Subtype and process/result dichotomy

[The Reality Denialist]

Are we talking about reality or the hypothetical theory?

Obviously all dichotomies are crude binary discretizations. So I guess it can go either way as per sample called a person. Based on the theory I think movements could occur primarily in rings as in cognition but manifestation in eyes of others it might look like going towards mirror etc.

[Singu]

Are we talking about reality or the hypothetical theory?

And what exactly is "the reality"? You'll notice that it's all an interpretation.

This is why "typing" doesn't work, because they all expect to have the "reality" by say, observation, and say "this is the reality! Anyone who disagrees is an idiot...", but then even that observation is a theory or an interpretation.

[Dalek Caan]

I'm not convinced this dichotomy makes much sense to begin with, frankly. It seems to be the most arbitrary of all the dichotomies. It doesn't correlate with anything in particular function-wise. Is there even an explanation on why it's assigned the way it is? Or is it just what somebody thought made sense based on observation? There's no epistemological explanation on wikisocion either.

And what exactly is "the reality"? You'll notice that it's all an interpretation.

This is why "typing" doesn't work, because they all expect to have the "reality" by say, observation, and say "this is the reality! Anyone who disagrees is an idiot...", but then even that observation is a theory or an interpretation.

First, who is "anyone"?
Second, so what? Maybe there isn't an absolute reality and viewing it through archetypal patterns (even if they change over time) might be a good way to understand and deal with 'reality'. And maybe to you that's 'illogical', but why does that bother you so much? I'd really like to know that answer, but I doubt you even know yourself.

[Singu]

First, who is "anyone"?
Second, so what? Maybe there isn't an absolute reality and viewing it through archetypal patterns (even if they change over time) might be a good way to understand and deal with 'reality'. And maybe to you that's 'illogical', but why does that bother you so much? I'd really like to know that answer, but I doubt you even know yourself.

There are some people who claim to have the "access" to pure and true reality, via say, observation or intuition, and they push that view onto everybody else. And that is all the wrong with the world like authoritarianism.

[kopyk]

There are some people who claim to have the "access" to pure and true reality, via say, observation or intuition, and they push that view onto everybody else. And that is all the wrong with the world like authoritarianism.

https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl...elativism.html

[Singu]

https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl...elativism.html

Well it's actually more of this:

https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl...kepticism.html

But a necessary part of science is that every claim it makes is open to doubt. People used to believe that the earth was flat. We believe it is round. Science gives us some good reasons to think so, but it is possible that another theory will come along and show that the earth is a four-dimensional hypersphere instead of a round ball. The case is never closed on any issue, doubt is always possible, and final knowledge is forever out of our grasp. This view will probably upset people who believe in "an absolute truth" and people who believe "there is no absolute truth."

However I wouldn't say that things are "probably" true, because things are either true or it isn't. Reality isn't probable. We have our interpretations of reality, which is going to be 100% wrong, but may still contain a grain of truth and be an approximation of truth.

--

As for the mysteries and the confusions surrounding Reinin dichotomies, well the dichotomies don't change the initial classification system of Socionics via observation, it just attempts to justify the classification further by giving it more details. But the details are completely arbitrary.

[ooo]

I'm not convinced this dichotomy makes much sense to begin with, frankly. It seems to be the most arbitrary of all the dichotomies. It doesn't correlate with anything in particular function-wise. Is there even an explanation on why it's assigned the way it is? Or is it just what somebody thought made sense based on observation? There's no epistemological explanation on wikisocion either.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JungianTypo...ult_dichotomy/

https://www.reddit.com/r/JungianTypo...kingdeclaring/

[Dalek Caan]

There are some people who claim to have the "access" to pure and true reality, via say, observation or intuition, and they push that view onto everybody else. And that is all the wrong with the world like authoritarianism.

Well...I think it's more complicated than that most of the time, but fair enough. I'm actually a little surprised at your honesty. It's not how these questions typically seem to go on here. I was expecting some kind of verbal fight.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JungianTypo...ult_dichotomy/

https://www.reddit.com/r/JungianTypo...kingdeclaring/

Okay, that's interesting and pretty clever to notice something like that, even if it does seem a little hyper-logical. I'm not sure I understand this very well then, but that poster also says this

First to understand the significance of this dichotomy you must understand that Socionics, unlike most Western approaches to typology, understands information in both Static and Dynamic terms. In western typology if we ask "What kind of information is this?" the answer is Ti, Te, Se etc. In Socionics instead we would describe the information as Ti -> Ne or Se -> Fe, for example. As information is seen as a vector, direction, not just the functions involved, becomes very important. Ne - > Ti is not the same thing as Ti -> Ne. The Process/Result dichotomy describes the direction of information flow between the functions.

@Disturbed
So I guess the answer is, at least in terms of how it's defined, is no?
And as far as asking/declaring goes, ignoring whether I think it makes much sense or not, don't Mirror's share the same asking/declaring dichotomy? So why would it change when theoretically you'd be becoming more of your mirror anyway?

[ooo]

@Disturbed
So I guess the answer is, at least in terms of how it's defined, is no?
And as far as asking/declaring goes, ignoring whether I think it makes much sense or not, don't Mirror's share the same asking/declaring dichotomy? So why would it change when theoretically you'd be becoming more of your mirror anyway?

subtype modifies the content of the functional stacking, so the answer would be yes. process/result are dependent on this order, so the answer should be yes.

[Disturbed]

subtype modifies the content of the functional stacking, so the answer would be yes. process/result are dependent on this order, so the answer should be yes.

It seems to me from what I've observed and know and how I understand things that LSE-Te, LIE-Te, and ILE-Ne are result, while LSE-Si, ILE-Ti, SLE-Ti, LSI-Se, ESI-Se, EIE-Ni, and IEI-Ni are process. Something I don't understand is... subtype changing the process/result dichotomy is seldom mentioned.