Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 136

Thread: A visual example of Si, Se, Ne and Ni

  1. #1
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default A visual example of Si, Se, Ne and Ni

    A) The original post:

    Si, Se, Ne, Ni.gif


    B1)

    "Irrational" functions process information about physical entities.

    "Rational" functions process information about relationships between physical entities.

    "Static" functions process information about the actual objects/subjects.

    "Dynamic" functions process information about the meaning of the objects/subjects.

    "External" functions (S, T) process information which describes the objects/subjects.

    "Internal" functions (N, F) process information which clarifies vague descriptions of the objects/subjects.



    B2)

    "Introverted" functions process information which describes the objects/subjects. (object <--> background)

    "Extroverted" functions process information about interactions between the objects/subjects. (object <--> object <--> background)

    "Static" functions process information about the objects/subjects themselves.

    "Dynamic" functions process information which is a symbolic representation of the objects/subjects (language, numbers etc.)

    "External" functions (S, T) process information about physical entities.

    "Internal" functions (N, F) process information about relationships between physical entities.


    B3)

    "Introverted" functions process information which describes the objects/subjects.

    "Extroverted" functions choose (zoom in on) one description of the objects/subjects over another.

    "Static" functions process information about the actual objects/subjects.

    "Dynamic" functions process information about the meaning of the objects/subjects.

    "External" functions (S, T) process information about physical entities.

    "Internal" functions (N, F) process information about relationships between physical entities.
    Last edited by Petter; 12-16-2018 at 04:48 AM.

  2. #2
    falsehope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    TIM
    ILE ENTp-Ti
    Posts
    440
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What do you mean by projecting onto another object?

  3. #3
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falsehope View Post
    What do you mean by projecting onto another object?
    Ni connects the objects. You cannot place the objects side by side.

  4. #4
    Cosmic Teapot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    SLI 5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    1,173
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here are my viewpoints:

    Si recognizes the complete object i.e.
    With this you practically say "Si is perceiving something with our eyes"

    When this element of perception is in the leading position, the individual has the ability to change the qualities of the surrounding space and influence the sensations of people within it.
    http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...verted_sensing

    Personally when I see a car I recognize how the design and the it's features impact me and my decision. It can be something shallow like the color (for ex. I think black it a beautiful color for cars but awful in summer. It becomes incredibly hot and some cars, especially older ones, begin to smell and if the manufacturer chose some kind of sleek plastic material for the seats; goodbye for hot pants because you'll just burn your *** of if you happen to park in the plain sun). Then there is the question whether the car is big enough, are the seats comfortable, is the space in the car enough for what I plan (just driving to work or vacations, is it suited for kids etc etc). I could sit in an awful smelly old car with usage marcs everywhere and still feel all right because it's what I'm used to / because it reminds me of child hood / it's convenient and I see ways on how I can improve it.
    I know an ESFj who got into an accident and repaired her car all by herself. She now knows exactly what kinds of sounds the car makes in certain situations and what she needs to do to repair certain parts. Being able to do that, be it a car, a laptop, or just the ability to repair/improve/recognize inconvenience your surroundings makes me feel at ease and connected to my surroundings.

    * * *

    Se directs attention to a specific part of the object
    When this element is in the leading position, the individual possesses exceptional personal force/will.
    http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...verted_sensing

    Se: "My Jeep is bigger than your Mini. I could just run you over. Back off"
    Beta(?) Se: "Now that I'm a CEO I can't drive with a Mini to work. I need to have a BMW/Mercedes whatever otherwise others won't take me and my position in the hierarchy seriously."
    Se: You won't win this car race with a Prius.

    Se recognizes the capacity for will/force/confrontation/organization in objects and people. They can use aggression to achieve their goals (like pressuring people through their presence and body language only, physical and verbal aggression...)
    Lets say you're in a new environment and Se-type wants to know whose the boss then he'll her may recognize (in a conversation) things like:
    A can interrupt B but not the other way around. B can interrupt C while C does not interrupt either B or A which means the hierarchy is as follows: A>B>C

  5. #5
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmic Teapot View Post
    With this you practically say "Si is perceiving something with our eyes"
    Yes... but Si processes auditory information, olfactory information etc. as well.

