About Ti/Fe vs Fi/Te values: What is your opinion?

[XoX]

Ok here is a quote which contains some analysis and such. Do you think this is accurate and if not then why not? Do you relate to this in any way?

So is Fe more about "behaviour" and Fi is more about "character". Character is of course manifested in behaviour but it is an abstract perception of a person. So when a Fi type has established a firm view of someone's character then temporary changes in behaviour are not likely to affect much their evaluation of the "character" where a Fe type would be more quickly "put off" by bad behaviour and be quicker to re-evaluate their relationships with that person in question. It works in another way too where a Fe-type would be quick to forgive someone's bad behaviour when they start behaving good again where a Fi-type, after having evaluated someone's character bad, would be unlikely to change their mind about the person even if they started behaving well. At least it would be a long process.

Does this interpretation make any sense? I might be more to the Fe-side because I tend to dislike people who hold grudges or negative judgments for longer than necessary and who are unable to forgive and make peace with their former enemies and such (hey, I used the word dislike). For example I know a sister-brother pair where the brother is somehow so totally pissed off to the sister because of something that happened a long time ago that he has pretty much decided to never forgive no matter what the sister does. I find that kind of behavior just childish and immature and close to being "evil". But is that something a "pathological" Fi could cause? The brother has evaluated the sister's character as pathologically bad and nothing can change that perception. Somekind of permanent state of unforgiveness. Or is that more a personal feature not related to functions?

Then again I do occasionally judge some people as "evil" and so on i.e. make character judgments. However I would think I am always prepared to change my mind in light of new evidence.

Another thing...I might hold somewhat absolute views of "good" and "evil" (but prepared to change them in light of new evidence). This would be more Ti value then where Fi would be more about relative good and evil applied on individual level or? I do find the "relative truth" idea somewhat repulsive (in theory) but of course in practice you have to evaluate each situation separately.

So let's say that even if I do like absolute truths I think that they should be evaluated in relation to the current context (but does that make them relative truths in the end...urgh). Perhaps I should say that in theory I like absolute truths but I tend to apply them in a context-sensitive way. So even if I think something is "evil" in absolute sense in some context I might not judge a person who does it if their actions just _make sense_ in that context and thus form an exception to the absolute rule. If there are too many exceptions then the rule is apparently faulty and the "absolute truth" should be evolved. Is this a Ti approach to evaluating values?

Oh and if you think this is completely wrong way to see it then please explain what is the right way If you can give examples all the better.

[Exodus]

So is Fe more about "behaviour" and Fi is more about "character". Character is of course manifested in behaviour but it is an abstract perception of a person.

I agree with this part.

As for the rest, either Ti or Fi could be responsible for "absolute" judgments.

Je: demonstrative
Ji: conclusive (fits better than "judging")

[XoX]

So is Fe more about "behaviour" and Fi is more about "character". Character is of course manifested in behaviour but it is an abstract perception of a person.

I agree with this part.

As for the rest, either Ti or Fi could be responsible for "absolute" judgments.

Je: demonstrative
Ji: judging

Damn. That is not enough for me to evaluate myself I can understand that in theory but which way I am myself is rather difficult to decide without concrete examples where I clearly fall into a or b side.

[Exodus]

So are we to interpret this as yet another thread to type XoX? If so, it should not be in General Discussion.

[UDP]

--- think of Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice. (in how she judged and thought of Mr Darcy)

---- think of Jane, her sister, who was not so caught up in Darcy's 'arrogance'



The downside of Fi is that they will 'believe in' someone's character even if they are behaving in ways that contradict it.
The downside of Fe is that they will "believe in" someone's good actions even if the real character of a person is corrupt (Liz's initial attraction to Mr. Wickham)

[XoX]

So are we to interpret this as yet another thread to type XoX? If so, it should not be in General Discussion.

This post was initially in my typing thread but I moved it here because I hoped we could have some deep discussion about the Te/Fi vs Ti/Fe values. I constantly hear how this and that person doesn't understand the difference and how important that difference is. I think this subject needs more talk. I don't think everyone reads my typing thread so this seems like a better place.

Another thing is that I do plan to use this information to figure out whether I have Ti or Fi values and whether I use Fe or not but that is not a problem or is it? I tend to evaluate this stuff via myself anyways. If I can't bind the theory to something concrete such as myself or someone else or to some mechanical system I know then it seems it is pretty much useless to even talk about it. It just remains a theory. I'm more interested in how to apply the knowledge to practical problems bothering me. And often I interpret the theory in the context of those problems as I find it hard to grasp a theory without doing that.

