Quote Originally Posted by Alomoes View Post
Well, I have a different definition of Conscientiousness yeah, I don't know why the different text style, I copied and pasted. I might put it up latter. Oh. Whoops, I read consciousness as contentiousness. I'm not deleting this.

I think that those things you described are four different actions people can take. There is explore, classify, seek, and destroy. Certainly, we have preferences on what we like though. Interesting concept though of contiousness though.

The most similar ones are seek and explore, so I'd work to have a good differentiation of those. They are not the same. Seek implies something already known, while explore implies something novel, at least that is my interpretation. If combining seek and destroy and explore and create, seek and explore are quite interchangeable. As such, I'd set up as 4 different actions one can take.

I don't know how this relates to conciousness though, unless we're talking about how the conciousness interacts with the world.

As for understanding the way people think, I agree that understanding how they literally think would be a good thing to learn about. I can attempt to help, as I know about how I think, and how other people might think. It's really all about narrowing down possibilities, although there is always the possibility of a comprehension that is inconceivable or we forgot.

Oh boy, spin. Sounds mighty abstract and contrived. I understand the point, but the above problem in which you have a dichotomy with two separate, potentially unrelated, parts to it.

I really aught to finish my own theory. I'm busy replying to these posts though.
Cool! Ya... Making dichotomies of them might work, might not work. The idea is that when you do something every possibility of the higher hierarchy is done, both destroy and classify. Only when the results are judged by an other part everything falls appart and we can see if it was destroy or classify.

Spins are awesome if you get them. Those I work with does not mean that a person with a negative symbol in their leading place is a negative person. Those I work with say a bit of the character of that element. SEI and SLI does not use it in the same way exactly. SEI is Si-. Si- is a bit more basic and forceful way of Si than Si+. Its a whole story but maybe someone else will work it out, and the rest will just follow what already exist and not build or invent anything in Socionics. ;p

Looking forward to hear you modelling. I should say that my model is in the public domain therefor every person who understands it owns it. ;p Feel free to merge yours with mine.