If

Ni equals I am object in the future.
Ne equals I am subject in the future
Si equals I am object at the moment
Se equals I am subject at the moment
Te equals Object-of-thought is subject and acts in clearly defined way [quality].
Fe equals Object-of-thought is subject and acts in not-clearly defined way [quality].
Ti equals Object-of-thought is object and can act in clearly defined ways [quality].
Fi equals Object-of-thoughts is object and can act in not-clearly defined ways [quality].

and

Model A = true

then

Ti => Fi => Se => Ne => !Te => !Fe => !Si => !Ni
= the division of conscious vs. subconscious

and

If

Attribute + -
X1 Intuition Sensing
X2 Logic Ethics
X3 Statics Dynamics
X4 Extroversion Introversion

and

X5 = X1*X2 Democracy Aristocracy (alpha + gamma) (beta+delta)
X6 = X1*X3 Judiciousness Resoluteness (alpha+delta) (beta+gamma)
X7 = X2*X3 Cheerfulness Gravity (alpha+beta) (gamma+delta)
X-7 = X1*X4 Carefree Calculating (EN + IS) (ES + IN)
X-6 = X2*X4 Compliance Obstinacy (ET + IF) (EF + IT)
X-5 = X3*X4 Irationality Rationality J / P
X-4 = X1*X2*X3 Taciturn Narrative (ENTP, INTJ, ESFP, ISFJ, ENFJ, INFP, ESTJ, ISTP) (ESTP, ISTJ, ENFP, INFJ, ENTJ, ENTP, ISFP, ESFJ) (rings of benefaction) (restrained action) (fanatical action)
X-3 = X1*X2*X4 Positivism Negativism (ENT, ESF, INF, IST) (ISF, INT, EST, ENF)
X-2 = X1*X3*X4 Tactics Strategy (NP+SJ) (NJ+SP)
X-1 = X2*X3*X4 Construct-creating, Emotion-creating (STP, NTP, NFJ, SFJ) (NTJ, STJ, SFP, NFP)
X0 = X1*X2*X3*X4 Process (the left ring) Result (the right ring) (rings of supervision)

and

Model A = true

then

Democracy equals things that happen in the future are clearly defined and things that happen now are not-clearly-defined.
Aristocracy equals things that happen now are clearly defined and things that happen in the future are not-clearly-defined.

Judiciousness equals I am object at the moment but subject in the future.
Resoluteness equals I am subject at the moment but object in the future.

Cheerfulness equals things can act in clearly defined ways but act in non-clearly defined ways.
Gravity equals things can act in non-clearly defined ways but act in clearly defined ways.

Carefree equals I am object now or my action is defined by how I can act now or I am subject in the future or the object-of-thought acts in the future.
Calculating equals I am subject now or my action is defined by how object-of-thought acts now or I am object in the future or the object-of-thought can-act in the future.

Compliance equals object-of-thought acts in clearly defined way or object-of-thought can act in non-clearly defined way or my reaction causes object-of-thought to act in not-clearly-defined way or my action causes object-of-thought to have capability to act in clearly defined way.
Obstinacy equals object-of-thought acts in non-clearly-defined way or object-of-thought can act in clearly defined way or my reaction causes object-of-thought to act in clearly-defined way or my action causes object-of-thought to have capability to act in not-clearly defined way.

Irrationality equals I define object-of-thought.
Rationality equals object of thought defines me.

Taciturn equals my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a clearly defined way (ENTP)
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future (INTJ)
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a non-clearly-defined way (ESFP)
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now (ISFJ)
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react in the future (ENFJ)
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (INFP)
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way (ISTP)
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react now (ESTJ)

Narrative equals
my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a clearly defined way (ESTP)
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now (ISTJ)
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a non-clearly-defined way (ENFP)
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future (INFJ)
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react now (ESFJ)
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (ISFP)
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way (INTP)
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react in the future (ENTJ)

Positivism equals my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a clearly defined way (ENTP)
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react in the future (ENTJ)
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react now (ESFJ)
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a non-clearly-defined way (ESFP)
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future (INFJ)
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (INFP)
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way (ISTP)
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now (ISTJ)

Negativism equals my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a clearly defined way (ESTP)
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react now (ESTJ)
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a non-clearly-defined way (ENFP)
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react in the future (ENFJ)
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way (INTP)
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future (INTJ)
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (ISFP)
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now (ISFJ)

Tactics equals I define object-of-thought in the future or am defined by object-of-thought now.
Strategy equals I define object-of-thought now or am defined by object-of-thought in the future.

Construct-creating equals I define object-of-thought in a clearly defined way or non-clearly defined action of object of thought defines me.
Emotion-creating equals clearly-defined action of object-of-thought defines me or I define object-of-thought in a non-clearly defined way.

Process equals my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a clearly defined way
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a non-clearly-defined way
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react in the future
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react now
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way





Result equals my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a clearly defined way
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a non-clearly-defined way
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react now
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react in the future

Now to understand what this is all about, please note how one of the dogmas of classical socionics "type does not change" is actually equal to the Ti function. The classical way of understanding socionics depends on this dogma but the dogma is not proved it is simply found useful. Now Ti is not the only available paradigm and so this is all about Te socionics. What if the paradigm is 'type changes'?

First of all, this alteration of paradigm is necessary for Te-Ni types to be able to use socionics creatively. Second, it explains all the errors of personality typing. Thus, it is useful to understand this paradigm as well.

Socionics is fundamentally based on functions but classical socionics ignores the meaning of the functions, concentrating on their static results.

Now by using the model above, we will be able to analyse any single action as 'personality type' according to the role the person is using when accomplishing the act.

Please note that this is also the fundamental explanation behind the 'many subtypes' theory.

So classical socionics describes how a person is used to act. Te socionics describes how a person is acting at any given moment.

In Te socionics the person goes through momentary changes between ideal archetypal states and is in constant fluctuation. Thus more information can be found about the state of the subject as the tools are more powerful. At the same time it must be understood that Te does not define the object in the way classical socionics does. Thus Te socionics is not really psychology. It is more like mathematics, programming theory, theatre or business strategy.

Having fun yet?

................

Scarecrow said:

I can follow how you draw your conclusions but not these premises. I am intrigued by how some of the conclusions actually seem to pan out given a reality check, which adds weight to the validity of the premise.

How is extroversion related to subject and introverted related to object when it seems like it should be the opposite? Are you implying that extroversion, in associating itself with the object, becomes subjective in reference to the object, whereas introversion, in disassociating itself from the object, becomes objective in reference to it? That is the only thing I can think of.

..........................

Smilingeyes answered:

Yes. Let us go deeper into these.

We know that T and F share the same conceptual space and so do S and N. In some way T does not coexist with F nor S with N nor E with I.

Also the T/F space has has a correlation of change of I/E to the S/N space.

There is no Ti-Si thing for example. Thus any description of function has to explain these rules.

Now it is not obvious how for example Time is opposite of Possibility. Therefore we must go deeper.

Now begins the part that is open to speculation. The descriptions above, while they fit all knowledge we have at the moment are not what can be considered proven. I just know that they work and for the moment that's good enough for me. But I will explain how I found them.

I know from personal experience, from gulenko's sexual types and from the badly defined reinin dichotomies that the people classified as dynamics are reactive while the statics are active.

We also know that the S/N dimension somehow correlates to the decision of how to act and we know that T/F dimension somehow correlates to judgement of what is correct action.

With this knowledge I can equate Si to the conception that I am being forced to act, I am a victim, I am an object to the things that happen outside.

Please note that I am talking about subject and object only in the sense that the subject acts whereas the object is acted upon. This has nothing to do with objective/subjective bias.

Now from here it is obvious how the S/N dimension unfolds.

Ni is reaction to things in the future.
Se is I act. This is in the sense that I decide of the action out of my own free will.
Ne is as with Ni the same as it's S counterpart except removed in the dimension of time.

Now begins the really difficult part.

Now the difference between F and T is what we commonly call subjective/objective but it would be mixed up with the subject/object difference and therefore I have substituted it with the more complicated but more easy to understand clearly defined or non-clearly defined quality.

Now if we compare this to the S/N dimension...

If Si equals I am object now. That means that something else is the subject. Thus T/Fe must be the subject. What is T/Fe? It is something that i excercise judgement about. It is the object of what I am thinking.

So

Te equals Object-of-thought is subject in clearly defined way
Fe equals Object-of-thought is subject in non-clearly defined way

Now we simply take the opposite of these to understand what is Fi and Ti.
Thus

Ti must equal Object-of-thought is object and has clearly defined quality x.
Fi must equal Object-of-thought is subject and has clearly non-defined quality x.

Obviously one can replace the word quality with 'capability' or 'can-act-in-a-way'.

Thus by making an assumption about what is Si we know what the meaning of all the other functions must be.

...

Ladadidam. Today... let's perform another magic trick.
I'll prove how the long distance and short distance forms of functions are created!

From what we know previously, we shall accept that what happens in the future is more uncertain than what happens now and things that have undefined quality are more uncertain than things with defined quality.

Thus...

TeNi+ = outside force -> increased knowledge of the future
NiTe- = understanding of the future -> less certain outside action
FeNi- = uncertain outside force -> less knowledge of the future
NiFe+ = understanding of the future -> more uncertain outside action

FeSi- = uncertain outside force -> more certain understanding of the moment
SiFe+ = certain action -> less uncertainty of outside action
TeSi- = outside force -> less certain understanding of the moment
SiTe+ = action -> more certain outside force

TiNe+ = Certain capability -> more uncertain result in the future
NeTi- = Result in the future -> Less certain capability
FiNe- = Uncertain capability -> less certain result in the future
NeFi+ = Result in the future -> more uncertain capability

TiSe- = Certain capability -> less certain action
SeTi+ = action -> more certain capability
FiSe+ = uncertain capability -> more certain action
SeFi- = action -> less uncertain capability
#

Insert maniac laughter here.
...........

fairgeek said:

The entire lecture was irrational.

Quote:
Irrationality equals I define object-of-thought.
Rationality equals object of thought defines me.


You defined the objects of thought, therefore it is irrational.

I'm just joking around. Don't take it seriously. Your statements actually do make some sense. Smile

Quote:
We know that T and F share the same conceptual space and so do S and N. In some way T does not coexist with F nor S with N nor E with I.


So you imply that each function exists independently of the other functions but is influenced by the other functions?

Quote:
Ti must equal Object-of-thought is object and has clearly defined quality x.
Fi must equal Object-of-thought is subject and has clearly non-defined quality x.


If the object of thought which is the subject has a clearly defined quality, and yet is not an object - perhaps a concept, such as logic...

IF Logic is subject AND Logic does not have a clearly defined quality (as it is subjective). Thinking about logic would be an Fi function.

However, because thinking about logic would then be associated with Fi... Thinking would be a defined quality of Fi.

So if logic was the object of thought, it would have the clearly defined quality of being a quality of Fi. Since something that is an object of thought & has a clearly defined quality is Ti, both logic and Fi would be Ti. Thus nullifying the idea that Ti & Fi could not co-exist.

Yea, I know that was total BS, but I was trying to make a point -
Not all objective statements dealing with objects of thought would be Ti, and not all subjective statements dealing with objects of thought would be Fi. Unless you can provide a counter argument proving independent existence, which shouldn't be too difficult since I based my argument off of an irrational statement.

...................
Scarecrow said:



Smilingeyes wrote:

I know from personal experience, from gulenko's sexual types and from the badly defined reinin dichotomies that the people classified as dynamics are reactive while the statics are active.


Would you care to elaborate?

BTW it seems perhaps you don't need to use the reinin dichotomies since you associate action and reaction soley with perception. You could just say extroverted perceivers are active and introverted perceivers are reactive. Although there could be a case to be made (perhaps you have) for "action of object of thought" (what you call extroverted judgement) to be inherintly reactive since the explication of thought is defined by the thought itself, whereas "capabilities of object of thought" (introverted judgement) gives the thought "room to play" and thus agency. If this is the case then both introverted perception and extroverted judgement become "reactive". Introverted perception reacts to perception and extroverted judgement "plays itself out." This implies that introverted judgment is associated with "value creation", wherease extroverted judgement is simply a "value judgement".

Smilingeyes wrote:

Ni equals I am object in the future.
Ne equals I am subject in the future
Si equals I am object at the moment
Se equals I am subject at the moment
Te equals Object-of-thought is subject and acts in clearly defined way [quality].
Fe equals Object-of-thought is subject and acts in not-clearly defined way [quality].
Ti equals Object-of-thought is object and can act in clearly defined ways [quality].
Fi equals Object-of-thoughts is object and can act in not-clearly defined ways [quality].


Your phraseology makes it seem here that the perceptive functions relate more closely to the "ghost in the machine" ("I" as subject of sentence vs. "Object-of-thoughts" as subject of sentence.) Perhaps this should be rephrased.

See:

http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/po...inds_ghost.htm

Overall though a good job of exorcism.

Here's a rundown of primary causal agents, tell me if you agree:

extroverted perceivers - their actions or impulses (blind)
introverted perceivers - their perception (hypnotized)
extroverted judgers - thought explication (fated?)
introverted judgers - thought implication (the only free type? which imlies our only freedom is value creation?)

How does an accepting first function and a producing second function fit in with reaction vs action? It doesn't seem to on its face.

Neitszche claims somewhere that the difference between a cause and an effect is simply that the cause has more power. It's like a billiard ball colliding with a ping-pong ball. The impact changes both their tragectories, but it would be more accurate to say the billiard ball "caused" the ping-pong ball to be displaced. Since the power differential is not so great between elements of the psyche it would be interesting to explore the reverse causalities of the normal flow of information metabolism as well.

................
Smilex answered to fairgeek


fairgeek wrote:
You defined the objects of thought, therefore it is irrational.


I didn't define object-of-thought. Object-of-thought is name of a variable in an equation.

fairgeek wrote:
I'm just joking around. Don't take it seriously. Your statements actually do make some sense. Smile

Ha ha, only serious Wink

fairgeek wrote:
So you imply that each function exists independently of the other functions but is influenced by the other functions?

That's one way to say it, thought not the words I privately use in my mind.


fairgeek wrote:
If the object of thought which is the subject has a clearly defined quality, and yet is not an object - perhaps a concept, such as logic...


I presume you are aware that using the word object in this thread when referring to a concrete item is just asking for misinterpretations...
Also... It is a point of endless argument whether logic is something that has clearly defined qualities.

fairgeek wrote:
IF Logic is subject AND Logic does not have a clearly defined quality (as it is subjective). Thinking about logic would be an Fi function.

In your first sentence you postulate that object-of-thought(logic) is subject. Thinking about subject with undefined quality is Fe.

fairgeek wrote:
However, because thinking about logic would then be associated with Fi... Thinking would be a defined quality of Fi.

Thinking as a word can be used about all the functions in this thread. While thinking about subject of undefined quality is Fe, Thinking about object with defined quality is Ti. Ok?

fairgeek wrote:
So if logic was the object of thought, it would have the clearly defined quality of being a quality of Fi. Since something that is an object of thought & has a clearly defined quality is Ti, both logic and Fi would be Ti. Thus nullifying the idea that Ti & Fi could not co-exist.


Deciding variables in an equation is act of Ti. That does not transform the variable itself into Ti. What you seem to be saying is equal to saying that not having clearly defined quality is a clearly defined quality. Sure. You can use Ti to understand Fi and Fi to understand Ti. They have interaction and understanding that interaction is what this is all about.

fairgeek wrote:
Yea, I know that was total BS, but I was trying to make a point -

The point was fair.

-Smilex
................

Smilex answers to scarecrow:

quote:
Would you care to elaborate?


Gulenko: Dynamic = servant or victim/ Static = aggressor or unbound child
Reinin: Dynamic = importance given to change / Static = importance given to the not-changing
Lev Kamensky: Dynamic = much aroused by environmental cues / static = little aroused by environmental cues
Own experience: I am constantly looking around me for rules that bind me so that I would not have to fight against those rules. Thus I am reacting to outside pressure.

Scarecrow wrote:

BTW it seems perhaps

Scarecrow wrote:
See:
http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/po...inds_ghost.htm

Ah, yes, but while they are proposing that the ghost-in-the-machine has no substance, and therefore is not a Ti/Te concept, it can still referred to with Fi/Fe Smile But yes, making any statements about the inner workings of the perception function are irrelevant for the model.

Smilex wrote:
my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (ISFP)
[quote="Scarecrow"]
Here the chain of causation goes: perception -> reaction to perception -> feeling. Perception seems to have agency. (unless you would like explain more clearly exactly what the passive type is reacting to?)

while here:

Quote:
my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a non-clearly-defined way (ESFP)

Scarecrow wrote:

perception seems to be left out of the equation. The "action" has agency, but without any outside input.


This is an important point you bring up. It is possible that action and reaction are not the best possible terms for the relation. Ascribing names is the domain of Ti people and I am quite open to changing any names or words within this theory for they are not important to the relations that this theory is about. But anyway. I've been intending to go deeper into this...

Now let's compare all the SFs. Both ESFP and ESFJ define themselves through outside action. The first sees his own action and is thus subject, the latter sees the action of others and is thus object.
ISFJ and ISFP define themselves independent of outside action. ISFJ lacks concept of action of others to relate to and is thus the subject. ISFP defines oneself but lacks concept of own action and thus to relate to ie. has no initiative and thus all his actions are reactions.

Scarecrow wrote:

Perhaps you meant to say:
my action creates a perception that defines the capability of object-of-thought now in a non-clearly-defined way.
This seems to make more sense, perception acting on judgment rather than the action itself.

This is another good way to put the same thing. If people like your way of putting it more, I'm willing to adopt it. There is no contradiction between the two suggested forms for the definition.

Scarecrow wrote:
Here's a rundown of primary causal agents, tell me if you agree:
extroverted perceivers - their actions or impulses (blind)
introverted perceivers - their perception (hypnotized)
extroverted judgers - thought explication (fated?)
introverted judgers - thought implication (the only free type? which imlies our only freedom is value creation?)

Very nice. Very very nice.

Thank you, my friend. It was a pleasure to hear from you, as always...

...


TeNi+ = outside force -> increased knowledge of the future
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react in the future (ENTJ)

Here, it is clear that Te is a limiting force that gives certain information about what kind of activity is expected in the environment through which we can gain positive results of understanding. Ni+. What kind of qualities do we expect to be associated with Ni+?

Consistency, a prediction, change of a situation in time, estimation of opportuneness and urgency of the actions of present moment, the skill to govern its internal time.
The model explains the results gained by statistical testing.

NiTe- = understanding of the future -> less certain outside action
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way (INTP)

Here, perception of future gives understanding and perspective that the current outside reaction will not last and will not necessarily have the most obvious results. Understanding increases complexity and variety of possible forecasts meaning that outside action seems less likely to have profitable results. Te- Again, What kind of qualities do we expect to be associated with Te-?
Uselessness, unprofitableness, deterioration, charges, expenditure, risk, the algorithm of general calculations, innovation in the systematization of processes.
The model explains the results gained by statistical testing.


FeNi- = uncertain outside force -> less knowledge of the future
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react in the future (ENFJ)

Here, realisation, that there is outside forces that are unknowledgeable increases understanding that the future can not be known, thus creating a need to be prepared for many things. Ni-. Again, What kind of qualities do we expect to be associated with Ni-?

Error check, avoiding of danger, uneasiness, vague anxiety, skill to be insured against troubles, the skill to govern the time of other people, to see prospects on the basis of the calculation of errors - tendency toward the predictions.
The model explains the results gained by statistical testing.

NiFe+ = understanding of the future -> more uncertain outside action
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (INFP)

Here, understanding of long-term events creates understanding of the possibilities of outside action, creating more freedom to choose personal reaction to the outside world and thus increases personal power to affect one's surroundings. Fe+ Again, What kind of qualities do we expect to be associated with Fe+?

personal emotions, its mood, its passion, personal artistic taste and artistic taste of one concrete actor, its nervousness, power engineering its the nearest environment, the open expression of its emotions, the demonstration of its feelings

The model explains the results gained by statistical testing.


FeSi+ = uncertain outside force -> less certain understanding of the moment (sorry, this was reversed in original message)
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react now (ESFJ)

As the outside conditions are uncertain at the moment, there are less forces that affect my decision of reaction, thus current reaction can be chosen more freely. Si+ Again, What kind of qualities do we expect to be associated with Si+?

Pleasant sensations, comfort, convenience, harmony, beauty, appeal, rest, health, slackness

The model explains the results gained by statistical testing.

SiFe- = certain action -> less uncertainty of outside action (sorry, this was reversed in original message)
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (ISFP)

As the person reacts to outside forces at the moment, he defines the outside action more clearly by his input. Thus the qualities of the outside action become less uncertain. Fe-
Again, What kind of qualities do we expect to be associated with Fe-?

sensitiveness, drops in the moods, fervency, fanaticism on a global scale, the open expression of its emotions, the demonstration of its feelings the forcing of situation, tendency toward the oratorical skill and intrigues.

The model explains the results gained by statistical testing.

TeSi- = outside force -> less certain understanding of the moment
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react now (ESTJ)

Outside force affects me in a clear way thus giving me less freedom of choosing my own current reaction. Si-
Again, What kind of qualities do we expect to be associated with Si-?

Unpleasant sensations, discomfort, inconvenience, disharmony, suffering, pain, the ability to feel interaction of the physical properties of objects in the space, ergonomics of space, topographical design, tendency toward the tactile contact as the method of the collection of information about the physical properties of objects.

The model explains the results gained by statistical testing.

SiTe+ = action -> more certain outside force
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way (ISTP)

My current reaction has certain consequences of outside action. Thus outside action is certain Te+ Again, What kind of qualities do we expect to be associated with Te+ ?

Advantage, benefit, profitability, putting in order, a practicality, understanding the working qualities of objects, the ramification of the facts, which are concerned the concrete matters, optimality in the concrete realization of anything, advantage and benefit for itself.

The model explains the results gained by statistical testing.

I'll do the other half later...