[XoX]

The downside of Fi is that they will 'believe in' someone's character even if they are behaving in ways that contradict it.

Would this be more evident in Fi-types with weak Ne (e.g. ISFj, ESFp). How about types with weakish Fi like INTp and ENTj? I assume ENFp and INFj are perceptive enough to not often get trapped by this kind of beliefs or?

[Minde]

Er, this might already be understood by everybody and it's probably not really what you're asking, but personality is distinct from character. Perhaps one type/function is more concerned with and attracted to the concepts of right and wrong than another, but anyone can be good or evil. In my opinion.

So let's say that even if I do like absolute truths I think that they should be evaluated in relation to the current context (but does that make them relative truths in the end...urgh). Perhaps I should say that in theory I like absolute truths but I tend to apply them in a context-sensitive way. So even if I think something is "evil" in absolute sense in some context I might not judge a person who does it if their actions just _make sense_ in that context and thus form an exception to the absolute rule. If there are too many exceptions then the rule is apparently faulty and the "absolute truth" should be evolved. Is this a Ti approach to evaluating values?

Interesting... A couple of weeks ago, I was part of a group discussing this very idea - values and their ordering, situational ethics, etc. - minus any mention of Socionics, of course.

The downside of Fi is that they will 'believe in' someone's character even if they are behaving in ways that contradict it.
The downside of Fe is that they will "believe in" someone's good actions even if the real character of a person is corrupt (Liz's initial attraction to Mr. Wickham)

What if I find myself in both boats?

[UDP]

@ Minde - I wouldn't be surprised if you were. It wasn't an all or nothing description, but that was an attempt at presenting the more common liability of using one more than the other. The example was particularly made form ESE's Fe and EII's Fi, IME.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[UDP]

Both of them are equally right and wrong in determining the real, "Ultimate Ethics" of a person. It's just like Te and Ti are two different perspectives on logic, or the truth, etc. The point of this post is to be a disclaimer saying each function (all functions) are just tools, perspectives. One is not necessarily superior to the other, etc etc etc.

[raisonpure]

If I can see the good in someone, I tend to stick around for a long time despite the occasional lapse in behaviour so that they can be Redeemed over time. For months, I kept contact with my ENFj friend even though he dealt me with the most malicious lies. When he misbehaved by saying mean things in a bad mood, I persevered in the demand that he apologize. I felt used after months, but at least he came away as a better person in the end.

If I can't see any redeeming qualities in a person, I tend to minimize contact and treat them to my most disagreeable side when they come near. Maybe even tell them to go to hell, though not in those exact words.

But when someone whom I had judged to be good intentionally does something that will hurt me and refuses to show remorse for it... It is an inexcusable betrayal of my trust in them, and I will condemn the offender in every way possible before I cut off the relationship with a dramatic exit. Then deny further relations even after they've repented so that they can engrave the enduring consequences of momentary immaturity into their hearts.

[XoX]

--- think of Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice. (in how she judged and thought of Mr Darcy)

---- think of Jane, her sister, who was not so caught up in Darcy's 'arrogance'



The downside of Fi is that they will 'believe in' someone's character even if they are behaving in ways that contradict it.
The downside of Fe is that they will "believe in" someone's good actions even if the real character of a person is corrupt (Liz's initial attraction to Mr. Wickham)

I think I'm kind of suspicious of both actions and character, lol. But really I would likely be Fi here because even if I can easily get pissed off about someone's misbehaviour I tend to easily forgive them if they have "good character". And this can repeat on and on and then I become really puzzled about how can such contradiction in behaviour and "character" exist. It is very hard for me to just decide "well my intuitive grasp of the character is faulty". I more likely tend to think that there is some unknown reason which makes the character and behavior not match and I have to figure out what it is and fix it.

[anndelise]

Stupid question:
Why judge the person at all?


If you're going to judge, then why not just judge that particular action/part of them?


Just because a person does something I don't agree with or that I find wrong doesn't mean the person him/herself is "a bad person", not even temporarily....it just means that that particular aspect of his/hers I don't care for or maybe try to avoid.

[XoX]

Stupid question:
Why judge the person at all?

Well Expat seems to tie "Fi" to judging people. E.g. like here:

is what, for instance, I do. Like I think that some people who posted in this forum are assholes and I never want anything to do with them again. Like I am, yes, judgemental about your lack of concern for relating to people as individuals.

So do you agree or disagree with this definition of Fi? He is actually more or less judging both people and actions.

And you would differ from this how? Currently "judging people and actions" = to me, lol. Fe would be "judging behavior" but then how is that different from judging "actions". This whole behavior vs character thing puzzles me again.

[Mea]

Stupid question:
Why judge the person at all?


If you're going to judge, then why not just judge that particular action/part of them?


Just because a person does something I don't agree with or that I find wrong doesn't mean the person him/herself is "a bad person", not even temporarily....it just means that that particular aspect of his/hers I don't care for or maybe try to avoid.

Precisely! Couldn't have said it better myself.
"bad person" << that can be subjective. So who are we to judge?

[XoX]

Stupid question:
Why judge the person at all?


If you're going to judge, then why not just judge that particular action/part of them?


Just because a person does something I don't agree with or that I find wrong doesn't mean the person him/herself is "a bad person", not even temporarily....it just means that that particular aspect of his/hers I don't care for or maybe try to avoid.

Precisely! Couldn't have said it better myself.
"bad person" << that can be subjective. So who are we to judge?

Is this sentiment shared by all people who have strong Fi? Or is it Delta specific?

I have to say that I have problems not judging the "whole person". Even though I try hard to avoid judging it kind of comes naturally. I have to consciously force myself to be non-judgmental in the way you described. Then Expat is judging people right and left even if he belongs to Fi-Quadra (but of course having weak Fi himself). So I'm wondering here if true Fi people are actually very non-judgmental. This would mean I am likely not a Fi-ego type.

It would be cool to hear about as many Fi-ego people as possible how they see this. Especially how Gamma Fi people see this.

[Phaedrus]

XoX, I think that your analysis in the long opening quote is probably incorrect, but I base that primarily on the fact that I have very strong reasons to believe that I am an INTp. You and I are extremely similar in attitudes and behaviours in relation to what you describe there.

[raisonpure]

Stupid question:
Why judge the person at all?

If you're going to judge, then why not just judge that particular action/part of them?

Just because a person does something I don't agree with or that I find wrong doesn't mean the person him/herself is "a bad person", not even temporarily....it just means that that particular aspect of his/hers I don't care for or maybe try to avoid.

A bad action does not automatically make someone a "bad person" for me. Heck, my mother kept on criticizing my judgment because I kept on speaking for my teacher when he sent an SMS that was insulting to her and disadvantageous to me ("Can't you see that his heart is twisted!? How could you still think of him as a good person when he does something like this? And when he knows that what he wrote would make me yell at you!?"). I expected repentance because I wanted him to be their best at all times and didn't want a very bad habit to taint the rest of his good deeds, which can happen all too easily. Had I cared less for the development of his character, I wouldn't have bothered trying to rectify his bad habit -- which has resulted in many unnecessarily burned bridges in the past and will result in many more if he doesn't learn a good lesson from it -- by condemning him. And by condemning, I mean condemning their actions in a way that is guaranteed to make them feel ashamed of themselves, though I may extend it to harmful traits such as "paranoia" and "jumping to conclusions too quickly". But not only did he refuse to listen to my lectures, he refused to admit that he was wrong, and even threatened to send the SMS to my mother "as many times as I want! If you are to be blamed, so be it!". I had believed that he had written and sent the SMS out of insufficient foresight rather than malice, and this betrayal of my belief in him is ultimately what keeps me from abiding to my first rule of seeing to his redemption. I still think of him as a good person, but I really cannot continue relations with someone whom I can no longer trust. I can only hope that he'll be more careful in the future about taking childish actions that will push people away.

[Expat]

The downside of Fi is that they will 'believe in' someone's character even if they are behaving in ways that contradict it.
The downside of Fe is that they will "believe in" someone's good actions even if the real character of a person is corrupt (Liz's initial attraction to Mr. Wickham)

Yes, but Fi will "only believe in someone's character" if they have reached a previous conclusion on the person's character, for Fi reasons.

A theoretical example --

A Fi person facing a very subtle, manipulative psychopath (type is irrelevant in this case). The psychopath is so manipulative and so clever that the Fi person concludes the psychopath to be a good and honest person. That puts the Fi person at a disadvantage since later, yes, as UDP said, when the psychopath behaves badly, the Fi person will have much more difficulty dealing with that than a Fe person.

[Expat]

Stupid question:
Why judge the person at all?


If you're going to judge, then why not just judge that particular action/part of them?


Just because a person does something I don't agree with or that I find wrong doesn't mean the person him/herself is "a bad person", not even temporarily....it just means that that particular aspect of his/hers I don't care for or maybe try to avoid.

Precisely! Couldn't have said it better myself.
"bad person" << that can be subjective. So who are we to judge?

<3

What anndelise said is exactly what I was talking about with ... and both of you reminded me why I adore ENFps

Right, but you are still "judging" that particular part of them. If "that particular part" is something you strongly object to and find abominable, you will avoid the whole person.

[anndelise]

Stupid question:
Why judge the person at all?


If you're going to judge, then why not just judge that particular action/part of them?


Just because a person does something I don't agree with or that I find wrong doesn't mean the person him/herself is "a bad person", not even temporarily....it just means that that particular aspect of his/hers I don't care for or maybe try to avoid.

Precisely! Couldn't have said it better myself.
"bad person" << that can be subjective. So who are we to judge?

<3

What anndelise said is exactly what I was talking about with ... and both of you reminded me why I adore ENFps

Right, but you are still "judging" that particular part of them. If "that particular part" is something you strongly object to and find abominable, you will avoid the whole person.

I will avoid the whole person IF that particular part that I strongly object to permetes (msp?) our interactions together. iow, if that particular part is constantly being brought up during our interactions, I will begin making efforts to avoid those kinds of situations that bring up that particular part...if it turns out that there are no other situations in which we interact together, then I guess by default I won't be interacting with that person.

[Kristiina]

Recently I heard of 2 girls torturing a cat to death. The cat diet hairless blind and in pain. The girls showed no remorse, in stead they told their friends about the cool funny thing they did... I think those two girls are monsters and I wish they will have tons of bad karma. I wish they see a lot of misery in their lives. What they did was bad, but such actions defined them as bad people. They can't un-do the evil, so now they are people whose actions bring evil consequences. I judge them as being awful people and their actions being possible due to what they are. No decent person would EVER torture a helpless animal for fun.

I have no intention of pushing the discussion off-topic, but I prefer real examples to hypothetical theories of idealistic behavior and attidudes. I generally would like to think I judge actions not people, but in reality I judge the people!

[Creepy-bg]

Recently I heard of 2 girls torturing a cat to death. The cat diet hairless blind and in pain. The girls showed no remorse, in stead they told their friends about the cool funny thing they did... I think those two girls are monsters and I wish they will have tons of bad karma. I wish they see a lot of misery in their lives. What they did was bad, but such actions defined them as bad people. They can't un-do the evil, so now they are people whose actions bring evil consequences. I judge them as being awful people and their actions being possible due to what they are. No decent person would EVER torture a helpless animal for fun.

I have no intention of pushing the discussion off-topic, but I prefer real examples to hypothetical theories of idealistic behavior and attidudes. I generally would like to think I judge actions not people, but in reality I judge the people!

I will pay for the hitman fee on those 2 girls... I can't stand that shit! If there is true evil in the world it is people like that...

[Kristiina]

Recently I heard of 2 girls torturing a cat to death. The cat diet hairless blind and in pain. The girls showed no remorse, in stead they told their friends about the cool funny thing they did... I think those two girls are monsters and I wish they will have tons of bad karma. I wish they see a lot of misery in their lives. What they did was bad, but such actions defined them as bad people. They can't un-do the evil, so now they are people whose actions bring evil consequences. I judge them as being awful people and their actions being possible due to what they are. No decent person would EVER torture a helpless animal for fun.

I have no intention of pushing the discussion off-topic, but I prefer real examples to hypothetical theories of idealistic behavior and attidudes. I generally would like to think I judge actions not people, but in reality I judge the people!

I will pay for the hitman fee on those 2 girls... I can't stand that shit! If there is true evil in the world it is people like that...

Yeah! They got into considerably little trouble by law, but they pissed off half of the news-portal community and someone made their names, pictures, addresses, etc available for everyone to see. I don't think anyone will really do anything dangerous to them, but that thing will haunt them for A LONG time. Estonia has a population of 1,3 million people, so it's not easy to hide after something like that.

so if you think they are evil because of what they did, how does the "judge actions not people" talk work?! Everyone judges people!

[Creepy-bg]

I just empathise with the kitty's more than anything... I want the kids dead because the kitties wanted the girls dead (but couldn't do anything about it)

the evil part was added just for poetic drama...

[Creepy-bg]

you realise the city I live in has 3 times the number of people as your whole country

[anndelise]

Actions/Behavior still have consequences and/or need for remediation (I think that's the word i'm looking for).
We don't argue with that.

[Kristiina]

you realise the city I live in has 3 times the number of people as your whole country

don't be acting all smart now. :wink:
PS! I think it's pure art to make someone laugh by stating statistics.

[stefana]

The downside of Fi is that they will 'believe in' someone's character even if they are behaving in ways that contradict it.
The downside of Fe is that they will "believe in" someone's good actions even if the real character of a person is corrupt (Liz's initial attraction to Mr. Wickham)

Yes, but Fi will "only believe in someone's character" if they have reached a previous conclusion on the person's character, for Fi reasons.

A theoretical example --

A Fi person facing a very subtle, manipulative psychopath (type is irrelevant in this case). The psychopath is so manipulative and so clever that the Fi person concludes the psychopath to be a good and honest person. That puts the Fi person at a disadvantage since later, yes, as UDP said, when the psychopath behaves badly, the Fi person will have much more difficulty dealing with that than a Fe person.

i agree.

anyway, is it just me but i seem to notice that some people with introverted feeling as their dual-seeking or hidden agenda could be very "rigid" with their grudges, as in they hold on to past offenses for a long time even though the person who wronged them "made up" for it later. even after that person has sort of proven that they are not as bad as you once thought them of. maybe i should also mention that most of these representatives are people in their late teens and early twenties.

[krieger]

It's all in the static/dynamic dichotomy. Accomodative cognition of actions/events (Fe) versus accomodative understanding of states (Fi).

[Expat]

anyway, is it just me but i seem to notice that some people with introverted feeling as their dual-seeking or hidden agenda could be very "rigid" with their grudges, as in they hold on to past offenses for a long time even though the person who wronged them "made up" for it later. even after that person has sort of proven that they are not as bad as you once thought them of. maybe i should also mention that most of these representatives are people in their late teens and early twenties.

No, you are correct. Fi dual-seeking makes one extremely sensitive to betrayal of confidence, or realizing that they put their trust on someone who did not deserve it.

[anndelise]

It's all in the static/dynamic dichotomy. Accomodative cognition of actions/events (Fe) versus accomodative understanding of states (Fi).

more like statics deal with individual and distinct interrelationships
dynamics deal with the interrelationships as a whole

[XoX]

so if you think they are evil because of what they did, how does the "judge actions not people" talk work?! Everyone judges people!

I think the "everyone"-talk is Fe Or Fe in aristocratic wrapper.

The thing is...man eating serial killers receive loads of fan mail and tens if not hundreds of girls are lining up to give their virginity to them. So...I wonder if these people are somewhat disturbed "Fi-people" who have perhaps judged the actions to be evil but then perceived the inner core of the person and found them to be awesome. They are on a mission to bring that "awesome person" out of the darkness or something. Perhaps they perceive the overall character of that person to be so lovely that his/her actions (like eating people 20 years back) are forgivable.

I wonder if you are puking now and unable to concentrate on the message, lol.

[XoX]

so if you think they are evil because of what they did, how does the "judge actions not people" talk work?! Everyone judges people!

I think the "everyone"-talk is Fe Or Fe in aristocratic wrapper.

The thing is...man eating serial killers receive loads of fan mail and tens if not hundreds of girls are lining up to give their virginity to them. So...I wonder if these people are somewhat disturbed "Fi-people" who have perhaps judged the actions to be evil but then perceived the inner core of the person and found them to be awesome. They are on a mission to bring that "awesome person" out of the darkness or something. Perhaps they perceive the overall character of that person to be so lovely that his/her actions (like eating people 20 years back) are forgivable.

I wonder if you are puking now and unable to concentrate on the message, lol.

I doubt it. They probably just want a bad boy.

fcuk

[krieger]

more like statics deal with individual and distinct interrelationships
dynamics deal with the interrelationships as a whole

Let's talk some more about this.

The theory I have read (mostly smilingeyes' work) speaks of extrovert functions as dealing with 'individual and distinct' things. The counterpart term to 'individual and distinct' you use is 'as a whole', which by this logic I'll assume relates to introvert functions.

Since static extrovert functions are neccesarily perceptive functions, and dynamic introvert functions are also neccesarily perceptive functions, you seem to think of 'perception' as the observation of interrelations.

Is this correct? If not, where do I go wrong?

