It seems like from my observations subtype modifies process/result and asking/declaring. How could it not?
Subtype and process/result dichotomy
It seems like from my observations subtype modifies process/result and asking/declaring. How could it not?
It doesn't.
How do you know?Originally Posted by mfckrz
Self-evident.
good point, yeah subs have the ability to change the classic configuration of the Model A, and so the dichotomies, reason f.e. why the creative subtypes of rationals are so similar to irrationals and viceversa.
So do you mean that subtypes always change the process/result dichotomy?
that's a good question. but no, not always. ultimately, there are different levels of contact or inert subtypes, you can be a soft or a hard subtype, so to speak. this will accentuate the prominence of the inert or contact functions.
the two subtypes of the same type can behave very differently, and obviously this should be reflected with a different functional stack, which forms the Reinin dichotomies.
To me it seems like they do given, among other things, the names, like Organizer for SLE-Ti which would indicate process because process is deductive and organizing would require putting things into sequence which would mean that they're process. While Coordinator for SLE-Se would indicate result because to coordinate means to match, there is no process involved. Also, I know many SLE-Ti who had great deductive reasoning ability and they do things pretty neatly and don't miss details. Also, LII-Ti being called systemizer sounds like it would be process.
EDIT: I'm really not 100% sure about the subtypes being process/result. It's kind of hard to know for certain.
Last edited by Disturbed; 07-18-2019 at 09:50 PM.
I think somewhere in the middle, as in, the base type structure has the rails in which the divergences occur, those differences are given by the accentuation of inert or contact functions.
Are you an alcoholic?
no and i dont fk my mum
more simply for the dumbos: leave the asking/declaring dichotomy aside, and yes, the subtypes of the same can render the process/result dichotomy differently
it's all unbased heresies
Hey, no need to be defensive about your problems. This is an intervention.
hey, ur dullness is none of my problems : )
Your anhedonia is symptomatic of alcoholism
my anhedonia? lol
your aphasia is a sign of mental deterioration
Pure wet brain projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernic...akoff_syndrome
lol obviously mfkrz are very experienced with alcoholic related problems
maybe you can guess it by yourself who's the one projecting here, in case of fuzziness, I can help ; )
Are we talking about reality or the hypothetical theory?
Obviously all dichotomies are crude binary discretizations. So I guess it can go either way as per sample called a person. Based on the theory I think movements could occur primarily in rings as in cognition but manifestation in eyes of others it might look like going towards mirror etc.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
And what exactly is "the reality"? You'll notice that it's all an interpretation.
This is why "typing" doesn't work, because they all expect to have the "reality" by say, observation, and say "this is the reality! Anyone who disagrees is an idiot...", but then even that observation is a theory or an interpretation.
I'm not convinced this dichotomy makes much sense to begin with, frankly. It seems to be the most arbitrary of all the dichotomies. It doesn't correlate with anything in particular function-wise. Is there even an explanation on why it's assigned the way it is? Or is it just what somebody thought made sense based on observation? There's no epistemological explanation on wikisocion either.
First, who is "anyone"?
Second, so what? Maybe there isn't an absolute reality and viewing it through archetypal patterns (even if they change over time) might be a good way to understand and deal with 'reality'. And maybe to you that's 'illogical', but why does that bother you so much? I'd really like to know that answer, but I doubt you even know yourself.
Androgynous Robot Dreamer - Not really human, but good at pretending.
There are some people who claim to have the "access" to pure and true reality, via say, observation or intuition, and they push that view onto everybody else. And that is all the wrong with the world like authoritarianism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JungianTypo...ult_dichotomy/
https://www.reddit.com/r/JungianTypo...kingdeclaring/
Well...I think it's more complicated than that most of the time, but fair enough. I'm actually a little surprised at your honesty. It's not how these questions typically seem to go on here. I was expecting some kind of verbal fight.
Okay, that's interesting and pretty clever to notice something like that, even if it does seem a little hyper-logical. I'm not sure I understand this very well then, but that poster also says thisFirst to understand the significance of this dichotomy you must understand that Socionics, unlike most Western approaches to typology, understands information in both Static and Dynamic terms. In western typology if we ask "What kind of information is this?" the answer is Ti, Te, Se etc. In Socionics instead we would describe the information as Ti -> Ne or Se -> Fe, for example. As information is seen as a vector, direction, not just the functions involved, becomes very important. Ne - > Ti is not the same thing as Ti -> Ne. The Process/Result dichotomy describes the direction of information flow between the functions.@Disturbed
So I guess the answer is, at least in terms of how it's defined, is no?
And as far as asking/declaring goes, ignoring whether I think it makes much sense or not, don't Mirror's share the same asking/declaring dichotomy? So why would it change when theoretically you'd be becoming more of your mirror anyway?
Androgynous Robot Dreamer - Not really human, but good at pretending.
subtype modifies the content of the functional stacking, so the answer would be yes. process/result are dependent on this order, so the answer should be yes.
The dichotomies probably vary smoothly, as do the functions. As does shoe size.
Follow the shift from Te-dom to Ni-dom. Where do the dichotomies become obviously distinguishable?
LIE-Te - LIE - LIE-Ni - ILI-Te - ILI - ILI-Ni
It seems to me from what I've observed and know and how I understand things that LSE-Te, LIE-Te, and ILE-Ne are result, while LSE-Si, ILE-Ti, SLE-Ti, LSI-Se, ESI-Se, EIE-Ni, and IEI-Ni are process. Something I don't understand is... subtype changing the process/result dichotomy is seldom mentioned.
@Disturbed, I'm not a fan of Reinin dichotomies myself, and they're not common among socionists too, but in reality the differences are evident as the types can vary very much.
A LIE-NI doesn't become a ILI, but works following similar patterns, and his psychic stacking will be left unvaried in the order, so that both a LIE and a LIE-Ni will still aim at Fi, but a LIE more so, while a LIE-Ni will be more drawn to Se than a normal LIE would, and will be able to use Fi more too (contact functions are all boosted).
Can't tell if you're talking about asking/declaring, but if you are, So what's the reasoning that the asking/declaring dichotomy changes with subtype when say ILI and LIE mirrors both are 'declaring' types to begin with?
That makes sense. I guess I never thought about it, but some of these dichotomies don't change between mirrors:
judicious/decisive
subjectivist/objectivist
aristocratic/democratic
static/dynamic
asking/declaring
Androgynous Robot Dreamer - Not really human, but good at pretending.
I've said it above
What are you even doing?
Androgynous Robot Dreamer - Not really human, but good at pretending.
Dichotomies doesn't change according to subtypes. In most basic terms, all dichotomies are based on the positions of IEs, the position of IEs does not change according to subtype. How do you think it is possible?
This is irrelevant. LIE-Ni still would get information from S and according to the links you shared, that still makes LIE a result type regardless of subtype.
How do you think it varies? Which dichotomies are we talking about?
even if the position of the elements doesn't change, their quality does, if you're a LII you work with Ti and Ne and by the links you've seen, Ti takes information from S, while the same is not true for Ne. if you have a boosted Ne you -as a LII- will receive more information from F, and this, depending on the degree of contact function development, will inevitably change some things about some dichotomies.
https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl...elativism.html
why would I receive more information from F? what is this based on or what is the logic behind it? What do you mean by quality?
Information cycle doesn't care about the boost. The position of IEs determine the quality. LII with strong Ne subtype still has a base Ti and does not act like a Ne base or its mirror type ILE.
Introvert contact type can be quite different from it's mirror-contact type. For example, LII-Ne has strengthened Ni, Fi and ILE-Ti has weakened Ni, Fi. LII-Ne has weakened Se, Te whereas ILE-Ti has strengthened Se,Te.
Let's imagine that your proposition is right. LII-Ne have strengthened Ne, Fe, Ni, Fi and weakened Te, Se, Ti, Si. If LII-Ne gets information from F then LII is partially supervised by EII although it has strengthened Fi, Ni, what is EII supervising LII-Ne for, it does not make sense.
a better understanding than what I could provide is given in the process/result description on reddit.
the position of the IEs determine the quality, yes, and if the IEs are significantly altered we say that a type resembles something else. contact subtypes behave significantly like their mirror or their look-alike.
LII-Ne can be different from an ILE and from a LII.
a LII-Ne would be supervised by a SLE and more so because its Se is even weaker. the relationship with a EII can be similar to the one with a supervisee maybe, a IEE. a IEE can be perceived more as a supervisor.... btw, these are just hypothesis.
Subtypes definitely changes some certain things and intertype relations is one of those things. As I said before, in most basic terms, dichotomies are based on the position of IEs and since the position of IEs doesn't change according to subtypes, dichotomies remain the same.
The whole socionics is intercorrelated, dichotomies based on essentials, if they change, whole thing would collapse. Since subtypes only strengthens and weakens IEs, if we think that each dichotomy as a spectrum, I think it can be possible that different subtypes of a type can find themselves on different positions on the spectrum not for all but some dichotomies, however, their main dichotomy would remain the same.
For example, LII-Ti, LII, LII-Ne would remain as emotivist. However, LII-Ne would be further on emotivism spectrum. LII-Ti would be further on obstinate spectrum compared to rest. Of course this can't be applied to process/result since it is based on information cycle hence it doesn't effected by the boost that subtype posses.
IDK, I've created a model to which I still stick to, where the order of the functions is read by the accentuation of the base or contact functions. I stick to it because, as you say, subtypes deff change the way we relate to the other types. Ideally the same subtypes will have the kind of relationships that exist between the basic types, so why should the subtypes maintain the same relationships with the normal types... I doubt it.
Yeah I think the same, the dichotomies and the level of subtypes are to be taken in consideration and that's why I've pointed the same thing out 40 posts above.
If you're a very boosted Ne subtype, then yes, the process-result dichotomy can easily be altered since it is dependent on the base/creative functions.
Well it's actually more of this:
https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl...kepticism.html
However I wouldn't say that things are "probably" true, because things are either true or it isn't. Reality isn't probable. We have our interpretations of reality, which is going to be 100% wrong, but may still contain a grain of truth and be an approximation of truth.But a necessary part of science is that every claim it makes is open to doubt. People used to believe that the earth was flat. We believe it is round. Science gives us some good reasons to think so, but it is possible that another theory will come along and show that the earth is a four-dimensional hypersphere instead of a round ball. The case is never closed on any issue, doubt is always possible, and final knowledge is forever out of our grasp. This view will probably upset people who believe in "an absolute truth" and people who believe "there is no absolute truth."
--
As for the mysteries and the confusions surrounding Reinin dichotomies, well the dichotomies don't change the initial classification system of Socionics via observation, it just attempts to justify the classification further by giving it more details. But the details are completely arbitrary.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote