Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: Holographic Thinking

  1. #1
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,714
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Holographic Thinking

    what do we know about this type of thinking? who here from the left ring of supervision can comment? i'd like help understanding this better.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  2. #2
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is above all stable. Where Positive/Process strives for impact, Negative/Result strives for control. It involves a kind of sluggish manouverability where the person has the ability to quickly change course while at the same time not making a lot of movements. The best analogy for this is a kind of kung-fu fighter that stands still and only steps out of the way when the opponent throws a punch at him.

    The above goes for the EPs as much as it goes for the IJs. Negative/Result EP types (ESTp, ENFp) can look a little IJ'ish for this reason. Their level of volatility/abruptness is lower than that of ENTp and ESFp.

    Example of a negative/result EP type (Clancy Brown, long blond haired male, ESTp):

  3. #3
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,714
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    It is above all stable. Where Positive/Process strives for impact, Negative/Result strives for control. It involves a kind of sluggish manouverability where the person has the ability to quickly change course while at the same time not making a lot of movements. The best analogy for this is a kind of kung-fu fighter that stands still and only steps out of the way when the opponent throws a punch at him.

    The above goes for the EPs as much as it goes for the IJs. Negative/Result EP types (ESTp, ENFp) can look a little IJ'ish for this reason. Their level of volatility/abruptness is lower than that of ENTp and ESFp.
    ah i see what you mean about control and small changes of course. i can picture it. what about the thought process? it's easy for me to understand cause and effect, vortex, and dialectic thinking, but i can't quite wrap my mind around holographic. also, there was something somewhere about how holographic thinkers will discard things or something like that...i'd like to know more about this ring of supervision.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  4. #4
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,954
    Mentioned
    701 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you can get a Te to explain to me what it is then I can help

    otherwise, there's too much of something going on here that I don't understand..not abstract thinking, but I haven't really grasped this concept from its roots up to be able to comment.
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    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

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI-N 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,867
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    it's kind of like sizing up an idea/situation/etc. as inherently different than, and disconnected from, every other thing, so that the most relevant aspects are captured. vortex complements this by synthesizing things based on assumed relevance.

  6. #6
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Result is often described as "multi-tasking". The thing is, depending on whether you're talking about Positive/Result/Dynamic or Negative/Result/Static, the exact way in which the person multitasks can differ greatly.

    I think Positive/Result/Dynamic most conforms to the obvious interpretation of the term. It is all about the person making very quick movements and being in a constant way active while not "investing" deeply in any single movement so that s/he can retreat from the activity almost instantly after initiating it.

    Negative/Result/Static, though, is about simply not acting. Positioning yourself strategically and waiting until the right moment to move arrives. This is not multitasking so much as it is simply being ready.

    The common factor between the two is the lack of investment in any single activity or goal, which allows the constant tailoring of one's course.

    ah i see what you mean about control and small changes of course. i can picture it. what about the thought process? it's easy for me to understand cause and effect, vortex, and dialectic thinking, but i can't quite wrap my mind around holographic. also, there was something somewhere about how holographic thinkers will discard things or something like that...i'd like to know more about this ring of supervision.
    One thing I think characterizes the thought process is that it spends more time on the stage of "learning to understand" a problem (or subject matter or environment or... etc). Basically it spends a lot of time familiarizing itself with the topic. Once this familiarization stage is completed, it can act very quickly and decisively in that particular environment, but it becomes difficult to attain the same level of control in any new endeavor. Positive/Process types on the other hand sort of "rush" to materialize their understanding, so they reach the point at which they can decide quicker, but they don't ever get to the point where a topic is "familiar" to them. This means that they need to keep making an large effort no matter how familiar they are with the subject in question.

    Negative/Result is all about reaching that state of familiarity where a very relaxed kind of control is possible, but one needs to make a big effort to get there.

    Negative/Result: slow to understand, very relaxed control once familiar with the topic
    Positive/Process: quick to understand, pretty much never reaches state of relaxation and keeps making the maximum effort

  7. #7
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,714
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    One thing I think characterizes the thought process is that it spends more time on the stage of "learning to understand" a problem (or subject matter or environment or... etc). Basically it spends a lot of time familiarizing itself with the topic. Once this familiarization stage is completed, it can act very quickly and decisively in that particular environment, but it becomes difficult to attain the same level of control in any new endeavor. Positive/Process types on the other hand sort of "rush" to materialize their understanding, so they reach the point at which they can decide quicker, but they don't ever get to the point where a topic is "familiar" to them. This means that they need to keep making an large effort no matter how familiar they are with the subject in question.

    Negative/Result is all about reaching that state of familiarity where a very relaxed kind of control is possible, but one needs to make a big effort to get there.

    Negative/Result: slow to understand, very relaxed control once familiar with the topic
    Positive/Process: quick to understand, pretty much never reaches state of relaxation and keeps making the maximum effort
    interesting. sounds very intj. does this apply to the rest of the ring of supervision? i can see the waiting and watching with all the types in this ring, where is the discarding? they discard that which is unfamiliar? and the term holographic, does this refer to their need for a thorough, transparent understanding of a thing? and, how does this differ between the ethicals and logicals of this supervision ring?

    i am definitely positive. i can't wait too long or i become bored and will lose motivation for action. it's almost like i need to be a little confused so i am motivated to quench the quest for knowledge. once i feel like i know or understand, i become bored on and unmotivated and won't do productive work.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  8. #8
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    interesting. sounds very intj. does this apply to the rest of the ring of supervision?
    Probably to a lesser extent, but what I wrote is all based on my understanding of Accepting/Creating and +/-. It follows directly from my interpretations of the terms.

    Accepting/Creating and +/- are both processes with a beginning and end, or more accurately put, a primitive state and an advanced one. The primitive state is a state of preparation, the advanced state one of action and appliance.

    Accepting/Creating seems to be the process that preceeds +/-. So Accepting/Creating is also a bit like a preparation state to +/-. Accepting/Creating has more to do with learning to understand a situation and +/- more with working with the situation from one's understanding.

    In Result types, the two processes are oppositely aligned. What is advanced in one is primitive in the other and vice versa. This basically means that the Result types extensively prepare first for what is a primitive state in the other process. They are constantly working on teaching themselves to get the preparation in the later process done as well as possible.

    In Process types, the two process are aligned, so what is primitive in one is also primitive in the other. So this means the preparation is immediately followed by an appliance.

    Where Result types can only start on the +/- process until the Accepting/Creating process is done, Process types can start on +/- immediately because it runs on the same track as Accepting/Creating. The tradeoff is that - function is Creating (taking effort), so there is no comfortable slide downward from there. It's a mentally intensive activity where Result gets an easy break.

    ps. I base most of this on a comparison of my working habits with those of ISTjs and ENTps

  9. #9
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,714
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    understood, even if it is rather abstract. not sure what you mean in describing a transition from accepting/creating to +/-. although i have not paid a lot of attention to the subtheory of +/-.

    i have thought that progress moves from alpha irrationals, to beta rationals, to gamma irrationals, to delta rationals....then to delta irrationals, to gamma rationals, to beta irrationals, and finally to alpha rationals. that this is the complete cycle of information development and social progress. that there is a jump in the supervision/benefit rings that occurs in delta. that the age of delta is middle age, that maximum social power and civilization lies in delta.

    alternatively, or perhaps simultaneously, ideas are born in alpha and disseminated through the rings of supervision and benefit in opposite directions. so, perhaps there is a jump in delta and information is moving across the rings and through the quadras at once.

    so, in concert with the forms of thinking: cause and effect pairs with dialectic in the beginning through middle stages of implementation of an idea, while a refinement and feedback loop occurs through the holographic/vortex cycle.

    alternatively, or again, perhaps simultaneously, the idea is born in alpha and the left and right rings of social progress give a different interpretation of the idea and push it through the quadra cycle. cause and effect/positive thinking moves faster initially, though, making the initial spread and implementation of an idea arrive in fuller development at delta more quickly. perhaps the cause and effect/dialectic rings are smaller, since they have a smaller space to cover, they seem faster.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  10. #10
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,714
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i work right now with a dual pair of deltas, IEE and SLI. they think i'm taking over. doing everything. i think it's just hard for them to keep up with my thinking. i'm leaving, though, for a different job. soon, after i'm gone, they will realize that i've only laid the flexible infrastructure that they can bring to fuller development in time.