Since my first encounter with socionics I have been interested in looking at the core of the model's theory. I have always held the private belief that if I dig deep enough at socionics' basis, I'll end up with notions that lie not only at the roots of this model, but also at the roots of all of reality. A particular hypothesis I am entertaining is the correlation between static/dynamic and the psycho-physical notions of space and time (or rather that of states and transitions). Thus far the correlation has held it's ground against my observations. I'm interested in seeing how it fares against the insights of other theory-enthusiasts, though.

[anndelise]

more like statics deal with individual and distinct interrelationships
dynamics deal with the interrelationships as a whole

Let's talk some more about this.

The theory I have read (mostly smilingeyes' work) speaks of extrovert functions as dealing with 'individual and distinct' things. The counterpart term to 'individual and distinct' you use is 'as a whole', which by this logic I'll assume relates to introvert functions.

Since static extrovert functions are neccesarily perceptive functions, and dynamic introvert functions are also neccesarily perceptive functions, you seem to think of 'perception' as the observation of interrelations.

Is this correct? If not, where do I go wrong?

Since my first encounter with socionics I have been interested in looking at the core of the model's theory. I have always held the private belief that if I dig deep enough at socionics' basis, I'll end up with notions that lie not only at the roots of this model, but also at the roots of all of reality. A particular hypothesis I am entertaining is the correlation between static/dynamic and the psycho-physical notions of space and time (or rather that of states and transitions). Thus far the correlation has held it's ground against my observations. I'm interested in seeing how it fares against the insights of other theory-enthusiasts, though.

I once attempted to get people to discuss this:


The russian chart was gotten from the first part of this page: http://informacionika.narod.ru/frame...u/aspects.html

The perceiving functions are something along the lines of "continualness" and "integrity"
(not integrity as in "that person has a lot of integrity"...but as in "wholeness")

The judging functions are something along the lines of "discretion" and "divisibility"
(not discretion as in "please be discrete about this and don't tell anyone"....but as in "discrete parts")

Statics have "continual/integrated" objects combined with "discrete/divided" fields (fields aka interrelationships/interdependencies).
Dynamcis have "continual/integrated" fields combined with "discrete/divided" objects.


When an ENFp and an INFp attempt to discuss things in person, the INFp often gets upset/confused with the ENFp who keeps traveling down each individual example or relationship that the INFp gives concerning the his subject. He views the ENFp has being "object > subject" focused. Because to the INFp, the object/concept/person he is discussing has a ....(I never really know quite how to describe it)... all the relationships and exampes the INFp gives about the subject are all related to that particular subject. While the ENFp hears one of the relationships/examples the INFp gives.....and follows that particular relationship/example down a different path and starts bringing up other connections.to that relationship/example. The INFp gets upset because the ENFp isn't talking about the subject.....but keeps bringing up all these outside things that the INFp has difficulty figuring out what the hell the ENFp thinks the conversation is about.

My INFp friend likened it to a tree. (I know that this metaphor will get confused by some with the tree vs forest thing, but this isn't the tree vs forest metaphor.) He's talking about the tree, and in doing so has to mention a branch (branch being a relationship/interdependency). I hear information about a branch, and I follow that branch, temporarily forgetting/ignoring that he's trying to talk about the tree, not the damned branch. And he can't figure out how I made the odd connections to the subject at hand...it's like they come out of the blue and he can't follow my line of thinking. (note, we have since developed a code phrase to let him know when I'm doing this and that while my mind made a connection to something other than his tree (subject), I can't help but blurt this out, and he's not to take much heed in it if it doesn't fit for his subject.)

Other times he'll have said something during one of our discussions and a day or so later I'll come back to him and ask him about one particular relationship he made between two concepts. I'll try to get him to talk about that particular relationship. He won't remember the relationship, what he said, what it was connected to, etc. Even when I repeat almost word for word what he said, he can't remember having made it but will instead begin rediscussing the referred to subject, this time using very different examples/relationships. (aaaaagggghhh)

There were discussions before about differences between statics and dynamics.
It was fairly agreed by all involved in it that statics notice the dots. We see a bunch of dots and sometimes can get an idea that those dots make a circle.
Dynamics see the circle, and have difficulty dividing that circle up into dots/points.
(note, in this case we were discussing relationships between things)


I have put off attempting to reopen a discussion regarding "continual relationships with discrete objects" vs "continual objects with discrete relationships" because I've found it to be a gordian knot that I'm just not ready to tackle.