    Si is also about memory.


    http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...verted_sensing


    Personally when I see a car I recognize how the design and the it's features impact me and my decision. It can be something shallow like the color (for ex. I think black it a beautiful color for cars but awful in summer. It becomes incredibly hot and some cars, especially older ones, begin to smell and if the manufacturer chose some kind of sleek plastic material for the seats; goodbye for hot pants because you'll just burn your *** of if you happen to park in the plain sun). Then there is the question whether the car is big enough, are the seats comfortable, is the space in the car enough for what I plan (just driving to work or vacations, is it suited for kids etc etc). I could sit in an awful smelly old car with usage marcs everywhere and still feel all right because it's what I'm used to / because it reminds me of child hood / it's convenient and I see ways on how I can improve it.
    I know an ESFj who got into an accident and repaired her car all by herself. She now knows exactly what kinds of sounds the car makes in certain situations and what she needs to do to repair certain parts. Being able to do that, be it a car, a laptop, or just the ability to repair/improve/recognize inconvenience your surroundings makes me feel at ease and connected to my surroundings.


    * * *
    http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...verted_sensing


    Se: "My Jeep is bigger than your Mini. I could just run you over. Back off"
    Beta(?) Se: "Now that I'm a CEO I can't drive with a Mini to work. I need to have a BMW/Mercedes whatever otherwise others won't take me and my position in the hierarchy seriously."
    Se: You won't win this car race with a Prius.


    Se recognizes the capacity for will/force/confrontation/organization in objects and people. They can use aggression to achieve their goals (like pressuring people through their presence and body language only, physical and verbal aggression...)
    Lets say you're in a new environment and Se-type wants to know whose the boss then he'll her may recognize (in a conversation) things like:
    A can interrupt B but not the other way around. B can interrupt C while C does not interrupt either B or A which means the hierarchy is as follows: A>B>C

    Do you think these descriptions contradict OP?

    I think SeTi is indirectly related to will, force, confrontation etc.

    And your description of SiTe supports my viewpoints.

  6. #6
    Cosmic Teapot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    SLI 5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    1,173
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Do you think these descriptions contradict OP?
    Yes.
    I think SeTi is indirectly related to will, force, confrontation etc.
    No. Read the descriptions.
    And your description of SiTe supports my viewpoints.
    No.

  7. #7
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    483 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think Se can be understood in "different" but neverthelesss mutually complimentary ways. Force is one way to think of it, but its the way to think of it in terms of its overall "lay of the land"--the distribution of objects in an area with a view to their leverage over one another. But its all the literal "external form" of a thing. Si is also the "external form" of a thing, in the sense that its sensory. Si just privileges the subjective impression of the external form. Further Si also attends to that with regard for oneself in the form of internal sensations we broadly capture as "comfort sensing." The ability to infer such states in others is based on the subjective impression of their external form (i.e.: expressions, posture, etc) and then a kind of "Si empathy" supplies in the mind of the viewer what that "must feel like" in the form of 1st person bodily experience... in other words, sensation is the "external" part, but extroverted and introverted would be like emphasis on form v state. You in essence always get both, but attention to one necessarily distorts (to the point of possibly ignoring almost entirely) to some extent the other

  8. #8
    Ragdoll Lynx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    0-D ISTp sx/sp
    Posts
    2,660
    Mentioned
    319 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    According Jung, elements are the opposite of your descriptions, extraverted IEs are objective, focused in the reality of the objects as it is and the whole, while Introverted IEs are subjective, partial, limited and distorted, focused in the self and how the object affect the personal experience, etc.

    Introverted IEs


    Extroverted IEs



    Edit. But fortunately we all use 4D IEs introverted and extroverted.
    Last edited by Ragdoll Lynx; 06-17-2018 at 01:54 AM.

  9. #9
    Melodies from Mars~
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,016
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yea makes sense. Se hurts my head & Se jokes go way over my head, because the're usually based on intuitive common sense on how the world works. I always have to think them through.


  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    TIM
    Sanguin Spiritualist
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    +S = Box
    +N = (Jack) in the box

    +S accepts reality as-is. +N disregards reality.

    -S = Historian
    -N = Alchemist

    -N transmogrifies reality. ex. Conspiracy theories. Ni creates an alternative explanation for reality. -S filters and sorts reality. It creates a map of the world or a historical achieve of data.

  11. #11
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,035
    Mentioned
    281 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The ones about the intuitive elements kinda-sorta have some truth to them (provided that you mean "object" as opposed to subject rather than physical objects). Clearly Ne directs one's attention to potential situations / realities. But I have no idea why you think Si = whole and Se = part, it's a non sequitur.

  12. #12
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmic Teapot View Post
    Yes.
    okay... but why?


    No. Read the descriptions.
    I am telling you what my definitions of the functions mean.

    We all know that Socionics Se- is related to will, force etc.

  13. #13
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crystal View Post
    According Jung, elements are the opposite of your descriptions, extraverted IEs are objective, focused in the reality of the objects as it is and the whole, while Introverted IEs are subjective, partial, limited and distorted, focused in the self and how the object affect the personal experience, etc.
    Yes, but I think Jung and Aushra were wrong.

    Jung: "The rationality of both types is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint."

    2 + 3 = 5

    ... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative

    This information must be about Extroverted Thinking, right? But it doesn't work... Why are mathematicians usually LII?

  14. #14
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    The ones about the intuitive elements kinda-sorta have some truth to them (provided that you mean "object" as opposed to subject rather than physical objects).
    No, I don't mean object as opposed to subject. I mean physical objects (a ball, New York City, a planet...) as well as non-physical objects (or abstract objects) like God, spirit, numbers etc.

    Clearly Ne directs one's attention to potential situations / realities.
    What I mean by 'directs attention' is that Ne focuses on one specific potential object (the most relevant one) out of many potential objects.

    But I have no idea why you think Si = whole and Se = part, it's a non sequitur.
    I don't mean that a car is Si and a wheel is Se. Instead, Si identifies the object and Se focuses on a specific area of the object without knowing what exactly it is.

  15. #15
    photon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    65
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why does Si perceive the object as a whole?

    Any sensor type will focus on the details of the car - the colour is red, it takes up a lot of space, surface looks shiny, textures etc. Si specifically would be the focus on comfort, how the seating feels for example. When you just the car seat's distance to the wheel, or you go in the car seat and feel your legs are too close/far from the pedals, you're using Si.

    Si and Ne are the complete opposite, and recognising the car as an object vs recognising the objects potential aren't quite the opposite things as both are objective.

  16. #16
    Ragdoll Lynx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    0-D ISTp sx/sp
    Posts
    2,660
    Mentioned
    319 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Yes, but I think Jung and Aushra were wrong.

    Jung: "The rationality of both types is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint."

    2 + 3 = 5

    ... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative

    This information must be about Extroverted Thinking, right? But it doesn't work... Why are mathematicians usually LII?
    I'm not fan of Jung, some of his descriptions lack objectivity imo,he portrayed as more positive IEs that he valued. Anyway, why do you think that Augusta and Jung were wrong?
    I think that extraversion is focused outside in tangible and objective reality while introversion is focused inwards primarily,in how the external things affect the individual in several ways (in own feelings, inner world, sensations, etc).
    About the LII question, I think is because the nature of elements, being Te bussiness or pragmatic logic, while Ti is system or structural logic, which is needed in maths. Actually most of the Ti dom I know are good in maths while Te are not very good at it and don't care about it because they don't see a practical daily use for it.
    Last edited by Ragdoll Lynx; 06-18-2018 at 12:14 AM.

  17. #17
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I think Se can be understood in "different" but neverthelesss mutually complimentary ways. Force is one way to think of it, but its the way to think of it in terms of its overall "lay of the land"--the distribution of objects in an area with a view to their leverage over one another. But its all the literal "external form" of a thing. Si is also the "external form" of a thing, in the sense that its sensory. Si just privileges the subjective impression of the external form. Further Si also attends to that with regard for oneself in the form of internal sensations we broadly capture as "comfort sensing." The ability to infer such states in others is based on the subjective impression of their external form (i.e.: expressions, posture, etc) and then a kind of "Si empathy" supplies in the mind of the viewer what that "must feel like" in the form of 1st person bodily experience... in other words, sensation is the "external" part, but extroverted and introverted would be like emphasis on form v state. You in essence always get both, but attention to one necessarily distorts (to the point of possibly ignoring almost entirely) to some extent the other
    You are essentially saying this, right?

    "Objects: Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)

    Fields: Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject"


    ... or this?


    "The first division: objects - relationships

    Jung started describing psychological types with the directions of human psyche extraversion – introversion.

    Every phenomenon in the world can be considered either from the point of view of objects or from the point of view of relationships.

    So, we have divided all the information flow into two big parts:

    1. information about objects;
    2. information about relationships.

    Information aspects about objects are called extraverted.
    Information aspects about relationships are called introverted.

    Both of these mechanisms are necessary for every person’s psyche. A. Augustinavichuite writes: “The necessary condition for the functioning of any organism is the double bond with the world around… For the brain functioning as an information metabolism device it should be provided for with signals both from outside and the organism itself"[2].

    Differences in the personality types are determined by the mechanism (one of these two) which is more often, customarily, surely, successfully and effectively used by the person. Let us remind of the fact that we can speak about a harmoniously developed personality when a person uses his strong and weak features almost like the proportion of golden section: approximately 60:40. That is a harmoniously developed extravert in about 60% of cases uses the mechanism of extraversion: is interested in the objects of the outer world, people, affairs etc. And about 40% of his attention is drawn to his inner world: to himself, his own attitude to the objects (people, affairs). An introvert accordingly vice versa .

    Discussing the complicated matter of information division into aspects we will turn from time to time to one and the same example to see how it manifests itself in life. Let’s take an example including various information and see how it is divided into aspects.

    A mother and a child. That is a many-sided system presuming different information aspects, different ways to see the situation. First there can be two points of view on this family. Some people first of all pay attention to each family member: what kind of person he (she) is, what he (she) would like, what he (she) can and so on. Other people are more interested in the kind of relationships between them. Here two points of view we have discussed are reflected: for the first observers (extraverts) the information aspects of these people as objects are more important, for the second ones (introverts) – information aspects of their relationships."

  18. #18
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,035
    Mentioned
    281 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    No, I don't mean object as opposed to subject. I mean physical objects (a ball, New York City, a planet...) as well as non-physical objects (or abstract objects) like God, spirit, numbers etc.
    okay


    What I mean by 'directs attention' is that Ne focuses on one specific potential object (the most relevant one) out of many potential objects.
    This kind of focusing does not seem specific to Ne. Si will also seek out the most suitable thing, Se the most desirable thing etc.


    I don't mean that a car is Si and a wheel is Se. Instead, Si identifies the object and Se focuses on a specific area of the object without knowing what exactly it is.
    Yeah... this is extremely vague and does not define the elements IMO.

  19. #19
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by photon View Post
    Why does Si perceive the object as a whole?
    Because you need the complete object/pattern in order to identify it.

    We know that LSE and SLI are focused on facts, so it makes sense that Si is about identification/recognition of objects.

    Any sensor type will focus on the details of the car - the colour is red, it takes up a lot of space, surface looks shiny, textures etc. Si specifically would be the focus on comfort, how the seating feels for example. When you just the car seat's distance to the wheel, or you go in the car seat and feel your legs are too close/far from the pedals, you're using Si.
    This is very typical of SLI (SiTe), but not SLE.

    Si and Ne are the complete opposite, and recognising the car as an object vs recognising the objects potential aren't quite the opposite things as both are objective.
    I am not claiming that Ne is "recognising the object's potential". Instead, Ne directs attention to a potential object (i.e. hidden object) that is relevant to another object (or a "scene" ... for example, a park could be an object)

    -----

    EDIT: "recognising the object's potential" ... This is a possible interpretation as well. But it is still not about identification... Ne directs attention to a potential object (or an object's potential). "Extroverted" functions are about motivated interactions.

    I don't think the functions are objective. Btw, what exactly do you mean by 'objective'? Furthermore, I am not sure Si and Ne are the complete opposite.
    Last edited by Petter; 06-17-2018 at 03:34 PM.

  20. #20
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    483 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Petter I'm saying sensing tells you an object is there, but the attitude is how you construe it: to use socionics language either as a field or a state i.e.: its relationship to others or to itself. I would also add that you always get both, it is only to what extent and resolution that value [1]/dimensionality describes. polrs and ignoring try to cut out as much as possible the opposing attitude (creative is more like synthesizing them), the difference is mainly one of strength: polr really doesn't "see" the other as well, whereas ignoring simply ignores it, etc. I would argue conscious/unconscious is more a default state a kind of running status quo, but one can make the unconscious conscious if sufficiently prompted, so I don't think the opposing attitude stays in the unconscious completely. an artist wholly engrossed in their work who doesn't see a person enter the room, like a fighter who is not at all concerned with the state of their opponent or themselves... inasmuch as they are both forms of sensing they include an irreducible amount of the opposing attitude in them, but it is just very small and the lions share is unconscious--this is why to say Si or Se doesn't see the car is misguided, because they both see the car, because that the car is there is that irreducible part of sensing that both attitudes share (assuming up front that they sense it at all)

