more socionics brainteasers

[krieger]

What is the difference between abstracting and concretizing ? Is there a difference? Is there such a thing as an 'abstracting' use of a function, or does abstracting movement occur without an effect on outside information?

Abstracting : Se -> Ti -> Ne
Concretizing : Se -> Fi -> Ne

Do IxTj's have role functions? What is to keep me from believing they're just 'abstracting thinking' in situations that draw on ?

If it is possible for a person to use both their judgment function and their perception function in both the concretizing and abstracting directions, thus allowing for every possible function axis transition, is it at all reasonable to use socionics as an excuse for failing interhuman relations?

Does a failure to adapt constitute an inability to adapt, or a refusal?

Of the two cycle orientations, is for any given person one of the two prefered, or are both valued equally? If either is prefered, is the the preference different between different people? What determines the preference?

Is there a relation between preference of abstracting/concretizing function use and the political orientations/contextual lines tcaudilllg talks about?

If there are people who prefer abstacting function use, aren't the Reinin properties for these people inversed, thus making for a psychological inventory that has next to nothing in common with that of a person of the same type who prefers concretizing function use?

If this last thing is true, shouldn't we see this prefered orientation as a fifth independant dichotomy? CINTj, anyone?

[FDG]

What is the difference between abstracting and concretizing ? Is there a difference? Is there such a thing as an 'abstracting' use of a function, or does abstracting movement occur without an effect on outside information?

There is actually a difference, of course. First of all, the negation. A concretization of Ti negates the concretization of Fi and the abstraction of Fi negates the abstraction of Ti. Therefore concretizing Fi negates the possibility of making any use of the abstraction of Ti, since there is no concretization-space available.

If it is possible for a person to use both their judgment function and their perception function in both the concretizing and abstracting directions, thus allowing for every possible function axis transition, is it at all reasonable to use socionics as an excuse for failing interhuman relations?

Yes it is. The idea that only temperament ( EP EJ IJ IP ) is fixed seems to have been sufficiently accepted. The only limitation to this possibility is imposed by the law of excluded middle in a given instant, but this does not mean that in different situation, the transition cannot occur.

Does a failure to adapt constitute an inability to adapt, or a refusal?

Impossible to understand without further information. If the subject has the ability to adapt and refuses, then refusal. Otherwise, inability.

Of the two cycle orientations, is for any given person one of the two prefered, or are both valued equally? If either is prefered, is the the preference different between different people? What determines the preference?

Supposing that temperament is inborn.
Supposing further, that by cycle orientation you refer to your hypotesis at the start of the thread.

Then if we take the temperamental definition given by Smilingeyes for true, that is to say, quoting from the dichotomical description of types:

Temperament analysis: EP (Hot, Static, Irrational)
It relates to a system in which you first check what everyone finds important in the environment. Then you create a system by which you have plenty of it. Uses energy for things that it doesn't necessarily need to. Has high responsiveness to stimuli. Tries to turn practice into theories.

Temperament analysis: IP (Cold, dynamic, irrational)
It relates to a system of thought in which you first do what you want and then find rules to get around any obstacles that turn up. Uses energy only for things it directly needs to. Is highly responsive to stimuli. Tries to turn practice into theories.

Temperament analysis: IJ (Cold, Static, Rational)
It relates to a system in which you first analyze your personal willigness to change the world, then you go and do it. Uses energy only for things that it needs to. Has low responsiveness to stimuli. Tries to turn theories into practice.

Temperament analysis: EJ (Hot, dynamic, rational)
It relates to a system of thought in which you first analyze the environment's concrete needs and dangers and make a theory of how to correctly interact with it, and then test this theory by interaction. Uses energy for things that it doesn't directly need to. Is highly responsive to stimuli. Tries to turn theories into practice.

Then the directional value for the vector of a given cycle should be given by how the cycle itself adapts to the goals listed above, that is to say,

in the case of EP, the cycle that most people find important in a given environment

in the case of IP, the cycle which is able to easily get around the obstacles that present themselves on the road

in the case of IJ, the cycle which is better suited at changing the given portion of the world that is objective of the IJ

in the case of EJ, the cycle which suits the best the concrete needs and dangers of a given environment

This seems to be a possible answer to your preference. Also, this would explain why similar people are found in similar environments. Entropy-wise, it would be much more plausible that the people themselves adapt to the environment, more so than the people seek the environment which suits them the most.

If there are people who prefer abstacting function use, aren't the Reinin properties for these people inversed, thus making for a psychological inventory that has next to nothing in common with that of a person of the same type who prefers concretizing function use?

I don't follow you on this one. Each type is definied as preferring either the abstract or the concrete version, that is to say, if the concrete version is preferred over the abstract, the type simply changes, and so change the renin dichotomies.