Hidden temperaments

[Smilingeyes]

Oh my god! You're killing socionics, then raping it and then killing it again! AND YOU'RE HAVING FUN DOING IT!

Carry on.

[FDG]

What you are suggesting is exactly what the current form of my crosstype theory explores; that is, seeing a function as intrinsically dependent on, or internal to, another function. For example, observing the traits of time, followed by observing the influence of the trait on the practical flow of time.

You mean it as a recursive algorithm, like Ni Te observes, then it passes the information to another process which is Te Ni, etc...

Wouldn't the number of cycles then reduce the information all the time;

also, wouldn't after the first cycle the information only be introverted so that calling it "Te" would actually be wrong

[tcaudilllg]

What you are suggesting is exactly what the current form of my crosstype theory explores; that is, seeing a function as intrinsically dependent on, or internal to, another function. For example, observing the traits of time, followed by observing the influence of the trait on the practical flow of time.

You mean it as a recursive algorithm, like Ni Te observes, then it passes the information to another process which is Te Ni, etc...

Wouldn't the number of cycles then reduce the information all the time;

also, wouldn't after the first cycle the information only be introverted so that calling it "Te" would actually be wrong

The nature of the information itself creates large quantities of new information. An immediate example of this thinking would be Einstein's own: Ni Te identifies the constant velocity of light, and Te Ni processes the consequences of the constant on the flow of time. (which are considerable due to the relationship of time to distance and velocity.) However this is followed by an expanded reality in which information is more expansive, not less. More possibilities are considered reasonable than were previously, which leads to new avenues of research. Of course, in Einstein's case we are only considering the personal knowledge-creative art/determination view of NiTe-TeNi. If we consider these as the product of the base function, then we would have the case of the physical speculator, who spends their days asking themselves what Einstein's equations mean for the universe, even time travel. Most of the people who are challenging the notion of light's constant velocity would seem to fall in this category. They perceive of Einstein's work not as a definite truth, but as a plausibility which lacks definition: something that may be, or may not be depending on the evidence found.


On second thought wait, I think I see what you are suggesting. No, there is no recursion. NiTe-TeNi is followed by FiSe-SeFi, so the function cycle continues without any loss of information incurred.

[XoX]

My focus has been on the conflicts which occur between the functions socionics has defined as being abstract, and the functions you and XoX are defining as being abstract. Key word being "abstract".

irregardless of your reasons for redefining which functions are "abstract", there IS a conflict between your redefinitions and socionics' definitions
socionics says N and T are abstract
you and XoX say N and F are abstract

Sadly the post everyone is referring to here and the reply I received were deleted during Great Mayhem. Anyways the idea of the post was to redefine these little buggers:

extraverted intuition = internal statics of objects
extraverted sensing = external statics of objects
extraverted logic = external dynamics of objects
extraverted ethics = internal dynamics of objects
introverted intuition = internal dynamics of fields
introverted sensing = external dynamics of fields
introverted logic = external statics of fields
introverted ethics = internal statics of fields

in a way which could actually be understood in / mapped to real world. I might have used some terms e.g. "abstract" in a way which is not consistent with how some socionists are using it. So I doubt that I redefine d socionics but I might have redefined the concept "abstract" in the context of socionics. In my mind the idea is one big integrated blob which I can externalize in concepts but the concepts are not the idea. I can see how this leads to problems accurately communicating the idea to others because I might not pay enough attention to individual concepts and somehow assume that people can get the "big picture" I'm trying to present even if there are some inconsistencies here and there in the externalized version of my thoughts. I assume that when people internalize that idea they can sort of get the original picture in their heads and not get stuck on the problems in the externalized form of the idea. Often I'm not sure if people are offering critique to the actual idea or just the problems in the presentation of it. For example now I'm not sure if my idea is faulty or if I was just a little careless when describing it.

Anyways I don't remember the exacts of the original posts...I actually thought about it more than 5 minutes I can try to generate something similar here...ok just a randomly generated example (which might clear or blur the issue)...let's say Ti manages external statics of fields which can be interpreted something like manipulating concrete state of object relations. Here external and concrete are seen as roughly the same thing. Something which can be measured and made explicit etc. and conrete in that sense. In RL behavior this can be seen by the "calculative" relationship behavior many Ti-types are accused of. Abstract concepts like "love" can be properly measured only though concrete actions. "He did A and B for me today. He loves me quite a lot but not THAT much".

Fi manages internal statics of fields which can be interpreted something like manipulating abstract state of object relations. Abstract here meaning something which cannot be measured explicitly. In RL behavior this can be seen e.g. how Fi types describe their relations using very abstract concepts like "love", "caring", "friendship" and shiver at the thought of calculating like "I did 3 good deeds to the other but they have only done 1 to me so they still owe me 2 more". In Fi mind the state of the relationship cannot be directly mapped to the amount of good deeds someone did or didn't do. E.g. love can't be made explicit and its amount calculated. Or friendships. Love and friendships are just "felt" hence the Fi bond is abstract and implicit in nature even if it does manifest in concrete deeds. The concrete deeds are NOT the abstract relationship but just one manifestation of it. In Ti mind the concrete deeds themselves more or less are the relationship or at least an accurate measure of it. So Ti person expects that you pay back every deed they do. Very concrete management of relationships.

I'm not sure how close this is to my original post but if it has evolved to some new direction perhaps that is a good thing I can see how this again could be interpreted differently from what I meant because most people expect e.g. love to manifest in a concrete way and Ti types have feelings too and so on. However I'm talking about clear differences like an ENFp might say "I will give you a massage today because I so much love you". ESTp might say "I will give you a massage today if you will give one to me. And this exchange of favours makes our love explicit. If you say no then I must assume you don't love me.". I think with Ti there is often the "If" involved which makes the exchange of good deeds explicit. With Fi using "If" like "I will do this to you IF you do..." shows lack of love. kshfshf I'm not sure if this helps anymore so I stop here

[anndelise]

...

[XoX]

...I guess this post just became obsolete until further information surfaces...

[Enters Laughing]

The N, T = 'not well-defined' + S, F = 'defined' thing seems to be about the style of information used - anndelise's post about S + F seemed to be about personal observation + interaction with objects\fields, rather than 'universal' properties of objects\fields with N + T. By this, I mean innate properties which don't change no matter who is observing them. I find this intriguing, I have trouble visualising it, but anndelise probably covered it here: http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...51e27b097514bc
It makes complete sense to me after reading this thread, but I'd like anndelise to discuss N + T the same way she discussed S + F a few pages back (pretty please ) then I might understand it better. N + T seem to be outside human experience (they are always true, it's just people can't fully comprehend them) and S + F seem to be part of human experience (they are true to the individual, but not necessarily to everybody).

For the second part of the information elements, e.g. 'internal [/b]statics of objects[/b]', I think this refers to the time period + level of interaction (passive\active) with objects\fields. So, dynamic types have a good understanding of objects over time ('dynamics of objects'), but not time in the present moment ('dynamics of fields') - both are similar, but not quite. Static types have a good understanding of objects in the current moment ('statics of objects') but not of change in objects over time ('statics of fields').

'Statics of fields' types explore objects internally, 'dynamics of fields' types explore (the process of) time.

'Statics of objects' actively engage objects in the present moment, 'Dynamics of objects' wait for the correct moment before engaging an object.

(I think it's best I don't say any more ).

[anndelise]

The N, T = 'not well-defined' + S, F = 'defined' thing seems to be about the style of information used -

nitpicking: N, F = 'not well-defined'; S, T = 'well-defined'; N, T = 'detached'; S, F = 'involved' (you keep getting the defined/not-well-defined mixed up)

anndelise's post about S + F seemed to be about personal observation + interaction with objects\fields, rather than 'universal' properties of objects\fields with N + T. By this, I mean innate properties which don't change no matter who is observing them. I find this intriguing, I have trouble visualising it, but anndelise probably covered it here: http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...51e27b097514bc
It makes complete sense to me after reading this thread, but I'd like anndelise to discuss N + T the same way she discussed S + F a few pages back (pretty please ) then I might understand it better. N + T seem to be outside human experience (they are always true, it's just people can't fully comprehend them) and S + F seem to be part of human experience (they are true to the individual, but not necessarily to everybody).

This will take me some time (not as much as the linked post did, but still I'll need time). Just remember, that linked poast wasn't well received.

For the second part of the information elements, e.g. 'internal [/b]statics of objects[/b]', I think this refers to the time period + level of interaction (passive\active) with objects\fields. So, dynamic types have a good understanding of objects over time ('dynamics of objects'), but not time in the present moment ('dynamics of fields') - both are similar, but not quite. Static types have a good understanding of objects in the current moment ('statics of objects') but not of change in objects over time ('statics of fields').

'Statics of fields' types explore objects internally, 'dynamics of fields' types explore (the process of) time.

'Statics of objects' actively engage objects in the present moment, 'Dynamics of objects' wait for the correct moment before engaging an object.

(I think it's best I don't say any more ).

This is an interesting thought (to me), because I've still not been able to find satisfactory descriptions/definitions of static/dynamics. (which is why i had temporarily set aside that dichotomy from my attempts to describe)

[Enters Laughing]

Ahh, Ok....(I have nothing more to say, and even if I did, it's best not said ).

[Enters Laughing]

For the second part of the information elements, e.g. 'internal statics of objects', I think this refers to the time period + level of interaction (passive\active) with objects\fields. So, dynamic types have a good understanding of objects over time ('dynamics of objects'), but not time in the present moment ('dynamics of fields') - both are similar, but not quite. Static types have a good understanding of objects in the current moment ('statics of objects') but not of change in objects over time ('statics of fields').

'Statics of fields' types explore objects internally, 'dynamics of fields' types explore (the process of) time.

'Statics of objects' actively engage objects in the present moment, 'Dynamics of objects' wait for the correct moment before engaging an object.

(I think it's best I don't say any more ).

This is an interesting thought (to me), because I've still not been able to find satisfactory descriptions/definitions of static/dynamics. (which is why i had temporarily set aside that dichotomy from my attempts to describe)

This is really clear to me, but if I examine it too closely it will probably fall apart. Maybe I'll post more later.

[Enters Laughing]

Being a ENFp, you're Static, so I'll explain that first.

Static types see objects as being here and now e.g. right before their eyes and there to be manipulated as they see fit in the current moment. This implies they have a great awareness of time, to know that the moment is now. Though in actual fact, the reason they see objects now is because they have little awareness of time (e.g. the history of objects up to that point.

vs. is probably the best way of describing static vs. dynamic. types see an object in the here and now, they see all it's tangible properties (if a object doesn't exist now, then it doesn't exist at all, they might say - observing change in an object over time doesn't appeal to them).

is the very opposite of this which is very hard to imagine...it's like imagining an object in the here-and-now that doesn't exist. types have a vague outline of an object, rather than actual visible properties - they see discrete properties such as time and change - they concentrate on the environment objects are in rather than the objects themselves - time is an environmental factor.

Dynamic types are able to control time (though they don't really, as it is an universal, external factor) - they can sense when objects are going to appear in their enviornment (based on previous experience - they follow trends). Static types, on the other hand, don't sense when objects are going to appear, as they are already there to be manipulated. So, you can have judging Dynamics (Exxjs) who are very confident at dealing with objects in the external world - but this is because they have a head start and a sense of when situations arise. Exxp Statics have a head start in the external world in the sense theyknow the value of objects already, without having to evaluate them (this is due to their internal process, which I'll write more about when I see I haven't been wasting my time ).

[anndelise]

(this is due to their internal process, which I'll write more about when I see I haven't been wasting my time ).

actually, because my issue around static/dynamic revolves around regularly confusing Xi with dynamic and Xe with static,
i believe explanations would be better spent not using Ni=dynamic Se=static examples,
but perhaps examples of how Fi (or Ti) = static and Te (or Fe) = dynamic would be more useful
it would actually work towards countering the Xi/Xe confusions of mine


(btw, I've got a birthday party going on this weekend and a water heater tank to install, so if I don't respond until mon/tues....please don't take offense or interpret as lack of interest)

[Gilly]

is the very opposite of this which is very hard to imagine...it's like imagining an object in the here-and-now that doesn't exist. types have a vague outline of an object, rather than actual visible properties - they see discrete properties such as time and change - they concentrate on the environment objects are in rather than the objects themselves - time is an environmental factor.

This is not a description of Ni, but rather Ne with a bit of Ni. Ni examines processes, not objects.

[Enters Laughing]

All introverted functions occur of a period of time - a process, rather than the 'events' of extroverted types (they accumulate information in order to save energy). What information they accumulate depends on whether they are Static\Dynamic.

In Ixxj Static types, what they they do internally may seem contrary to what Statics do externally (though of course, it's half the story). In the external world, Static types have control of objects but little understanding of time, other than the current moment.

In the internal world, however, Static types 'experiment' with objects (these can be external + internal, anything as long as it can be conceived) - this is why Static types are able to manipulate objects in the external world in the here-and-now without much thought - they have drawn up a list of general rules which apply to objects in order to fast-track information in the present. Ixxjs are able to 'control' which objects they evaluate the properties of internally (Exxps to a lesser extent), whereas Statics are unable to do this externally - the objects are already there.

Exxj Dynamic types have a good understanding of trends, and so are able to obtain the relevant information (from the external environment) almost straight away, when they 'sniff' objects coming into the environmental 'stage' they operate on. + information, as with all extroverted functions, is (largely) uncritical - they don't challenge it, it's already readily available.

Introverted information can be wrong in the sense it was accumulated over time and may not apply to the curent moment, extroverted information may be wrong in the sense it doesn't assess the validity of the information.

[Enters Laughing]

is the very opposite of this which is very hard to imagine...it's like imagining an object in the here-and-now that doesn't exist. types have a vague outline of an object, rather than actual visible properties - they see discrete properties such as time and change - they concentrate on the environment objects are in rather than the objects themselves - time is an environmental factor.

This is not a description of Ni, but rather Ne with a bit of Ni. Ni examines processes, not objects.

Yes, but to understand the process they have remnants of objects, like a ghostly trail through time. Although the trail doens't exist - I was trying to give visible imagery of an invisible process (e.g. time). is what isn't - has no concept of time in the present moment, has no concept of the object in the present moment, prefer to focus on the static environmental context over time, with little emphasis on objects over that period.

(When I say little, I mean 'no', but that's only in pure types, which don't exist - it doesn't help to IMO to give 'all or nothing' examples - I prefer 'mostly' or 'rarely' - sorry if that's wishy-washy .

Also, what I meant was focus on the environment in the here-and-now (the site at which objects interact), whereas focus on the objects in the here-and-now, actively engaging then.

[Gilly]

"Process" and "events" are a good way to characterize Dynamic and Static viewpoints, respectively.

All functions occur over a period of time. Dynamic functions, however, are inseperable from time; static functions can be taken out of the framework of time and be examined piece by piece, while it is useless to do such a thing with a Dynamic function, because all you end up doing is creating an element of a static function.

Not sure what the rest of your mumbo jumbo means

[Enters Laughing]

All introverted functions are processes in the sense they occur over time, but Ixxj Static types are about events in the sense they actively cause events to happen internally - they decide what objects to value + compare - but this occurs over a period of time.

Extroverted functions take a shorter time to happen than introverted ones - they are energy expending compared to energy-saving.

The difference between Dynamic + Static is whether the events of objects happen internally or externally, and whether they are passive to objects externally or internally, or active with objects externally or internally.

Ixxjs actively engage objects internally over a period of time = process
Exxps actively engage objects externally in the here-and-now = event

Ixxps are passive to objects externally in the here-and-now, but are able to control time internally (over a period of time) = process
Exxjs are passive to objects internally over a period of time, but are able to utilise external information in the here-and-now = event

[Gilly]

No. Introverted functions do not all naturally occur over time. This is just plain wrong. Look at : the connection between a premise and a deduced fact DOES NOT CHANGE. EVER. Ti has NOTHING to do with time. IJ functions do not change NECESSARILY over time; IP functions are ALWAYS in "motion."

Dynamic functions are changing over time as part of their nature, but can be examined in individual "states."
Static functions can change over time, but they exists in "states" as opposed to being constantly changing.

[Enters Laughing]

Ixxjs hold the best possible 'facts' about objects at any current time; but this doesn't mean they are not continuously evaluate other objects internally. Ixxps are passive to objects in the present moment - their understanding comes from passive observation, rather than internal interaction, or experimentation, as with Ixxjs.

Ixxps are in motion when it comes to time - they observe objects passively. Ixxjs actively observed objects, and decide one to be more 'true' than another, so that in the external world, they know which object has what properties. Ixxps on the otherhand, know in what moment objects are in their right context (in the external world).

[krieger]

You know, as long as this kind of discussion is going to be held by ego block Ne types, they are not going to lead anywhere. Putting representable knowledge to our intuitions is the Si types' job, not ours. Explaining Ne from Ne's own standpoint is like speaking non-fluently in a foreign language.

Said in another way, we have words like 'static' and 'dynamic' assigned to our intuitions of the associated concepts to express said intuitions in the fullest possible precision. What's against just using them without all the explanatory lecturing?

[Gilly]

Ixxjs hold the best possible 'facts' about objects at any current time; but this doesn't mean they are not continuously evaluate other objects internally. Ixxps are passive to objects in the present moment - their understanding comes from passive observation, rather than internal interaction, or experimentation, as with Ixxjs.

Ixxps are in motion when it comes to time - they observe objects passively. Ixxjs actively observed objects, and decide one to be more 'true' than another, so that in the external world, they know which object has what properties. Ixxps on the otherhand, know in what moment objects are in their right context (in the external world).

The use of functions is not the same as their basic nature. Of COURSE all function "occur in time" if we talk about their use; they couldn't be "used" if not in time.

You're just babbling now.

[Enters Laughing]

All I said is that Dynamic types are more aware of the precise moment in time an event happens - Static types are less aware, because they focus on objects in the here and now, rather than objects over a period of time. Of course functions happen at the same time - but Statics\Dynamic see time and objects differently from each other.