Does this make sense to anyone?

Not me

[FDG]

I have no clue how a person can be anything but Se, maybe Ne.

Especially alien to me is the Si and Ni perispective. Object??? Yourself???

[XoX]

ISTp?

Does this make sense to anyone?

Not me

Sex, drugs and rock & roll, eh? Not exactly anti-ISTp But I have never before thought you being ISTp except your hedonistic side reminds me of leading . And you are pretty stubborn Of course I might have made a mistake in my calculations. Also ENTp was very high too and there are more dichotomies which could change the result. Like sexuality: Infantile or Careful? Aggressor or Victim?.

[Nessy]

And you are pretty stubborn

Every ST type is said to be stubborn in descriptions.

Anyway, I just thought the original author of this test is an extreme anti-objectivist. What does the first section mean on the terms subject/object? At least I need to know whether it means, for example, "I am object of something" or "I am objective." Otherwise this has double (and opposite) meanings.

[Smilingeyes]

No problem, Rocky. I'm just happy _other people_ are finding it as interesting as I used to.

Was I expected to comment on this stuff somehow?

[science as magic]

"- Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their life a mimicry, their passions a quotation."

i like this. in my opinion modern humans are amalgams of both genetic AND memetic informational evolution. from a particular vantage point the person who originally came up with our conceptions never died. we are a personality factory that was invaded by a crazy engineer who reconfigured all the machinery to mass produce a replica of himself through speech directed to us the factory. the crazy thing is that he didn't even intend this to happen. one day we shall leave biological reproduction behind for the most part and focus more on informational propogation (of which a subset will be "biological")

[Cone]

Anyway, I just thought the original author of this test is an extreme anti-objectivist. What does the first section mean on the terms subject/object? At least I need to know whether it means, for example, "I am object of something" or "I am objective." Otherwise this has double (and opposite) meanings.

No one understands this theory except maybe Smilingeyes, and I have doubts that even he does due to the complexity of the theory. This theory was created by taking simple, atomic definitions and combining them in many different ways to produce many different groups of behavior. The main problem with this is that it is very difficult to tell what a 'subject' or an 'object' means within these categories, not to mention what they even mean in themselves. On that point, I would advise you and anyone else to not bother with this theory, but if you really want to know about it, the best I can give you is this link: oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=581.

Try not to think about this "test" too much. The worst thing you can do is to assume you know what you do not know.

[jessica129]

my head hurts

[XoX]

my head hurts

This should help!

[Nessy]

Try not to think about this "test" too much. The worst thing you can do is to assume you know what you do not know.

Don't mind, I just drew the word definition to prove this test too doubtful, so I've never thought seriously. Anyway I agree nobody got this, probably little did Smilingeyes.

[FDG]

Anyway, I just thought the original author of this test is an extreme anti-objectivist. What does the first section mean on the terms subject/object? At least I need to know whether it means, for example, "I am object of something" or "I am objective." Otherwise this has double (and opposite) meanings.

No one understands this theory except maybe Smilingeyes, and I have doubts that even he does due to the complexity of the theory.

Complexity? It's a bunch of axioms combined. We might question the validity of the axioms of course, but the theory in itself is valid.

"Object" and "Subject" are pretty clear concepts in my mind, but I can't explain them properly.

[Nessy]

Complexity? It's a bunch of axioms combined. We might question the validity of the axioms of course, but the theory in itself is valid.

When people try to spot an personality type from the complexity of nature and society, someone like Hugo uses descriptions cover up complexity in simple sort, and some others use simple choices with complex sorting.

-Assuming simpler ones never fail (if people chose carefully enough), it might have problem in complex part if it has. e.g. Some people claimed Hugo has made wrong description of function on his test.
-Assuming simplification has the limit, it will fail when it steps over its limit.
(And of course, complex part can be wrong at the same time.)

Being the combination of complexity/axioms doesn't matter to its validity since most tests are like that. Cone just meant it's too complex (from a evil viewpoint, it has complexity for show to make some people believe it blindly, perhaps because they don't want to say they couldn't understand.)

"Object" and "Subject" are pretty clear concepts in my mind, but I can't explain them properly.

I'd rather chose "objective" over "being object of something" because latter is too universal both in object and subject. If you don't think I said exactly same as you felt, now we have different interpretation. It may make the test work differently.

[Rocky]

We also know that the S/N dimension somehow correlates to the decision of how to act and we know that T/F dimension somehow correlates to judgement of what is correct action.

With this knowledge I can equate Si to the conception that I am being forced to act, I am a victim, I am an object to the things that happen outside.

Please note that I am talking about subject and object only in the sense that the subject acts whereas the object is acted upon. This has nothing to do with objective/subjective bias.

Now from here it is obvious how the S/N dimension unfolds.

Ni is reaction to things in the future.
Se is I act. This is in the sense that I decide of the action out of my own free will.
Ne is as with Ni the same as it's S counterpart except removed in the dimension of time.

[Rocky]

Was I expected to comment on this stuff somehow?

Umm... not really.

[Smilingeyes]

Ok.

It's a difficult thread, though. People seem to be having the normal amount of difficulties. Hmm, have fun, I'll watch.

[Nessy]

We also know that the S/N dimension somehow correlates to the decision of how to act and we know that T/F dimension somehow correlates to judgement of what is correct action.

With this knowledge I can equate Si to the conception that I am being forced to act, I am a victim, I am an object to the things that happen outside.

Please note that I am talking about subject and object only in the sense that the subject acts whereas the object is acted upon. This has nothing to do with objective/subjective bias.

Now from here it is obvious how the S/N dimension unfolds.

Ni is reaction to things in the future.
Se is I act. This is in the sense that I decide of the action out of my own free will.
Ne is as with Ni the same as it's S counterpart except removed in the dimension of time.

Is it Se's (funny, this sounds like he's ESTp or something) PM? Anyway I'll suppose so assuming Rocky ignoring me again after PMing the thing mod has deleted.

Does Rocky really agree with this kind of attitude? I guess it isn't so much different from the stuff he usually disagrees. I guess that view of is only based on an impression Se got from ISXp (perhaps ISFp) when he thought himself of ENTj. What he mentioned in the first paragraph seems only external to justify the conflictor's view; unrealistic, lifeless, somewhat underestimating.

Anyway, what I meant in the word "universal" is, almost everything can be object of almost everything, and thinking of what object means invokes consciousness that there is subject.
Then, what's like something never can be object nor conscious? Hmm, interesting question, but remember now I'm thinking of Socionics...What type is it? Difficult...but I can assume who want to know his/her type is all conscious and object of something. Oh, I forgot, he mentioned thought is object of subject. Can thought be conscious? Well, anyway, my thought is object of only myself, since what people regards as my thought is my output they perceive, and is everyone's (expect Dioboy's).

I'm sorry Se, your explanation didn't make change on my opinion

PS: Surely don't you mean subject/object relates producing/accepting, or v.v.?

[FDG]

Nessy, everything can be object of something else, but I think that SE refers to how the given person perceives the world.

[Nessy]

Nessy, everything can be object of something else, but I think that SE refers to how the given person perceives the world.

Whether it's proper in usage of dichotomy of subject/object is different from whether he means erspective on the world is another question. Latter can be conjectured to be yes, but if it's no, the chaos would increase. Even someone accidentally agreed on the usage might have to rethink the answer.