Fe as organic causality

[krieger]

The discrepancy between Phaedrus' oppinion and that of the community seems mainly due to Phaedrus' (possibly justified) unwillingness to acknowledge 'organic causality', eg. the phenomenom that no matter how hard one screams what the 'proper' way of handling a system like the MBTI is, people will treat it the way they have for as long as they remember, and will evaluate statements made about the system in accordance with this.

'organic causality' seems to me a broad catagorization all the mechanisms driving the Fe function. After all, what is social evaluation of emotion really? "If I say X, person Y will react in way Z." Conversely, Ti, the function of structural (or should we say, inductive?) causality, runs paralel to it, orienting by it entirely...

[krieger]

Pim Fortuyn is another example of a person who defied organic causality. To him, doing so even became fatal. (though we might hope the blow was not dealt by the 'healthy' part of Fe valuing society)

[Expat]

The discrepancy between Phaedrus' oppinion and that of the community seems mainly due to Phaedrus' (possibly justified) unwillingness to acknowledge 'organic causality', eg. the phenomenom that no matter how hard one screams what the 'proper' way of handling a system like the MBTI is, people will treat it the way they have for as long as they remember, and will evaluate statements made about the system in accordance with this.

That is part of it, but it's not the whole story.

Most people here - the community, if you will - eventually drop Myers-Briggs after they have more or less mastered Socionics, although MBTT "hangovers" very often remain. Phaedrus's insistence in referring to MBTT seems to stem from his conception that MBTT descriptions have insights into types beyond those available in Socionics descriptions, hence the frequent reference to Paul James's INTP description. The discrepancy in opinion - as I see it - has to do with whether that is true or not. I happen to think that it is not true, that MBTT descriptions create far more confusion than clarification, and that - if you have to rely on descriptions at all - the Socionics ones are more than enough, and more than diversified enough.

What you mention compounds on the problem: regardless of how good "official" MBTT materials may be - even though I am inclined to doubt even that, from what I know of, for instance, their definitions of Intuition, for instance - the fact remains that most people will arrive here with a low-quality Myers-Briggs typing, which is not necessarily of much use for Socionics typing.

'organic causality' seems to me a broad catagorization all the mechanisms driving the Fe function. After all, what is social evaluation of emotion really? "If I say X, person Y will react in way Z." Conversely, Ti, the function of structural (or should we say, inductive?) causality, runs paralel to it, orienting by it entirely...

Yes, but I'm not sure if it applies to this case -- it has to do simply with the way MBTT is available online.

[Expat]

Pim Fortuyn is another example of a person who defied organic causality. To him, doing so even became fatal. (though we might hope the blow was not dealt by the 'healthy' part of Fe valuing society)

Just remember that he was about to lead his party to electoral victory --

[Jonathan]

The discrepancy between Phaedrus' oppinion and that of the community seems mainly due to Phaedrus' (possibly justified) unwillingness to acknowledge 'organic causality', eg. the phenomenom that no matter how hard one screams what the 'proper' way of handling a system like the MBTI is, people will treat it the way they have for as long as they remember, and will evaluate statements made about the system in accordance with this.

'organic causality' seems to me a broad catagorization all the mechanisms driving the Fe function. After all, what is social evaluation of emotion really? "If I say X, person Y will react in way Z." Conversely, Ti, the function of structural (or should we say, inductive?) causality, runs paralel to it, orienting by it entirely...

That's interesting...If it's done in such a calculating way, why is it not Te? I mean, suppose a person says, "I want to accomplish X; and to get there, based on knowledge, etc., I see that doing Y will be the most efficient and effective way to accomplish it." Now that, phrased with the word "doing," sounds kind of Te; but if we substitute "saying" instead of "doing," all of the sudden it becomes Fe?

Now, to reconcile this with what I see as the intent of what you're saying....It seems to me perhaps that Fe involves so many disparate calculations related to communication and people's likely reactions that they can no longer be handled by Te, but must be guided by Ti. Now that's an interesting thing too. But you see that there must be a finer, or more precise way of distinguishing the two here....Surely a way of reasoning that's Te-like can't become Fe merely because it's logic related to situations involving communicating with people, as opposed to logic related to some other area (?).

[krieger]

That's interesting...If it's done in such a calculating way, why is it not Te? I mean, suppose a person says, "I want to accomplish X; and to get there, based on knowledge, etc., I see that doing Y will be the most efficient and effective way to accomplish it." Now that, phrased with the word "doing," sounds kind of Te; but if we substitute "saying" instead of "doing," all of the sudden it becomes Fe?

Now, to reconcile this with what I see as the intent of what you're saying....It seems to me perhaps that Fe involves so many disparate calculations related to communication and people's likely reactions that they can no longer be handled by Te, but must be guided by Ti. Now that's an interesting thing too. But you see that there must be a finer, or more precise way of distinguishing the two here....Surely a way of reasoning that's Te-like can't become Fe merely because it's logic related to situations involving communicating with people, as opposed to logic related to some other area (?).

Yes, I am as interested as you in finding that finer way of distinguishing the two. Over the few weeks that I've been entertaining this idea I have been developing some thoughts on it, but I'm afraid I cannot yet give an answer that will sustain the critique of the gamma quadra.

I'll give a very general hint on what the answer would be like if I could word it with enough precision: locality versus generality.

What makes anything involving 'people' special, is that a specific part of human interaction is immutable. Something that you learn about human behavior can help you for your entire life, because you can almost be sure that the situation that you've learned about will occur again. This is not the same with learning a programming language, for example. This latter thing requires very specific situations for you to benefit from your new knowledge...

Anyway, I need to flesh these thoughts out some more. I'm not going to be able to sound more intelligible than that for now.

[mikemex]

MBTI is as valid as socionics and is actually a very good example of the difference between logical and ethical solutions to problems.

Socionics is the Ti solution to typology. In socionics, types are symmetrical, both inside (same amount of functions, same arrangement, etc) and outside (same number of relationships, same balance; we have both a supervisor and a supervisee, etc). It's like an equation because logicals find it easier to handle problems that the way.

However, I would like to remind you that we all give reality an arbitrary interpretation. We have a decimal system because ancient humans used their hand fingers to count. So, today, everyone seems to think that a decimal thing is the most natural way to count, but that's not true. Mayans (who made one of the biggest discoveries in mathematics: the concept of zero) counted 20 by 20. Why? Because they counted using their feet fingers too! So you should be careful to speak about MBTI so lightly. It is expressed in a different kind of logic and superfluous criticism denotes more your lack of understanding than anything else.

MBTI is the Fi solution to typology.

First, forget stating everything in Ti terms. MBTI does not assume that people is an equation which should be balanced. MBTI recognizes that people, even when they belong to the same type, can very different from each other. This is why two members of the same type in MBTI can be different types in socionics and vice versa. I scored ENTJ in MBTI several times, but I'm ENFp in socionics. For this reason I'm not like most of the ENFp around here and I'm not like most of the ENTJ out there.

MBTI introduces a concept which very few socionics people seems to understand: that a type does not necessarily determine behavior. This is completely different from the socionics view because, if you belong to a certain type then you have a fixed set of relationships with others. However, it fails to consider the possibility that even if you have a certain preference for functions you might still use others which are not the preferred ones. I call that phenomena "strength of functions", which is something MBTI considers while socionics does not.

If you don't believe that function strength and function preference are independent, just look at the responses I get when I post controversial stuff. I have the impression that very few people is willing to discuss what I say objectively; the rest just let themselves be carried by their feelings. This demonstrates, in my opinion, that a type means little in social interaction. If your Fe is strong, no matter which type are you, you'll end up throwing Fe elements in the conversation. Just observe how people seems to come here more for social reasons (see friends, etc) than to do research.

[Creepy-bg]

However, I would like to remind you that we all give reality an arbitrary interpretation. We have a decimal system because ancient humans used their hand fingers to count. So, today, everyone seems to think that a decimal thing is the most natural way to count, but that's not true. Mayans (who made one of the biggest discoveries in mathematics: the concept of zero) counted 20 by 20. Why? Because they counted using their feet fingers too! So you should be careful to speak about MBTI so lightly. It is expressed in a different kind of logic and superfluous criticism denotes more your lack of understanding than anything else.

I wonder if the male Mayans all counted to 21

[Kristiina]

In England there was some talk about ethical logics. I'm still digesting it (trying to add it to my own logics system).

Everything is connected to everything. Everything fits a logical system. e.g. If I study well, my exam results will improve. So why is this not Te? I used to think this kind of thinking was all Te (with a hint of necessary Ti and combined with Ni). I use the system in my everyday life. I know what I want and I know what I have to do to get it. It's easy to decide what I have to be doing to get something in the future. Then I found out that I'm ENFj, so I concluded: My logics system must be Ti, because Fe doesn't have its own system. Strong assumption to make so easily. According to this I have an half-assed Ti system that I get from Ti people and which I can only maintain and use. I can't change it much. It seems true in a way, because I have problems adding new information to my system, I always want Ti people to answer plenty of silly questions so I know where to place the new information in the system.

Now, when I stop assuming that Fe (as an ethical function) can not have its own "logical" system, things get much more interesting. That means I have my very own logics system that can be used in everyday life and even in science.

Fe system is the kind where I have everything that a person should know. It's full of my own judgement. "If I study well, my exam results will improve." cannot be proved, it's just my judgement, that makes sense to me on some level. When someone says they didn't study for an exam, I automatically decide that they missed out on a chance to get a better result. This does not mean that they'll get an F. Just that they could do better.

So, if every judging function forms their own logical system, we should probably talk about how Ti system helps Fe system and how Te system helps Fi system. There is something extremely different in them, but somehow the four systems make two complementary pairs. Maybe this should be in another thread... If this post sparks any thoughts, start a thread about it. As I said, I'm still digesting the information, so I'm not capable of maintaining a thread about it. It makes me dizzy.



Sorry that this post wasn't about Phaedrus. As for Phaedrus, I don't think his unwillingness to acknowledge 'organic causality' points to lack of Fe. I would say that his persistance to prove his story points to Ni-Se axis, but that's about it.

[krieger]

I don't think his unwillingness to acknowledge 'organic causality' points to lack of Fe.

In hindsight, this was a very poor way of wording it on my behalf. I should have said something along the lines of 'his choice to reject organic causality'.

[Kristiina]

I don't think his unwillingness to acknowledge 'organic causality' points to lack of Fe.

In hindsight, this was a very poor way of wording it on my behalf. I should have said something along the lines of 'his choice to reject organic causality'.

But did I understand you correctly that his attitude towards organic causality shows that he has extremely weak Fe, probably even Fe PoLR? I still think I don't really understand organic causality. OK, there's causality, but why organic. Due to my chosen profession, I keep thinking what organic/anorganic has to do with causality.

[tcaudilllg]

That's something I was wondering myself. Why organic casualty?

[krieger]

Organic as the opposite of mechanical.

'Organic causality' is what I call the kind of causality that produces an effect out of a situation where the exact antecedent for the change is not certain, but still vaguely known.

I have formalized this notion in prolog code.

[Exodus]

Organic as the opposite of mechanical.

'Organic causality' is what I call the kind of causality that produces an effect out of a situation where the exact antecedent for the change is not certain, but still vaguely known.

I have formalized this notion in prolog code.

Fascinating, can you post it please?

[science as magic]

Most people here - the community, if you will - eventually drop Myers-Briggs after they have more or less mastered Socionics

It seems like most people drop socionics once they learn how they influence people/how others will react to them as well. Someone else noted that sites like these are filled with high school students, losers, etc. It seems like socionics fills a gap in the social development of those who are "immature"/socially handicapped.

[Phaedrus]

Organic as the opposite of mechanical.

'Organic causality' is what I call the kind of causality that produces an effect out of a situation where the exact antecedent for the change is not certain, but still vaguely known.

As the concept is defined here, "organic causality" seems to be vaguely similar to the kind of considerations that are relevant for many situations where you have to make a practical decision what to do. You try to make the most rational decision considering all the relevant factors, and your estimation of the outcome is based on statistical probabilities. You are often in this state of mind when you play games like poker, or if you are trying to predict general trends, or if you invest money on the stock market. I am not opposed to this kind of dynamic thinking at all (even though what I describe here is maybe not exactly the same as what you have in mind, labcoat), but I would like the ultimate explanation of the universe to be based on mechanical causality only. I prefer mechanical causality, and I think the world is like that in essence. In that respect I share Einstein's attitude in contrast to Bohr's.

[Expat]

Most people here - the community, if you will - eventually drop Myers-Briggs after they have more or less mastered Socionics

It seems like most people drop socionics once they learn how they influence people/how others will react to them as well. Someone else noted that sites like these are filled with high school students, losers, etc. It seems like socionics fills a gap in the social development of those who are "immature"/socially handicapped.

To be "social" in the everyday use, especially in the typical high-school environment in western society, is connected to being confident in a few functions, especially and and perhaps also . Those who are less confident in the use of those functions will look for solutions connected to the functions they are more confident in, such as , , or .

Likewise, in a hard-science environment those who are less confident in the use of the latter functions will turn to the "social functions", such as developing connections with those who could help them.

There is no mystery to this, so I don't really see much point in your remark.

As for dropping MBTT for Socionics, I just meant that the latter is a superior system.

[Blaze]

*hijack*

i misread the thread name...

i thought i saw "Fe orgasmic causality"

i said gimme some 'o dat Fe then lol

[Creepy-bg]

*hijack*

i misread the thread name...

i thought i saw "Fe orgasmic causality"

i said gimme some 'o dat Fe then lol

[tcaudilllg]

Organic as the opposite of mechanical.

'Organic causality' is what I call the kind of causality that produces an effect out of a situation where the exact antecedent for the change is not certain, but still vaguely known.

I have formalized this notion in prolog code.

Fascinating, can you post it please?

Yes, please. But put a copyright on it. And I would apply for a patent if I were you, also.

...Unless you are planning to submit it to an academic journal, in which case I think the independence of your idea will be respected.


As for your definition... it seems to reflect the position of as your fifth function. However, what dominant person could structure better? Certainly none. So I think this definition passes muster by default.

Further, I think I can grasp what you mean. (using, for example, in that last sentence) You would appear to be saying that is the function of common sense. (although I wonder what role the 6th function plays in that consideration...) Certainly something crafted from an uncertain basis leads to an estimated sense of apprehension?

[Gilly]

*hijack*

i misread the thread name...

i thought i saw "Fe orgasmic causality"

i said gimme some 'o dat Fe then lol

You need a little more than Fe for that kind of organic causality :wink:

[Creepy-bg]

*hijack*

i misread the thread name...

i thought i saw "Fe orgasmic causality"

i said gimme some 'o dat Fe then lol

You need a little more than Fe for that kind of organic causality :wink:

you just don't have the right Fe skills

[Gilly]

*hijack*

i misread the thread name...

i thought i saw "Fe orgasmic causality"

i said gimme some 'o dat Fe then lol

You need a little more than Fe for that kind of organic causality :wink:

you just don't have the right Fe skills

Well I got a fi-fo-fum dick, so

[Blaze]

*hijack*

i misread the thread name...

i thought i saw "Fe orgasmic causality"

i said gimme some 'o dat Fe then lol

You need a little more than Fe for that kind of organic causality :wink:

hehe tell me about it.... :wink:

[Blaze]

*hijack*

i misread the thread name...

i thought i saw "Fe orgasmic causality"

i said gimme some 'o dat Fe then lol

You need a little more than Fe for that kind of organic causality :wink:

you just don't have the right Fe skills

Well I got a fi-fo-fum dick, so

LOL

[Gilly]

I'm really glad someone thought that was as funny as I did

<3

[Blaze]

yeah! cept you should say cock instead of dick when you're trying to make it all, er fabuluoso....

[Blaze]

***WARNING***

this thread has perversion potential

user advisory in effect

****************

[Gilly]

yeah! cept you should say cock instead of dick when you're trying to make it all, er fabuluoso....

Yeah, I thought about it, but lately I've got a thing for dick :wink:

[Creepy-bg]

yeah! cept you should say cock instead of dick when you're trying to make it all, er fabuluoso....

but lately I've got a thing for dick :wink:

yeah I bet you do

[Blaze]

yeah! cept you should say cock instead of dick when you're trying to make it all, er fabuluoso....

but lately I've got a thing for dick :wink:

yeah I bet you do

*laughs*

[Gilly]

[/subtlety]

[tcaudilllg]

Um well given that labcoat probably never meant for this discussion to go on such a completely irrelevant turn... I take offense to the attempted perversion of this thread. Moderators?

[Gilly]

Quit wasting your time being a whistle-blower (it won't work) and grade my test (probably won't work either).

[science as magic]

To be "social" in the everyday use, especially in the typical high-school environment in western society, is connected to being confident in a few functions, especially and and perhaps also . Those who are less confident in the use of those functions will look for solutions connected to the functions they are more confident in, such as , , or .

It is not a matter of functional intake in my opinion. It seems as though all people have the capability for self development in every area.

Likewise, in a hard-science environment those who are less confident in the use of the latter functions will turn to the "social functions", such as developing connections with those who could help them.

Socionics is not hard science.

There is no mystery to this, so I don't really see much point in your remark.

My comments weren't particularly directed at you as you have made it quite clear that it is not your intention to absorb every possible mindframe but only those which you find "useful" or what have you. I was just using your observation to point out that the superiority of socionists is pretty much the same as that of people who follow mbti (ie nonexistent).

As for dropping MBTT for Socionics, I just meant that the latter is a superior system.

Socionics doesn't accurately reflect the person on an individual scale and it is full of superstition/mythology in its description of the motives of the classifications of people as it sees them. It is inferior to having the capability to know and reflect all personal forms of interaction.

[Gilly]

Your first statement is obvious. Expat is stating that Se, Fe, and Fi are the functions most rewarded in day-to-day socializing. Peoples' abilities to develop different aspects of their personalities are unrelated to what metabolism styles are most rewarded by social standards.

Your second is pointless. Expat was not talking about Socionics. He's saying that, in a scientific environment, types without the functions normally rewarded in such an environment find ways of advancing themselves using other functions.

Your last statement is, once again, horribly obvious. We KNOW this; otherwise all INTjs would do all be nerdy math majors and all ESFps would be obnoxious assholes. Nobody is claiming that Socionics is the end-all-be-all; it's just one facet of interactions between people.


Are you intentionally acting stupid or something? I've never seen you react this uninsightfully before, Pedro.

[Expat]

Yes, all of science as magic's remarks show that he totally missed the point of what I was saying.

Which is simply this: some people who are less confident in Fe, Se and Fi will turn to areas related to their strong functions in order to feel more confident in social relations, and Socionics will be one of those. In a hard-science environment (and, no, not Socionics ) other people will do the same, from the other side.

[krieger]

Okay, two things are keeping me from posting the code right away, A being that I only have it as a sketch on paper which is still not entirely completed and still needs a lot of work, and B being that like tcaudilllg says I'm simply not happy about throwing out the result of months upon months of accumulation of ideas on a public forum for everyone to see.

I'll give a hint for now: the exact cause is not known, but the grouping in which it occurs is known. The same applies to the effect. A causality observed from an FeSi mindset overlooks a generality seen throughout all causalities observed by TiNe.

[Exodus]

How long is the code?

[science as magic]

Your first statement is obvious. Expat is stating that Se, Fe, and Fi are the functions most rewarded in day-to-day socializing. Peoples' abilities to develop different aspects of their personalities are unrelated to what metabolism styles are most rewarded by social standards.

It was meant to be obvious. Pointing out things that are obvious to someone who seems to be missing it is often a necessary (though rather dull) task.

Your second is pointless. Expat was not talking about Socionics. He's saying that, in a scientific environment, types without the functions normally rewarded in such an environment find ways of advancing themselves using other functions.

Yes, I misread that badly. Something akin to "In a hard-science environment those who are less confident in the use of the former functions will turn to their primary functions for use as "social functions." I was in quite a rush. My apologies.

Your last statement is, once again, horribly obvious. We KNOW this; otherwise all INTjs would do all be nerdy math majors and all ESFps would be obnoxious assholes. Nobody is claiming that Socionics is the end-all-be-all; it's just one facet of interactions between people.

The beauty of it is that it is obvious. I try not to think in socionical terms any longer because I believe that they are less capable of elaborating upon personality than ordinary words are. Having a language that is backwards compatible with more flexibility than anything else that is currently in use does not seem to be a weakness to me.

Are you intentionally acting stupid or something? I've never seen you react this uninsightfully before, Pedro.

You have a tendency of attacking other people's intelligence/ideas with out really understanding the subject in question. I don't really think anyone takes your claims of greatness quite seriously (with good cause) and perhaps you should not either.

Which is simply this: some people who are less confident in Fe, Se and Fi will turn to areas related to their strong functions in order to feel more confident in social relations, and Socionics will be one of those. In a hard-science environment (and, no, not Socionics ) other people will do the same, from the other side.

Yes I misread you. That was my error. However, that was but one of your points and some of the other things you had to say are exactly the sort of comments that I am criticizing and trying to get away from. For example, you started by stating that and were the social functions when I am asking why you are supplanting person for terms. Basically what I am saying is that when terminology and the person are in conflict it is unnecessary to restate the terminology in such a manner that it preserves the integrity of the system by which you are understanding the person because it has already shown itself to need correction (at least in part). If you attempt to correct the system by expanding its original terminology then you essentially create a new system and there is no longer a need to retain fidelity to the the relationship between subject and term that was present in the old system. Furthermore, it becomes impossible to have a discussion using such terminology because it will be continuously "reworked" to encompass any possible objections that arise. The whole endeavour becomes fruitless. Eventually the original subject of discussion becomes so morphed that the participants realize the silliness/grossness that has resulted from their efforts and they move on. I hardly doubt that anyone can deny that many people have "moved on" from socionics because they just think it is useless/pointless. That it is better and easier to interact with others naturally than to reinterpret the interaction into a format that they "need" in order to understand because that necessity is no longer present. They understand so they do not need to waste their time with extra steps. That was my original point. I hope I have made myself clear.