Information elements described

[machintruc]

It's actually difficult to determine if someone is E or I, because those traits have 4 aspects each :

Aspects of extroversion :

initiative
open-mindedness
efficiency
communicability

Aspects of introversion :

passivity
imaginativeness
rigidity
morality

On each individual, one of each dominates. This is why, for example, an ILE will seem passive and a LSI assertive.

There are even 4 aspects of J and P :

Aspects of perception :

perception of sensible caracteristics of objects
perception of mechanical interactions between objects
perception of mental images of objects
perception of non-mechanical interactions between objects

Aspects of judgement :

judgement according to material resources, by efficiency criteria
judgement according to material interests, by stability criteria
judgement according to human interests, by social criteria
judgement according to human resources, by moral criteria

There are 2 aspects of each S, N, T and F. For each of those one dominates.

For these reasons, every socionist should train himself to type by using information elements, instead of dichotomies.

Having a type means giving more information on certain aspects of behaviour (reflected by information aspects) than others.

[Jonathan]

The general idea...'one should be wary' is fine, and the new definitions of the functions are well-worded, provocative and interesting. But we need to understand that every time we come up with these new definitions, new one-word synonyms, new explanations for the functions, we're creating a slightly different system.

And that's the biggest problem. See, for example, if Fi is morality, well then someone who is structurally using SeTi as their functions, but is also a good, moral person, doesn't work in your system. Similarly, if Se is initiative, well then someone who uses TiNe but works hard and accomplishes things can't be TiNe in your system.

The one-word definitions thing is always an attempt to clarify, but each time, people are in fact creating a different system.

[machintruc]

And that's the biggest problem. See, for example, if Fi is morality, well then someone who is structurally using SeTi as their functions, but is also a good, moral person, doesn't work in your system. Similarly, if Se is initiative, well then someone who uses TiNe but works hard and accomplishes things can't be TiNe in your system.

I linked to morality because not all types are sociable, especially ESI's. Some ESI's, especially males, are very cold and not that "sociable", but their difference to their cousins LSE's, is that they can be very commercial, marketing, inducting and manipulative.

I linked to initiative because Gulenko said that E aspects were all active and initiating, as I aspects were all passive and responding. For example, = passive logic, = active sensing. Gulenko also said that E = dominating and I = subordinating. Gulenko is a very modest guy...

[Jonathan]

And that's the biggest problem. See, for example, if Fi is morality, well then someone who is structurally using SeTi as their functions, but is also a good, moral person, doesn't work in your system. Similarly, if Se is initiative, well then someone who uses TiNe but works hard and accomplishes things can't be TiNe in your system.

I linked to morality because not all types are sociable, especially ESI's. Some ESI's, especially males, are very cold and not that "sociable", but their difference to their cousins LSE's, is that they can be very commercial, marketing, inducting and manipulative.

I linked to initiative because Gulenko said that E aspects were all active and initiating, as I aspects were all passive and responding. For example, = passive logic, = active sensing. Gulenko also said that E = dominating and I = subordinating. Gulenko is a very modest guy...

I don't have much problem with your definitions per se. It's the very idea of one-word definitions that I'm warning about. It's very popular on the forum to do that, but each time we come up with a slightly different model.

Actually, yours are some of the best I've seen...except for Si being passivity; I think passivity is too vague for Si.

But still, if people were to apply the words and type people by them, then they'd come up with different typings than in classical Socionics. It's just the nature of one-word definitions for functions.

[machintruc]

And that's the biggest problem. See, for example, if Fi is morality, well then someone who is structurally using SeTi as their functions, but is also a good, moral person, doesn't work in your system. Similarly, if Se is initiative, well then someone who uses TiNe but works hard and accomplishes things can't be TiNe in your system.

I linked to morality because not all types are sociable, especially ESI's. Some ESI's, especially males, are very cold and not that "sociable", but their difference to their cousins LSE's, is that they can be very commercial, marketing, inducting and manipulative.

