WIP
WIP
Last edited by domr; 07-04-2018 at 12:30 AM.
...and then we'd be encroaching on -/+ for IEs. not enough to completely obliterate the symbol, but damn... base fxn for, say, EII, would be +E-.
One-letter IE notation is disjointed and ugly on multiple levels. All IEs are atomized; stripped of context, shredded of purpose. Letters overlap and invade notation used for more fundamental concepts.
"Fe" directly links to overcategories of ethics and extroversion; obviously, blatantly. The classic family of letter/symbol gestalts hold approachable and accessible meaning/content, and provide outroads to greater contexts still.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
Re: -/+, Gulenko did it first. "-" and "+" have already been symbols in our vocabulary for well over half a decade.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
Too much confusion about +/- too many meanings out there and people get confused.
I'd just use letters. For example why people do not use Te-r and Te-p (result and process).
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Not gonna do it sorry
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
submit
I want to use this system just because its so zany, sort of like an inside joke or testament to how everyone's got their own way of doing things in socionics and how shared meaning and understanding tends to give way to personal insistence on preference, ironically in the name of unifying all men etc etc
these could be powerful symbols for sure
Kind of remind me the time when I studied bit nuclear physics. Sometimes they use totally confusing notation for nuclear reactions. Nothing new under the sun.
Some sort of hidden pleasure of LII and their Ti-r (lol, now it has been established) or how Ben Vasserlan says: NiTx etc (and it makes no sense to add x as it is redundant). Furthermore for example ILI sounds much less restrictive as it just tells the thing how it is.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Model Anus.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
No -- explanatory power is my metric. Socionics gives me more.
Shared terminology leaves inroads open -- people can move from MBTI to Socionics more naturally. Shapes are steep enough. Shapes don't bleed on pre-existing shared language.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
I think its a simple cart before the horse problem, once domr releases his system people can choose whether to adopt it. debating whether or not to abandon the old terminology is sort of pointless when there's no systemic replacement.. its would just increase the amount of jargon, but people would still have to learn the old system if for no other reason that all the resources explaining this new terminology uses the old terminology and then its like why use the new terminology at that point without a system in place that capitalizes on it and that could be wholy digested without having to learn any or very little of the old. you can say its more elegant but that's only because you already (allegedly) have learned the base you propose to replace but have nothing to replace it with. in other words, to get to here ones not saving any work by adopting this terminology, its only adding to it, because the terminology relies on learning the thing it supposedly replaces, thus it doesn't actually displace it
gulenko also has a ballin system in place already that very nicely captures the psychological charge that each function can carry
tTnFb_W-2paIMZkAn7SIdPZAVvd0HzTirimdFQdsKE4.jpg
Why do you think MBTI is confusing? They´re basically using Jungs´ notation.
MBTI´s functional descriptions are stupid, but their E/I S/N T/F J/P typing system is pretty clear and uncomplicated. UNDERSTANDABLE TO EVERYONE. Something the system you describe isn´t.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Socionics notation depends on physical sequence and has non-unique letters such as LII; INTj is superior because one can mix it up (TIjN) and still correctly identify the type. However, I would prefer using Socionics-like symbols because the words attached to the letters have ambiguous meanings, but there would need to be a integrated mechanism in the symbols to indicate dominance - and perhaps something to indicate higher relative usage (sub-type). One could use an opposite color dot in the symbol to indicate the dominant set of processes and perhaps enlarge the symbol that is the most used set of processes......
a.k.a. I/O
stop saying baseless bs that MBT and Socionics use different types, but not Jung's ones in compatible notations
That's why I said Socionics-like. It could be any symbols so long as distance is put between Socionics and varying dictionary meanings of the symbols, e.g. intuitive, logical, etc. I see a problem with +/- because they have recognized meanings that could pose ambiguity.
a.k.a. I/O
If you would create major socionics website, you could impose different system and it could be eventually adopted but you struggle with properly describing this system in just a forum post giving references to little known model R. But it would be rather not be accepted easily anyway and people would complain.
But telling people to change the system to different from what is on ALL websites is pretty futile.
Using different notation than anyone else does not make any logic really.
The reasons for this are not strong either, there is no reason to change ILE to IL+. People are not getting confused by I either, I don't see really problem.
Don't forget that the purpouse of this website is also to acquire people from MBTI world, so using similar notation is welcomed. And I dont see anything wrong with using SiTe because other notations are just less useful, like more difficult.
So basically this is just saying that a Type is birthed from three dichotomies and THEN develops a fourth dichotomy and because of that we aren't allowed to use a naming system that suggests we have to choose P vs J instead of it being caused.
[When I look at it this first it seems nice self-promotion.]
So what are the real benefits we get from here? I see that it loses lots of descriptive value.
I think lower case third letter does more justice like ILe and makes it more readable and easily perceptible.
I never think IE's as in numerically ordered positions because it just depends on interpretation hence they carry very little meaning (mostly to separate blocks based on even and odd numbers). Similarly functional names make much more sense (due to limited scope while still have relatively many elements). I prefer to call hydrogen as hydrogen not Z=1 (it does have much more use than functional order of numbers).
This is analogous of making this stuff less reachable.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I would prefer just using the first two functions, eg. FiSe, TiNe, TeSi, etc.
The problem with that is 2 fold.
1) It's still MBTI notation where T/F vs. L/E.
2) It makes it impossible to separate talking about the blocks vs the types.
3) I made some modifications and I don't use the system as-is in the original post anymore. i call the ESI an IDE now but I still refer to the functions as -E4+S3
My type is @di-//null<;$^8¨£
Qpar LSmN FreN SuwZ etc. those are the new, super accurate everyone has to use them standards. For what reason and why. . . well, we can just make that up later.