Correct. Step 1 is purge the system of all baseless and useless assumptions.
Correct. Step 1 is purge the system of all baseless and useless assumptions.
N-types view information from a relativistic, qualitative perspective - with respect to its relevance to other information such as this car is different from others in the parking lot. S-types view information from an absolute, quantifiable perspective - with respect to it being a factual entity unto itself such as there's a red car. The two approach information differently but may draw the exact same conclusion such as it is the only red car in the parking lot. N-types essentially look at information from the top down whereas S-types, from the bottom up, and neither vantage point is superior to the other.
The internally referenced (Ni, Si) input is pre-processed (filtered?) with respect to already known references, whereas the externally referenced input (Ne, Se) is delivered to rationalization raw but may eventually undergo the exact same processing and arrive at the exact same conclusion.
Other than block diagrams of processes, I can't see how one can give visual examples of information acquisition......
a.k.a. I/O
I disagree with you here (see posts 105 and 106). N-types and S-types use the same functions in this example. Se perceives the actual colors etc, Ti evaluates sizes, quantity and directions of the cars etc, Si identifies the names of the colors and the numbers, and Te draws conclusions about these names and numbers. The key function here is Te. It is about an interaction between different perceptions of the names of the colors and the numbers. It is not about a relationship between colors (or numbers). But let's say there is a connection between red cars and women. Then Ni could perceive this, and Te- could speculate that it is probably a woman who owns the red car.Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
N-types view information from a relativistic, qualitative perspective - with respect to its relevance to other information such as this car is different from others in the parking lot. S-types view information from an absolute, quantifiable perspective - with respect to it being a factual entity unto itself such as there's a red car. The two approach information differently but may draw the exact same conclusion such as it is the only red car in the parking lot. N-types essentially look at information from the top down whereas S-types, from the bottom up, and neither vantage point is superior to the other.
The internally referenced (Ni, Si) input is pre-processed (filtered?) with respect to already known references, whereas the externally referenced input (Ne, Se) is delivered to rationalization raw but may eventually undergo the exact same processing and arrive at the exact same conclusion.
Other than block diagrams of processes, I can't see how one can give visual examples of information acquisition......
a.k.a. I/O
Last edited by Petter; 09-08-2018 at 04:31 PM.
The reason I posted was because of such posts. I really should steer clear of these types of threads. Disagree? Thank you for putting it so mildly.......
a.k.a. I/O
"The internally referenced (Ni, Si) input is pre-processed (filtered?) with respect to already known references, whereas the externally referenced input (Ne, Se) is delivered to rationalization raw but may eventually undergo the exact same processing and arrive at the exact same conclusion."The reason I posted was because of such posts. I really should steer clear of these types of threads. Disagree? Thank you for putting it so mildly.......
a.k.a. I/O
How do you explain that LSE and SLI are focused on facts?
Your view is that Se and Si process almost the same image etc, right? I think they complement each other, but they are also fundamentally different. They correspond to direct experiences of objects and mental/symbolic representations of objects. For example, it is not possible to evaluate size/length of mental objects/images. That is why Ti is combined with Se.
Last edited by Petter; 09-09-2018 at 06:48 AM.
The output oriented LSE and the input oriented SLI use the same processes but have different priorities; the same can be said for LSI versus SLE but these two differ from the previous two in processing. All of them have the same S-filter, which means the way they view information is for the most part identical.
Si and Se initially acquire the exact same data so this aspect can't be complementary; however, the implied processing differences (i versus e) do have complementary aspects but not in the sense to which you seem to allude. For me, the nomenclature represents information processing and data filters - not classifications. One is not really defining any part of a function by associating, for example, "direct experiences of objects" with a particular classification.
I wrote the below article 6 years ago; the wording could be improved but it does present a perspective.
http://www.socionics.com/articles/soc_pref_io.html
a.k.a. I/O
"Your view is that Se and Si process almost the same image etc, right? I think they complement each other, but they are also fundamentally different. They correspond to direct experiences of objects and mental/symbolic representations of objects. For example, it is not possible to evaluate size/length of mental objects/images. That is why Ti is combined with Se."
Furthermore, I don't think logical reasoning is possible in the external world. That is why Te is combined with Si (and Ni). So P (Te, "Extroverted" Thinking) should actually be Ti.
EDIT: This is inaccurate.
A=B, B=C, therefore A=C (Te) ... You don't conclude this via mental/internal images.
Also, visualize a 'Q'. It is certainly possible to think about the shape/size of this mental/internal object. (Ti)
-----
SLIs appear orderly in the external world, because they are orderly in the internal world.
EDIT: I think SLIs are orderly in both worlds.
Last edited by Petter; 09-11-2018 at 08:21 AM.
Here are some examples that illustrate the functions (see post 119 or OP):
A=B, B=C, therefore A=C ... Si- knows that A=B and B=C, so it is not about a relationship between two (or more) letters/objects. Te+ draws a conclusion, i.e. "therefore A=C".
B=C, therefore A=C ... Ni+ perceives a possible relationship between A and B. Te- speculates that A and B are equal.
A person observes an interaction between a wife, husband and another woman. The wife is arguing with the woman. Ni- perceives a possible relationship between the woman and the husband. Fe+ speculates that it is probably a sexual relationship.
Fe+ is also about a relationship, so it doesn't know the most relevant relationship. Te-, on the other hand, knows that A=B is a relevant speculation.
The examples describe outcomes produced by amorphous processes. There are huge limitations on understanding when processes are only identified at a black-box level: whatever produces this particular type of outcome with this type of input gets the same label. The only way to reduce anomalies is to introduce more black-boxes but this will only serve to approximate the real system, not define it......
a.k.a. I/O
You and I have discussed this before. My (and socionists') focus is: What kind of information does a function process? Your focus is: How does a function/cognitive process actually work?The examples describe outcomes produced by amorphous processes. There are huge limitations on understanding when processes are only identified at a black-box level: whatever produces this particular type of outcome with this type of input gets the same label. The only way to reduce anomalies is to introduce more black-boxes but this will only serve to approximate the real system, not define it......
a.k.a. I/O
The big question is whether these definitions cover all kinds of information or not. Socionists tried external/internal, static/dynamic and object/relationship... and failed.
I get repetitive when someone suggests that without knowing how a function actually works, the information that it processes can be predicted. It's somewhat like trying to determine how to properly feed 8 (or more?) unknown, unseen animals by only visually monitoring their combined feces and then labeling each animal according to it's predicted food consumption.
a.k.a. I/O
You don't have to know how a function works in order to know what kind of information it processes. For example, there is obviously a cognitive function/process that determines the relative size of objects. This description is itself a certain kind of information. The actual process of weighing/evaluating also "produces" information, which is unknown to us. But that information is irrelevant.I get repetitive when someone suggests that without knowing how a function actually works, the information that it processes can be predicted. It's somewhat like trying to determine how to properly feed 8 (or more?) unknown, unseen animals by only visually monitoring their combined feces and then labeling each animal according to it's predicted food consumption.
a.k.a. I/O
I think you just described ILI in a nutshell, i.e.: they "outline" things with increasing specificity, sometimes to the point of Ptolemaic complexity... like giving every example of what 2+2 doesn't equal. they take a task and proceed by examining all the ways it can fail and create a system essentially of thou shall nots until everything that remains (i.e.: what is still essentially a black box) can't go wrong and then they would say it doesn't matter. the problem is its an extremely inefficient way of approaching some things that can be handled directly with CD Ti. it also requires they orient themselves around a task, and makes them unsociable (general negativism combined with Fe polr). this gives them that sort of disconnected quality because unless they're engrossed in some concrete task they're just sort of floating and they're not exactly getting a lot of invites to do other non work related activities. so they just sort of hang out and bounce ideas around in their head, but its got a more anxious and less relaxed quality to it. Gulenko actually describes Fi as kind of an "anxious" function and in this context im making the comparison between Si and Fi launcher between LII and ILI
You keep referring to Model G, but nobody knows A) how Gulenko got his dichotomies B) the relationship between the dichotomies and the model C) what kind of energy it is D) how externalities/internalities actually work ... LII's Ti is directed towards society and Ne is not... that makes no sense whatsoever
another problem is they see the world through the pimple on their nose, i.e.: I want to ask petter if he's actually read gulenko, or he's judging gulenko's output entirely based on what I've explained to him about it, he's not really critiquing gulenko even though he purports himself to be. he's actually got only the most attenuated link possible to the actual material he comments on, and yet he believes that to be wholly sufficient in order to draw a conclusion. its more like he's commenting on gulenko vis-a-vis me which makes it more of an empty debate and not a real discussion of socionics itself. it never reaches the underlying subject matter
-
um yeah but its also obvious by definition so you're not really adding anything unless you can roll that into something more than a collection of obvious facts
We are trying to distinguish between 8 different kinds of information. That is not an obvious task... socionists have tried hard but failed.
gulenko is literally the most prolific socionist
But that doesn't mean he is right.
good thing that wasn't my argument
Yes, I have read Gulenko and he doesn't make any sense.
"Any self-regulatory activity involves at least 4 steps: goal definition, implementation, input(collecting the data) and output (presentation of the result).
In socionics, the minimalist model has 4 blocks as well. Let's take a better look.
Block 1: the government of the psyche, in charge of setting goals and making decisions
Block 2: execution of the decisions made at stage 1
Block 3: result presentation
Block 4: (the most sensitive) new data input/ collecting the feedback"
LII has Ti/Ne... then Ni/Fe (!?) ... "Mission: to contribute to socion showing their specialization".
He ignores the fact that Ti and Ne are static functions, and Ni and Fe are dynamic functions (in Socionics).
Another big problem is that Ti/Ne doesn't make decisions. Otherwise a person would make four different kinds of decisions (Te, Ti, Fe and Fi). But we don't... we do four evaluations but make one decision.
A third problem is that we don't see Ni/Fe in LII. IEI's mystical insights completely contradict LII's clarity.
Last edited by Petter; 09-18-2018 at 05:51 AM. Reason: '...and Fi' instead of '...and Te'
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