I linked to initiative because Gulenko said that E aspects were all active and initiating, as I aspects were all passive and responding. For example, = passive logic, = active sensing. Gulenko also said that E = dominating and I = subordinating. Gulenko is a very modest guy...

I don't have much problem with your definitions per se. It's the very idea of one-word definitions that I'm warning about. It's very popular on the forum to do that, but each time we come up with a slightly different model.

Actually, yours are some of the best I've seen...except for Si being passivity; I think passivity is too vague for Si.

But still, if people were to apply the words and type people by them, then they'd come up with different typings than in classical Socionics. It's just the nature of one-word definitions for functions.

Rick's definitions are easier to understand :

external caracteristics of objects
internal caracteristics of objects
external activity of objects
internal activity of objects

tangible connexions of processes happening in one space and time
intangible connexions of processes separated in space and time
objective situation of fields
subjective situation of fields

From those definitions, we can say :

caracteristics of objects
states of objects
processes of objects
situation of objects

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-bg]

I completely agree that it's a bad idea to try to type people by the 4 letters. Absolutely. Especially when there are much better ways to go about it!

interresting coinidence... "people" can be typed using only 4 letters... P,E,O, and L

[machintruc]

I completely agree that it's a bad idea to try to type people by the 4 letters. Absolutely. Especially when there are much better ways to go about it!

No - it's not, because all extrotims have something in common, all judgers have something in common, and so on.

Each information element, each trait has his own manifestation on each type.

For example, definition of an extrotim is "someone which takes naturally bodies as rigid, and fields as flexible". But there are 4 aspects of objects, and 4 aspects of fields. Extroversion won't manifest the same in each type.

dominant are somewhat passive and imaginative.
dominant are down-to-earth and impulsive.
dominant are "reserved", but are very active and initiating.
dominant are very expressive, especially females.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[machintruc]

Um, I thought I was agreeing with you?

I didn't say typing by dichotomies is bad, I said that someone should be wary when typing by dichotomies. Yes one can, but must always verify his typing by other methods.

Such methods are including, but are not limited to :

- Information element method - the earliest socionic typing method ; requires more training than dichotomy typing.
- Reinin method - typing by Reinin traits.
- Quaternionic method - derives from Reininian and Jungian methods ; typing rather by Quadras, Clubs, Temperaments.
- Relative typing method - calculating type by intertype relationships.

[Expat]

tangible connexions of processes happening in one space and time
intangible connexions of processes separated in space and time

That definition is by Rick? It's a good way of differentiating and , especially for the purpose of explaining the difference in priorities of Ni and Si EJs.

And yes, I agree with the gist of this thread. You have to be aware of all possible methods, and see which is the best combination when typing someone. Each case will be different; with practive, you don't even think of which method you are using. And the different methods aren't going to always fit together perfectly, that's utopic imo. You have to see what conclusion fits best the available evidence, it won't necessarily fit perfectly.

[Blaze]

this blog entry helped me understand introversion and extraversion much better, along with the associated film clips:

http://socionist.blogspot.com/search/label/extraversion

[Expat]

Oh yeah, it's excellent. And it's useful to note that even in terms of establishing contact with others, extroversion is defined in terms of feeling the need to take the initiative - not in terms of actual socially-outgoing behavior.

[krieger]

I see Si as 'acting in accordance with the current atmosphere', and Ni as 'acting in accordance with the general atmosphere unspecified as to where and when'.

Si = locally harmonious
Ni = generally harmonious

Holders of either function are at risk of looking awkward where the local and general concept of harmonious behavior are in conflict. This often becomes evident when an ENTj show host invites a person with an ego block Si function, who then 'steals' the show and puts the host in an embarressing position.

But what Jonathan says is true; these one-liners should be taken as guiding impressions, not as a bases for systems of thought.

[Phaedrus]

Oh yeah, it's excellent. And it's useful to note that even in terms of establishing contact with others, extroversion is defined in terms of feeling the need to take the initiative - not in terms of actual socially-outgoing behavior.

I agree with you that Rick's blog entry is an excellent way of understanding and distinguishing between extraverts and introverts. But we should keep in mind here that what he describes his not a definition of extraversion and introversion. Just as in the other thread we should not talk about definitions when what we are dealing with is signs of introvesion/extraversion. Rick is giving us a very good example of how the biological phenomenon introversion/extraversion manifests itself in our different behaviours as introverts and extraverts. We are observing an empirical phenomenon -- not defining what we mean by the words "introversion" and "extraversion".

[Expat]

Ok, "manifested as" is better phrasing than "defined" in this case.

[FDG]

Oh yeah, it's excellent. And it's useful to note that even in terms of establishing contact with others, extroversion is defined in terms of feeling the need to take the initiative - not in terms of actual socially-outgoing behavior.

I agree with you that Rick's blog entry is an excellent way of understanding and distinguishing between extraverts and introverts. But we should keep in mind here that what he describes his not a definition of extraversion and introversion. Just as in the other thread we should not talk about definitions when what we are dealing with is signs of introvesion/extraversion. Rick is giving us a very good example of how the biological phenomenon introversion/extraversion manifests itself in our different behaviours as introverts and extraverts. We are observing an empirical phenomenon -- not defining what we mean by the words "introversion" and "extraversion".

Pedantic. Boring. Useless. Every post of yours sounds the same. Can't you stop?

[Blaze]

Oh yeah, it's excellent. And it's useful to note that even in terms of establishing contact with others, extroversion is defined in terms of feeling the need to take the initiative - not in terms of actual socially-outgoing behavior.

I agree with you that Rick's blog entry is an excellent way of understanding and distinguishing between extraverts and introverts. But we should keep in mind here that what he describes his not a definition of extraversion and introversion. Just as in the other thread we should not talk about definitions when what we are dealing with is signs of introvesion/extraversion. Rick is giving us a very good example of how the biological phenomenon introversion/extraversion manifests itself in our different behaviours as introverts and extraverts. We are observing an empirical phenomenon -- not defining what we mean by the words "introversion" and "extraversion".

Pedantic. Boring. Useless. Every post of yours sounds the same. Can't you stop?

uh, yeah. define, understand, signs, symptoms. whatever, it's good enough to use to type people along that domain.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[machintruc]

Um, I thought I was agreeing with you?

I didn't say typing by dichotomies is bad, I said that someone should be wary when typing by dichotomies. Yes one can, but must always verify his typing by other methods.

Such methods are including, but are not limited to :

- Information element method - the earliest socionic typing method ; requires more training than dichotomy typing.
- Reinin method - typing by Reinin traits.
- Quaternionic method - derives from Reininian and Jungian methods ; typing rather by Quadras, Clubs, Temperaments.
- Relative typing method - calculating type by intertype relationships.

Mm, yeah. Thing is though, what I've noticed is that the majority who do use that method come from MBTT and assume it's all the same. Then even if they try to add some of the other things onto it, they're starting from a false premise.

If someone doesn't have that hangup then it works better, although I still think there's better ways of going about it.

You're not learning anything if I tell you this : Socionics is not as simple as Myers-Briggs.

Socionics is based on information aspects, as Myers-Briggs is based more on dichotomic [caricatural] archetypes :

- The outgoing E
- The lonely I
- The realistic S
- The imaginative N
- The cold-minded T
- The friendly F
- The organised J
- The easy-going P

Which you can compare to those "negative" descriptions :

- The ill-considered E
- The shy I
- The narrow-minded S
- The unrealistic N
- The unfriendly T
- The whining F
- The stuck J
- The lazy P

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Jonathan]

uh, yeah. define, understand, signs, symptoms. whatever, it's good enough to use to type people along that domain.

Well, actually, whether you like the way he said it, it is an important distinction: definitions vs. manifestations. Most of what we deal with in Socionics, however, are merely manifestations...and that's what makes it so confusing.

Now in my next post, however, we come to a distinction I don't quite get...

[Jonathan]

Rick's definitions are easier to understand :

external caracteristics of objects
internal caracteristics of objects
external activity of objects
internal activity of objects

tangible connexions of processes happening in one space and time
intangible connexions of processes separated in space and time
objective situation of fields
subjective situation of fields

From those definitions, we can say :

caracteristics of objects
states of objects
processes of objects
situation of objects

I don't think he made them up...I thought he got them from Augusta (?).
But really now, the difference between the introverted perceiving vs. judging functions rests purely on the distinction between "states" and "situations"?
(If you say static vs. dynamic, that's okay; that's Socionics jargon, and it means something in particular. But states vs. situations?)

[machintruc]

Rick's definitions are easier to understand :

external caracteristics of objects
internal caracteristics of objects
external activity of objects
internal activity of objects

tangible connexions of processes happening in one space and time
intangible connexions of processes separated in space and time
objective situation of fields
subjective situation of fields

From those definitions, we can say :

caracteristics of objects
states of objects
processes of objects
situation of objects

I don't think he made them up...I thought he got them from Augusta (?).
But really now, the difference between the introverted perceiving vs. judging functions rests purely on the distinction between "states" and "situations"?
(If you say static vs. dynamic, that's okay; that's Socionics jargon, and it means something in particular. But states vs. situations?)

States means internal states of objects and of interactions with other objects ; mechanical () or non-mechanical ()

Situation means situation of fields - i.e. position in space and distance () and attraction/repulsion ().

[Jonathan]

States means internal states of objects and of interactions with other objects ; mechanical () or non-mechanical ()

Situation means situation of fields - i.e. position in space and distance () and attraction/repulsion ().

Okay, fine; when you add other words to it, it starts to make sense.
I was just noticing that this thread has really focused mainly on semantics, splitting hairs over words, etc. And I was partly responsible for that because I reacted to your single-word descriptions, since my experience is that single-word descriptions in general merely confuse things even as they seem to be simplifying them.

But getting back to the original intent of the thread, I think what you're pointing out is merely one of the cornerstones of Socionics: that instead of focusing on dichotomies like this:
Preferring F or T, N or S, I or E, etc.,
...Socionics recognizes that these are false dichotomies, because any healthy person recognizes that all of these are important; therefore, it focuses on the way in which someone prefers F and T, etc., hence resulting in dichotomies like this:
Preferring Fe AND Ti, or Fi AND Te; Ni AND Se, or Ne AND Si.
...and so forth.

That's really the fundamental thing, the main concept, the main attraction of Socionics. Of course, in my view, one must go a little beyond that, because again, I think that every healthy person should recognize that both Ti and Te, both Fi and Fe, etc., are important. So the key is to understand at what level, or in what aspect of people's lives, are we talking about these preferences; and that's the source of most of the debates on the forum.

[CuriousSoul]

Okay, fine; when you add other words to it, it starts to make sense.
I was just noticing that this thread has really focused mainly on semantics, splitting hairs over words, etc. And I was partly responsible for that because I reacted to your single-word descriptions, since my experience is that single-word descriptions in general merely confuse things even as they seem to be simplifying them.

But getting back to the original intent of the thread, I think what you're pointing out is merely one of the cornerstones of Socionics: that instead of focusing on dichotomies like this:
Preferring F or T, N or S, I or E, etc.,
...Socionics recognizes that these are false dichotomies, because any healthy person recognizes that all of these are important; therefore, it focuses on the way in which someone prefers F and T, etc., hence resulting in dichotomies like this:
Preferring Fe AND Ti, or Fi AND Te; Ni AND Se, or Ne AND Si.
...and so forth.

That's really the fundamental thing, the main concept, the main attraction of Socionics. Of course, in my view, one must go a little beyond that, because again, I think that every healthy person should recognize that both Ti and Te, both Fi and Fe, etc., are important. So the key is to understand at what level, or in what aspect of people's lives, are we talking about these preferences; and that's the source of most of the debates on the forum.

Since the issue of single-word descriptions keeps on coming up perhaps I can illustrate the issue with a classic example.

What is Water?



Here are some interesting facts about What Water Is . . . .

Pure water is colorless. It often appears blue in ice or in a clear lake or green or brown in a river because it contains or reflects other matter.
Water is wet when it is a liquid but scientifically speaking, it is dry when ice or vapor.
Water that has mineral salts is called "hard water". Rainwater is most often soft water. Well water or water from streams flowing over gypsum, limestone, or dolomite is more likely to be hard.
Water is heavier than air.
Ocean water is salty.
There is much more water than land on the earth's surface.
Water pours (or flows): it will run from a high place to lower place and seek the lowest possible level.
A waterfall is water falling from one level to a lower level.
Water takes three forms: a.)it is a liquid in lakes, oceans, or when it comes from faucets, b.)it is a solid when it is ice or snow, and c.)it is a gas when it is steam, clouds, air, fog, mist, or vapor.
Water comes to the earth as rain or snow. Most of it goes back into the air. Fog or mist is a cloud on the ground.
Ice is very strong. It holds you up when you skate on it if it is thick enough. Some Eskimos used to build temporary houses from blocks of snow and ice. If water gets into bottles, iron pipes, or cracks in rocks or pavements it can break them when it turns into ice because it expands when frozen.
Cold water from our faucets comes from many sources: surface run-off stored in reservoirs behind dams, deep wells, springs, streams, and rainwater collected in concrete basins.
Hot water from our faucets is the same water as the cold but it is heated and stored in a hot water tank in our homes before we use it.

What is water

If you want to explain what water is you can do it either by listing easily dozens of different examples of water in its different manifestations - or alternatively you can offer a simple one word definition from which all the other definitions can - with the benefit of a coherent theory - be simply derived. Water is the H2O, HOH molecule in all its different manifestations.

In my opinion there is a lot to be said for the one word definitions. The question is only what are the correct words. :wink: Or in practise how to connect the theory closely and more or less unambiguosly with practical real life observations.

[Jonathan]

[
Since the issue of single-word descriptions keeps on coming up perhaps I can illustrate the issue with a classic example.
...
Water is the H2O, HOH molecule in all its different manifestations.

In my opinion there is a lot to be said for the one word definitions. The question is only what are the correct words. :wink: Or in practise how to connect the theory closely and more or less unambiguosly with practical real life observations.

Well yes, Water is H20. But we're talking about Socionics, and in my experience on this forum, one-word definitions have always led to more confusion. And actually, Macintruc's ones here are quite good...but they're still confusing, because no matter what word you choose, it will always fail.

With water, we can say it's H20 because that's merely another word for water that describes its structure. It's really a notation rather than a word in a regular sense. It's like calling Ti "external statics of fields." We understand that the two things are synonymous (although when one considers the issue of defining external, statics, and fields, it may not seem to help much).

The idea behind all the one-word definition posts is to substitute some adjective or descriptive word for the Socionics function. This always fails because there are lots of structural issues that just can't be conveyed in a description.

Take rigidity. Is it easier to evaluate if a person is "rigid" than if he/she emphasizes "Ti"? Of course it is. However, it doesn't prove that the person is using Ti, because all kinds of people may seem rigid for all kinds of reasons; and furthermore, an LII or ILE may not necessarily seem all that rigid.

[machintruc]

I recently read a thing about preferences. A socionist (don't remember his name) said that traits have a golden proportion

The golden number is something like .618, so :

A LII is Judging, so 60% J, and 40% P (let's round golden number to .6)
A LII is Logical, so (60%*60%) T, and (40%*60%) F.
A LII is Intuitive, so (60%*40%) N, and (40%*40%) S.

.6*.6 = .36
.6*.4 = .24
.4*.4 = .16

A LII is 36% logical, 24% intuitive, 24% ethical, and 16% sensing. It could round as 35-25-25-15.

This is why dichotomies are not always suitable, because trait will only be displayed 62%.

This means, an Extrotim is 38% Introtim, and a Logical is 38% Ethical.

[aestrivex]

I recently read a thing about preferences. A socionist (don't remember his name) said that traits have a golden proportion

The golden number is something like .618, so :

A LII is Judging, so 60% J, and 40% P (let's round golden number to .6)
A LII is Logical, so (60%*60%) T, and (40%*60%) F.
A LII is Intuitive, so (60%*40%) N, and (40%*40%) S.

.6*.6 = .36
.6*.4 = .24
.4*.4 = .16

A LII is 36% logical, 24% intuitive, 24% ethical, and 16% sensing. It could round as 35-25-25-15.

This is why dichotomies are not always suitable, because trait will only be displayed 62%.

This means, an Extrotim is 38% Introtim, and a Logical is 38% Ethical.

this is taking what other people say way too literally.

[CuriousSoul]

Well yes, Water is H20. But we're talking about Socionics, and in my experience on this forum, one-word definitions have always led to more confusion. And actually, Macintruc's ones here are quite good...but they're still confusing, because no matter what word you choose, it will always fail.

With water, we can say it's H20 because that's merely another word for water that describes its structure. It's really a notation rather than a word in a regular sense. It's like calling Ti "external statics of fields." We understand that the two things are synonymous (although when one considers the issue of defining external, statics, and fields, it may not seem to help much).

The idea behind all the one-word definition posts is to substitute some adjective or descriptive word for the Socionics function. This always fails because there are lots of structural issues that just can't be conveyed in a description.

Take rigidity. Is it easier to evaluate if a person is "rigid" than if he/she emphasizes "Ti"? Of course it is. However, it doesn't prove that the person is using Ti, because all kinds of people may seem rigid for all kinds of reasons; and furthermore, an LII or ILE may not necessarily seem all that rigid.

Comparing apples and oranges for sure, but I think if you cannot explain the functions in one or just few words - how are you to tell the functions apart based on long lists either? In a sense when people talk about preference for Fi over Fe or Ti over Te for example the underlying assumption is that we in general have a rough idea what the functions refer to. I think it is better to try to spell out these referents as explicitly as possible so that we can know that we all are actually talking about the same concepts. It is meaningful to say that I value my personal comfort more than status symbols, but if you instead just say that I am a Si quadra type rather than a Se quadra type, you will often discover that while people may still use the same words they actually refer to very different things.

[Jonathan]

Comparing apples and oranges for sure, but I think if you cannot explain the functions in one or just few words - how are you to tell the functions apart based on long lists either?

You're right; lists of words won't do. The key is structure. That's what single words have trouble conveying. H20 works for water precisely because it conveys a structure, but one needs to use full sentences to explain what those symbols mean.

In a sense when people talk about preference for Fi over Fe or Ti over Te for example the underlying assumption is that we in general have a rough idea what the functions refer to.

Yes, that's the assumption, and I believe that people do not all the mean the same thing.

I think it is better to try to spell out these referents as explicitly as possible so that we can know that we all are actually talking about the same concepts.

Exactly.

It is meaningful to say that I value my personal comfort more than status symbols, but if you instead just say that I am a Si quadra type rather than a Se quadra type, you will often discover that while people may still use the same words they actually refer to very different things.

Good example of how things get confused when one substitutes easier concepts for the functions. See, I clearly value my personal comfort more than status symbols, and I know some people who I'm rather sure are ILI, IEI, EIE, and ESI who would all say the same thing. If we were to replace the concept of Si vs. Se preference with valuing personal comfort vs. valuing status symbols, then we would have a slightly different understanding of the functions, and all these people would have to change type. Then you'd have all sorts of paradoxes, with people who (for example) can no longer be IEI but would have to be SEI but they're clearly not S types, or EII, but they're clearly not Ij....It all becomes very messy.

Actually, come to think of it, the whole notion of valuing status symbols over personal comfort is kind of paradoxical. It seems everybody agrees that there are people like that, but it's hard to actually find any. Even Se types, when one gets to know them, want personal comfort. Really, the only people I've met who are that into status symbols are salespeople who want to impress their clients, and that's so that they can be more successful so that they can have personal comfort. But we all know that those people who prefer status symbols exist...they're out there. We just have to keep our eyes open for them. Whether that's type-related or not is yet another question.

[Exodus]

Good example of how things get confused when one substitutes easier concepts for the functions. See, I clearly value my personal comfort more than status symbols, and I know some people who I'm rather sure are ILI, IEI, EIE, and ESI who would all say the same thing. If we were to replace the concept of Si vs. Se preference with valuing personal comfort vs. valuing status symbols, then we would have a slightly different understanding of the functions, and all these people would have to change type. Then you'd have all sorts of paradoxes, with people who (for example) can no longer be IEI but would have to be SEI but they're clearly not S types, or EII, but they're clearly not Ij....It all becomes very messy.

That's why the relationships are so important.

Actually, come to think of it, the whole notion of valuing status symbols over personal comfort is kind of paradoxical. It seems everybody agrees that there are people like that, but it's hard to actually find any. Even Se types, when one gets to know them, want personal comfort. Really, the only people I've met who are that into status symbols are salespeople who want to impress their clients, and that's so that they can be more successful so that they can have personal comfort. But we all know that those people who prefer status symbols exist...they're out there. We just have to keep our eyes open for them. Whether that's type-related or not is yet another question.

I live with Se types, and it's very obvious to me that they put off personal comfort when it comes to work. They do care about "status symbols", but I think it's more obviously reflected in a tendency to exert oneself too much, and consequently neglect comfort. Then the link between Se and Si is more clear, since the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. Why you haven't seen any people like this in real life--go figure.

[Jonathan]

BTW, just to make clear where I think the personal comfort vs. status symbols thing goes wrong is that it while it's true that people in the Gamma and Beta quadras necessarily put some other things ahead of maximizing personal comfort (at least in comparison to Si types), it's wrong to assume that what they value instead is status symbols. It's kind of a cliche that people value status symbols so much, and I guess there are people like that. But that doesn't mean that such empty goals are the only alternative to Si. For example, people may want to try to make the world a better place, or they may want to explore their imagination, or accomplish something that could be helpful to society, or be responsible workers and citicizens, or a host of other things. All of these may take people away from focus on physical comfort, but aren't the same as seeking empty status symbols either.

[Exodus]

BTW, just to make clear where I think the personal comfort vs. status symbols thing goes wrong is that it while it's true that people in the Gamma and Beta quadras necessarily put some other things ahead of maximizing personal comfort (at least in comparison to Si types), it's wrong to assume that what they value instead is status symbols. It's kind of a cliche that people value status symbols so much, and I guess there are people like that. But that doesn't mean that such empty goals are the only alternative to Si. For example, people may want to try to make the world a better place, or they may want to explore their imagination, or accomplish something that could be helpful to society, or be responsible workers and citicizens, or a host of other things. All of these may take people away from focus on physical comfort, but aren't the same as seeking empty status symbols either.

Yeah, especially for ISxjs status is simply a means to an end: enforcing their rules on the world -- just like mental dexterity is a means to an end for INxjs: to develop their philosophy.

And for ISxjs and ESxps alike, they are most concerned about getting something done, and power is necessary to do that.

Keep it simple stupid; information elements are really easy to see if only you just focus on the main point of each. Various interpretations and elaborations exist, but are mostly academic in nature. All the stereotypes are true.

[CuriousSoul]

Good example of how things get confused when one substitutes easier concepts for the functions. See, I clearly value my personal comfort more than status symbols, and I know some people who I'm rather sure are ILI, IEI, EIE, and ESI who would all say the same thing. If we were to replace the concept of Si vs. Se preference with valuing personal comfort vs. valuing status symbols, then we would have a slightly different understanding of the functions, and all these people would have to change type. Then you'd have all sorts of paradoxes, with people who (for example) can no longer be IEI but would have to be SEI but they're clearly not S types, or EII, but they're clearly not Ij....It all becomes very messy.

Actually, come to think of it, the whole notion of valuing status symbols over personal comfort is kind of paradoxical. It seems everybody agrees that there are people like that, but it's hard to actually find any. Even Se types, when one gets to know them, want personal comfort. Really, the only people I've met who are that into status symbols are salespeople who want to impress their clients, and that's so that they can be more successful so that they can have personal comfort. But we all know that those people who prefer status symbols exist...they're out there. We just have to keep our eyes open for them. Whether that's type-related or not is yet another question.

I knew the status symbols would get a rise out of you.

Yes, I know these forced dichotomies do not tend to work, but it is hard to come up with anything that really does. Fi=loyalty has, for example, also been proposed, but I am sure I am not the only one to disagree with that one either. The trouble though is that people who are "clearly no Ij" in your - or their own opinion, often turn out to be obviously IJ types in the opinion of some other often quite experienced typologist. And then it is back to my intuition says this but your intuition says that - and then what?

The analytical approach at least holds the promise of the future - perhaps one sunny day...
For the sake of example, I hereby boldly claim:





In my opinion George W Bush is most likely INFP.

Can you see where I am coming from?
(I am not joking.)

[Jonathan]

In my opinion George W Bush is most likely INFP.

Can you see where I am coming from?
(I am not joking.)

Because you have a picture where he seems to be laid back? I don't get it.

Anyhow, I agree with you; it's hard to come up with good, clear definitions of the functions that everyone agrees on. Experienced Socionists who have dealt with having to explain Socionics to many people tend to use more than one word for each of the functions.

Here's something I came across that Rick wrote: http://socionist.blogspot.com/2006/1...revisited.html

I'm not saying that his explanations are the be-all-end-all. But it's just interesting how someone who has a good knowledge of Socionics as it's understood in Russia and who has explained is to lots of people uses so many words to describe each function, rather than trying to boil each one down to one word.

The problem with people's "more concise" discriptions is that things like "loyalty," "ridigity," "status symbol," "open-mindedness," etc., aren't really directly type related. They only become type-related because in a specific instance, someone's expression of type comes out in one of these ways. But they're not exclusively tied to the type itself.

[implied]

In my opinion George W Bush is most likely INFP.

Can you see where I am coming from?
(I am not joking.)

heathie = GWB in that pic.

[aestrivex]

george w bush is not IEI. i believe he is LSE, although he could also be ESE. george bush with devalued Ni and ego block Si makes an incredible amount of sense. nothing about the man comes close to resembling IEI in the slightest. end of story.

[Jonathan]

Actually, as I read through Rick's F descriptions there (I think he really shines there in describing Fi vs. Fe), it becomes clear how the functions relate to the stereotypes, and also how the stereotypes fall way short.

If he's right, then Fe people think and talk in terms of external manifestations of feelings:
"You have such a frightful look on your face."
"You're so enthusiastic and passionate."

Fi people think and talk in terms of internal feeling states:
"You're afraid."
"You like her."

It's easy to see how someone who thinks in terms of internal feeling states will tend to have an easier time knowing clearly whom he/she likes, dislikes, etc. Someone who thinks in terms of external manifestations may be less aware of that, focusing more on the feelings of the moment. Hence, Fi may manifest itself as loyalty (it's that "manifestation" vs. "definition" thing ). But then again, any type may be loyal, and any type may be disloyal.

And let's hope Heath doesn't grow up to be like GWB.

[implied]

george w bush is not IEI. i believe he is LSE, although he could also be ESE. george bush with devalued Ni and ego block Si makes an incredible amount of sense. nothing about the man comes close to resembling IEI in the slightest. end of story.

well said. i agree.