types of creator and creation
inspired by a comment in another thread that seemed to imply the philosophy in a book reflected a different quadra than that of the author. though this is something that comes up in various ways from time to time when talking about books or movies or music or whatever.
if someone writes a book don't the values of the book necessarily reflect the author's values?
is it really possible to label the creation as having different quadra values than the creator?
Is it possible that an author writes the book from a different perspective from their own quadra? Quite possibly; a masterful author will write believable/archetypal human characters with believable interactions.
Or, considering that some functions e.g. creative ones of one type can exist in other positions of the psyche of others and my be highly interesting to them, is there not more in common than different?Originally Posted by lungs
i wonder if it comes down to some kind of fundamental difference in the way socionics is understood.
if for example i wrote a book that was infused with Si. the book would be reflective of how id Si is expressed. and not reflective of Si-base values.
does that make sense?
I do not believe this is possible. An author might base a character on other people, but the meta of the book (it's feel as a whole) should be (theoretically) functionally correlated to the author's type. At most, an awkward contrivance is possible.
Functions != behaviors devoid of context. A dominant Ne function might cause behavior A in one context and a dominant Se function might cause behavior A in another. You have to be sensitive to subtle contextual differences when analyzing typologically significant behaviors.
If the composite type of a book is made up of a number of components and since we understand that the elements can be 'chosen' then it must follow that it is possible; especially when we consider that an individual is capable of multiple perspectives.
In my experience it's really hard, and it's also generally true that books written by your own identical will be a little bit preferred. After all, reading a book is a highly subjective and personal endeavor, and it's somewhat more "natural" to follow the train of thougth of someone with similar thinking patterns.
I'm assuming we're talking about narrative and-or classical books. It's hard to write masterpieces without pure inspiration, and inspiration and analytics are hard to unite.If the composite type of a book is made up of a number of components and since we understand that the elements can be 'chosen' then it must follow that it is possible; especially when we consider that an individual is capable of multiple perspectives.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
lol um. that's not what i was getting at.
say if i read a book and interpret it X and you read the same book and interpret it Y, how do we determine which interpretation represents the author's original intent? everything a person creates is going to be coloured by their experiences, worldview, genetics, among other things and i don't think it's possible to detach from these factors, so in a way a creation always represents the creator's "values". the problem is determining what those factors (and by extension, their values) are as an audience, and whether we can if ever fully understand what was intended.
Generally, yes.
Yes, it's possible. Socionics is one specific facet of human personality, but people can grow up with drastically different cultural values. Therefore, the book may reflect the experiences of the creator in a world whose values they naturally don't agree with, but may have learned to accept and even love.
Not really. An author might touch upon it due to various reasons, like, wanting to set aside two or three different "philosophies" and contrast it with his own, mock it or something and I do not know exactly what "the philosophy in a book" means.
They do, it is going to be tainted no matter what, no matter how subtle as long the author adheres to one.if someone writes a book don't the values of the book necessarily reflect the author's values?
I would need examples here.is it really possible to label the creation as having different quadra values than the creator?
^ Yeah you're TiNe lol (I don't say it as an attack on your argument though).
Any type can "take another perspective" and still be within their dominant orientation. A different perspective does not mean a different functional perspective. The perspective a middle class house wife is different from a civil war soldier's but they can be the same type.
Come along now, TiNe are not the only type capable of critical thought and defending their opinions with it.
I would think that an author might be interested in going into types of people and ways of relating to the world that differ from their own in the interest of understanding the world better or seeing it in a different light (from a different vantage point). This would relate to knowing that how one sees the world is just how they see it, and isn't necessarily something that feels like THE outside world in a more objective, non-filtered way. In the interest of perceiving reality, non-filtered, even though it won't probably ever be possible, I can certainly see an appeal in just wanting to see more of it, or see it divorced from the way one frames it in their mind. Of course aside from how it might not be possible to see the world in any objective way at all, there's also how it might not be possible to escape ones own mind and manner of processing. But I could see an appeal in trying to. I could also see an appeal as far as identity is concerned. Writing could be a way to explore other kinds of identities without having to actually act them out in real life. And everyone can observe others and be interested in people and ways of interacting that they find foreign or unlike themselves.
If this was in response to the Beta book thread, and Fight Club's author, I find this interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZWfx7VG5nw
He mentions at some point in there his kernel of origin/inspiration behind Fight Club (book) was the paradox of the bureaucracy of anarchy (an example of anarchist group members all calling each other before a demonstration to make sure their clothes match or something). This was somewhere near the beginning of that vid. So my question is kind of (since I know the movie definitely had its own take) not just if the book would be representative of one quadra while the author is "from another" but also if the movie/book would even seem to be "of the same quadra."
I was kind of wondering from watching that and a few other things if Palahniuk is LII or something.
I think it would be very challenging not to eventually betray one's quadra values in writing I guess.
Oh, nvm, I'm guessing this wasn't in response to what I thought it might be.
It is easy. Refer to that BDSM thread or something, that Nietzsche stuff as an example. There are actually people who know what he meant and read it the way he meant it to be read. You do not read things and interpret it the way you want. As long you do that the meaning is lost. Same happened with Bible and its numerous interpretations where the meaning has been changed simply due to mistranslations from Aramaic to Latin and insistence of clergy to just remove/alter some not so very "interesting" passages that went against the Christian doctrine.
I think I'm going to swim in it for a while.
well not if X and Y aren't mutually exclusive. i guess if with a certain sample size there's a dense area of overlap, it probably represents the "correct" interpretation. if you order a sandwich the same way at ten different places and they all understand you correctly, the probability of your statement carrying a singular interpretation is quite high, as compared to if you walk into the deli and randomly shout "SANDWICH". i think in books and such the level of specificness and generality may affect this probability, like for instance twilight is generic enough to be interpreted in a myriad of ways (socionically) whereas something like (to pull the name out of a hat) dostoevsky is too specific to be anything other than INFj. so i don't think it's permissible in every case that a so-called creation represents the author's type, as evidenced by discrepancies like "c.s. lewis is ILI and the chronicles of narnia have delta values", but in some other cases it may be much simpler to draw the correlation.
not really, i just like confusing peopl- OH LOOK A SQUIRREL
AWWW ISN'T IT ADORABLE
@InvisibleJim (It's kinda still on topic, split if need be or don't if jim requests that he doesn't want the thread to be made, I'll shut up).
Of course not. I'll try to explain myself.
The problem I find with the TiNe type is that a perspective only comes into being when it has some sort of explicit logical basis held within the mind prior to the application. So in this case, I think you boxed yourself in with the thought that a book can be defined by it's compositional type, which is defined by it's components, each of those components having been chosen or not chosen, like some sort of plug in. The image you brought to my mind at least, was a rather "heartless" method, random plugging in of components, any component being accepted so long as is it could be discrete, generating an infinite array of possible outcomes (Possibly mentally stimulating outcomes, but the cohesiveness of the outcome is then reliant on the logical piecing together of these elements, more proper for science fiction, multiverse, or non-fiction). Introverted Feeling would take offense to this because there were never any components to begin with: You're writing a book, and all the content came from feeling tone, an out pouring of emotion. The book is not understood as divisible, it is more akin to having your eyes closed, passing your hand over things of different temperature (I think). I'm not sure it is natural for Fi types to have the idea of a book's components held so explicitly in mind. Of course they get plot, characters, etc., but I'm pretty sure you were talking about something far more elemental... like pieces of worldview in different places of the book. My main idea here is that the way you answered sounded like the way Ti would manifest in this context. Hence FDG's (ENTj) and Lungs' (ISFj) almost immediate questioning of your thought process, even if they may or may not agree with you that the creation can be different function-wise as per the thread. If I'm totally up my ass, I apologize to all involvedI try not to argue about someone's type, but I felt strongly about this instance...
Not really, although this is true when considering introverted 'Logic' the ILI can use it but finds it disinteresting. By contrast 'Ethics' the same is true, extroversion sees only the 'shape' of the Ideology, whereas introversion sees what is inside; the emotions and ethics rather than just the volume and vector.@InvisibleJim (It's kinda still on topic, split if need be or don't if jim requests that he doesn't want the thread to be made, I'll shut up).
Of course not. I'll try to explain myself.
The problem I find with the TiNe type is that a perspective only comes into being when it has some sort of explicit logical basis held within the mind prior to the application. So in this case, I think you boxed yourself in with the thought that a book can be defined by it's compositional type, which is defined by it's components, each of those components having been chosen or not chosen, like some sort of plug in. The image you brought to my mind at least, was a rather "heartless" method, random plugging in of components, any component being accepted so long as is it could be discrete, generating an infinite array of possible outcomes (Possibly mentally stimulating outcomes, but the cohesiveness of the outcome is then reliant on the logical piecing together of these elements, more proper for science fiction, multiverse, or non-fiction). Introverted Feeling would take offense to this because there were never any components to begin with: You're writing a book, and all the content came from feeling tone, an out pouring of emotion. The book is not understood as divisible, it is more akin to having your eyes closed, passing your hand over things of different temperature (I think). I'm not sure it is natural for Fi types to have the idea of a book's components held so explicitly in mind. Of course they get plot, characters, etc., but I'm pretty sure you were talking about something far more elemental... like pieces of worldview in different places of the book. My main idea here is that the way you answered sounded like the way Ti would manifest in this context. Hence FDG's (ENTj) and Lungs' (ISFj) almost immediate questioning of your thought process, even if they may or may not agree with you that the creation can be different function-wise as per the thread. If I'm totally up my ass, I apologize to all involved
The blatant reliance upon Gamma ethical components, e.g. efficiency mixed with strong aggressive sexual themes like the powerplay relationship between Howard Roark and Dominique Francon is classically Gamma and flavours the entire book. I'm also not a great fan of the LSI typing for Ayn Rand as she is strongly focused on Fi selectivity and Fe displeasure. I would most likely type her SLI or ILI, but that is just my opinion.
However, on cannot blame either FDG or Lung's or even your own attempts at humanisation; it is always done with the finest of intentions. *tips hat*
Last edited by InvisibleJim; 08-02-2012 at 08:12 PM.
This is getting pretty "scary" once again, like déjà vu but it is not déjà vu. This can't be happening.
Yeah IMO Rand's whole approach to objectivism is very Ti; her themes seem superficially gamma because they are about money and couples and strong ambition etc. but I feel pretty certain of her as Beta ST.
I strongly dislike the superficial associative monopoly of Fi with relationships. Having or wantimg a partner is not Fi.
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...
No it's not, but the relationhips within are very much aggressor/victim. I don't think Ayn Rand is IEI. She doesn't suffer from 'special snowflake' syndrome. I guess that could fit the LSI mold as an aggressor type.
Funny. I actually found ten books by C.S Lewis from six years before on my HDD but never read them.
Usually the products of your creative function is found useful by everyone, regardless of quadra. Not everything we do is limited by our values, and usually people have lots of mutual values.
Mind the equivocations... Values in Socionics means the aspects of information that one naturally gets along with (Ego and Super-Id IEs), while concrete values in general (e.g. ideology) are something else. You haven't specified what you are referring to. And now, we have two cases:
1. If you talk about values in general, I think it can be possible to use other "quadra values". Because such things are generally associated with a quadra, but they are not actually intrinsic to the respective IEs - as behavior depends on the influences, knowledge, etc. So for example while some values like determination and endurance can be associated with Decisive types, they do not directly imply that, although it can in certain cases be very convincing.
2. If you manage to distinguish the real Quadra Values - aka the nature of the used and compatible functions - you just basically do the typing. You find out the way the author thinks and when you do that you found his/her type. You are not analysing the content, but the author's standpoint on it, as cognition. For example, if it happens that the author translates here and there some statements initially released in another language, but consistently uses their literal translation, or tries to find the terms in his language that are strict correspondents of the ones in the translated language, making conventions in this regard, it can indicate a Se Ego [1].
It may be the case in fiction - which I believe to be the main applicability of the OP question - that the characters to have a different type and reasoning than the author. So no, in my opinion, it is not necessary that the author shares Quadra Values with the characters.
More than often you are witness of racing Values from different characters, arguably seen equidistantly by the author. For example the Architect (Ti-Base, universal affirmative of the logical necessity and determinism and an implicit Fe-Base of beauty and perfection [2a]) versus Neo (Te-Creative, test, as subsequent proof of fact; particular negative of the Fe-Base [2b]) in Matrix - though the fact that Neo manages to prove his view could indicate the author's partiality.
---
[1] - just an example. That is a strong contrast between Ne and Se Egos that often occurs in writings. It is natural for Ne types to use terms which in their native languages don't fall precisely onto a distinct concept, this is how they generally view all objects, as interconnected in limitless ways. For Se types it is a burden and eiter avoid them, or compile a bounded list of the concepts the notion can refer to.
[2] - this is why I used "racing" instead of "conflicting", since the Architect's Base is not Fe, they do not conflict in normal conditions, although here they apepar so. Ti and Te act in different worlds, just The Matrix is a rare (and fictional) case when these worls are combined into one - ideal and real at the same time.
I agree she is very obviously Se/Ni, and even blatantly anti-Si/Ne: the mock servitude between Fracon and Roarke during their deeper courtship demonstrates this, I think.
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...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
