A visual example of Si, Se, Ne and Ni

[Petter]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...s-by-Functions

IEI and SEI: "The person is very consciously and acutely but only situationally sensitive to harmony of events transpiring around him, tries to affect the course of events to steer them into a more amiable course. He can perceive from an individual, a group, or even from inanimate objects such as the landscape, the state of the physical environment he happens to be in, or his own emotional associations with the place or people around him. He prizes a supportive and friendly atmosphere, and he either tries to promote it himself by directly influencing his environment, or by simply waiting it out or leaving the place with a negative and hostile environment."

This applies to INFJ (mbti).

-----

EII and ESI: "The individual is perfectly able to integrate in a group emotional situations, such as people having fun and trading jokes, and sustain that for a long period of time. He is also usually adept at promoting such an atmosphere himself. However, he sees no point in doing so if his own inner emotional state does not prompt him towards that, especially if he does not feel as having positive private feelings towards the other people involved. He is aware of the need to keep a "polite façade" in certain social situations even in the presence of people he personally dislikes or during periods of negative inner emotions, but he refuses to actively attempt to integrate in, or promote, a positive external emotional atmosphere in such occasions. His disinclination for doing so increases along with his feelings of closeness with the individuals present."

This applies to INFP (mbti).

[domr]

This is my definition of axiom it encompasses "posteriori", obviously "observations", but I wouldn't entirely deem socionics as objective since though it's inspired by observations, those observations are "dubious" in the sense that they are interpreted and make assumptions about the thing supposedly claimed to exist not bound by fact.

Definition of axiom
1 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate 1 one of the axioms of the theory of evolution
2 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth cites the axiom "no one gives what he does not have"
3 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit the axioms of wisdom


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiom

That defintion is wrong.

You have odd axiomatic assumptions about socionics which, I have to be honest dude, you haven't grasped and instead chosen to create your derivative system. You are still under the assumption that there are unanimous and objective 16 distinct ways to delineate the types - and that your interpretation of the theory is the only sane one. That's either hubris or delusion since, since some really smart minds have worked on this theory for 40 years now, and there's nothing truly solid about socionics that's been discovered which can make it a respectable scientific discipline.

Then why you are wasting your time with this pseudo-science while simultaneously acting like there are scientific rules to the system?

It depends on what we mean by 'dichotomy' here. If we mean that ILI largely prefers logic over ethics, then I agree with you. But then we need functions in order to explain why ILI sometimes prefers ethics over logic.

My point is that real dichotomies (i.e. mutually exclusive, like MBTI) are not possible.

Jung observed 8 different personality patterns, and he suggested the 4 functions and E/I as an explanation for those patterns. It is not the other way around.

Dichotomy is logic vs ethic, extraverted logic vs. introverted logic.

ILI will use ethics because ethic is not logic and sometimes they need to make an ethical decision. This is a case-in-point example of why the dichotomies must be mutually exclusive.

[Petter]

Dichotomy is logic vs ethic, extraverted logic vs. introverted logic.

ILI will use ethics because ethic is not logic and sometimes they need to make an ethical decision. This is a case-in-point example of why the dichotomies must be mutually exclusive.

Well, a person cannot use ethics while he/she is using logic (according to Jungian typology and Socionics). But that is not why we have dichotomies. Instead, we use the dichotomies to distinguish between different personalities.

I don't think extroverted logic vs. introverted logic is a dichotomy in Socionics. And it is certainly not a dichotomy in Jungian typology.

[domr]

Well, a person cannot use ethics while he/she is using logic (according to Jungian typology and Socionics). But that is not why we have dichotomies. Instead, we use the dichotomies to distinguish between different personalities.

I don't think extroverted logic vs. introverted logic is a dichotomy in Socionics. And it is certainly not a dichotomy in Jungian typology.

Jung never states that thinking types cannot use feeling or vice-verse. He states that in thinking types, feeling is less differentiated i.e. more primitive and repressed into the unconscious.

Socionics has a weird information metabolism system where data? follows between the informational elements in the mental and vital ring. With that said, Model A allows a person to use both logic and ethics because everyone have all 8 functions.

The idea [misconception] that feeling types cannot use thinking and vice-versa would have to come from MBTI because of their original dichotomy typing system where a person was either T or F.

[Petter]

Jung never states that thinking types cannot use feeling or vice-verse. He states that in thinking types, feeling is less differentiated i.e. more primitive and repressed into the unconscious.

Socionics has a weird information metabolism system where data? follows between the informational elements in the mental and vital ring. With that said, Model A allows a person to use both logic and ethics because everyone have all 8 functions.

The idea [misconception] that feeling types cannot use thinking and vice-versa would have to come from MBTI because of their original dichotomy typing system where a person was either T or F.

This is accurate, but MBTI (i.e. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) is still that dichotomy typing system. However, I+N+T+J is not a type, so INTJ refers to the functions.

https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-...y-function.htm

"The third-preferred, or tertiary, function tends to be less interesting to individuals, and they tend to have fewer skills associated with it. The letter of this function does not appear in your type. It is the opposite function from the auxiliary function. If, for example, your auxiliary function is Thinking, then your tertiary will be Feeling.
Development of this function tends to come later in life (about midlife) after you have grown and feel comfortable with the dominant and auxiliary. As you grow and develop, you learn that there is a time and place to use your third and fourth functions.
About this time, the question arises in life, is this all there is? The tertiary function can guide you toward areas of your life you have avoided, areas that require skills you do not feel comfortable using. For example, a Thinking type with tertiary Intuition may begin taking literature courses. A Thinking type with tertiary Sensing may begin doing carpentry or weaving."

They actually don't know the attitude of the tertiary function, so there is no complete model!

[Soupman]

I think you misinterpret those descriptions.

------

Can you explain why there is only an overlap for introverts? That doesn't make any sense!

If you argue that INFJ (mbti) clearly corresponds to EII, then can use Bukalov's article as an explanation:

https://www.personalitycafe.com/soci...s-model-b.html

... which doesn't make any sense either.

In this study of the opinions of various socionists demonstrates the fundamental incompatibility between socionics and MBTI, furthermore, socionics is not really compatible between schools either. With INFJ and EII, it's a close call but it's messy in general since the theories aren't compatible. INTP most corresponds to LII here, yet ILI's highest match is oddly INTP too.

The theories aren't exactly compatible but in theory, J/P only works directly for extroverts because rationality is both similar in introverts and extroverts, the second function isn't prominent and influential. EII and EIE are both Judgers and IEI & IEE perceivers.



http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro3.html

No, there are some descriptions of the types that don't match.But it is very clear that Aushra (and VG) thinks Introverted Ethics/Feeling corresponds to R, white Ethics. And a type is defined by the functions, so an NiFe (ego) type cannot also be an FiNe (ego) type.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...gustinaviciute

The true definitions of NiFe, FiNe, TiSi, TeSe... from Jung are so abstract that both Socionics and MBTI ended up choosing the observational approach in determining what they thought those functions were. This is why I keep repeating to you the simple fact that there are no unanimous and objective definitions of the functions, which makes the theories odd and incompatible.

Instead, both socionics and MBTI started with that Jungian inspired structure and subjectively fleshed out the definitions for what they thought NiFe or FiNe ought to be, along with even defining the mirror types which makes the definitions of the same functions different. The same type of person was used to model after both INFJ and EII which is why those who relate to the profile say they both relate to NiFe and RI as defined by the profiles. Maritsa for example is one of the more prototypical Delta EIIs and she related to the NiFe defined in the INFJ profile more so than the moody INFP profile more resemblance of IEI.

Introverted Ethics has its own subjective definition were the way it's defined is augmented by the type being talked about. At best R has overlaps with both Fe and Fi from MBTI with arguably "personal values" from Fi and manners and etiquette from "Fe" which is about considering the welfare of others. Somethings are inverted between the two, for example, passion, desires, mood which are "Fi" in MBTI are branded as E in socionics.

Ethics of emotions	E		Rhetoric, pathos, slogans, aphorisms Sociability, demonstrativeness Passions, desires, mood Hormonal system
Ethics of relations	R		Morals, values, assessments good / bad Traditions, rituals, stereotypes Attachments, habits Respiratory system

https://socioniks.net/article/?id=115

[domr]

This is accurate, but MBTI (i.e. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) is still that dichotomy typing system. However, I+N+T+J is not a type, so INTJ refers to the functions.

https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-...y-function.htm

"The third-preferred, or tertiary, function tends to be less interesting to individuals, and they tend to have fewer skills associated with it. The letter of this function does not appear in your type. It is the opposite function from the auxiliary function. If, for example, your auxiliary function is Thinking, then your tertiary will be Feeling.
Development of this function tends to come later in life (about midlife) after you have grown and feel comfortable with the dominant and auxiliary. As you grow and develop, you learn that there is a time and place to use your third and fourth functions.
About this time, the question arises in life, is this all there is? The tertiary function can guide you toward areas of your life you have avoided, areas that require skills you do not feel comfortable using. For example, a Thinking type with tertiary Intuition may begin taking literature courses. A Thinking type with tertiary Sensing may begin doing carpentry or weaving."

They actually don't know the attitude of the tertiary function, so there is no complete model!

Retcon. MBTI added the ter and inf functions in the 3rd edition of the MBTI manual. The original work did not mention those functions and was focused exclusively on dichotomies. So I+N+T+J was treated as a type in the original work and even now still mostly is. Most of the misunderstandings in analytical psychology are because of MBTI's sloppy axiomatization of Jung's original work.

[Petter]

So I+N+T+J was treated as a type in the original work and even now still mostly is. Most of the misunderstandings in analytical psychology are because of MBTI's sloppy axiomatization of Jung's original work.

I seriously doubt these three assertions. But I don't have the exact details, so let's leave it at that.

[domr]

I seriously doubt these three assertions. But I don't have the exact details, so let's leave it at that.

https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-...ome.htm?bhcp=1

That's exactly how MBTI is shown on this webpage, how it's talked about in most of Gifts Differing and how it's taught by most practitioners.

I or E
S or N
T or F
J or P

This is because MBTI's goal was to create a survey (type indicator) and they created the survey by reducing types to these 4 factors.

If MBTI was function based then they would have labeled types in Jungianesq notation eg. NiTe.

[Petter]

https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-...ome.htm?bhcp=1

That's exactly how MBTI is shown on this webpage, how it's talked about in most of Gifts Differing and how it's taught by most practitioners.

I or E
S or N
T or F
J or P

This is because MBTI's goal was to create a survey (type indicator) and they created the survey by reducing types to these 4 factors.

If MBTI was function based then they would have labeled types in Jungianesq notation eg. NiTe.

Yes... but nobody is exclusively N or T etc. They know very well that functions are needed.

https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-...type-dynamics/

"Type is more than just the sum of the four preferences. The four-letter MBTI® type formula is a shorthand way of telling you about the interaction of your four mental functions and which ones you prefer to use first. This is called type dynamics, and it is an important part of understanding your MBTI® results."

MBTI is just smart (according to them) way of getting the correct order of the functions.

[Petter]

http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro3.html

This is an amateurish article.

"For example, the type ENTJ in MBTT is described as a typical leader, an intellectual dictator, like Napoleon Bonaparte. In socionics, Napoleon Bonaparte is considered to be a different type representative, and ENTj (logical-intuitive extravert) also looks somewhat differently—rather a quick and practice-oriented intellectual than a “dictator”."

Come on...

https://www.truity.com/personality-type/ENTJ

"ENTJs are strategic leaders, motivated to organize change. They are quick to see inefficiency and conceptualize new solutions, and enjoy developing long-range plans to accomplish their vision. They excel at logical reasoning and are usually articulate and quick-witted."

They don't convince anyone that ENTJ and ENTj refer to different groups of people.

Also, if the JP switch is incorrect then there are 2 x 16 clearly different groups of people. But that is impossible. Why? Because it is not that easy to distinguish between 16 different groups of people, i.e. types. They have to be qualitatively different. This is where Socionics fails. They are usually not talking about types at all. And SSS clearly states that their theory is not about types, but 16 different ways of thinking or something like that.

[Petter]

Myers-Briggs (including Jung): observations -> descriptions of people -> functions/dichotomies/types

Socionics: definitions of information elements -> observations -> descriptions of people and types

----

This is why socionists get it wrong.

[Petter]

The true definitions of NiFe, FiNe, TiSi, TeSe... from Jung are so abstract that both Socionics and MBTI ended up choosing the observational approach in determining what they thought those functions were. This is why I keep repeating to you the simple fact that there are no unanimous and objective definitions of the functions, which makes the theories odd and incompatible.

I disagree with you. The Myers-Briggs community is using these definitions. Socionists wanted even sharper definitions, but they ended up with worse definitions. However, the root of 'external dynamics of objects' etc. is Extroverted Thinking. So black logic corresponds to Te. Again, the descriptions of the types don't match but a type is defined by the functions.

http://www.psychceu.com/jung/sharplexicon.html

"Feeling. The psychological function that evaluates or judges what something or someone is worth."

"Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it produces no perceptible physical innervations, i.e., neither more nor less than an ordinary thinking process."

"Intuition gives outlook and insight; it revels in the garden of magical possibilities as if they were real."

etc

[domr]

Myers-Briggs (including Jung): observations -> descriptions of people -> functions/dichotomies/types

Socionics: definitions of information elements -> observations -> descriptions of people and types

----

This is why socionists get it wrong.

I agree with you that Socionics definitions are worse than MBTI. However, Jung's definitions are shit too. He says in his ~1931 commentary that he simply chose the names based on what people commonly use.

Your two examples above are of induction (empiricism) and deduction (rationalism), respectfully. The problem with empiricism, making decisions based on observations, is that you can't know what is actually true and what is simply a stereotype. Hence Jung/MBTI/Kiersey and everyone else that use empricism has stereotypical descriptions. If you ever want this discipline to be respected as a valid philosophy (science) then the system has to be axiomized and those described used to deduce the types.

[Pookie]

Focused / External or Looking at / Looking out
Focused / Internal or Looking at / Looking in
Unfocused / External or Looking through / Looking out
Unfocused / Internal or Looking through / Looking in

A like for everyone that can match the Perception element to the way the eyes stare while in thought.

[Petter]

Aushra:

"In order to meet their own needs to the person about the whole idea of ​​reality. In the service of society people co-operate. The mechanism of this phenomenon on our current understanding, is quite simple: some aspects of reality are reflected in the brain with varying degrees of differentiation and awareness. Those aspects, which uses only the individual himself, reflected relatively generalized, stored as images, experience, and skills. Those whose information is transferred to the community, are perceived differentially, with great precision, allowing to interpret this information and pass it in words.

What are these aspects?

Adaptation of the organism to the environment - never-ending chain of acts of physical activity. All that is happening around the person in the objective world, too, is nothing but a chain of acts of physical activity. We can say that everything that happens to us and around us - the same chain of acts of physical activity. A chain of acts of physical activity is not nothing but a four stroke internal combustion engine:

1) the potential energy;
2) the conversion of potential into kinetic energy;
3) the kinetic energy;
4) the use of kinetic energy.

This is the four aspects of perception of the world, which, because of its tipnoy nature, a person perceives a different awareness, one better understands the potential of another person's abilities (1 cycle), the other in his emotional life (2 cycle) third - how it works (4 cycle). Each of these aspects and assign the symbol we call them the elements of information metabolism extrovert person:

I - the potential energy;
E - the transformation of potential into kinetic energy;
F - kinetic energy;
P - the use of kinetic energy.

With these elements a person receives information about:

I - the potential energy of the observed object and the subject's physical and mental capabilities;
E - excitement and excitability of the object, moods and emotions;
F - mobilizovannosti, will and strength and beauty of the observed objects and subjects;
P - the activity of object and subject, their ability to work."


There is no reason whatsoever to assume that physics and psychology/cognitive processes are related like this.

[domr]

Correct. Step 1 is purge the system of all baseless and useless assumptions.

[Petter]

I agree with you that Socionics definitions are worse than MBTI. However, Jung's definitions are shit too. He says in his ~1931 commentary that he simply chose the names based on what people commonly use.

Your two examples above are of induction (empiricism) and deduction (rationalism), respectfully. The problem with empiricism, making decisions based on observations, is that you can't know what is actually true and what is simply a stereotype. Hence Jung/MBTI/Kiersey and everyone else that use empricism has stereotypical descriptions. If you ever want this discipline to be respected as a valid philosophy (science) then the system has to be axiomized and those described used to deduce the types.

I don't think we can axiomize science/psychology or typology. But we certainly need both induction/abduction and deduction to make typology more scientific. And we must be much more critical of the theories. A big problem is that MBTI/MBTT is based on Jung's theory so they cannot criticize it ... and MBTI is obviously a business.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-axioms-of-physics

I think Jung's definition/description of subjective vs. objective is the main problem.

[Petter]

There is a similar problem in Socionics. Socionists don't criticize Aushra's original definitions/descriptions enough, or they misinterpret them. For example, if you think Ni itself "chooses the most optimal moments for different activities" then you are already in trouble. Why? Because (1) it is a judgement and (2) the functions don't work in isolation like that. You also get a Te that is solely about "work", and the descriptions of the types get distorted. So ILI cannot be "the scientist".

"Introverted intuition

All processes take place in time; they have their roots in the past and their continuation in the future. Time is the correlation between events that follow each other. This perceptual element provides information about the sequence of events and people's deeds, about their cause and effect relationship, and about participants' attitudes towards this — that is, about people's feelings that these relationships engender.

Such an individual perceives information from without as feelings about the future, past, and present. For example, a sense of hurriedness, calmness, or heatedness, a sense of timeliness or prematureness, a sense of proper or improper life rhythm, a sense of impending danger or safety, anticipation, fear of being late, a sense of seeing the future, anxiety about what lies ahead, and so forth. At any given moment of one's life one has such a sense of time. One cannot live outside of time or be indifferent toward it. Thus, a certain sense of time is an integral part of the individual's psychological state at any given moment. This perceptual element defines a person's ability or inability to forecast and plan for the future, evade all sorts of troubles, avoid taking wrong actions, and learn from past experience.

When this element is in the leading position, the individual possesses innate strategic abilities and is able to choose the most optimal moments for different activities: when to give battle, if necessary, and when to avoid battle, when that would be more appropriate. Interaction in time might be interpreted as the ability to avoid collisions with objects and hence avoid objects' reflection within oneself."

[domr]

I don't think we can axiomize science/psychology or typology. But we certainly need both induction/abduction and deduction to make typology more scientific. And we must be much more critical of the theories. A big problem is that MBTI/MBTT is based on Jung's theory so they cannot criticize it ... and MBTI is obviously a business.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-axioms-of-physics

I think Jung's definition/description of subjective vs. objective is the main problem.

E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P those are an axiomatic system. Jung already axiomatized the core system. Model A is axiomatic.

Jung's lack of clear definitions is the main the problem. Subjective and Objective are one of those problems. Subjective/Objective is pseudo-epistemology which is why I no longer use the terms. I define everything in terms of induction and deduction, rational and empirical, true knowledge.

ILI is technically The Scientist but I prefer to label NiTe as science and ILI as The Engineer.

[Petter]

E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P those are an axiomatic system. Jung already axiomatized the core system. Model A is axiomatic.

In what sense are they axiomatic (in your view)?

ILI is technically The Scientist but I prefer to label NiTe as science and ILI as The Engineer.

I prefer LII as The Engineer. They are often electrical engineers. But ILEs are often mechanical engineers, and SLIs are often civil engineers and chemical engineers ... as well as scientists... so maybe The Conceptualizer or The Thinker is an even better name for LII, and The Visionary or The Strategist for ILI.

[domr]

The mental faculties are a priori. You start with defining them and accepting their existence as self-evident. Then you categorize people into them depending on which faculties they prefer.

LII is The Theorist because they like theoretical subjects. The Engineer must be the name for the ILI because that is in agreement with science being the name for NiTe.

[Petter]

The mental faculties are a priori. You start with defining them and accepting their existence as self-evident. Then you categorize people into them depending on which faculties they prefer.

I don't think the mental faculties are a priori, i.e. knowledge that is independent of experience. We observe people's behaviors and try to find explanations for them. Thinking, Feeling, Intuition, Sensing etc. is just a theory. It is a combination of speculation/abduction (or induction) and observation/deduction.

LII is The Theorist because they like theoretical subjects. The Engineer must be the name for the ILI because that is in agreement with science being the name for NiTe.

The Theorist is ok as well. But engineering and science are very different. The former is about design and construction etc, and the latter is "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge".

I like Keirsey's names:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keirse...lligence_types

[domr]

I don't think the mental faculties are a priori, i.e. knowledge that is independent of experience. We observe people's behaviors and try to find explanations for them. Thinking, Feeling, Intuition, Sensing etc. is just a theory. It is a combination of speculation/abduction (or induction) and observation/deduction.

When you formalize the system, and you say Se = xx then it becomes deduction rather than induction.

The Theorist is ok as well. But engineering and science are very different. The former is about design and construction etc, and the latter is "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge".

I like Keirsey's names:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keirse...lligence_types

I've seen his list. It's quite good considering he has no ides how the 8 roles, according to his chart, work. NiTe, what Keirsey calls Coordinator = Scientific method. Make a hypothesis. Get data. Change your mind based on data. Engineering works the exact same way. You don't deduce the best shape for a gizmo but rather induce it based on trial and error.

[Petter]

This is my current view on the functions:

"Introverted" functions process information which describes the objects/subjects. (object <--> background)

"Extroverted" functions process information about interactions between the objects/subjects. (object <--> object <--> background)

"Static" functions process information about the objects/subjects themselves.

"Dynamic" functions process information which is a symbolic representation of the objects/subjects (language, numbers etc.)

[Petter]

"External" functions (S, T) process information about physical entities.

"Internal" functions (N, F) process information about relationships between physical entities.

[Rebelondeck]

N-types view information from a relativistic, qualitative perspective - with respect to its relevance to other information such as this car is different from others in the parking lot. S-types view information from an absolute, quantifiable perspective - with respect to it being a factual entity unto itself such as there's a red car. The two approach information differently but may draw the exact same conclusion such as it is the only red car in the parking lot. N-types essentially look at information from the top down whereas S-types, from the bottom up, and neither vantage point is superior to the other.

The internally referenced (Ni, Si) input is pre-processed (filtered?) with respect to already known references, whereas the externally referenced input (Ne, Se) is delivered to rationalization raw but may eventually undergo the exact same processing and arrive at the exact same conclusion.

Other than block diagrams of processes, I can't see how one can give visual examples of information acquisition......

a.k.a. I/O

[Petter]

N-types view information from a relativistic, qualitative perspective - with respect to its relevance to other information such as this car is different from others in the parking lot. S-types view information from an absolute, quantifiable perspective - with respect to it being a factual entity unto itself such as there's a red car. The two approach information differently but may draw the exact same conclusion such as it is the only red car in the parking lot. N-types essentially look at information from the top down whereas S-types, from the bottom up, and neither vantage point is superior to the other.

The internally referenced (Ni, Si) input is pre-processed (filtered?) with respect to already known references, whereas the externally referenced input (Ne, Se) is delivered to rationalization raw but may eventually undergo the exact same processing and arrive at the exact same conclusion.

Other than block diagrams of processes, I can't see how one can give visual examples of information acquisition......

a.k.a. I/O

I disagree with you here (see posts 105 and 106). N-types and S-types use the same functions in this example. Se perceives the actual colors etc, Ti evaluates sizes, quantity and directions of the cars etc, Si identifies the names of the colors and the numbers, and Te draws conclusions about these names and numbers. The key function here is Te. It is about an interaction between different perceptions of the names of the colors and the numbers. It is not about a relationship between colors (or numbers). But let's say there is a connection between red cars and women. Then Ni could perceive this, and Te- could speculate that it is probably a woman who owns the red car.

[Rebelondeck]

I disagree with you here (see posts 105 and 106).........

The reason I posted was because of such posts. I really should steer clear of these types of threads. Disagree? Thank you for putting it so mildly.......

a.k.a. I/O

[Petter]

The reason I posted was because of such posts. I really should steer clear of these types of threads. Disagree? Thank you for putting it so mildly.......

a.k.a. I/O

"The internally referenced (Ni, Si) input is pre-processed (filtered?) with respect to already known references, whereas the externally referenced input (Ne, Se) is delivered to rationalization raw but may eventually undergo the exact same processing and arrive at the exact same conclusion."

How do you explain that LSE and SLI are focused on facts?

Your view is that Se and Si process almost the same image etc, right? I think they complement each other, but they are also fundamentally different. They correspond to direct experiences of objects and mental/symbolic representations of objects. For example, it is not possible to evaluate size/length of mental objects/images. That is why Ti is combined with Se.

[Rebelondeck]

...........How do you explain that LSE and SLI are focused on facts?

Your view is that Se and Si process almost the same image etc, right? I think they complement each other, but they are also fundamentally different. They correspond to direct experiences of objects and mental/symbolic representations of objects. For example, it is not possible to evaluate size/length of mental objects/images. That is why Ti is combined with Se.

The output oriented LSE and the input oriented SLI use the same processes but have different priorities; the same can be said for LSI versus SLE but these two differ from the previous two in processing. All of them have the same S-filter, which means the way they view information is for the most part identical.

Si and Se initially acquire the exact same data so this aspect can't be complementary; however, the implied processing differences (i versus e) do have complementary aspects but not in the sense to which you seem to allude. For me, the nomenclature represents information processing and data filters - not classifications. One is not really defining any part of a function by associating, for example, "direct experiences of objects" with a particular classification.

I wrote the below article 6 years ago; the wording could be improved but it does present a perspective.

http://www.socionics.com/articles/soc_pref_io.html

a.k.a. I/O

[Petter]

The output oriented LSE and the input oriented SLI use the same processes but have different priorities; the same can be said for LSI versus SLE but these two differ from the previous two in processing. All of them have the same S-filter, which means the way they view information is for the most part identical.

But you are not explaining how LSI and SLE differ from LSE and SLI in processing... and why LSE and SLI are more focused on facts.

Si and Se initially acquire the exact same data so this aspect can't be complementary;

I don't think that is true. Let's say you are looking at a boat. Your direct experience of the boat is processed by Se (which lasts max 3 seconds according to Daniel Kahneman... I think). Your mental image of the boat is processed by Si. Of course, Se information must somehow be translated into Si information, but I think that is irrelevant to Socionics/Jungian typology.

however, the implied processing differences (i versus e) do have complementary aspects but not in the sense to which you seem to allude. For me, the nomenclature represents information processing and data filters - not classifications. One is not really defining any part of a function by associating, for example, "direct experiences of objects" with a particular classification.

http://www.socionics.com/articles/int_ext.html

"In summary, all temperaments must have aspects that revolve around internal processes or data (self) and those that revolve around the external world. The internalized component provides the basis for stability of the psyche while the externalized provides the adaptability to the environment. Extroverted and introverted are respectively synonymous with externally and internally sourced references. In fact, the words internalized and externalized are more appropriate and less confusing adjectives to use to describe temperament and type. One should note that behaving like an introvert or extrovert in the dictionary sense is a far more complex issue that involves many other factors that affect the development of personality."

You are essentially saying the same thing here.

What are you referring to in that other article?

[Petter]

"Your view is that Se and Si process almost the same image etc, right? I think they complement each other, but they are also fundamentally different. They correspond to direct experiences of objects and mental/symbolic representations of objects. For example, it is not possible to evaluate size/length of mental objects/images. That is why Ti is combined with Se."

Furthermore, I don't think logical reasoning is possible in the external world. That is why Te is combined with Si (and Ni). So P (Te, "Extroverted" Thinking) should actually be Ti.

EDIT: This is inaccurate.

A=B, B=C, therefore A=C (Te) ... You don't conclude this via mental/internal images.

Also, visualize a 'Q'. It is certainly possible to think about the shape/size of this mental/internal object. (Ti)

-----

SLIs appear orderly in the external world, because they are orderly in the internal world.

EDIT: I think SLIs are orderly in both worlds.

[Rebelondeck]

But you are not explaining how LSI and SLE differ from LSE and SLI in processing... and why LSE and SLI are more focused on facts.........

All are so-called "fact" oriented if one defines the word as information that is self-contained and not dependent on other "facts". The other article is linked to fundamentals of information. And repeating oneself is a sign of age so I won't anymore?

a.k.a. I/O

[Petter]

All are so-called "fact" oriented if one defines the word as information that is self-contained and not dependent on other "facts". The other article is linked to fundamentals of information. And repeating oneself is a sign of age so I won't anymore?

a.k.a. I/O

http://simplyphilosophy.org/factual-knowledge/

"Previously, I have shown that experiential knowledge is just perception of particular things. Factual knowledge is a justified affirmation of something.

Factual knowledge is an affirmation. When we take two concepts and add them together, then something is affirmed. For example, “run” and “boys” are joined together to produce the affirmation “boys run”. All affirmations are either true or false. It is true that boys run because some boys run. Concepts can also point out individuals. So “Tim” and “is little” can be joined to make the affirmation “Tim is little”. We know that factual knowledge of a knowledge of affirmations because it is a knowledge of facts. Facts are just statements about the world that are true."

SLI and LSE are focused on factual knowledge. They draw conclusions about objects (i.e. logical reasoning). My view is that SLE and LSI are not focused on factual knowledge, so Ti is not about logical reasoning. That is what I am trying to express in a model.

[Petter]

"Static" functions process information about the objects/subjects themselves.

"Dynamic" functions process information which is a symbolic representation of the objects/subjects (language, numbers etc.)

I think this is correct. But it is not about the external world and the internal world. So 2x = 6, which is in the external world, is processed by Si and Te. The actual objects are "3D objects" or "spatial objects". That is why Se is combined with Ti. Se has to interact with the object in order to perceive it as an actual object.

[Rebelondeck]

.......My view is that SLE and LSI are not focused on factual knowledge, so Ti is not about logical reasoning.

Then you cannot have worked with them much. Your model will be mired in definitions of factual knowledge, logical reasoning, etc.. To improve on existing models, one needs to drill one level below these classification definitions to more fundamental structures of information and information processing; otherwise, you're doing nothing more than shuffling cards and placing them in different piles.....

a.k.a. I/O

[Petter]

Then you cannot have worked with them much.

Are you saying that both socionists and Myers-Briggs typologists are wrong?

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/280

"Extroverted logic as base function is manifested as a need to accumulate factual information..."

Creative function: "It is manifested as a preference for factual accuracy over ideological consistency..."

Your model will be mired in definitions of factual knowledge, logical reasoning, etc.. To improve on existing models, one needs to drill one level below these classification definitions to more fundamental structures of information and information processing; otherwise, you're doing nothing more than shuffling cards and placing them in different piles.....

a.k.a. I/O

I think you are overcomplicating things. We know the meaning of factual knowledge and logical reasoning.

[Petter]

B3)

"Introverted" functions process information which describes the objects/subjects.

"Extroverted" functions choose (zoom in on) one description of the objects/subjects over another.

"Static" functions process information about the actual objects/subjects.

"Dynamic" functions process information about the meaning of the objects/subjects.

"External" functions (S, T) process information about physical entities.

"Internal" functions (N, F) process information about relationships between physical entities.

[Rebelondeck]

Are you saying that both socionists and Myers-Briggs typologists are wrong?....

.......I think you are overcomplicating things.......

I'm not saying they were wrong; I'm saying that Socionics stalled in the 80s and it needs to evolve. An additional layer of structure is not a complication; it's progress.......

a.k.a. I/O