    i'm interested in the topic of thinking and how it applies to work and how information tends to travel. the strongest support i've received at work has been from an EII (who knew?) another ILE, and an EIE. i think the explanation for this is the rings of supervision and benefit....with the underlying explanation of thought forms. consequently, your supervision partners are very much connected to you in terms of the way they think. it could actually be a resolution to the other problems in the relation...

    i work in a government agency that is exploding with new ideas right now, very different from business as usual in the government.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  11. #11
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,954
    Mentioned
    701 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    it's kind of like sizing up an idea/situation/etc. as inherently different than, and disconnected from, every other thing, so that the most relevant aspects are captured. vortex complements this by synthesizing things based on assumed relevance.
    Was this for me?
    It's perfect and I can understand it well.
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    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

  12. #12
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i have thought that progress moves from alpha irrationals, to beta rationals, to gamma irrationals, to delta rationals....then to delta irrationals, to gamma rationals, to beta irrationals, and finally to alpha rationals. that this is the complete cycle of information development and social progress. that there is a jump in the supervision/benefit rings that occurs in delta. that the age of delta is middle age, that maximum social power and civilization lies in delta.
    +/- is the progression between functions within a quadra in this cycle rather than between quadras. It is the process you describe on a miniature level.

  13. #13
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,714
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    +/- is the progression between functions within a quadra in this cycle rather than between quadras. It is the process you describe on a miniature level.
    ergo, there is a little jump between the supervision rings in every quadra.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  14. #14
    &papu silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,071
    Mentioned
    456 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Possible examples of H-P:


    V. Gulenko: This is imprecise, multi-perspective thinking. It is mosaic-like. It works according to the principle of a hologram - the creation of three-dimensional representation of the object through the imposition of several of its sections. It is suitable for solving complex multifactor problems that have no clear-cut algorithms.


    Quotes:

    "Art is the elimination of the unnecessary." - SLE.

    "I never over analyze the things that people say or do - I feel like people's intentions are always very clear to me." - ESI.

    "Why the hell would I need to think about reasons? If I have them, I do stuff; if I don't, I might as well do it just the same. Oftentimes the conclusion would be the same either way, but I get there faster if I just chop out a large bulk, if not all, of the deliberation. When shit hits the fan, I stop all thinking and just do something, then everything is fine. Seems I'm most comfortable when there is an uproar and agitation and the whole pandemonium is unleashed." - IEE.

    "I don't really focus on what they're doing or why. It's just not important to me. I'll meet someone for the first time and pay hardly any attention to what they're doing, tbh. Usually people say the wrong things or look awkward at first because they're nervous, shy, or just not open to me yet—I'm not going to analyze the things they say. It just isn't of much significance to me. However, I do tend to gather impressions of people when I first meet them, but it's by observing something else. I suppose you could call it a person's undertone? Like if you meet some girl who acts extroverted and bubbly, it's not hard for me to look past that and see one general face to her—a more solid, internal, static thing that serves as a core despite her outward expressions. I guess it's like spotting depression in someone even if they act like they're on top of the world. And yeah, if I do meet someone that looks like they're acting against who they are, it feels obvious to me. That sort of impression tends to last too, and I'll wonder if they'll ever start showing who [I think] they are. And even though I'm not going to really judge them for it, I still can't get over the sense of internal friction they give off, and I feel like I can't get close to people like that. I do trust my impressions, though. How I feel about them can and probably will change over time, but who I think they are pretty much stays the same." - ESI.

    "There are two aspects to any person: essence and behavior. Typology based on behavior improves with complexity: the more dichotomies you come up with, the more accurate it is. On the other side, typology based on essence strives for simplicity: it's about reducing personality to its minimal expression. There is no limit about how far you can go about complexity and this is why there are so many behavioral typological systems. But simplicity has a limit and that limit is probably Socionics." - IEE.

    "Lets say you're in a room that has no walls, no floor, and no roof. This room is completely free of conventional rules except for those of your own choosing (rules such as gravity for example). Now in this room, the focus of your attention is an object that you are dissecting or even expanding upon. You don't have to come into direct contact with the object in order to move it in anyway. However you choose to view the object will allow you to view in this way. You could choose to inverse the object in anyway shape or form to accurately/properly analyze it from your desired perspective." - LII.

    "My frame of perception is constantly shifting, or I'm layering one on top of the other." - LII.

    "Ti delves into possible realities. First, a schema appears before the mind's eye, then the facts are filled in depending on the context, but the facts are never given value. There is no seeking of facts for their own sake." - LII.

    "I just started writing it and kept writing, and it evolved and evolved. It’s like filling in a crossword puzzle. You know that word has got to be "abracadabra", right? Because there’s no other word it can be until you get halfway through and you see that the word down the middle has a P in the middle of abracadabra and there is no P. So therefore, one of them has to be wrong. They can’t both be right. And the same thing is true about structuring a drama. You go along and say, “I know this has got to happen at the end of the second act,” until you realize you’ve spent two years, and it doesn’t work. So something’s wrong. Either the first and third acts are wrong or the second act is wrong. How am I going to fix it? The structure is the whole thing — getting the movie to eat up 15 lines on a sheet of paper so you can write it." - SLE.

    "Well, you can’t help but make a distinct movie. If you give yourself up to the form, it’s going to be distinctively your own because the form’s going to tell you what’s needed. That’s one of the great things I find about working in drama is you’re always learning from the form. You’re always getting humbled by it. It’s exactly like analyzing a dream. You’re trying to analyze your dreams. You say, “I know what that means; I know exactly what that means; why am I still unsettled?” You say, “Let me look a little harder at this little thing over here. But that’s not important; that’s not important; that’s not important. The part where I kill the monster — that’s the important part, and I know that means my father this and da da da da da. But what about this little part over here about the bunny rabbit? Why is the bunny rabbit hopping across the thing? Oh, that’s not important; that’s not important.” Making up a drama is almost exactly analogous to analyzing your dreams." - SLE.
    Last edited by silke; 06-10-2017 at 08:59 AM.

  15. #15
    May look like an LxI, but -Te Metaphor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    SEA
    TIM
    Te-ILI-N/D SO/sp 5w6
    Posts
    769
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hmmmm, I believe that punting as a work of creating another word for deconstructing lexemes in the process is the way how Holographical-Panoramic works to an extent. As you see that everything that you perceive has resemblances towards each other, its shape of "thing"/"lexeme" is constantly shifting from another perspective to one of another part, hence builds a holistic graphic of overview according to the panorama that one has to be seen as the act of conceptual creation to be theoretical in the process or it's just my angle of view that isn't apt enough to understand what one and all can't be seen as the act of seeing the layers of perspective in a methodological sense of "creation".
    Typology Diagnostic Service

    Typology Discord Server


    Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."

  16. #16

    Default

    ...I can't even.



    How on earth do you guys go this deep into this subject? It's not even based on anything factual, for all you know you're making this up and becoming entirely delusional. Not rhetorical, nor trying to be rude. Genuinely wondering.


  17. #17
    Northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    TIM
    SLE-C (ISTP)
    Posts
    2,299
    Mentioned
    248 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noir View Post
    ...I can't even.



    How on earth do you guys go this deep into this subject? It's not even based on anything factual, for all you know you're making this up and becoming entirely delusional. Not rhetorical, nor trying to be rude. Genuinely wondering.
    Fi lead doesn't get Ti, news at 11.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northstar View Post
    Fi lead doesn't get Ti, news at 11.
    Ahh, yes, the classic 'big dick' contest. No thanks, too juvenile. Besides, the only thing I don't get is the purpose/reason behind this endeavor, and what benefit can come out of it. Seems like something with no practical use.


  19. #19
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,991
    Mentioned
    566 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noir View Post
    How on earth do you guys go this deep into this subject? It's not even based on anything factual, for all you know you're making this up and becoming entirely delusional. Not rhetorical, nor trying to be rude. Genuinely wondering.
    Are you not a believer in Socionics in general?

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Are you not a believer in Socionics in general?
    Honestly? I'm a believer that it is exactly what it is classified as: a pseudoscience. Theories that are PROVEN to be untrue are also classified as pseudosciences, btw, so I'm not sure why people interpret that as being somehow closer to having scientific merit.

    PSEUDOSCIENCE: A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.Synonyms: A supernatural practice involving mysterious transmutations. Alchemy. Chemistry. Wizardry. Sorcery.
    Example sentence: “Naturopathic medicine was proven a pseudoscience after scientific trials proved many of the theory's claims to be wrong.”

    If I believed in type theories, I would be doing the equivalent of believing fairies are real (after conjuring up some theory about how it would make sense if they did). This foundation that the belief in type theory has is the same exact foundation religion has: faith. I have a huge problem with that, partly because I believe religion was massively destructive to human beings; and unlike the religions themselves, this belief is grounded in factual information both in history and modern times. Typology has harmed several workplaces as well, as it was used by some companies during the hiring process. I learn from others' mistakes and not just my own; I learn from history and try not to repeat it the way most people keep failing to do. I believe in the importance of confirming accuracy before asserting that something is actually true.

    I believe that if I actually spent the time mapping out the information that's in my head, I could easily prove that 99% of the typology community
    A) is horrifically incompetent when it comes to logically processing and managing information; and/or
    B) has no clue what in the world they're talking about; and/or
    C) observes/theorizes things that, if transformed into statistical reports on paper, they themselves would never accept if they were coming from someone else; and/or
    D) is psychologically unhealthy and delusional/disconnected from reality; and/or
    E) severely misunderstands and thus contorts/misuses typology
    F) quite a few other things

    Mapping everything out would take too much time, but I might actually do it someday when I don't have as many demands on my time that are more important and must remain prioritized.

    In the socionics community in particular...I mean, just look at the above exchange of posts as an example of how shoddy interactions are with people. I don't mean the senseless dehumanization (and thus rudeness) which takes place essentially anywhere on the internet in general, even though that was also there. I'm talking about how insanely illogical it was for the person who said that to even be saying it to begin with. This phenomenon is frustratingly commonplace, but by implying that I'm logically unsound, that person was actually being logically unsound. 1. They have no idea who I am or whether I'm mistyped; 2. even if typed correctly, the type isn't scientifically proven to exist at all to begin with; 3. and this is perhaps the worst one...they used a fucking personality theory as an IQ test. How fucking retarded is that? That happens ALL THE TIME in the Socionics community, though. People mistake dimensionality for a measurement of aptitude. It's so asinine that it makes me frustrated with humans in general because I feel like I'm surrounded by fucking idiots. Half the time, I almost question whether the average person can even differentiate between their right foot and their left one.

    The irony/projection of implying that someone is logically inept while that claim is logically unsound - that general concept or dynamic is SO common, and it frustrates me how stupid people are, which is my current tone: frustrated with the endless stupidity I find everywhere I turn. Yes, I am intelligent, and because of that I know how incredibly stupid I am...the difference between most people and myself is that I'm intelligent enough to know not only am I an idiot, but we're all idiots. None of us really know much at all, but unlike most people, I'm not arrogant enough to go around acting like everything I know/believe is unquestionably accurate while being unable to admit I'm wrong because my ego is too big and I'm too mentally weak/insecure to process the fact that I was wrong, just because society is collectively dumb enough to pressure people to be incapable of admitting it. I'm apparently one of very few people who can perceive that admitting you're wrong actually makes logical sense and has the balls to give the middle finger to anyone disparaging about it (since I understand that my own life experiences matter more than the imperceptive opinions of people who don't even care about me, imagine that, a reasonable prioritization of information). One of very few who are perceptive enough to understand the fact that while they are the ones pointing fingers and laughing, they are the ones who are suffering, not me; yet, I have a good heart and enough empathy to not point and laugh back, and instead I feel sorry for them because they're just wired wrong because of social pressures and stigmatization, and I grasp how THEIR lives are suffering because of that, and I think of myself in their shoes and am thankful that I can perceive what I can and go against the grain, but I feel sorry for them because they don't have that in their lives. Yet, despite all that I perceive, I don't say one fucking word sometimes; they pass on while continuing in their foolishness, probably never learning what I'm seeing until they're like 70 years old and their lives are approaching their ends.

    UGH I'm so frustrated with humans today.

    ANYWAY - so, people then take these biases, stereotypes, overgeneralizations, misconceptions, faulty classifications of information, and proceed to even further compile information that is all contingent upon those things being true. It's all an enormous waste of time, effort, and mental energy. That's what I believe.



    EDIT: To clarify, I do firmly believe in the importance of theorization. I just also believe people ought to be methodical about said theorization: theorize a bit and then determine whether that much is at all factual, true, accurate, or etc., before adding on to that theory with even more theory. Otherwise, by theorizing in-depth, you simply create a huge theoretical structure with less and less statistical probability of it being correct. It's like a tower: remove one section and all that was built upon is gets knocked off of there with it; thus, wastes time/etc. — but guess what, the moment you converted that theory to > a belief, you became delusional until it was proven to be untrue. Others somehow seem either more naive, more willing, or otherwise more vulnerable (psychological conditions?), to diving head first into a pool of self-delusion. So no, I do not believe in Socionics, because it might be disproven someday, and I am unwilling to sacrifice my sanity just to compile an information structure that I may someday wind up having to demolish; or worse, it may be disproven after I die, in which case I would then have gone through my life being delusional.

    EDIT II: The reason I went on about admitting when wrong is a rabbit trail, but not as much as it seems. I just realized it will seem that way, though, so I'll explain my line of thinking. It's relevant in the sense that since people are unwilling to admit when wrong, they're also not approaching topics while open-minded to the possibility that they are wrong; thus, they assert conjecture as though it's factual.
    Last edited by Fluffy Princess Unicorn; 11-18-2021 at 03:12 PM.


  21. #21
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,991
    Mentioned
    566 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Noir

    I don’t think anyone here sees Socionics as a fully-fledged theory. There may be several inaccuracies in models; some models might be wrong, sure. And there are competing ideas. And some people probably go too far in advocating one theory over another. I won’t deny there are many fanatics and odd people who are attracted to typology communities. But the core idea that there are different functions of varying strength in different individuals — I don’t think you need belief to see this. I think most people who think about people’s personalities notice them to some extent, actually.

    ANYWAY - so, people then take these biases, stereotypes, overgeneralizations, misconceptions, faulty classifications of information, and proceed to even further compile information that is all contingent upon those things being true. It's all an enormous waste of time, effort, and mental energy. That's what I believe.


    Well, it’s interesting, and fun, and provides a reason for this forum community to exist. Those are reasons enough, wouldn’t you agree?

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northstar View Post
    Fi lead doesn't get Ti, news at 11.
    Btw, what I said relates to N/S, not Ti. I asked whether there is any value or benefit in delving so far into abstract theory. It also pertained to whether there was any constructive use of the endeavors, not to the logical comprehension of the materials.

    I'll refrain from being rude like you were, despite that you were the one not getting it and thus you probably deserve it.


  23. #23
    Northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    TIM
    SLE-C (ISTP)
    Posts
    2,299
    Mentioned
    248 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noir;[URL="tel:1491204"
    1491204[/URL]]Btw, what I said relates to N/S, not Ti. I asked whether there is any value or benefit in delving so far into abstract theory. It also pertained to whether there was any constructive use of the endeavors, not to the logical comprehension of the materials.

    I'll refrain from being rude like you were, despite that you were the one not getting it and thus you probably deserve it.
    Still seething lol, no it’s about Ti vs Te, not S vs N.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    @Noir

    I don’t think anyone here sees Socionics as a fully-fledged theory. There may be several inaccuracies in models; some models might be wrong, sure. And there are competing ideas. And some people probably go too far in advocating one theory over another. I won’t deny there are many fanatics and odd people who are attracted to typology communities.
    I think there are a lot of people who claim to recognize it's not considered scientifically valid. However, it's readily apparent in peoples' actions, thoughts, values, worldviews, beliefs, understandings of their fellow man, choices about partnership, type based discrimination, estimations of ability, etc., that people don't operate in accordance with that view. It all makes it clearly evident that this is brushed aside in actual practice. There are also people who claim that even VI is objectively accurate — and if you don't believe that, you simply aren't “good enough at it” to perceive it, according to them.

    But the core idea that there are different functions of varying strength in different individuals — I don’t think you need belief to see this. I think most people who think about people’s personalities notice them to some extent, actually.
    You're missing the point of what I'm saying, but these differences are measurable by IQ/EQ tests rather than by a purported personality type that only even exists within a pseudoscientific theory. If even those tests — the best means we currently know of — aren't entirely reliable, how well suited for the task do you think typology is?

    That aside, I personally don't really think about personality classification very often. When I log out of the forums, it mostly stops there. I simply get to know people as individuals, with respect for their differences. I wish people would do the same with me. If I had to guess, I'd say only about 2% of those I interact with
    even begin to scratch the surface when it's relevant to me as an individual, because they're too caught up in their categorical thinking patterns. "When someone does Y, it's because of Z." "If someone says X, it means A." The extrapolation (which is based on others and not my own self) results in their perception passing right by me, persistently missing the mark and failing to see the true me. It's comparable to someone who suffers from poor vision seeing double, looking at one of the doubles of someone, and therefore not looking at where that person is in reality; everyone else sees this person's eyes looking beside them, not at them directly. Now, with that in mind, imagine they're doing that while playing a game of darts. All their darts miss the board because they can't see it clearly and aren't even actually looking at it. Most people trying to understand me is pretty much like that. By now, I gave up on expecting anyone to actually comprehend it, with the exception of very few, and even then only after being proven wrong about me numerous times. That process takes more than a year for some. That is why I believe in trying to listen without extrapolating based on classifications such as those found in typology.

    Mankind will inevitably repeat past mistakes, though. Apparently, they failed to learn from things such as being wrong about a particular race or sex being less capable than the white male is, etc.

    Well, it’s interesting, and fun, and provides a reason for this forum community to exist. Those are reasons enough, wouldn’t you agree?

    You're missing the point of what I'm saying again. To answer you though, forum existence doesn't hinge upon mistaking theories for facts, using theories as a basis for assuming someone's aptitude, rejecting someone on the basis of a theory, using a theory to assume someone is like X and then judging them despite them never having been X in the first place, etc. I reiterate: my issue is not with the theory in general, it is with what people do with it. Acting like a dick for fun or whatever doesn't justify the behavior.


    Anyway, I asked what value others see in taking theories to this level of depth because I was seeking understanding of a view that differs from my own.
    Last edited by Fluffy Princess Unicorn; 11-18-2021 at 07:42 PM.


  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northstar View Post
    Still seething lol, no it’s about Ti vs Te, not S vs N.
    “Seething” is the wrong word, but yes, I have become emotional — so what? As if you never get emotional about anything in your life, or frustrated from dealing with too many idiots at a job, or something. There's nothing wrong with it, it's part of being human.

    What I'm frustrated with is peoples' incompetence, with your comment being one of many examples.


  26. #26
    Northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    TIM
    SLE-C (ISTP)
    Posts
    2,299
    Mentioned
    248 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noir View Post
    “Seething” is the wrong word, but yes, I have become emotional — so what? As if you never get emotional about anything in your life, or frustrated from dealing with too many idiots at a job, or something. There's nothing wrong with it, it's part of being human.

    What I'm frustrated with is peoples' incompetence, with your comment being one of many examples.
    I find your emotionality amusing.

  27. #27
    May look like an LxI, but -Te Metaphor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    SEA
    TIM
    Te-ILI-N/D SO/sp 5w6
    Posts
    769
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is a scientific system utmost.
    Typology Diagnostic Service

    Typology Discord Server


    Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."

  28. #28
    Intimations very refined Distance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2023
    Location
    In the maze
    TIM
    Fe Ni ENFj
    Posts
    2,686
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)



    Black & white is a shallow divide ∕∕division is the color that multipliesx

    Taking things at face value is good only for a spell


    Abstract builds a soul, a house can never become a home without it


    A little better makes better more>
    ♦♦







  29. #29
    Riley and Bunny together forever HicksHawking Robin Gosens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Macroverse MtBattle ScholarsGarden Halloween1993 SuperNexus InfinitiesUltimate AllSpectraEverywhere
    TIM
    RayquazaRaichuArceus
    Posts
    6,670
    Mentioned
    101 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The mind is creator, dreamer, builder, willer, seer, oracle, sage, prophet, channel, guide, angel... that stars and fountains of life come redirecting enigmatic cut and paste documents of the highest fame and duty to God realizes all levels and parts of the jungle to coexist and wave flags of some far out there candle of brilliant and all consuming desire!!
    https://sabrinacasey.yourwebsitespac...9systemswishes
    Jogi Low = Tony Parker
    Marius isn’t Venus
    47 = Kobe Philosopher King Arceus
    The spirit of Lugia is Jirachi, the spirit of BunnyRaptor, immersive wonder-works of Japan castle charts raining stars and rapids of edgy concept art rocketing for diamonds and ebony bulldozing harbors of fame and drinking relics emerging from ashes and oceans of wisdom and chlorophyll to rungs of lofty trademarks highlighting goldmines of choice and livewire fairytales
    BunnyRaptor was greater than Nikola Tesla because she was George Lucas, Bruce Lee, and Jirachi*!!
    Mr Mime = Mastermind
    Gonzalo Montiel = Tom Montalk
    RaptorWizard Holistic visionary oriented towards Contemplation Articuno (the16types.info)

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,223
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizardWes View Post
    The mind is creator, dreamer, builder, willer, seer, oracle, sage, prophet, channel, guide, angel... that stars and fountains of life come redirecting enigmatic cut and paste documents of the highest fame and duty to God realizes all levels and parts of the jungle to coexist and wave flags of some far out there candle of brilliant and all consuming desire!!
    U wot.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,223
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northstar View Post
    I find your emotionality amusing.
    You press their buttons and then they react and then you say "you are being emotional and it's amusing".

    K.

    Patronize harder daddy.

  32. #32
    Northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    TIM
    SLE-C (ISTP)
    Posts
    2,299
    Mentioned
    248 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    You press their buttons and then they react and then you say "you are being emotional and it's amusing".

    K.

    Patronize harder daddy.
    2 year old conversation and we actually got along very well later on, but had to scroll up to see what it was about. In this case it looks like she commented the thread with "how boring this is meta commentary" and I teased her about it.

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,223
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northstar View Post
    2 year old conversation and we actually got along very well later on, but had to scroll up to see what it was about. In this case it looks like she commented the thread with "how boring this is meta commentary" and I teased her about it.
    Ahh gotcha. Ma bad. Carry on.

  34. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,759
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze View Post
    what do we know about this type of thinking?
    it's what @Alive has
    the same as holography makes the impression of the same object seen from different sides
    he sees the same type (IEI) in any human, mb different degree

  35. #35
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,954
    Mentioned
    701 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krieger View Post
    Result is often described as "multi-tasking". The thing is, depending on whether you're talking about Positive/Result/Dynamic or Negative/Result/Static, the exact way in which the person multitasks can differ greatly.

    I think Positive/Result/Dynamic most conforms to the obvious interpretation of the term. It is all about the person making very quick movements and being in a constant way active while not "investing" deeply in any single movement so that s/he can retreat from the activity almost instantly after initiating it.

    Negative/Result/Static, though, is about simply not acting. Positioning yourself strategically and waiting until the right moment to move arrives. This is not multitasking so much as it is simply being ready.

    The common factor between the two is the lack of investment in any single activity or goal, which allows the constant tailoring of one's course.



    One thing I think characterizes the thought process is that it spends more time on the stage of "learning to understand" a problem (or subject matter or environment or... etc). Basically it spends a lot of time familiarizing itself with the topic. Once this familiarization stage is completed, it can act very quickly and decisively in that particular environment, but it becomes difficult to attain the same level of control in any new endeavor. Positive/Process types on the other hand sort of "rush" to materialize their understanding, so they reach the point at which they can decide quicker, but they don't ever get to the point where a topic is "familiar" to them. This means that they need to keep making an large effort no matter how familiar they are with the subject in question.

    Negative/Result is all about reaching that state of familiarity where a very relaxed kind of control is possible, but one needs to make a big effort to get there.

    Negative/Result: slow to understand, very relaxed control once familiar with the topic
    Positive/Process: quick to understand, pretty much never reaches state of relaxation and keeps making the maximum effort
    By positive result dynamic I can see EIE or SEE from real life examples
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    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

  36. #36
    Intimations very refined Distance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2023
    Location
    In the maze
    TIM
    Fe Ni ENFj
    Posts
    2,686
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expansion View Post

    Start the piece from the beginning, and you''ll find my type.

    I do these plays on phrases all day long. Aphorisms.

    I chanced upon Busey quotes and found a match about a year ago. Weird.

    E.g., ADD

    Attention Direction Disorder

    Cycles always repeat, unless you find a better repeat in something else, and you have a new orbit.
    Add + diction
    Addictions baby!

    Hint* Find the best addiction.



    ------------->

    He's typed mostly ESTP or ENFP out there in MBTI land.



    Black & white is a shallow divide ∕∕division is the color that multipliesx

    Taking things at face value is good only for a spell


    Abstract builds a soul, a house can never become a home without it


    A little better makes better more>
    ♦♦







  37. #37
    youfloweryourfeast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2021
    TIM
    Eii so/sp 4w5
    Posts
    407
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It could be you getting knowledge witb Te



Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •