I said exactly that outloud when I read his post.Originally Posted by Ashton
I said exactly that outloud when I read his post.
There's no contradiction, since there's a difference between Base and Creative. If the ILE's Base is Ne, why would it matter that much if it has Ti in common with LII, regarding daily life for example. Ne-Base gives a different global attitude, consideration for objects, for changes, focus on the hidden - not logical - connections, and so on.
Ti being structural/relational logic, it doesn't necessaily mean that everything has to be structured in a consistent internal hierarchy, that's more applicable to Ti-Base. Ti-Creative types use the same rules (contradictions, relationships, designations), though although correctly, not necessarily consistently. There are situations where one can use correct logical rules for two cases separately, but these situations put together, they form a paradox. Paradoxes are usually ignored by Ti-Creatives, they're gathering their premises from the outside world, but Ti-Base can't ignore them (the paradoxes), just either dismiss the rogue premises entirely (more like LSI) - again, premises which are locally correct, for Ti-Creatives - or spend a lot of time to solve them (more like LII). If you know it already, it is stated in the descriptions that the logic of Ti-Creatives is often duplicitous, it is submitted to their base function - ILEs may come with two totally correct theories, though contradicting each other, SLEs may do the same thing in practical matters. Socially, LXIs try to be totally consistent, while XLEs don't, take the following case:
Person A, Ti type, convinced you in the past of something (P), based on logical reasons. Now he is trying to convince you of something else (R), based on correct logical reasons again, though you found a contradiction between P and R. If A is LXI, he will try to stay consistent (in fact *all Introverts* try to stay consistent, in respect to the nature of their Base function) and that argument will weight a lot, making him/her step back in retreat. However, if A is XLE, he will not give up, because R makes sense based on the new premises, whether it conflicts with P or not is not only irrelevant (there are perhaps some "details" in the middle, possible errors) but they simply can't admit R is wrong just because there's a contradiction between P and R. R is correct by itself and that's a fact which can't be ignored - that is Ti-Creative.
---
And my mistake, when I quoted Kant, I should have stated it's Alpha Ti-Base and Beta Ti-Base, not just Ti. In theory the information they deal with is the same - and there's no contradiction between them per se -, Ti-Creative types aim towards full consistency as well, though their focus is towards *now* and *this*, so their ultimate criterion for validation is the current context, not their internal framework, especially regarding empirical observations. In fact I see the Ti-Base problem in you right now, you claim that the descriptions are incorrect, though this is how XLEs *are*, behave, think, why should the descriptions be changed just because something connecting the two classes doesn't make sense to you? I think you need to change a bit your view and strip-down your understanding of Ti as an Information Element, dividing the rest among type attitudes (Ti Base =/= Ti Creative).
Very true observations...But the root question is what do we attribute to the IM elements themselves, and what do we attribute to their functional position?
I think this actually mirrors jason_m's argument about Ti in an interesting way.
A paraphrase of what Jason_m is saying: "How can Ti be expressed through orderliness and organization in LII but not in ELI, and shouldn't such qualities be more attributed to Te, given IM descriptions that make Te sound more related to logistics?"
Now a slight transformation: "How can Ni be expressed through speculation and perspective changing in ILI but not in LIE, and shouldn't such qualities be more attributed to Ne, given IM descriptions that make Ne sound more related to divergent ideation?"
I say this not discounting the Alpha possibility for myself; sometimes I feel I can relate to Alpha SFs as an Alpha NT if I want, but more commonly I probably relate to others around me as an ILI.
In any case, a tendency towards exploratory theorizing, etc., will be seen as some as evidence of Ne, and by others as fully compatible with base-Ni.
Far as I can tell, Ti actually does have a distinctly logistical, organizational and rules-bound side to it. What sets it apart in how it operates for Betas and Alphas is what it's blocked with -- Ti with Ne (and Ti with Ni) seeks consistency of ideas, whereas Ti with Se (and Ti with Si) seeks external consistency. So it can be arranged as follows:
Ti-Ne (Alpha NT): Rules structure of ideas, concepts, theoretical constructs.
Ti-Se (Beta ST): Rules structure of administration; clear, unambiguous instructions and hierarchy.
Ti-Ni (Beta introvert): Rules structure of plans, dreams and ambitions; orderly procedures, planning and rationale in service of fanciful notions, plans and visions for the future.
Ti-Si (Alpha introvert): Rules structure of aesthetic and administrative details; laying out consistent procedures and plans for fulfilling sensory desires or taking care of one's surroundings.
What do these signs mean—,
, etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason,
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function(extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
No, THAT is because you were psychologically abused.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
You make them all sound like rationals.
...Ti is a rational function. I was explaining it in terms of Ti.
What do these signs mean—
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
If you isolate Ti like that and give it one nature, then Ips and Eps end up sounding like Ijs and Ejs. Which is not how it works.
Or, read Ineffable's post.
The difference is that Ni speculation and perspective changing has more to do with subjective/personal/"metaphorical" forms of speculation or perhaps that involving forecasting and projecting in time versus simply developing ideas for their own sake about innovation, science, etc. The same should be said about Ti. Ti can be focused on work, seriousness, etc., but I think the notions are misplaced. Just like Ni types can be speculative about time and their subjective vision, Ti types should be considered organized, methodical, serious, etc. about their intellectual work, theory, blueprint, construct, etc. Also not structured per se, but structured around logic. This is what I think is wrong with classical socionics; LIIs are supposed to be Mirrors to ILEs, and ILEs are people who have grand, sweeping ideas and theories that need to be put together and understood. The role of LIIs is probably not that of a "workhorse" who puts the theories together slowly and methodically, but more of a structured theorist who knows the finer points of the theory and can therefore analyze it and piece it together.
Jason
Of course, but when they are involved the approach is usually different - namely it is more in line with the ego functions of the type. (For instance there might be EIE scientists who are innovative trendsetters, but they might see themselves as individualists as opposed to innovators, and they set trends through their antics and force of personality...)
Have you ever met any live humans before?
No more than you are with your own. I disagree with the conception of Ti envisioned by Jung, as the IE have beyond those primitive understandings in Socionics.
And, and
Me neither, nor would I suspect anyone who knows me.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
as if the view that type doesn't in any way limit or affect what a person can and can not successfully accomplish doesn't lead to "romanticized self-concepts".I suspect that's also true. I'm inclined to believe that no types/IEs/whatever possess significant vocational monopolies, and that one will tend to find a diversity of types in any field. But never mind my heresy for saying that, of course. I know it's unpopular to say things here that inhibit people from jerking off their romanticized self-concepts.
also: if you FIRST claim that type determines a persons' mental architecture in groundbreaking ways and THEN say this has no effect on vocational success whatsoever, the result is not a skeptical statement but a strong positive claim.
i can accept the quoted in isolation. a problem arises when a person first successively claims X, Y, Z and a whole range of other factors are not in any way related to type and then does continue to act as if type is something easy to detect to the point you can make extensive typing lists and assert types under the pretense of authority. you can have one or the other, but not both.
Yes, it is possible that any type could be innovative. My point was that there is a tendency more for Ne to take on this role more than other types. This is consistent with most interpretations of socionics.Well, apparently only real innovation comes from
yes, it does. i was talking about the attitude opposite to the one you described.Except it's apparent by reading these boards, that it does.
it's implied by half of what you write about socionics. also my third criticism applies here: if type is just some tiny, insignificant subtlety, it becomes unfitting to treat them as something easy to detect and a subject of certain determination. you can have one or the other, not both.I never said type determines a person's mental architecture in groundbreaking ways.
my statement was very Ni themed. the problem is that through the course of all your postings around here you never strike a credible balance between the two. your constant "not type related" claims have become a broken record and in the meantime you never provided a real counterweight to these that would make evident what makes you treat socionics types like a topic of certitude. at a certain point, it just makes you loose credibility.You're not thinking, you're just being logical.
By that reasoning of yours, any readily quantifiable personal attribute—such as say, someone's shoe size—must obviously have a HUGE influence on personality and cognitive function. Yet to my knowledge no significant observable relationship exists between the two.
as for what you wrote here: you're the one turning it into a 100% this, 100% that thing. take some of your own medicine. "just being logical" indeed.
ps. Te is the function of binary logic.
Oh jesus fuck, grow some fucking ingenuousness. His criticism had nothing to do with being quantifiable, but rather the relative importance and influence of Socionics types with regards to overall brain function/psychic space. Read what's there, not what you want to read, lest I begin calling you white trash.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
you're confusing presentational form for content.No it wasn't.It just sounded like a
generalization.
what you write in there nuances your views on vocational interest and success considerably. but what's worse is that your selection among indicative traits is almost arbitrary. you dismiss behavior for being liable to subjective interpretation (in my opinion it isn't; behavior has directly observable characteristics; one can even scientifically measure the extent to which behavior is loud, active, talkative, etc) and at the same time write that you orient like this: "Any spontaneous visceral reactions I have towards the person for no explicable reason, which I've similarly had towards others of a certain type."I've explained up and down what my methodology is, what my theoretical assumptions are, what I regard as reasonable evidence and why, etc. Most of it's elaborated on here. Links to relevant source material are included for your perusal.
i dispute that. also again: form =/= content.You've a greater habit of asserting more binary claims than I.
I have to agree with you on that one. I don't know why it would be controversial, or why people would think that professing to type people accurately would contradict saying that no type has a vocational monopoly. But probably they didn't notice the word "monopolies."
It's actually pretty standard in Socionics to recognize that there isn't a specific mapping of types to careers, as is clear by some traditional typings of famous people. I think there are general tendencies in terms of career choice (a lot of statistical studies in MBTI show correlations of type with career choice, so I suspect it would be similar in Socionics), but monoplies, no.
What does happen, though, is that there are stereotype that people have regarding which types can succeed, even if those people have never heard of Socionics. And this often leads to people being caught offguard by others' abilities.
It may help to know exactly whom or what you're critiquing. I don't know of any quote that describes LII as "a "workhorse" who puts the theories together slowly and methodically."
However, your contrasting view, while probably accurate of many LIIs, is problematic because it seems to confuse type with intellectual level and interest. In particular:
1) There are many people who aren't LII or even Alpha and know the finer points of a theory and are able to analyze it and piece it together.
2) Socionics types are generally considered (and I think correctly) to cover a broad enough spectrum that we have to consider little children and others who aren't experts in any academic field to still be LII.
then you are ignoring factors that could be revealing crucial information about types to you. socionics types are like the flap of the butterfly wing in chaos theory: they influence everything around them in subtle ways to the point you can infer information about them from almost anything.I dismiss behavioral traits like 'loudness', 'active', and 'talkative' as being operationally meaningful traits to assign sociotype by.
the risk of attribution error is tautological. it applies to EVERYTHING. those written expressions of values that you like to cite as indication of a type are just as much subject to situational influences as behavior is.Obviously I don't deny that there exist observable symptoms of type—I point out quite a few in that link. But if you're vainly going by behavioral traits such as the ones you cite above, I say that's a prime recipe for attribution errors and psycho-social biasing effects.
also: no one is talking about looking at one single instance of behavior, attributing it immediately and deciding on the basis of that alone. a synthesis of a person's sustained behavioral trends is what is looked at. but this is something so basic and fundamental that it's hard to ever not be doing it when typing. a person's writing is just another form of behavior. so is a person's mannerisms and body language, etc, etc. which is why it is so debilitating to hear to you categorically dismiss "behavior". you basically commit mental suicide by saying it.
this is basically the problem: the synthesis of observable characteristics across longer stretches of time can not be conveyed in a public discourse. this why when discussing clear indications or "evidence" of typings, you can not rely on these syntheses, but have to reference the particular behavioral occasion instead. it is something with downsides, but at least it allows typings to be discussed publicly rather than to have everyone just profess their opinion without clearly being able to indicate why they believe what they do.
That's the most important principle of Ashtonian Socionics (TM): nothing, but absolutely nothing, is type related. You can type by means of psychic power.
You talk in generic terms. If you stick to the terms, you won't be able to make the differences and it's no one's fault for your equivocations. Each notion means a lot of things, one has to use its denotation, in the context of the descriptions (or the posts, unless they're generic themselves). It's just enough to consider that innovation in art is not the same thing with innovation in science, innovation in ideas is not the same thing wtih innovation in methods.
A primarily analytical mind - the monopoly of Ti-Base types, indeed - is just that, an analytical mind, its nature has very little - if anything - in common with "data analysis", "market analysis" or whatever comes to your mind.
Yep. Often in this case, information elements are collateral outlets for all kinds of similar superficial behavior and belief systems which don't necessarily explain that which is consequentially relational in the long term. There are personal factors which diverge into all the types, which is why duality isn't perfect and human relationships are tricky to piece together as an elaborate construction.
Last edited by 717495; 06-07-2011 at 08:54 AM.
Then what, pray tell, was the point?
Dodge me here, artful dodger, and I will probably leave you alone in the gladiator arena in your head forever.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I was thinking again about what you said here, and a question popped into my mind: Do elements of the classic ILI description fit you?
I'm not saying that you're an ILI...It's just that there are many people who fit into a lot of the Socionic conceptions of ILI, yet they or others feel that they use primarily what in their definition are Ti and Ne.
I just wonder if you're the same type/subtype/combination-or-whatever as as some of the people often typed as ILI. I'm just raising that because you've been stressing your discomfort with the "structured" and "organized" characterization of LII, and because you remind me somehow of some people who typed themselves as ILI.
Ti is analyzing and categorizing things of the external nature to fit one's internal structure/concept; it's a conceptualizing function so it tries to fit the coincidences of life into a neat box... a subjective box.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Allow me to quote Jung at you:
For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.That alone makes "but as a creative function it..." a broken argument, if you read at least the last sentence.
Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.
In another part, he states:
From an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men. But, viewed from a higher standpoint, such men are living evidence of the fact that this rich and varied world with its overflowing and intoxicating life is not purely external, but also exists within.Yet in socionics, every extraverted rational has an introverted irrational function in their ego block, and every introverted irrational has an extraverted rational function there.
Methinks that shows he was being kind of serious when saying primary and secondary functions aren't nearly comparable.
Wait. So you deduced your type from functions, then you decided to make this thread to re-do functions so they match your typing? Sorry but it sounds increasingly as if you merely wanted to rename stuff or rearrange classification for your own convenience. If we consider not-so-subtle implication of point three ("merry opposes organizational/structured") alone, that contradicts socionics enough to make everyone but you "wrong" about it.I never claimed that the two are the same. What this stems from is:Keep in mind, too, that if a person resembles being a Ti type merely on the basis of his/her academic work, that may not be enough to type the person as such. Ti in Socionics is not the same as intellectual ability.
1) I have logically deduced my type from a combination of comprehending function descriptions and observing the functions in real life, without looking purely at type descriptions.
2) I don't fit the classic LII description at all, and the problem is always related to this concrete/organizational factor.
3) I've seen a few people who have this organizational trait and they don't seem to be merry types, nor is the relation identical.
4) To find an answer, I read through the Russian descriptions and found that similar terms keep popping up in LII and LSE descriptions, that the terms are the ones that cause me trouble with the LII descriptions, that there isn't a phenomena of similar traits appearing in other descriptions for types that don't share any ego functions, and that the people who I have typed as having this trait are most like mirage partners - this leading to my hypothesis that the two types are being confused.
@ people quoting the idiot savant Jung.
Jung invented your Ti
Congrats you just identified the content of the post you read is intuitive and logical. Now reread the actual post and figure out what you are from the definition.I've seen many on this forum attempt to describe introverted logic. Some of the descriptions are not bad, others are poor. The key problem is that, in our society, structure is often associated with organization and logistics. Therefore, because it is named "structural logic," things like organized living rooms, "structured lifestyles" and even tidiness become associated with Ti. My interpretation is that Ti is supposed to be a mental function as opposed to an external one. I think it deals more with logical structure than logistical structure.
As an example, think of a chemistry text. The text has a "structure" to it, but it is a purely logical structure. The material is organized not because the author simply seeks organization, but because it serves a logical function and brings a level of coherence to the material that would not be there if this organization were absent. Such a text is also structured because it is dealing with the underlying structure of physical events; notice that this notion of structure is logical and abstract, dealing more with hidden structures and, further, a more cognitive picture of logic. I think this is what Ti is supposed to be about. On the other hand, the more concrete and logistical forms of structure are perhaps more the domain of the director - who has the role of concrete organizer.
It should also be noted that these different forms of information are easy to confuse, and this is why Ti is often associated with administrative activities - such as organization - and even concrete and rote knowledge, which is, once again, more a matter of concrete sequential abilities than abstract sequential logic - which is debatebly the domain of LSIs, but certainly not the domain of LIIs.
(You might want to check my work by looking at those who have these different traits and covertly testing them to see if there is a pattern towards seeking outgoingness and what I call Ti, and perhaps seeking more internalized tenderness and what I call Te - specifically
Seeking internal tenderness is Te/Fi, so known.
Seeking outgoingness is stupid, and actually not type related except in one case. Dual seeking. Some people just do it instinctively. But in this case, you're wrong, because it's not that one case.
Compare me, LIE, and Arnold, LSE. We both look pretty similar. So similar, Arnold was INTJ, and I was INFJ/P. Nope. And now I'm here, and LIE, and everything is peachy.
Logical cohesion makes sense at first, but then you run into the fact that Ti is usually paired with Ne and Se. So. Huh.
Finally, I read the top part, and I don't get it. Isn't it that? Because, I used to do a ton of categorization in my free time, specifically taking out cars, and ordering them, and pushing them. I also did this with cards, but organizing them by type. I had a pokemon card pokedex, and a bunch of yugio cards that I'd organize by type and element. Really pointless stuff, but I did have little wars between the types and that was fun. Even roleplayed a little. Sadly, it took too long to organize and my mom would always clean them up till she told me to stop and I did.
I have seen people say not type related, but obviously I disagree as it's one of the core things I do. Not very enjoyable though. I like other things better, which is why I barely play video games anymore except to learn how to play them and win so I can apply that to other things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
The original post was written by me years ago. I therefore do not agree with everything I wrote.
Several points:
1) Ti is sometimes associated with structure, organization, and precision in thought and action.
2) Ti can also be associated with internal notions of consistency and logic, developing a model of how the world works, and building a unifying (e.g. philosophical) system.
3) I identify with 2) more than 1).
4) Ti is sometimes confused with Te - E.g., Jonathan's quote from the Filatova description is really about Te if you read her descriptions carefully.
5) I no longer agree with my original post that Ti cannot be associated with structured thought or behaviour at all - However, it is simply not a description of my 'Ti.'
Now take all of this into consideration when reading my original post...
Reply With Quote