    [1] value in terms of preference is like extent in time, i.e.: a preference is which you spend most of your time in, or would if you could

  21. #21
    photon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    65
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Because you need the complete object/pattern in order to identify it.
    The way I see it the IEs are different ways of perceiving then processing a certain type of information. The functions don't need to work together in a pattern to recognise the object? For example:
    Money is a means of enrichment.
    Money is stamped paper notes of certain value.

    The first statement is Se, the second is Te. They are both different ways of a perceiving the object. This is relevant to your example of the car as well.

    We know that LSE and SLI are focused on facts, so it makes sense that Si is about identification/recognition of objects.
    That doesn't make sense...Why not just use the actual definition of Si?

    This is very typical of SLI (SiTe), but not SLE.
    I was deliberately giving an example of Si (and unintentionally Te maybe), so indeed it's not SLE.

    I am not claiming that Ne is "recognising the object's potential". Instead, Ne directs attention to a potential object (i.e. hidden object) that is relevant to another object (or a "scene" ... for example, a park could be an object)
    -----
    EDIT: "recognising the object's potential" ... This is a possible interpretation as well. But it is still not about identification... Ne directs attention to a potential object (or an object's potential). "Extroverted" functions are about motivated interactions.
    Identification? Why does it have to be about identifying objects?
    That seems correct, I don't disagree with that.

    I don't think the functions are objective. Btw, what exactly do you mean by 'objective'? Furthermore, I am not sure Si and Ne are the complete opposite.
    Objective is focusing on the information of the single object only, without being influenced by a personal attitude towards the object or it's relations. Hard to explain, but subjective functions in comparison focus on the relations between objects. Hence why Te is often about manufacturing, methods and procedures while Ti creates systems and classifications, perhaps like you are doing now.

    Why aren't Si and Ne the opposite? They're both irrational elements but it's sensing/intuition and objective/subjective which are opposites.

  22. #22
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    This kind of focusing does not seem specific to Ne. Si will also seek out the most suitable thing, Se the most desirable thing etc.
    Well, only Se and Ne focus/direct attention according to these definitions of the functions.

    I don't see how a function can passively provide data and actively determine an individual's behavior.

    Yeah... this is extremely vague and does not define the elements IMO.
    I didn't mean it like that. Se does not know what exactly it perceives. It is a part/area of an object. Maybe you can call it a "blob", and sometimes an "extended blob" or a line. My point is that Ti (which is only about structural logic or spatial logic ... in my view) needs a certain kind of information. For example, Ti measures/estimates the length between two objects, but it doesn't want detailed information about those objects. It just wants two points, or "blobs", or lines.

    EDIT: An alternative view could be that Se itself does not perceive the area (or "blob"). Instead, it filters away (almost) all the details that are provided by Si.

    Se also moves your attention from one part/area of the object to another part/area of the object... or from one object to another object. Se and Ne deal with motivated interactions between the objects and the subjects (i.e. people).

    EDIT: Yet another view could be that Se just "transports" Ti from one part of the object to another part of the object. An unconscious/semi-conscious Si provides the simplified image (or "blob").
    Last edited by Petter; 06-18-2018 at 03:58 AM.

  23. #23
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crystal View Post
    I'm not fan of Jung, some of his descriptions lack objectivity imo,he portrayed as more positive IEs that he valued. Anyway, why do you think that Augusta and Jung were wrong?.
    Let's focus on Jung. See below.

    I think that extraversion is focused outside in tangible and objective reality while introversion is focused inwards primarily,in how the external things affect the individual in several ways (in own feelings, inner world, sensations, etc).
    External vs. internal is also problematic. For example, Ni provides internal (i.e. inner world) information. Te uses it and makes a judgement. (N.B. a judging function is "blind" ... it doesn't provide/produce any information). In what sense is Te about the outer world here?

    About the LII question, I think is because the nature of elements, being Te bussiness or pragmatic logic, while Ti is system or structural logic, which is needed in maths. Actually most of the Ti dom I know are good in maths while Te are not very good at it and don't care about it because they don't see a practical daily use for it.
    Yes, I agree with you ... Ti (or actually Ti-), structural logic, is the most important function in math... hence, mathematicians are usually LII. But Jung claims that any information in math textbooks is about Extroverted Thinking. That doesn't make any sense! Furthermore, if objective vs. subjective is true, then Te must include structural logic as well. But we don't see any obvious structural logic in LIE and LSE. We see organizational skills, but that is about efficiency (not categorization / classification).

    Again, Jung: "The rationality of both types is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint."

  24. #24
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    483 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post



    External vs. internal is also problematic. For example, Ni provides internal (i.e. inner world) information. Te uses it and makes a judgement. (N.B. a judging function is "blind" ... it doesn't provide/produce any information). In what sense is Te about the outer world here?
    its not, and this is why intro/extroversion in terms of distinction within the scheme (i.e.: attitude in general) and the actual phenonology as a product of their placement is what gives rise to "internal/external"--in short: an extroverted function in the creative position is "internal" as a matter of how it is experienced, which is why gulenko just makes Ti the the "creative" function for ILI. to reiterate internal/external is an emergent phenomenon of not just functional attitude but placement

  25. #25
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,870
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Lol Ne sample 😂😂😂

  26. #26
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by photon View Post
    The way I see it the IEs are different ways of perceiving then processing a certain type of information. The functions don't need to work together in a pattern to recognise the object? For example:

    Money is a means of enrichment.
    Money is stamped paper notes of certain value.

    The first statement is Se, the second is Te. They are both different ways of a perceiving the object. This is relevant to your example of the car as well.
    I am not claiming that the functions must work in a pattern to recognize the object. Si itself is about pattern recognition, and an object is a specific pattern.

    That doesn't make sense...Why not just use the actual definition of Si?
    Why do you think it doesn't make sense?

    What definition are you referring to?

    I was deliberately giving an example of Si (and unintentionally Te maybe), so indeed it's not SLE.
    My point is that SLI is indeed sensitive about those things you mentioned, and SLE is not. So it makes sense that Si actually is related to them.

    "Any sensor type will focus on the details of the car - the colour is red, it takes up a lot of space, surface looks shiny, textures etc. Si specifically would be the focus on comfort, how the seating feels for example. When you just the car seat's distance to the wheel, or you go in the car seat and feel your legs are too close/far from the pedals, you're using Si. "

    Identification? Why does it have to be about identifying objects?

    That seems correct, I don't disagree with that.
    Because we need at least one cognitive function that identifies objects. "Is this a poisonous plant or is it edible?"

    Objective is focusing on the information of the single object only, without being influenced by a personal attitude towards the object or it's relations. Hard to explain, but subjective functions in comparison focus on the relations between objects. Hence why Te is often about manufacturing, methods and procedures while Ti creates systems and classifications, perhaps like you are doing now.
    Okay, so you think Socionics object vs. field (i.e. relations between objects) is accurate.

    "Se: perception of the appearance and shape of an object
    (outward traits of objects: form, shape, strength, power, readiness, willpower, mobilization, the location of objects in space)

    Si: perception of the internal situation of an object
    (tangible connections between processes happening in one place and time: how events affect one's inner state; sensations, what one experiences physically)"

    One obvious problem here is that form and shape etc. are also sensations. They are visual sensations. EDIT: All sensations are equally subjective. (We don't know the true nature of reality ...which is a classic problem in philosophy).

    Why aren't Si and Ne the opposite? They're both irrational elements but it's sensing/intuition and objective/subjective which are opposites.
    If the usual descriptions of the functions (Jung, mbti, Aushra...) are accurate, then Si and Ne are opposite. But I don't think those descriptions are accurate.
    Last edited by Petter; 06-20-2018 at 04:35 AM.

  27. #27
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    short: an extroverted function in the creative position is "internal" as a matter of how it is experienced
    Can you explain this part a bit further?

  28. #28
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    483 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Te in the creative position by model A in model G is considered to be your internal monologue in the form of Ti. This is why LIE is so positive because their internal monologue is basically positive intuition of opportunities, and EIE is so negative

  29. #29
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    Te in the creative position by model A in model G is considered to be your internal monologue in the form of Ti. This is why LIE is so positive because their internal monologue is basically positive intuition of opportunities, and EIE is so negative
    I am skeptical of model G. Internal monologue? Ni and Ti? I don't think the functions work in isolation like that.

    -----

    I: In what sense is Te about the outer world here?

    You: its not...

    Good, we agree... However, this is the usual viewpoint:

    Naomi Quenk

    "A second, or auxiliary, function complements the dominant function in two ways. First, the auxiliary function is always from the other pair of functions—that is, if the dominant function is a judging function, then the auxiliary function will be the preferred perceiving function; if the dominant function is a perceiving function, then the auxiliary function will be the preferred judging function. Second, the auxiliary function will tend to operate primarily in the less-preferred attitude—either Extraversion or Introversion. Thus, if the dominant function is extraverted, then the auxiliary function will be introverted; if the dominant function is introverted, then the auxiliary function will be extraverted.

    So, if your dominant function is Extraverted Thinking, your auxiliary function will be either Introverted Sensing or Introverted Intuition, whichever function you prefer. If your auxiliary preference is Introverted Intuition, the information you gather is likely to emphasize internal ideas, hypotheses, and theories.

    Your dominant Extraverted Thinking judgment will focus on that kind of internal information in order to create models and systems and ways to implement them in the world. Because your dominant, driving function, Extraverted Thinking, attracts you to accomplishing things in the world, implementing your ideas will be more appealing to you than the ideas themselves."


    "Naomi L. Quenk, PhD, is a clinical psychologist in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She has been writing about and conducting workshops on various aspects of the MBTI nationally and internationally for many years and is actively involved in research, theory, and applications of the instrument. She is a past president of the Association for Psychological Type (APT), former Director of Training for the APT MBTI Training Program, and a member of the Board of Directors of the MBTI Trust, Inc. Dr. Quenk is the author or coauthor of many MBTI computer reports, guides, and other MBTI support materials."

  30. #30
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    this is why to say Si or Se doesn't see the car is misguided, because they both see the car, because that the car is there is that irreducible part of sensing that both attitudes share (assuming up front that they sense it at all)
    I actually don't think Se senses it. Se and Ne are about something entirely different. But still, as you mentioned, the car is there. How is that possible? One solution is that the so-called unconscious functions are semi-conscious instead. And the Vital/semi-conscious functions run in parallel with the Mental functions, so you always get an image (of the car). Another solution is related to my Model D, which has Si+ and Si-. So you always have a conscious Si.

  31. #31
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    First of all, there are 16 distinctly different personalities, i.e. types. That's a fact. Furthermore, SEE and SLE are similar, and LSE and LIE are similar etc. So it is very likely that we have 8 cognitive functions and 4 blocks. (... or 16 functions and 8 blocks in Model B, Model D etc.)

    Ti and Se must complement each other. I think Ti evaluates an object's position in space, and Se tracks that object.

    Si and Te must also complement each other. I think Si is about identification of an object, and Te determines whether it is identified or not.

  32. #32
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    1,283
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    So basically what you're saying is that intuitives have defective senses...
    New Discord server for Socionics and everything else:

    https://discord.gg/XWZCgqN

  33. #33
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,870
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    So basically what you're saying is that intuitives have defective senses...
    Yes that's really a lame stereotype

  34. #34
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    So basically what you're saying is that intuitives have defective senses...
    How do you come to that conclusion?

  35. #35
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S...l_subjectivity

    "Ontological subjectivity

    Searle has argued that critics like Daniel Dennett, who (he claims) insist that discussing subjectivity is unscientific because science presupposes objectivity, are making a category error. Perhaps the goal of science is to establish and validate statements which are epistemically objective, (i.e., whose truth can be discovered and evaluated by any interested party), but are not necessarily ontologically objective.

    Searle calls any value judgment epistemically subjective. Thus, "McKinley is prettier than Everest" is "epistemically subjective", whereas "McKinley is higher than Everest" is "epistemically objective." In other words, the latter statement is evaluable (in fact, falsifiable) by an understood ('background') criterion for mountain height, like 'the summit is so many meters above sea level'. No such criteria exist for prettiness.

