Is that supposed to be an objectively substantiated argument?Originally Posted by Singu
Is that supposed to be an objectively substantiated argument?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yes, sure. Saying things like "I view others only in terms of what's beneficial for me" are descriptions of psychopathic traits. Most people don't think like that by default, which they "can only be overcome with effortful cognitive control". Also there are frequent self-reports of being unable to experience or understand socially appropriate behavior and emotions.
Or businessmen who value their time.
I wouldn't sayis objective but that it maintains a positive relation to the object. Any extroverted function is like that, according to Socionics. Not sure what being "objective" means since it can be shaded in to mean different things.
which judges the logical consistency of arguments and postulates.
or
act on the world.
Work is a combination of the two. In the start, I do prefer a bit of Ti to get myself acclimatized to the situation and process.
Later, Te becomes the shortcuts and know-how that makes you a pro.
When I am reading manuals I can see the Te inherent in the design. I know that what is written is the actual best practise. Depends really on what the outcomes are supposed to be.
Here is a visualization of pure logic of actions.
IMG_3169.jpg
Basically, this pamphlet represents EVERY SINGLE THING you should be doing in order to be following the best practise, AKA Te. You can know that when you read it, you are reading decades of industry know-how distilled into the most basic components.
Yet, its only one half of the picture, because Te also is a dynamic element concerned not only with the rules of actions (rules used loosely to mean the step by step process inherent in how to do something), but also the implementation of said actions. This is why Te seems more primitive than Ti, because Te doesn't require a meta analysis inside your head: it can be learned by osmosis, just by viewing it can you absorb the information and process it.
Te is also a brainstorming collabrative process as well. This is why many Te egos will read a manual like this and by-pass its advice in favour of completing the task with the desired outcomes.
For example, a SLI might skip steps like wedging a tree because of expereince, yet also influenced by time and energy factors: they want to finish early so they do something differently then the manual. Extremely heavy Si+Te environments are very much like this.
So, Te draws from accepted pool of knowledge AND uses that knowledge in tailored ways in order to finish ends. Every Te types has a different flavour as well.
LSE will try and go for the most effective way possible AT ALL TIMES and also have aspects of care taking which, from my own stand point, leads to over loading in the short term, yet success in the long. --->"How many boxes can I cram into this space"
SLI seemingly are effortless, yet are irrational so bleep in and out of view.
Think of a bridge being built. LSE has the blue prints, the staff, the permits, the opinions, the materials, the knowledge, he is ready to do it and is in the works.
SLI is sitting on the opposite bank already, drinking a beer saying, "dude, what is taking you so long?"
Last edited by timber; 07-10-2018 at 04:41 PM.
Si factor here is a mixed bag really: you are Si +Te types who are extremely stoic in the face of physical adversity, and then you have the *princess and the pea* syndrome.
I personally prefer the stoic versions because the Si complainers are extremely demoralizing to me because I just couldn't personally care at all. I'm already processing Si information and or ignoring it. For example, I know my shoes are uncomfortable and giving me blisters, but I can steel my heart to the pain in order to by-pass the temporary moment in exchange to get through it and purchase more better fitting, proper foot wear. I've noted LSE will show concern about my feet, which is why I purposely fail to mention them in this made up example, because my Si isn't their concern.
NeFi is actually stoicism. So SiTe types are stoic because of their NeFi. Stoicism is the religion of Delta.
Not when it comes to physicality. Which is what most of the industries I have work in involve. When I started at the pesticide company, ran by LSE, one of the positives (according to him) was that if I could finish all my productivity, I would be allowed to leave early to go and worship my Si.
Whenever I hear things like this I know I'm in Si worlds. One long time employee, younger than me, healthy guy, didn't want to walk up the hill pushing the spreader because it was to much work (lol, what a pussy). Si+Te is also about minimizing physical effort while remaining efficient.
That has nothing to do with Si, which is just specialized observation.
SiTe wants to minimize the number of sensations (Si) required to make a decision (Te).
The LSE I'm working with hates bureocracy and tedious work just like I or anyone else does. She is greatly efficient and likes to do things fast, effectively and without a waste of time or any extra steps.
She can often appear cold, rude, impatient or domineering because of this, but the way she works, being effective is certainly very useful at a workplace.
I'm not following here... It has lots to do with Si. Hot weather, early mornings, pleasure as reward.. this sort of stuff. Specialized observation..I can't see how that would be just Si, and all that Si is.
Okay, and also not make to much effort in the end. What you say sounds soo vague. Not really sure what to make of it.SiTe wants to minimize the number of sensations (Si) required to make a decision (Te).
True. Everyone seems to hate tedious work.
Si is the perception part of induction or empiricism, i.e. specialized observation. Te is the judgement part of induction or empiricism, i.e. generalized logic. That's it.
A say waaaaa
domr doesn't know what he's talking about timber, he has his own system with its own definitions as he never bothered to learn the original.
Your ignorance is astounding. You are in a thread asking about Te -> hence the current system does a poor job articulating the mental faculties. Which can be confirmed by all the other threads trying to explain to refine the system. Conclusion, the current system is insufficient.
the possibility of misunderstanding doesn't mean the system is necessarily insufficient unless you take for granted any failure to understand is not rooted in lack of personal effort but the system itself. its this premise that you continually live out because you seem to fail to understand the need to exercise more personal effort on precisely that point toward socionics and Jung to begin with... further, it creates a weird result where how can you expect to reform the system wholesale when you don't understand it retail, all in the name of rectifying the error of systems needing to be better. how would you even know its better except from the point of view of more people claiming to understand it as the metric..? If that is the metric you could reform it to literally any easy to understand bullshit, and it would have be considered sufficient to constitute an improvement and thus justify replacement of the old, but it totally ignored the entire body of knowledge that was lost in the process because it never bothered to understand it to begin with or to use that as a metric. it essentially leads to "a pleasant and easy to understand lie is superior to a complex or difficult truth" and you would have no way to sort that out based on your premises. setting all of that aside, all truths are bloody truths anyway, so what makes you think the truth to socionics is at all in the system to begin with and that more difficulty isn't better
Amazing dude, and you've literally explained my gripes with socionics. I can't ignore it's claims because I see truths in it but then again rectifying it is not easy precisely because simplifying it to make it understandable is not the same as making it accurately reflect the complex reality it is trying to model.
Hur Dur there are 1000s of posts about people struggling to understand the material and trying to define the terms because they aren't very good but that doesn't mean the system is bad. - Bertrand.
Pretending that everyone else is being dumb doesn't help your case. Maybe you can get one or two people to fall for your act, but I think most people can see that you're full of shit, and you really have no idea what you're talking about.
lol, keep thinking that man. FYI a bunch of randoms on the internet, without any formal training in philosophy, no PhDs, are not my target audience. Even if I did convince you of my new system, it would still be niche. The PhDs and the C-suite execs are who matter.
Last edited by domr; 07-14-2018 at 07:21 AM.
so are you targeting the mass man or the elites? fyi I have a degree in philosophy. if the real goal is to create a system that makes money, I think Gwyneth just put out a guide
Elites first for the reputation.
I think if you define PhD and CEOs as elite, then it means they're going to reject the "improvements" for the same reasons already mentioned. you can't just launder away the problem by suggesting these people who are even more highly educated and interested in a well developed product would approve of it, since if anything they're likely to set the bar even higher
the other thing is your goal is so idiosyncratic and outside the scope of what literally everyone else is attempting to do-- what makes you think you have anything to add to the discussion..? the idea that you'll reshuffle the labels without regard for the content in order to make it slick enough to persuade some elites to promulgate it (to what end..?), as the principle underlying your suggestions, makes them entirely irrelevant and unconnected to the conversation at large. the first premise is so far removed it needs to be settled long before anything useful can be meaningfully said between the parties. in other words, your little plot as the organizing principle and meaning to socionics needs to be openly considered if you actually want to interact productively with people, otherwise its like you're off on a different planet
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-14-2018 at 03:42 PM.
"The Problem" What problem?
yeah exactly
in this domain convincing people is not a reliable proxy for having generated genuine knowledge, regardless of how you frame it or the steps you run it through. at best you put a sheen on it that generates interest, but the problem is this sort of thing has already occurred with MBTI and its mass appeal but lack of underlying rigor, which is precisely what backfired and lead to it being shelved by so called "serious" thinkers. I'm not saying this latter part is right, but I'm saying this strategy has already been employed many times and has exhausted its usefulness and even proven somewhat counterproductive
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-14-2018 at 09:43 PM.
I mean the ideas not a particular person. In particular the Si thing and naming convention nobody understands. Until there are further clarifications I think these are not very good ideas.
Last edited by falsehope; 07-14-2018 at 09:39 PM.
I've redefined the entire model in terms of inductive and deductive. That's not putting a "sheen on it." Consequently, the general public and most people on this forum will not be able to understand my rationale as they will lack the epistemological bg.
I like how you've transformed you being the ignorant one with a declaration that its in fact everyone else that is ignorant which explains the criticism, godspeed domr. this phenomenon does in fact happen, and is a sign of genius so I look forward seeing what you produce for us
It's why I said you haven't bothered to learn what is already in the theory domr. Gulenko already defined the types according to induction and deduction in his forms of thinking article, with deduction being process types, and induction being result types. I explained it a little bit here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1179321 and http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1226192 and probably elsewhere over the years, but obviously just reading Gulenko's article would be a better source.
Deductive/Induction is a result of introversion/extraversion. Static/Dynamic is not part of the standard model.
Static/dynamic is one the foundation pieces of the elements. Static/dynamic, internal/external, and objects/fields. Everything builds from those. So yes, they are part of the standard model.
None of that is part of the standard model. Trying to force theoretical physics into theoretical psychology is a mistake.
Perception/Judgement
Sensation/Intuition
Logic/Ethic
Subject/Object
Conscious/Unconscious
Valued/Unvalued
Demensions
These are the elements that everything is built from.
I think subject/object is the point where socionics and typology breaks down, I think if you took a more Charles Sanders Peirce approach to it, that is where the real progress lies
ITR is actually the first step on this road, but it hasn't realized it yet, but its where the "truth" of the theory lies. I think Jung would also see it this way, by way of the therapeutic relationship, he was just ensconced in the subject/object tradition
Like I've told you many times before, you still need to learn basic socionics ideas if you want to criticize and improve it. To not know the foundations of the elements while trying to redefine them . . . well, whatever, it's like that guy Bertrand posted about who thought he was going to revolutionize multiplication because he didn't understand it. . . have fun I guess.
The ignorance. I know the system 100%, to the point of realizing that junk like static/dynamic is not part of the system. It's not used in defining the mental faculties nor in analyzing the types or ITR. You are the one who doesn't understand the system.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
