New way to look at type

[Slava]

Instead of trying to figure out what a type does, directly, try thinking about what a type is trying to control in his/her life, and then trace that back to the types of data structures that are necessary to manage the information in that plane. ie. people, things, environment, ideas

[Joy]

for me... events

[Slava]

Makes sense. What people believe will occur, within the constraints of what is possible. Doesnt it suck trying to Ni and then suddenly bumping into an Ne limitation. Must be very hard to work around... as with Ti and Te.

[Joy]

What's a Ne limitation? I would think Ni is more likely to limit Ne than vice versa.

[Jonathan]

What's a Ne limitation? I would think Ni is more likely to limit Ne than vice versa.

Both are perceptive functions and tend to seem opposed to limitations. Yet every function has blindspots, which are indeed limitations.

[Slava]

Ne limitation is when the vision of the future clashes with what is possible. Te limitation is when mechanism bumps into law (like when people try to make free energy devices).

[Slava]

Sometimes Ti and Te have issues because they try to deal with the same thing but differently. Two T people might have an argument on how to build a computer, or how to set up an economy, or how to construct a circuit. And neither can prove to the other why their method is good because they explain it in an opposing manner. One top down, and the other bottom up. It is in fact quite possible that they are describing the same exact thing. Ti and Te between two smart individuals have no problems understanding one another because most common ideas and objects can be completely defined with top down and bottom up, however when it comes to science and religeon, there are serious issues, because they deal with infinite depth, and top down will be totally on the opposing end of bottom up in that regard.

[Gilly]

The easiest way to think about type: tendencies and preferences.

[Slava]

The easiest way to think about type: tendencies and preferences.

Those stem from what I mentioned. Why know more when you can know less and predict more with it.

[Rick]

Instead of trying to figure out what a type does, directly...
just gather samples of their writing, run them through the Reinin dichotomies, and create a probability distribution for different dichotomy groupings.

(sorry, I just felt like making a joke here:-)

[Slava]

In order to do that you first have to know the data structures you are attempting to extract from the text. You cant just analyze the words, you have to analyze the higher level structures and how they are connected.

[Phaedrus]

Ti and Te between two smart individuals have no problems understanding one another because most common ideas and objects can be completely defined with top down and bottom up, however when it comes to science and religeon, there are serious issues, because they deal with infinite depth, and top down will be totally on the opposing end of bottom up in that regard.

Exactly one of my main points, too. That's why I think that for example your attitude towards science, your stance in the philosophy of science, can be a very useful and strong indication of which group of types you belong to: the Merry, Ti, relativist, postmodernist, Kuhnian or the Serious, Te, popperian, "positivist" (in the broad sense) perspective.

[Jonathan]

Ti and Te between two smart individuals have no problems understanding one another because most common ideas and objects can be completely defined with top down and bottom up, however when it comes to science and religeon, there are serious issues, because they deal with infinite depth, and top down will be totally on the opposing end of bottom up in that regard.

Exactly one of my main points, too. That's why I think that for example your attitude towards science, your stance in the philosophy of science, can be a very useful and strong indication of which group of types you belong to: the Merry, Ti, relativist, postmodernist, Kuhnian or the Serious, Te, popperian, "positivist" (in the broad sense) perspective.

This is interesting. I see how Ti and Te may take different stances in philosophy. But Slava mentioned science and religion. How might Ti and Te approaches to sciences differ? Or how might the views of Ti and Te people who are part of the exact same religious denomination be different?

[Logos]

That is also what I am having difficulty seeing. Both Ti and Te-dominants may be interested in science, religion and religion, but in different thematic aspects of said topics.

[Slava]

Ti and Te between two smart individuals have no problems understanding one another because most common ideas and objects can be completely defined with top down and bottom up, however when it comes to science and religeon, there are serious issues, because they deal with infinite depth, and top down will be totally on the opposing end of bottom up in that regard.

Exactly one of my main points, too. That's why I think that for example your attitude towards science, your stance in the philosophy of science, can be a very useful and strong indication of which group of types you belong to: the Merry, Ti, relativist, postmodernist, Kuhnian or the Serious, Te, popperian, "positivist" (in the broad sense) perspective.

This is interesting. I see how Ti and Te may take different stances in philosophy. But Slava mentioned science and religion. How might Ti and Te approaches to sciences differ? Or how might the views of Ti and Te people who are part of the exact same religious denomination be different?

It's just different fundamental axioms that are hidden deep within. Different motivation. With finite depth concepts and objects top down and bottom up will both scan through and come out with the same thing. Its all good until you start talking about your methods. This applies to anything including religeon. Not all people realize they are int he wrong religeon and this potentially explains the counter examples, some people carry out the will of their parents or others.

[Topaz]

Im always trying to control myself. The way I think, feel and what i do. What does that say?

[Slava]

I don't see how it relates, but I would say that it has to do with trying to control everything in your life all the way down to your own internal processes, a high level of self consciousness, potentially due to negative feed back or criticism.

[Phaedrus]

How might Ti and Te approaches to sciences differ?

That is also what I am having difficulty seeing. Both Ti and Te-dominants may be interested in science, religion and religion, but in different thematic aspects of said topics.

One difference is how you want to demarcate science from non-science. The Serious, perspective, which I myself is a proponent of and which can be seen clearly expressed in the works of Karl Popper (who fits Jung's description of the extraverted thinking type very well and who others beside me think was probably an ENTj), wants to exclude more from the science domain, whereas the relativists (in the very general sense I have been talking about them) are more open to other views on science, other "practices". The relativists put less emphasis on empiricism, and they are more critical towards science and the Enlightenment in general -- they are often postmodernists. The relativists want to blur the distinction between science and non-science; the objectivists want to have a very clear line between science and non-science. So this is a very value laden subject. Some of the things the relativists take "seriously" are seen as pseudo-science or worse from my perspective.

[Jonathan]

How might Ti and Te approaches to sciences differ?

That is also what I am having difficulty seeing. Both Ti and Te-dominants may be interested in science, religion and religion, but in different thematic aspects of said topics.

One difference is how you want to demarcate science from non-science. The Serious, perspective, which I myself is a proponent of and which can be seen clearly expressed in the works of Karl Popper (who fits Jung's description of the extraverted thinking type very well and who others beside me think was probably an ENTj), wants to exclude more from the science domain, whereas the relativists (in the very general sense I have been talking about them) are more open to other views on science, other "practices". The relativists put less emphasis on empiricism, and they are more critical towards science and the Enlightenment in general -- they are often postmodernists. The relativists want to blur the distinction between science and non-science; the objectivists want to have a very clear line between science and non-science. So this is a very value laden subject. Some of the things the relativists take "seriously" are seen as pseudo-science or worse from my perspective.

But those are views of non-scientists about science, right? How can an actual scientist blur the distinction between science and non-science? (Remember too, some people would call Socionics a pseudo-science.)

Interestingly, I would have suspected that you'd take the exact opposite tack...I.e., to say that types view all observable phenomena as potentially guided by absolutes and hence being potentially studied scientifically, whereas maybe types might be more inclined to say "this is a subjective matter, and hence can't be the subject of a science" and thus consider any study of that topic a "pseudo science."

Actually, though, I suspect that irrational types, such as both ILI and ILE, are more likely to accept scientific principles being applied to less traditional areas (where one's knowledge is less explicit and relies more on intuition), whereas rational types are more likely to ignore truths that haven't been formalized yet.

[Phaedrus]

But those are views of non-scientists about science, right?

Sometimes I forget that the word "science" has a different (less wide) meaning in English than in Swedish, which makes it somewhat confusing. Those who want to blur the distinction, the relativists, usually come from the social sciences and/or the humanities. Many of the natural scientists are not interested in these questions, but we could still pick for example Niels Bohr as an example of a relativist. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is based on anti-realism. It does not accept that the Law of Excluded Middle is universally valid (which it is in my and other objecivist's opinion), and therefore the Copenhagen interpretation is pseudo-science (or more bluntly called "bullshit").

How can an actual scientist blur the distinction between science and non-science? (Remember too, some people would call Socionics a pseudo-science.)

Socionics would be a pseudo-science in my opinion if it is not seen as a part neuro-science or neuro-biology. Those who want to combine a socionic perspective with astrology or some other non-empiricist perspective are of course charlatans. And those who in Socionics see only a theoretical model, whose assumptions, propositions and typings should not be compared with reality, belong to the relativists.

Interestingly, I would have suspected that you'd take the exact opposite tack...I.e., to say that types view all observable phenomena as potentially guided by absolutes and hence being potentially studied scientifically, whereas maybe types might be more inclined to say "this is a subjective matter, and hence can't be the subject of a science" and thus consider any study of that topic a "pseudo science."

The important thing here is your attitude towards these things. Every observable phenomena can be studied scientifically, but the different camps do not agree on what is a scientific method. Real science is observations and the hypothetic-deductive method. The relativists want to call their own theoretical models "scientific" even when it cannot be tested empirically. And if their models are tested they often want to dismiss the empirical evidence and stick to their model.

[misutii]

Actually, though, I suspect that irrational types, such as both ILI and ILE, are more likely to accept scientific principles being applied to less traditional areas (where one's knowledge is less explicit and relies more on intuition), whereas rational types are more likely to ignore truths that haven't been formalized yet.

i.e. socionics/psychology vs. chemistry

i've noticed at my university that when I introduce people to socionics the ones that are quickest to denounce it as a pseudo-science, without hearing me out, are ironically psychology students. I did some research on the topic and apparently psych professors drill this into their students, and this is because "traditional" scientists still do not recognize most aspects of psychology as "scientific" (at every university i've checked psychology is in the "social science" department, except for students that thoroughly combine it with a traditional science, i,e, bio-psych).

The result is that students in psychology are being forced to compensate for psychology's scientific inadequacies by adhering to very rigid guidelines in everything they do - - and the result of that is a stifling of creativity, which combined with the "publish or perish" syndrome leads psychology students to forsake any hopes of discovering anything ambitious/groundbreaking because a) there's too many variables to feel comfortable controlling, b) they don't learn how to "work together" with others to attempt anything because it would take too long and the thought that their experiment would rely on another person just introduces more variables outside of their control, and thus c) most north american psychologists achieve nothing even remotely worthwhile - all the experiments they undertake are forced to be on a small, sometimes insignificant scale, because carrying out small-scale experiments guarantees enough data to definitely write a short article, which is needed to survive - and also despite how other's criticize their work they can always claim it's scientific and its discovery could have amazing implications in like 10 years.

For goodness sake my personality psych prof had never even heard of socionics. also i had my friend, who's in psych, search a journal database for north american articles on socionics and not one measly psychologist has even bothered to acknowledge its existence let alone scientifically ascertain its validity. meanwhile all we've done in my psych classes is memorize jargon and regurgitate.

and yes, I'm definitely an irrational type. I don't think things should be impetuously dismissed simply because they haven't been empirically tested (due to a lack of resources, technology etc.) Such a stringent view is, in my opinion, cowardly and based upon a fear of change, if no one has the courage to make leaps, and those that do are immediately dismissed for doing so, then brilliant minds are going to go to waste. Science under such circumstances risks turning into a religion; if scientists (on par with the 16th century church) feel entitled to repress the ideas of the few brilliant men that grow up among them (the galileos so to speak)

Psychology's utter inadequacies are already in plain sight around us, psychologists have merely replaced the role that priests/spiritual advisors played in the past and the public's distrust in modern psychology is evident in the fact that people are increasingly over-medicating themselves for "disorders" that may not exist, as the DSM itself is so full of loopholes that its interpretation is subjective - thus not scientific....