    Beyond this distinction, Searle thinks there are certain phenomena (including all conscious experiences) that are ontologically subjective, i.e. can only exist as subjective experience. For example, although it might be subjective or objective in the epistemic sense, a doctor's note that a patient suffers from back pain is an ontologically objective claim: it counts as a medical diagnosis only because the existence of back pain is "an objective fact of medical science". The pain itself, however, is ontologically subjective: it is only experienced by the person having it.

    Searle goes on to affirm that "where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality". His view that the epistemic and ontological senses of objective/subjective are cleanly separable is crucial to his self-proclaimed biological naturalism."

    -----

    Jung's objective/subjective is epistemic. But I think Socionics objective/subjective is ontological.

    "Objects: Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)
    Fields: Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject"

    'Both of these mechanisms are necessary for every person’s psyche. A. Augustinavichuite writes: “The necessary condition for the functioning of any organism is the double bond with the world around… For the brain functioning as an information metabolism device it should be provided for with signals both from outside and the organism itself" '

  36. #36
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    483 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I would agree with that but add that I think you can interpret socionics as epistemic or ontological, but very few people do so, most gloss over this step, indeed are ignorant that they're even making it or that such a step exists, in much the same way dennett seems to, but I think an ontological socionics actually accounts for this as being a kind a kind of step often taken by static thinking types not as a determinism but as a matter of personality. in essence they want to start from the most basic and common root possible and ground everything in that, they call this scientific and want to bring absolutely everything into the fold and if it cannot be brought in they exclude it as being essentially "unknowable" (non scienter) and inasmuch as that is the case "unutterable" and inasmuch as that is the case "beyond the limits of their mind" (the limits of my language are the limits of my mind) and inasmuch as that is the case "not real" and then you see how this is inherently a product of subjectivity once again. in other words, it is a perspective that in the last analysis begins and ends as the product of an individual mind, i.e.: a subject: it simply wishes to appropriate to itself a Godlike encompassing of the universe to itself via the collective endeavor called science, which religion calls the tower of babel. it seems to me the wisdom of Jung is that the project is not wholly worthless or sinful as the religious interpretation makes it out to be, but it is only one half of what there is
    Last edited by Bertrand; 06-22-2018 at 03:57 PM.

  37. #37
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,815
    Mentioned
    279 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    OP is incorrect. Si is more fine detail-oriented sensorically than Se; although it does passively take in wholes too, this is more associated with extroverted external sensoric perception in Socionics. Jung is dead, Socionics is alive.

    Nice try however. The Ni superimposing one has something to it IMO, as they cannot see the objective whole properly with their imaginary bullshit in the way blocking it.

  38. #38
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    483 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think details can be either Si or Se, its a common misconception they are the domain of one or the other. Details are part of sensing in general, whether the person focuses on the subjective or objective aspects of a thing can lead them into examining details or not. Si can be very much about ignoring details, seeing things as a forest rather than trees. you see this form of Si in art often such as impressionism. meanwhile realism seems to want to import as much as possible "what is there" in the Se sense, and can be highly detailed, because it is of course necessary in light of the goal. meanwhile hyperealism takes it a step further and is more into the Si realm again. Se in conveying force can omit details in terms of accuracy of "what is there" in order to convey kinetics which is also "really there", to the extent it does so faithfully to the object as part of the scene

  39. #39
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,815
    Mentioned
    279 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    Se in conveying force can omit details in terms of accuracy of "what is there" in order to convey kinetics which is also "really there", to the extent it does so faithfully to the object as part of the scene
    I agree that Se can drown out nuance, but I don’t think this explanation you made behind it is a thing.

  40. #40
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    OP is incorrect. Si is more fine detail-oriented sensorically than Se; although it does passively take in wholes too, this is more associated with extroverted external sensoric perception in Socionics. Jung is dead, Socionics is alive.
    SLI is much more focused on fine details than SLE. But is that because Si and Se perceive details differently, or because SLI's Si is a Mental function and SLE's Si is a Vital function? I think the latter is accurate. It is not as if the Vital functions are inactive and detached from the Mental functions. Instead, they must complement each other. But I don't see how Socionics Se ("force") complements Socionics Si.

    Socionics

    Se: strength, power, will, effect, desires, tactics, appearance, weight, form, colour, beauty, territory, realization, to defend, to reach

    Si: comfort, coziness, health, delight, quality, practice, state of health, harmony, “here and now”, aesthetics, convenience, pleasant, nuances
    Last edited by Petter; 06-23-2018 at 05:44 AM.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •