Alpha NT vs Gamma NT

[krieger]

Hypothesis:

In the eyes of the Alpha quadra, a speculative statement contributes to progress, because it opens perspectives.

In the eyes of the Gamma quadra, a speculative statement detriments progress, because it causes confusion.

Thoughts?

(*edit* swapped 'fallacious' with 'speculative')

[Steve]

From my experience, I think there is some truth to that

[XoX]

Hypothesis:

In the eyes of the Alpha quadra, a speculative statement contributes to progress, because it opens perspectives.

In the eyes of the Gamma quadra, a speculative statement detriments progress, because it causes confusion.

Thoughts?

Might be true. And in a way both are right I guess it is not about whether one of the views is better than the other but about when to apply each principle.

[UDP]

Consider the roles of the quadras:

Ne + Ti for alpha, new ideas
Ni + Te for gamma, comparing against the past, what already is


Si + Fe the sensitivity / encouragement needed for growth
Fi + Se the ...... (?)

the loyalty and reality to base judgement on?



The way I am looking at things now, I see them as different groups/collections of psychological energy. Or funcitonal attitudes perhaps.

[Gilly]

Looks good to me.

[UDP]

(what would the quadra roles be for beta/delta?)

[Jonathan]

Hypothesis:

In the eyes of the Alpha quadra, a speculative statement contributes to progress, because it opens perspectives.

In the eyes of the Gamma quadra, a speculative statement detriments progress, because it causes confusion.

Thoughts?

(*edit* swapped 'fallacious' with 'speculative')

I don't think so. I'm not saying that there's no basis to your statement and other people's affirmation of it Socionics. I just think that there are some serious contradictions.

A number of Socionists have typed Socrates as ILI. Although on this forum that was disputed, one of the main reasons was that people here thought he might be LIE...so, still Gamma.

A number of Socionists have also typed the physicist Richard Feynman as LIE.

Surely, both of these people had unconventional approaches that stirred things up and would likely be regarded as speculative by others.

A number of other famous people often typed as Gamma also don't fit the hypothesis.

My experience also is that dominant N types, including ILI and IEI, love speculation, and that rational types are more likely to regard such "vague, unfounded, unformed" intuitions with disdain.

Of course, there are many views regarding who is who in these areas. Clearly, if your hypothesis is correct, I can't be Gamma.

[Gilly]

There are exceptions to every rule. The important thing is the general pattern or trend. Remember, that's all Socionics is: patterns and trends in behavior.

[Jonathan]

There are exceptions to every rule. The important thing is the general pattern or trend. Remember, that's all Socionics is: patterns and trends in behavior.

That true, but my obvservation that Ni types are highly interested in what may be regarded 'speculative' and that sometimes it's the LIIs who seem critical of those ideas concerns more than just a few exceptions.

Perhaps, though, the word 'speculative' needs to be clarified. It seems to me that from the vantage point of S types, all N ideas seem speculative. Furthermore, each person, if his/her idea is criticized, probably thinks that others just aren't tolerant of speculative ideas, whereas if that person hears another idea that he/she doesn't like, well, then that's just because it's a 'stupid' idea rather than 'speculative' one.

So, it seems to me, maybe Alpha and Gamma NTs are both speculative, but in different ways. Judging from behavior on the forum, it seems Alpha types are more inclined to come up with ideas that others consider to coming 'out of left field' so to speak. However, Gammas on the forum also offer their own speculative ideas; these may also be speculative and unconventional, but it's usually clearer that they're attempts at explaining something or at solving some definite problem. Nevertheless, their 'intuitions' may also be shot down by others as being too vague or theoretical. So, it's a matter of perspective.

[krieger]

You're probably right, Jonathan, there are some distict differences between the ways in which both groups speculate. How do you think we can put these differences into words?

[Jonathan]

You're probably right, Jonathan, there are some distict differences between the ways in which both groups speculate. How do you think we can put these differences into words?

Gamma NT speculation: There's this contradiction, problem, etc.; here's an idea. Would this solve the problem?
Alpha NT speculation: Here's my way of understanding things. What are the implications?

The speculative nature is based on perspective. Alpha seems speculative because the observer may not be aware of the system of thought the Alpha person has, so the idea seems to come from left field.

Gamma similarly seems speculative when the observer is unaware of what problem the Gamma person is trying to solve. However, it's usually easier to articulate the problem/solution cycle than to articulate the entire system of thought behind an Alpha idea.

Sometimes people of both types purposely conceal the origin of their ideas, to appear more creative to others, or because a person realizes that the idea has value beyond its original context.

Furthermore, people of both types probably engage in both kinds of thinking at various times.

[Phaedrus]

Gamma NT speculation: There's this contradiction, problem, etc.; here's an idea. Would this solve the problem?
Alpha NT speculation: Here's my way of understanding things. What are the implications?

Here you describe the differences in a way that is perfectly in line with how it is commonly explained in Socionics. Don't you identify with your own description of Gamma NTs? Isn't it obvious to you that you belong to the Gamma NT group if you have described the differences correctly here -- which you also have according to a correct understanding of Socionics?

[krieger]

For what it's worth, I'm ready to accept that both of you are bona-fide INTp's, though probably of different subtypes.

I think the thing that causes the greatest amount of confusion between the Alpha and the Gamma quadra, is that the Alpha quadra communicates to convey an indeterminate 'idea', whereas the Gamma quadra communicates to convey factually accurate and highly specific knowledge. This would explain the differences in outlook on type descriptions between members of the two camps.

[Phaedrus]

I think the thing that causes the greatest amount of confusion between the Alpha and the Gamma quadra, is that the Alpha quadra communicates to convey an indeterminate 'idea', whereas the Gamma quadra communicates to convey factually accurate and highly specific knowledge. This would explain the differences in outlook on type descriptions between members of the two camps.

You might be on to something, but I would very appreciate if you could elaborate further and perhaps describe one or two concrete examples. (By the way, do you agree with me that the urge for concrete, illustrating, and clarifying examples is an expression of and therefore more typical of Gamma than of Alpha?)

How do you see what you say here about communicating "an indeterminate 'idea'" in relation to the view that INTps (being dominants) often have a hard time explaining in exact words what they mean (because they are irrational types who "think in pictures" http://www.socionics.us/theory/rat_irr.shtml ), and therefore their speech is more "vague" and not as clearly logically structured as that of INTjs?

An INTp may try one approach to see if the message is understood and then another if the first attempt fails. Exact definitions are used as a tool to a better understanding, but the understanding itself is not based on exact definitions of words -- it is based on a more "holistic" "picture" of the situation, for example when an INTp (like me) is convinced that two different labels (words, terms, theories, frameworks ...) actually refer to the same thing (the same empirical phenomenon), even though the proponents of each theory, or the users of those two different labels, don't realize that they are in fact talking about the same thing but define it differently. (This, again, could be seen as an illustration of why INTps want examples more than abstract definitions. Examples are better suited to make the INTp "see the picture", that is, see the real meaning behind the words.)

[Jonathan]

Gamma NT speculation: There's this contradiction, problem, etc.; here's an idea. Would this solve the problem?
Alpha NT speculation: Here's my way of understanding things. What are the implications?

Here you describe the differences in a way that is perfectly in line with how it is commonly explained in Socionics. Don't you identify with your own description of Gamma NTs? Isn't it obvious to you that you belong to the Gamma NT group if you have described the differences correctly here -- which you also have according to a correct understanding of Socionics?

Yeah, I tend to think in a problem-solving way most of the time, although I've thought in both ways. There have been "F" periods when I wasn't thinking so much in a "problem-solving" paradigm. But generally, I use thinking to solve problems, and keep digging for better solutions.

[Jonathan]

For what it's worth, I'm ready to accept that both of you are bona-fide INTp's, though probably of different subtypes.

I think the thing that causes the greatest amount of confusion between the Alpha and the Gamma quadra, is that the Alpha quadra communicates to convey an indeterminate 'idea', whereas the Gamma quadra communicates to convey factually accurate and highly specific knowledge. This would explain the differences in outlook on type descriptions between members of the two camps.

Yeah, this seems a little paradoxical. Maybe it's subtype-related, or just plain situational.

I think it is quite true that ILIs tend to use to make their ideas seem more palatable to others (even when isn't the appropriate tool for the specific audience), and that they also use it to critique others.

Certainly around LIEs, ILIs will tend to do this.

Around other Ni types, especially around IEIs, they stop doing this and simply mention their hunches or ideas, since doesn't work that well in the IEI space.

BTW, labcoat, your posts generally seem quite clear and to-the-point; I don't see a lot of vague indeterminate ideas in your what you write.

Maybe Smilex/Tcaud are right that you're a Ti subtype.

Here's an interesting idea: Are accepting subtypes generally always more open/flexible, etc., than producing subtypes? That would seem paradoxical too, though.

[FDG]

Here's an interesting idea: Are accepting subtypes generally always more open/flexible, etc., than producing subtypes? That would seem paradoxical too, though.

Only when the first function is perceiving, IMHO !

[dreikin]

An interesting dichotomy (in which I fall into Gamma).

(and now to act in exactly the opposite manner...)
I wonder if there is a similar one for beta - delta?

EDIT:

I usually operate in both modes, though rarely do I use both significantly simultaneously. Usually what happens is I use one, pass the result to the other, then back to the first, etc. Kinda like pinball. In most cases, however, I start off in gamma-mode. Perhaps the same for alpha, except they start in alpha-mode?

To further expand upon this, the gamma-mode is usually entered into intentionally (consciously) and then the alpha-mode results usuallly come up spontaneously (unconsciously).

(and beta - delta should do the same thing with their dichotomy)

[Jonathan]

Here's an interesting idea: Are accepting subtypes generally always more open/flexible, etc., than producing subtypes? That would seem paradoxical too, though.

Only when the first function is perceiving, IMHO !

Yeah, I'd think so too. Tcaud made an argument somewhere for why it would be the case even if the first function were judging. The idea is that people who focus on the 2nd function have already taken the conclusions of the 1st function for granted, and therefore they're focusing on implementing on what they've already decided. People who focus on the 1st function (according to Tcaud) are more flexible because they spend more time considering and evaluating the output of their core function.

It's an interesting point-of-view, anyway.

[Adam Strange]

I went over to a Maker Works facility today to trade some knowledge. I’m Gamma LIE and the guy I met there is Alpha LII.

In my opinion, the entire Maker movement is Alpha. They are basically hobbyists who freely exchange ideas.

I wanted to control a 5-axis CNC machine and it turns out that they have several machines there, available to hobbyists for a ridiculously low fee, which are running Linux CNC. Which is free, of course. It was created by Alphas.

The LII wanted to build an EDM machine, and since I once designed them and know everything in the world about how to make one, we agreed to trade knowledge.

He showed me how to put together a CNC controller for probably less than $500 (when Siemens had quoted me $300,000 for the same thing yesterday), and I downloaded to him my knowledge and experience of how to build a world-class EDM machine for cheap. It’s easy if you know what and what not to do.

With that knowledge and that design, which had taken about fifteen years for me to discover and invent, my company had gotten a million dollar order from Kelsey-Hayes. I asked the LII, now that he could build this machine, what his end-game was? What was he going to do with it?

He looked at me and smiled. “It’s a cool thing to do.”