14 replies to this topic

[borderline]

» IMPORTANT: READ THIS FIRST

Under Construction.









Posts about information elements, functions, models, theory, etc.

---

Contents
(All titles are links!)

Basic Elements of Socionics Theory
by Ashton

What ACTUALLY is like, without the bullshit
by Herzy

- External Object Statics (EOS)
by Ashton

- External Field Dynamics (EFD)
by Steve

How Differs from
by Steve

Abstract vs. Concrete:
by Ashton

Alpha Tinged
by ArchonAlarion

- Internal Field Dynamics (IFD)
by Ashton

How Differs from
by Ashton

- Internal Object Statics (IOS)
by Ashton

- External Field Statics (EFS)
by Steve

on a Practical Level
by Steve

How Differs from
by Steve

from a Perspective
by Ashton

How Differs from Fi
by Ashton

What is PoLR?
by Ashton

Forms of Malreasoning Frequently Encountered in Socionics
by Ashton

What are the functions?
by Ashton

What the functions are Not
by Ashton

Dimensions of Functions
by anndelise

[borderline]

Originally posted by Ashton @ Sep 8 2007, 06:21 AM

Basic Elements of Socionics Theory

marmalade, on Sep 5 2007, 10:27 PM, said:

What do you consider the most basic elements of Socionics theory? And why? What aspects have the most agreement? What aspects have the most research to back them up? What aspects just intuitively make sense of your experiences and observations?

At the most fundamental level, there are 6 information elements that constitute the functions. They are organized in 3 dichotomies:

Internal (I) / External (E)
Object (O) / Field (F)
Static (S) / Dynamic (D)

From which the functions can be derived as...

External Object Statics (EOS)
Internal Field Dynamics (IFD)
External Object Dynamics (EOD)
Internal Field Statics (IFS)
Internal Object Statics (IOS)
External Field Dynamics (EFD)
Internal Object Dynamics (IOD)
External Field Statics (EFS)

As far as research goes, there is a wealth of established material about the O/F dichotomy. Witkin comes to mind as one psychologist who did much research and synthesis on "field-independence vs. field-dependence" - which is another way of saying "object vs. field." My own experience confirms that O/F is something real as an element of information metabolism. There is also some research out there on S/D, though I haven't come across anything on I/E (it may be called something else).

Introversion and Extroversion do exist and have been extensively researched for decades. Specific neurological structures have been identified that regulate whether one is Introverted or Extroverted, and it's a trait that been corroborated in many different ways to various dimensions of human behavior. They've even been able to visually catalogue how introverts and extroverts differ in facial appearance. Quite fascinating (and lends immense credibility to VI practices).

Beyond that, I know of no official research on any of this. But here is what the Socionists largely agree does exist... though the particular interpretations of each practitioner diverge wildly and lack consensus between one another:

- Functions exist. (My personal intuitions/experiences on this confirm that functions are quite real.)
- Functions lead to personality types, and personality types can be derived from functions. (I believe this too.)
- Types can be organized according to quadras. (There's definitely to this and how you can see a common sort of "spirit" among types of the same quadra.)
- Predictions can be made about interpersonal interactions by following the Socionics intertype relations patterns. (I think there's something to this as well, though I think it needs to be developed further and account for more variables in order to increase reliability, and hence have more utility as a predictive tool).

A couple of things that Socionists don't agree exist but that my own experiences/observations confirms otherwise:

- That types can be visually identified according to their facial appearance, body language, and expressions. (I already mentioned the research on facial differences between introverts and extroverts - it's not unreasonable to suggest that differences in facial appearance may extend to other aspects of Sociotype.)
- That subtypes of the types exist. (I think this explains a great many things more accurately than just having the 16 types alone. Subtypes are also visually identifiable and the differences are clear when you see them in front of you.)

[borderline]

Ashton, on Sep 22 2007, 01:06 PM, said:

Diana, on Sep 20 2007, 05:46 PM, said:

Kinetic energy - that's how what's her name, Augusta? described it, in contrast to Ne which is potential energy. Think of an object's potential energy - and think of potential in general - what is it? It's possibilities, it's branches, ways something could go - which describes Ne well. Now think of an object's kinetic energy, what's it doing? It's moving. Movement, application of one potential into movement towards a direction. If you're describing the inert power of something - that's Ne. But the putting something into action is Se.

I understand the analogy, but...

Se != Action
Ne != Possibilities

So it's just a very bad and misrepresentative analogy all the way around.

Quote

The easiest way I thought to describe that would be with the word power - though the qualifiers, initiative, movement, etc. should have brought to mind why I used that word. It's not power as in hierarchy, bossing people around, having control of others, it's more about action - to get an object to move, you apply a force, a power, no? Simple as that. Every single person has every function. Nobody is without Se. INxj's with Se polr are not weak-willed - it's different than that. How do you see a function in action? For Se you see how someone relates to what is at hand. Over-simplified example - two people want to make dinner -- Ne person thinks, I'd like to make this, or this, oh I'll make that, and starts gathering the ingredients. Se person says, "What do I have to work with? What can I do with it?" and starts also. Both people are using both functions to complete the process, but with different approaches. Using the terms I did however makes it easier to see the difference in people's approaches - or should. Didn't mean to imply that weak Se = lack of willpower, etc., because I for one have argued against that assumption before.

The word "power" is loaded with all kinds of connotations. Strength, domination, command, control, etc. are all connotations of "power," at least it in normal parlance. And especially so in the context of what we are talking about. If we were talking about Physics, "power" would mean something quite different than it's normal casual connotations... and is probably closer to the definition you're getting at, of "movement." I don't think the qualifiers you listed make it clear either... especially when juxtaposed with the word "power."

Functions begin as inner psychological states of awareness before they become actions. They shape the ebb and flow of your conscious experience - the qualitative character of how you sense/intuit/think/feel/etc. Information that is more concordant with your particular functions will be more preferred and selected for by your mind, which will color how you see the world. Which is only then indirectly reflected in a person's actions, values, beliefs, desires, preferences, etc. Which is why I say you can't reduce the activity of a function down to observable behavior patterns and actions alone, nor can you identify it's presence this way. It's not what you do, it's how and why that you do what you do. Is any of this making sense?

You say is about "action" - but what sort of "action"? Everybody takes "action" in some form or another. And yes, everyone has all 8 functions, but surely you can't attribute such basic and rudimentary human capacities/operations to a function (and just so I'm clear, you aren't saying that moving physical objects with force is something contingent on , right?). You may as well say that "breathing is " or "smiling is " if you're going to be thinking like that. Also, everyone focuses on what is at hand in some way, this is not the exclusive domain of . Nor something that requires , but as a value can affect how you see what's at hand. Nor is considering alternatives the domain of . Anybody can hypothesize up possibilities, you don't need or have to use to do it... though it can help you in seeing possibilities of a certain kind. Yes, I see the difference in the two approaches you described in your over-simplified example above. But to say that either approach is representative of and respectively, is simply not correct.

Quote

It's not how all of them prefer to savor sensations - the joking, interacting, all that. Some prefer to savor actual sensations through doing, not through the Fe-influenced (role in ENTjs and hidden agenda in ESTps) joking and such. And none of that has anything to do with power, it's just loudness and courseness. It's forcefullness yes, but in-your-face look-at-me, Fe-driven forcefulness. It's nothing real, and it's not something that all gamma/beta types share. I don't like it, and think it's stupid. Does that mean I have a Se-polr? Nope. I prefer intensity in real life actually doing things, not what I see as negative intensity in my interactions with others.

That isn't because of . No, it doesn't have anything to do with power and I never suggested it did. But I wasn't even talking about being coarse or being "in-your-face"... seems oddly indicative that you immediately thought that and snapped into a very disparaging mode about it. I just said Beta/Gamma tend to enjoy lively, strong, vivid, intense interactions. Which I suppose one might regard that as "coarse" if they expected the utmost civility and refined politeness in their interactions with others, and/or hate joking and interacting altogether. I'd be careful about attributing such weight to the Role function. If ESTps and ENTjs are known to do this, then you'll need to explain why the rest of the Gamma/Beta types are known to do this too. Are they all just using in some way, even the INTps and their PoLR? Probably not.

Right, the fact that you think all of that is stupid, by itself doesn't mean you have an PoLR. What sort of intensity in real life do you enjoy? And what's an intense experience to you?

Ashton, on Sep 22 2007, 05:48 PM, said:

Diana, on Sep 18 2007, 10:40 PM, said:

Models work when you use the models to type. If you decide someone is an INTj because they have a Se polr, Fi role, and are Ti leading - then of course they'll fit the model A. And of course people can bend the models to make it all go together how they'd like- so one model A might not look quite like another even though they have the same functions in the same spots - what a role or polr means or whatever.

When I say the model "doesn't work" - I am saying that it doesn't correctly depict the facets of reality it's designed to depict. Validity, coherency, parsimony, clear conceptual and operational definitions, orthogonality, consilience, and reliability are some of the conditions that make for a good model. At least as far as what I'm spontaneously coming up with off the top of my head at the moment, there might be a few I'm missing. But yeah, the point is that Model A doesn't have any of these and is even at sharp odds with many of these conditions (like, especially consilience for example):

-The model should actually depict/measure REAL cause-effect relationships present in reality which are observable in some way, and it's constituent components and the inferences made between them ought to have a realistic basis as well [validity].
-The internal framework of the model itself should be logically consistent [coherence].
-The model should invoke as few assumptions as possible and connect those assumptions in the simplest and most economical ways... Occam's Razor [parsimony].
-The proposed components and relations of the model should be clearly and definitively defined with no room for misinterpretation, about exactly what they are [conceptual] and how they're being measured [operational].
-The variables/elements/etc. of the model should be independent from each other, clearly isolated and distilled down to their most pure essence possible with no interference or entanglement from other factors, such that the model distinctly and cleanly refers to everything that it's supposed to. And in this way, forms a crystal clear basis set of variables/things which are not dependent on or related to eachother in any way not allotted for by the model, which minimizes confounds [orthogonality].
-The theoretical basis of the model, as well as it's assumptions and it's implications, should demonstrate an agreeable connection and continuity with other established approaches within it's own field of study *and* to other bodies of knowledge outside of it's direct field of study. It should fit harmoniously into the grand scheme of things already known. For example, facts+theories of both modern psychology and biology can be connected and have continuity with each other... one naturally flows into the other with no great explanatory divide [consilience].
-The model should show dependable accuracy in the results that it yields over time, over many instances, across a wide range of different parameters, all the while keeping the criteria of the model constant. Having something that does this is the chief aim of making a model in the first place. We justifiably believe that the universe has predictable trends and patterns of order and regularity that can be systematically described and understood, and we like to have as many trustworthy tools (models) as we can to gauge these things [reliability].

Quote

If you're using some other criteria to type people, then they'll only match the criteria you selected as determining their type. Depends on how you type people.

Yeah sure, you can do revisions on the criteria of your model any time and force-fit whatever the hell you want into it. But not all criteria are created equal, get it? And it absolutely does not mean the model works... quite the opposite, because something like that has no reliability obviously. If you don't have reliability, it calls your validity into severe question, as well as other conditions. It's impossibly hard to achieve a satisfying, balanced concinnity of these conditions when you don't have a model that reflects reality... which defeats the whole point in the first place and you ought to be smart enough to know that your model sucks. With a good model, the criteria remain invariant and are not subject to tweaking. Because the model works and does what it is supposed to do in a way that is both rational and sensible. So we keep it that way, until we discover enough new stuff that the existing model can't explain and either we have to ditch it, or (more often what happens) include it as a limiting case within a new model that has a broader scope. In the same sense that Quantum Mechanics doesn't disprove Newtonian Mechanics, merely that Quantum Mechanics gives us a broader explanatory scope of reality and Newtonian Mechanics is included within that as a subset of limiting cases. But anyway...

Quote

Sounds like you use a quadra-based approach from what I've read?

Yes. The "spirit" or "theme" or "value set" of the quadra or whatever you want to call it, will be present in each type within that quadra and you will see many common threads shared between all 4 members in terms of what their attitudes and proclivities are like, and even some funny idiosyncratic minutia they all seem to bizarrely share lol. So if you have an awareness for picking up on this sort of thing and know what to look for... it's a great way to start isolating down what type a person is. Knocking out 12 of 16 possibilities in one stroke is quite nice. Also I firmly believe that people will have a fairly pronounced and often instantaneous affinity towards people of their own quadra (type relations tell you that much, so this isn't a leap of faith obviously). If you don't like people from the quadra you think you are, and keep visiting people from another... it's quite likely you're in the wrong home and need to move (or it's possible your home is being hijacked by a group of squatters who need to be evicted, but that's a different story lol). So from another angle, it provides a decently reliable way to type people by seeing who they like the most/relate to the best. Or if you already know their type, you'll be able to predict who in general they will get along with.

Ashton, on Sep 27 2007, 11:37 AM, said:

Diana, on Sep 22 2007, 06:53 PM, said:

You missed my point. I was saying you can make a model fit whatever the hell you want in socionics. Models do work, and do match reality however you see it, because there isn't any objectivity in socionics at all. Your interpretation is your model. And it's exactly the same when you go by quadras. If you pick what you believe certain functions are about, and find people who fit into those particular categories, that's your model. Your methods don't match other people's methods. It's arbitrarily assigning people into categories according to your own criteria, and you're defining it however you want. We're all playing with the same toys (the functions) but putting them together in different ways that match our realities (or not) and then acting like we're talking about the same system. We're not. If we want to talk about the Model A system, there's still different views on what the functions mean within the system, slightly different tweaks.

I didn't miss your point at all, but I think you missed mine. What I said equally applies to Socionics models. My point is that not all views are created equally - which is exactly what you are ridiculously stating above. Technically yes, this is subjective as we cannot necessarily measure any of this - but it is not arbitrary and there is a big difference between the two terms and you are apparently confused about this. Objective proof or not, part of what makes a good model, is that it doesn't just fit whatever the hell you want it to fit. It doesn't just work with whatever you want it to. Nor does objective proof doesn't even necessarily decide whether something is valid, as facts and measurements cannot exist in isolation, they are only one guiding factor of many. Your faculties of reason and inference, supported by your experience and background knowledge, must ultimately converge together and tell you what is more sensibly true and what is not, even in the absence (or presence!) of objective evidence. Possibilities can and should be ruled out, not every interpretation is as equally valid as another - it is not merely arbitrary. The principles I listed are what I consider good rules of thumb in this regard for clearing away faulty, unrealistic, non-sensible interpretations/bad models. As your perceptions about something develop, hopefully you get a clearer and more refined grasp of what's going on and how and why. And your understanding as a whole of whatever it is, hopefully crystallizes into greater clarity, precision, and accuracy. Over time, bad assumptions can and do reveal themselves to be as such and dropped in favor of more accurate assessments. The reality of it can and does become apparent... though this of course does not happen for all people, nor at the same rates.

You may disagree, but I think it's obvious that human beings are capable of detecting real patterns present in reality, in the absence of objective evidence to confirm these patterns. We reason out, infer by implications, extrapolate and interpolate things all the time without genuine objective evidence to do so - and the faster and more accurately you can do so, the better. If we didn't have this capability, we'd have died out a long time ago. Survival itself is contingent upon an accurate perception of reality and the ability to spot real trends and patterns in the world quickly. And research does demonstrate that we are quite adept at picking up on various trends and patterns with reasonable accuracy and making correct determinations - without using rulers, scales, and other measuring instruments to do so. Some are better at this than others. I'd recommend a book called "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell (relevant to note, he might be Fi-ISFj) if you want to know more about this. One example he gives is the case of a psychologist who could listen to a married couple talk to each other for 15-60 minutes, and accurately predict with 95% accuracy whether that marriage would still be together in 10 years or not. It was purely a subjective judgment, he used no objective criteria, but obviously his brain was getting cues and signals about something even though he could not specify what they were, and some sort of information was being processed subconsciously that allowed him to make these determinations. Later on, a group of researchers went through and studied the conversations... looking at expressions, changes in pitch, tone, body language, etc. during the conversations and ran all that raw data through computers. Eventually they nailed down the pattern that his brain was picking up on and they were able to reproduce what he was doing, except now it could be done in an analytical format. They had derived it into something measurable, something objective. So we can/do possess an innate sense of what is correct/true/real and our subjective impressions can underly an objective reality, and use our subjective impressions all the time with many things. Emphasized again, some people are better at this than others. It also tends to be the case that the more time you spend accumulating perceptions about something, the more reliably accurate your subjective judgments about it become. A more relevant example that I find very interesting would be this research article I just dug up from the British Journal of Psychology where in the abstract, they cite a multitude of studies which have concluded that in general humans are actually able to make accurate attributions about other people's personalities on the basis of their facial appearances (this btw confirms my belief that VI is a valuable tool for typing).

Obviously these patterns in personality described by Jung, MBTI, and Socionics etc. do exist. Can you at least agree on that much? That is, can you at least agree that there is something real about the idea of these 8 functions... that they refer to a real phenomenon about how at least a certain aspect of human personality operates and that it comes in different forms that can be described by these 8 functions. You don't have to agree that the pattern been defined correctly by any of them - I certainly don't. But I think it suffices to say that these patterns do exist and could be objectively defined even if they have not been. Just because something has not been objectively defined doesn't mean it doesn't exist... that is like saying physical beauty doesn't exist (which, is currently being objectively defined actually). Also be careful about throwing around the word objectivity too much. Even in order to make appropriate objective measurements, you must have a correct conceptual/theoretical model in which to make them. You can't even measure something so rudimentarily basic as mass without properly knowing what mass is, and all sorts of theoretical conditions (like Relativity for instance) will dictate how you make a measurement on a piece of mass. And objective measurements themselves mean nothing without a correct interpretation via one's faculties of reason and inference which will place that measurement in the right context. Good models and good measurements do go hand in hand, and it is a delicate and critical interplay that is often ignored, especially by those that scream the loudest about objectivity. Many things in the empirical sciences exist purely as models with little objective support prior to their becoming an established theory. The introversion/extroversion dichotomy was a purely subjective concept originated by Jung. Now it's something that has since become identifiable in neurological structures like the Reticular Activity System (RAS) and can be picked up on brain scans. And it has many correlations with many different things... psychologically and physiologically even. But this never would have happened had I/E not been properly defined. Which btw, the real definitions of I/E is something I incorporate into my basis of understanding about Socionics and is instrumental in how I type people. So at least in part, I am using something that's been rigorously understood and researched in a very objective way.

Quote

Basically, listing what makes a good model for real things, doesn't work well when you're talking about something fluid, changeable, multifaceted, unpredictable, and unmeasurable.

What, and real things are not fluid/changeable/multifaceted and all of that? The whole universe is like this!

This stuff only looks as amorphous, chaotic, and altogether unpredictable as it does because it isn't being properly perceived. Many things look that way until they are properly seen and understood. And when they are understood, then they become predictable.

Quote

You cannot take out a ruler and measure how much Fe a person has. All you have is your subjective interpretation. That's all any of us have.

No, you can't take out a ruler and measure (yet). That doesn't mean that it's non-existent. Nor does it mean that we are incapable of recognizing accurately for exactly what it is. We have the capabilities to accurately perceive reality, so if it exists, we ought to be able to see it. You make it sound like all we can do is make blind, purely arbitrary, naive conjectures and that we have utterly no grasp on reality in the absence of an official yard stick to tell us something. This is simply not true. I'm all for objectivity when it can be made available, but I'm definitely against the attitude that we know nothing without it.

Nice anti- spiel on your part, btw.

Quote

That's my take on socionics -- though I still like to play with the toys, and arrange things, and look at different systems and see how they fit and how I fit within one system or another, in the end it means very little to me.

And you still think you have an PoLR?

Ashton, on Oct 3 2007, 05:43 PM, said:

Diana, on Sep 28 2007, 10:13 AM, said:

I wasn't stating that all views are equal. It should be obvious that dividing people by eye color for instance would be completely useless. It'd be bizarre to suggest that is the same as other better-reasoned models. Wasn't my point. But you can make different models that each work according to the terms you use. The A model in socionics has been tested a lot, used quite often, and does hold to reality well enough to be used as a model.

For a model to "work" - that is, to work in a meaningful way - it must accurately correspond to reality and be usable to give real information about the aspect of reality it encompasses, in a reliable fashion. And follow some basic criteria that I listed about good model-building like all the actual sciences do. Yes, any model can "work" if you opt to jettison this condition, but only in an epistemic vacuum. Which of course relegates that particular view to a void of complete arbitrariness... and if all views are arbitrary, then all views must also be equal, no one can be better or worse than the other. So this is actually what you are advocating here, whether you know it or not. Which undermines and destroys the whole idea of modeling in the first place... the idea being, that a model is an abstraction of a structure or a process that exists in the real world, and is a convenient vehicle for (accurately) understanding how something works and for making (reliable) predictions about that something.

Which, gee, incidentally this is what Socionics purports itself to be... yet Model A is not accurate, nor is it reliable, and it is unnecessarily convoluted and could stand a major streamlining overhaul. Not that you would know that, since by your own admission, you never even use it so you're not really in good standing to say how realistic it is or not, are you?

Quote

Can there be other models that work as well or better through a reorganization of where the functions lie, and how a person is divided into type and quadra? Possibly/Probably? But they all work by choosing parts to focus on, and two models using the same functions but with different focus can come up with a different organization, and both "work" as intended, as a representation of reality, though each is limited.

The failings of a model actually *do* become evident when you apply it, things don't just automatically "work" according to whatever willy-nilly criteria you define, even in this. Not everyone is as unaware as you seem to estimate. For a time, a bad assumption might seem to work out okay, but after awhile of repeated testing and reality clashes, most intelligent people will begin to notice a discrepancy that something isn't operating as stated. The interactions of cause+effect tend to distill a lot of clarity... this refines focus and limits possible representations, because one gleans an increasingly proximate understanding of what's really going on. What also ought to be considered is something I mentioned earlier, consilience, which is how well the view/model integrates with and can be substantiated by other knowledge. This condition further constricts the range of possible representations that can be deemed "workable." Model A Socionics is often at odds with and trumped by modern psychology in some aspects, which is unacceptable IMO. Yet another indice that it does not work.

Quote

Anyway, because everything is hazy and so subject to personal interpretation the models get stretched and changed and entirely new sets of data than were intended to be used are used, so that through tweaking and tampering it seems it can fit whatever you want it to fit. For example some give over-emphasis to the polr, as though it is an extreme handicap rendering you completely helpless in a given area, and build a system of various phobias and mental deficiencies to back this up -- if you have social anxiety and this and that you have a Fe polr, etc. Granted, this isn't a fault of the original model, but rather a misuse and new model claiming to be the original.

Yeah, a lot of it is hazy and yes it is a problem. Another hugely facilitating factor for exactly why it doesn't work and why Model A is junk. Everyone who's into Socionics has their own permutation of it that they see all of this typology stuff through. Resultantly, many people talk straight past each other without even knowing it, or if they're lucky they'll bicker endlessly over semantic issues that at this point should just be axiomatic trivialities. It's all unnecessarily confusing. If the things in Socionics were actually clearly and immutably defined, there would be less of all of this. The paradigms between each person involved would be commensurable to one another. Yeah, you might have a few competitor models out there. But by and large, everyone would be able to at least agree on the fundamentals. Any serious of field of study possesses this sort of consensus, so should Socionics. The fact that it doesn't should be yet another prime indicator that something is not working here. And apart from issues of clarity even, that it was probably a bad framework to begin with.

Anyway, now I'm going to back up and say that Model A/Socionics is not all wrong... I think the gist of Socionics is certainly valid - there is something real about it. If there wasn't, I wouldn't be here. It's the implementation that's atrocious. At a broad level there's something to the functions themselves, types, quadras, and intertype relations. Start getting more particular and detailed than that, then it all starts getting very imprecise and hence inaccuracies proliferate epidemically.

Quote

You know, I'm not even reading what I wrote, or your earlier responses right now - so if I've meandered off of what the original issue was hmm, that'd be why. Anyway, I agree largely with what you've written here, except I'm not confused about the difference between arbitrary and subjective, as I know what both mean. I'd have to read what I wrote to find out if I somehow misused the terms or they were misinterpreted and not now, I don't want to reread all of that.

Lol, ok.

Quote

I don't have any problem with or disagreements with what you've said here. However, I'm sure you could agree that a different person listening to the couple could potentially also predict accurately their marriage's chance of success but using a different angle.

Sure, I imagine the possibility exists that someone could also accurately predict the chance of marital success using some other angle. That wasn't the point of that example though - it was simply demonstrative of what I was saying about how subjective impressions can be trustworthy as a means of discerning and understanding what is otherwise a very real and objective reality. That you don't always need objective/empirical measurements to infer knowing that something exists or is true. It's nice when you can get it though, and of course in some things I would consider it an absolute requisite. It just depends on what's being studied, how it's being studied, for what ends, etc.

Quote

Observations of one thing from the points of view of two separate systems could in fact though looking at different things and categorizing in a different manner, still come to the same kind of result. They could also by measuring different things come to different answers to different questions. One system might be asking one set of questions and able to predict the answers to those, while another is asking a different set of questions. That's why for instance I might fit into one category under standard socionics, and quite easily not under Ashtonian socionics . Which is a better measure of reality? Depends on which aspects you want to look at and what explains things better from your vantagepoint.

Sure, all these variations and more are possible. Is x causing the change in y? Or is it a hidden variable z? Are we even seeing what we think is x? Or y? Do either of them even exist? Etc. etc.

But what I'm trying to make clear is that it doesn't JUST depend on vantage point here for deciding what's the better measure. There is only one reality, a model either reflects that reality or it does not. As I said, over time as a model is tested over many different instances and across different conditions... flaws, misassumptions, and misattributions inherent to that model tend to be exposed eventually. A good model is a durable model that holistically survives the tension of testing and experience. It isn't just dependent on vantage point here, and that's only one of many reasons. And besides, if you have to keep tweaking the model all the time and modify the criteria constantly when something goes contrary to it... a good rule of thumb for intelligent thinking would be to consider that a major component or even the entire thing, might be wrong and you should consider abandoning it. If attaining a good measure of reality is your goal, that would be a justifiable position to take. So obviously there are other things outside of one's mere vantage point that converge when we decide what is a better measure of reality. Scientists use all sorts of principles that are very useful heuristics for deciding what is a better measure of reality and what isn't, even with very fuzzy things that are hard to quantify. We all do... to varying degrees and differing contexts. Consilience is another such heuristic. So is parsimony, coherence, orthogonality, and the others I mentioned. All of these aid us in helping to decide what is the better measure of reality, not just vantage point alone.

Left up to mere vantage point, w/o these sorts of heuristics and the aid of experiential insight to pare the range of possibilities down to those that are actually realistic/sensible, then... yeah, all sorts of absurdities can appear logical and even rational, even with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I mean hey, Marxism is still going stronger than ever.

Quote

When I say I have no use for socionics - I don't. In real life the functions and types and interrelationships are highly unlikely to even cross my mind. I'm much better off thinking less and taking things as they come than whatever it is people do with socionics. It does help explain what it is that has caused certain clashes between me and others irl though. I can't use it, but it has helped me understand somewhat better, though I'm still more likely to just think someone is wrong for thinking how they do, lol, so ehh, maybe it hasn't done me any good.

Why do you argue any of this then? I don't get why, if someone doesn't feel strongly about something and/or it's not something they're invested in, why they would bother arguing it. Reminds me of why I hate people who do the devil's advocacy shit, especially ones that think it's some kind of merit badge to pride themselves on. Disgusting. Not saying you are one, I'm just rambling now because I felt like getting enraged about something.

Quote

Yes, but not all things are unmeasurable, which is where my emphasis was. However, you make some good points above. What I was trying to get at, is one person can say, "Wow, that guy is Fe, very much so!" and the next person will come along and say, "Fe? Where do you see Fe? All I get is Si, which you're interpreting as Fe." or whatever, you know how the arguments go. While there is something to all of it, to the functions and quadras and etc. it's very difficult to get something universally reproducible. There are too many different interpretations to get at something that is meaningful across-the-board currently. That's where defining the information elements more clearly, etc. can be a big help, to get everyone on somewhat the same page.

Cool, I agree.

Quote

Sigh. It wasn't anti-Ni. And yes, Ne polr makes much more sense than Se polr.

Ne Creative makes wayyy more sense for you lol. Te is clear. Fi is obvious to me, since Fe always makes me go blank/dumbfounded. And that doesn't happen w/ you.

[borderline]

.

[borderline]

Originally posted by Herzy @ Sep 04 2007, 01:14 AM

What Se ACTUALLY is like, without the bullshit

I wrote this at the16types because frankly, people there don't know jack shit about what actually entails. I'm so fucking tired of all this "Se is all about hitting things and not having a brain" bullshit that I actually took the time to analyze my natural thought patterns and figure out how to best word it. So here's what I came up with to describe what Se feels like as a dominant function:





"I think what you guys are doing is leaping directly from the idea of the function itself to the actions that sometimes occur as a result. However, what you guys don't seem to realize is that always begins as a state of mind before any action actually happens. (Well, that's understandable, considering that most of you at least aren't types, and thus wouldn't understand what it actually feels like.) I'll do my very best to explain what it's like as I'm experiencing it, without being mixed with any other functions (although this might have an unavoidable tinge to it).


At rest, you're kind of in an observatory state of mind. Everything around you gets registered, no matter if you can touch it, or it's way off in the distant distance. You're subconsciously registering everything that enters your "radar". If everything's good, your sonar stays at a constant rate. Sometimes, particular things will enter your radar that will cause the mental sonar to start beeping a little more rapidly, a little louder, or at an irregular rhythm. When this happens, attention immediately gets directed towards the cause. It may be the presence of a person or thing, the absence of it, or something that's registering as "abnormal". When this happens, the proper action to be taken as a result of it is determined. (After this happens, the action is usually tweaked or outright changed by whatever Ji function you have better control with.) A few examples:

I'm up in my room, writing this post, and a scratching noise enters into my radar. Immediately, my attention gets diverted from writing this sentence, and I focus solely on the "disturbance". At first, it sounds as if my parents are quietly whispering downstairs. At this point, my tells me to go out and see if this is the case. However, my mother starts talking about something in a louder tone of voice, but my radar picks up the fact that the scratching noise is still happening. decides that if mom's talking louder but the noise is still happening, she can't be whispering stuff to my dad. So I stay here and fine-tune the radar, until it's clear. It was the sound of crickets being muffled through all the closed windows.

Another scenario is that tomorrow is the first day of school, and I'm going in a bit early. Most likely, no one will be there yet, but my radar will be on the prowl for certain. Each person that comes into my radar is instantly analyzed, and I determine if it's someone cool that I'll want to talk to, someone I want to give a funny look to make them uncomfortable, or someone who is fugly and thus I don't want to even look near them. Whichever category the person lands into gets the corresponding action. Easy.


Then of course, certain things will enter the radar (or be absent from the radar) that the will want to change. It could simply be an object that needs to be moved somehow, a person that needs a spanking (hah), or just a plain old boring situation that I want to make fun. For the first thing, you can just pick it up and put it somewhere else (self-explanatory). If it's the person that needs a good hard spanking, you can either outright spank them at the next available opportunity, wait until the situation flips into your favor so that you can spank them in the most advantageous manner, or you can trick them into allowing you to spank them. Whichever way would work the best as determined by x function is the action that gets performed. If it's a boring situation, you can do a myriad of different things to change it, so that it works in your favor.


Edit: And I'd also like to add that sometimes in the absence of any activity, beeps in the radar are actively persued by the as to get things moving. When a lot of you guys think of , this is probably a big aspect of what you're all seing. But remember that is a whole fucking lot more than just that!


I know this might sound awfully simplistic, but before you all go, "Nuh nuh, is st0opid; it doesn't require any brainpower at all!", just think this: If it were this easy and simplistic, it wouldn't be your role/polr/etc., now would it? :wink: "




So does this fit what you guys though Se might be like? I'd love to hear comments. Also, I do think that you guys probably had a much better idea of Se than the dumbfucks at the16types, so some of this might've sounded a bit redundent to y'all.

---

Originally posted by Ashton @ Sep 19 2007, 12:59 PM

– External Object Statics (EOS)

(Meant to respond to this a long time ago, kept forgetting)

It's funny, because the stuff Herzy wrote... see I'm sort of confused, because I always tacitly assume that everyone is naturally like that anyway. So I have a difficult time equating it with because in my mind it's like, "What, I thought everyone does that? I thought everyone experiences the world like that." Like it just seems like such a normal, given form of awareness to me. Like... how can you not be that way? I'm really curious, Alpha/Deltas please tell me if this is true because it seems really bizarre to me lol.

So, yeah. Since I'm Ni-ENTj and all, is my "Hidden" Agenda function. Not sure how it differs from what Herzy wrote. But I'll compare experiences here with what that same sort of thing is like for me.

I'm always intensely aware of everything going on around me in a very physical way. When I'm out and about, I'm wired to the pulse of the 'here and now' and my brain is primed to notice everything... all the sights, all the sounds, all the people, things moving this way, that way, etc. I just always have a running instinctual sense of all the stuff in my environment and what everyone and everything is doing. Nothing escapes detection. Always alert, always monitoring, always scanning. A constant flood of impressions registering in every instantaneous moment. The only time it really ceases is when I'm sleeping.

This is all largely effortless and automatic. And most of the time it's passive... that is, I'm not acting on anything - yet. Just scanning. Prowling. Evaluating whatever scene I'm in, eyes dashing here and there at intervals. Rapidly surveying everything possible in sight with each alternating glance, for targets. Searching for something to hone in on. Anything to tip off the senses. Something stimulating, something interesting, something exciting, novel, unexpected. Eagerly yearning for a change in tempo, chapping at the bit for a surge of momentum... the more extreme, the better. And all of this is not as overwhelming as it might sound... it's actually really comfortingly natural and chills me out. I only get anxious the more removed I am from this frame of awareness. And the more raw and the more intensified/faster everything becomes, the calmer I get. Probably why crises and fights make me grin with happiness.

When something sufficient does spike in my awareness... it could be any number of things, and will also depend on my mood/state of mind at the time and what in particular I might be seeking... it could be a hot girl, some person I know, or just something that looks awesome/different/novel. My attention immediately zeroes in on the blip for a more precise check, and I'm rapidly evaluating how much sensory stimulation it could render. If the blip strikes me as worth pursuing, I do so. If not, it's ignored and I go back into scan mode to seek out more entertaining opportunities.

When something does strike me as worth pursuing... something I *have* to have or something I *have* to react to... I immediately snap into action and mobilize to "attack." I light up and lock on with total resounding imperative. There's no real thinking, it's all impulse. I instinctually assess the exigencies of the situation, decide on the spot what I want to happen or what needs to happen, and move in. The bigger the stimulus, the more compelled I'll be. And there's always the urge to push anything to it's absolute and most visceral limits... see how far I can go, how daring of a risk I can carry out... and hence, how big of a sensation I can get. Life only feels truly real in the extremities of experience... anything less seems like a cop-out, something too vague, too illusionary, too abstracted and diluted. More like a waking sleep than really being alive.

If there's nothing going on, I'll start sporadically acting to stir up activity around me. If I'm stuck in some kind of bind where I can't act immediately to alleviate it, I'll daydream instead to try and stave it off until I can leave. The longer the nag of boredom goes on though, the more I'll get progressively aimless and then irritable, etc. Over a long enough time (days/weeks) if the discontent keeps up, I'll get to feeling too void and numb and start acting out in destructive ways, sowing negative chaos and conflict everywhere, and being incredibly reckless in general JUST so I can sense *something* (bad ?). I've been thinking lately that it's important for me to be a relationship with someone who can help inspire me with a certain style of... visionary purpose/direction. So that I don't fall into that trap. Not that I can't do that myself... but I need someone who see it clearer and more consistently than I often can. Without a mission to focus myself into, I feel incredibly lost. But when I have that, it's really like the whole universe opens up and I'm unstoppable. And I'm a lot happier and more positive.

[borderline]

Originally posted by Steve @ Jan 14 2008, 06:12 AM

– External Field Dynamics (EFD)

Si – External Field Dynamics (EFD)

Si to me actually seems similar to Ni in many ways. Both are dynamic field functions, and both have this fundamental essence that seems to develop and emerge over time. The Ni essence of course deals with internals and sees interconnected dynamic processes that are happening beneath the surface, while Si focuses on the flow and interaction of things that exist in the external environment. With both Dynamic Field Functions, the perceiver is a part of what’s being seen, personalizes the experience, and harmonizes themselves with the flow.

A Si person achieves harmony with the external environment around them (primarily the physical environment – in which people can also be included, as well as the way those people in the environment make the perceiver feel). Everything the Si-perceiver experiences around them has a character and makes them feel a certain way. They are constantly taking in experience; watching things go by, gliding from one point in time through the next. If you compare Si-eyes to Se eyes, the Si-eyes will look much more even keel and stable – even “flat” or constant, because they are experiencing inter-connectedness with their surroundings, as their surroundings pass through time. Si-eyes are one with what they are seeing, whereas Se-eyes are more likely to dart from point to point like a laser-targeting system, leaving what they have just seen in the past, and constantly moving on to something else.

Si people frequently go through a day where each day has a different character, and there’s this core feeling as to the flow of the particular day. In fact, their environment may even seem different to them on one day or even one time, than on another. For example, one could be at a particular indoor location where there is no sunlight (no windows in the room), and the room will actually have a different feel, and even a different look to it, at 9 in the morning vs. 6 at night.

Also, looking at a particular object in the environment from one point of view could make the observer feel completely different than if they were viewing it from another. For example, one could be observing a suspension bridge across a river, while standing on one river bank. This particular side of the river could be the side where the person lives (even if their house is 100 miles further inland), where the person goes out, experiences life, and has more associations with the scenery that exists on this side. The other side of the river could be the side where the person goes on vacation, and doesn’t spend nearly as much time. So if the person is standing on the “familiar” side of the river bank looking at the bridge, they may even attach all of the familiarity and “local-ness” and whatever other associations the person has made with that side of the river to the tower of the bridge which is closest to this side. They may also somehow tie the architecture of the bridge, with the feeling they get from observing the “character” of the bridge, and blend it with all of the Si associations they have with the particular side of the river that the tower is closest to. If the person moves to the other side of the river and looks at the bridge against the new background, the person will feel like they are more connected to the Si-associations of the other side, and the perspective of looking at those associations changes.

Associations of things in the environment play a major part in Si experience. An environment will evolve and appear different with new experience, giving the perceiver a different feeling while looking at the exact same physical setting (or certain people within the physical setting) at two different points in time. Si-types hold on to past experience of environments and seem to frequently blend past and present, because for Si types, external experience is all continuous – it is seamless over time. What was can be almost as real as what is. Something Si people experience in the present can act as a “trigger” for re-experiencing the flow they had at a different time period. For example, Si-types can form associations around songs, in the sense that sometimes when they hear a song being played, they remember what they were doing and the context in which they first heard the song. Hearing the song in the present makes them re-live the experiential flow of their life at the time that they first heard the song – the time when the Si was attached to the song (including any other Si experiences that were added along the way – such as if the person had experiential associations of a song, and then went and saw the artist perform the song live – they may add the experience of the environment of the concert venue to the whole core their experience of the song). Smells or sights can act as triggers as well. For example, seeing a piece of furniture that was in the house of a deceased grandparent can suddenly bring the perceiver back to the time period where they saw the furniture in its proper place in the grandparent’s house. They will also likely recall exactly what the room looked like in striking detail, and all of the personal attachments and associations they had with that room, house, and grandparent within the context of the room and house – and of course smelling a piece of furniture (like the pillows on a couch) can be even more of a trigger of the past experience of being in the grandparent’s environment, and even the other things that were going on in the Si-person's life at the time.


Originally posted by Steve @ Jan 14 2008, 06:12 AM

How Differs from

How Si Differs from Se

Si differs from Se similarly to how Ni differs from Ne. With both object-perceiving functions (Ne and Se), the focus will be more localized, and there isn’t any emphasis on a context. Se is also a positive feedback function like Ne, in the sense that it will keep going, looking for stimulation after stimulation, while Si goes after only certain stimuli (sometimes repeatedly) that will be in harmony with the Si flow.

Se people will seem more intense because of the constant need to jump around and seek stimulus after stimulus in the external environment, while Si types have a smoothness and stability with the Si flow. Se types may find this Si flow boring (sometimes painfully boring and deadening, particularly in the case of ENXjs). The Se types can see Si’s flow as one constant line progressing over time, and they frequently feel the need to turn the line into a wave, or something with more variance, so they may end up causing what Si types see as a disturbance.

As I mentioned earlier, Si can be very personal, while Se is not. Sometimes if I try to talk about all these associations, combinations, and images I’ve blended together about things in the environment to an Se person, they have no idea what I’m talking about, and wonder why I do that, and don’t think it’s relevant. Se on the other hand focuses on things that are directly visible in raw form – no added ingredients.


Originally posted by Ashton @ Oct 23 2008, 05:03 AM

Abstract vs. Concrete:

theMime., on Oct 22 2008, 05:39 PM, said:

Yeah it is. In the sense he meant it. It's abstract as in it's not just washing your hands and shit like that, like he said. There is an idea element to it. There are "vibes" involved. Vibes are abstract.

Or at least that's my understanding.

In actuality, both and are more "abstract" functions.

While it is true that the language of consists of concrete sensory descriptors that make it sound concrete, I think it's a mistake to say that is concrete. Because perceptions are actually composed of layers of subjective impressions that bear only an indirect relationship to actual tangible, physical, concrete circumstances (as they exist in the present or as a memory of the past). That is, does not perceive tangible, concrete circumstances of reality directly, but rather perceives an abstracted composition of subjective sensory impressions reflexively elicited in reaction to whatever the actual tangible, concrete circumstances are.

From most "concrete" to most "abstract", I would plot the functions on a spectrum like so...

-More Concrete-
Se (EOS)
Te (EOD)
Ti (EFS)
Si (EFD)
Ne (IOS)
Fe (IOD)
Fi (IFS)
Ni (IFD)
-More Abstract-

So then according to this distribution, occupies more of an intermediate space between abstract and concrete, which is appropriate in my estimation. While occupies the position as relatively most concrete. Though it's safe to say that no function perceives reality in a purely non-abstracted manner, only that some functions perceive it less abstractly than others.

Alpha Tinged

Originally posted by ArchonAlarion @ May 29 2009, 07:13 PM

First let us define Si abstractly. In aspectonics, Si is the “external dynamics of fields”. Being a “field” element, this means that Si does not perceive information as separate from the subject. Si is not something “out there”, floating around whether you want it there or not. Si surrounds you or surrounds others and you change Si by changing your viewpoint. Go to one corner of a room and you’ll experience something different than if you were in another corner. It’s not so much what objects are present, but where you are amidst those objects and how the objects are working together as a group.

As an analogy, imagine a table in front of you. The table has a variety of objects on it. You can interact with each knick-knack individually or order
them how you please. Now imagine you are in a dark room and surrounding you is a continuous video screen around the perimeter. The screen is showing you the same table with the same items. However, now the items are inseparable. They exist as part of the screen. Now you have to interact with the objects by using a remote to rewind, fast forward, and change the channel.

That’s sort of what dealing with subjectivity is like. You can’t change the objects directly; you have to change your view of them. However, we are never totally field oriented, and always have an object element ready at our disposal to make changes to the world outside of our subjective views.
As I alluded to, Si is “dynamic”. This means it deals with kinetic energy, as in motion, direction, speed, pace, etc. Si perceives changing subjective states; “How did I view this before? What was this like when I saw it last? How has my view changed? What sort of setting is this? How is this environment changing?”

For Si, I like to imagine being in a pool. The water surrounds you and constantly reminds that you are in a specific environment that acts in a specific way. When you push water with your arm all of the pool is affected because there is a continuum between your actions and everything else in the environment. This fluctuating context is central to understanding Si.

Lastly Si is “external”. External elements deal with what is explicit, demonstrable, direct, tangible, etc. Whereas Ni is concerned with abstract, implicit contexts, Si perceives the changing concrete context. It’s about the tangible effects that objects have on each other within an environment. Like ripples in the pool, each action affects everything else to some degree and changes the arena. With enough actions going off, you’ll be able to see a trend or “flow” which is pointing to an outcome. That’s what Si does; you can “feel” all around you the flow and direction of the tangible world. It’s like standing in the eye of a hurricane, or on a rock in the middle of a stream. You can “sense” the mass of rock and molten lava that is the earth under you. You can “sense” all the people around you, their energy pressing into your body. In a business situation, you can feel areas that lack resources or that are poorly managed. This is not Te, its Si. The business comes to mind as a single, pulsing organism and you can run your hand over it, and in your mind, perceive broken parts, places that are “healthy” and pockets of emptiness where resources must be directed. Te is not as intuitive as this and is not as concerned with the operation as a conglomerate whole as it is with individual workings and tasks. Te is the “object” version of External dynamics and Si is the “subjective” version.

In a strategy games like civilization or Warcraft, I experience Si to a great extent. My fortress/base is like a sprawling animal that reaches out with eager, greedy hands and swallows up whole forests, devours gold mines, and evolves more every minute. I need more footmen, so I increase gold production and in my mind I can feel the lumber gathering organ shrink whilst more tentacles of energy reach out and begin consuming gold via my peons. My army is like an amoeba, spreading across the map, sucking up space and strategic areas, assimilating territory. I can feel the game’s economy fluctuate, noticing more units of a certain kind being produced, so I react to this ripple with a counter ripple. I’m like a man sitting in a tower over the land, pushing and pulling levers, managing the flow of my civilization. I can sense power at my capital and the power decreases in magnification depending on area.

Si has a lot to do with logistics and resource managing. You can sense how one department of an organization is sending out inefficient ripples, that are affecting the rest of the organization. Si helps to regulate the environment for a desired outcome. This outcome could be simple comfort, but efficiency, domination, extrapolation of knowledge, and even just to create a specific environment for whatever purpose is of course possible and in my opinion generally more interesting.

You know the Flood from the Halo series? Do you know the Tyranids from Warhammer 40K? If Si was a monster it would be like that. Always evolving, expanding, consuming, adapting, regulating, and assimilating new concepts to produce new forms.

Jung says about Si,

“Actually he lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons."

This is very true in my opinion. Using Si feels like you’re extending yourself outwards. Like, that tank is my finger, the cloud is my hair, and the skyscraper is my arm. It feels like you can grab onto the essence of a city, of a forest, of a world, of the universe. All the actions and reactions are blended into a single... creature. It’s difficult to explain. You can feel how everything within a context fits together and moves. When you experience Si it’s like you extend your essence outwards into your surroundings and you become the heart/mind of the environmental flow, so that the waxing and waning, the ebb and flow of all things is at your fingertips.

Basically Si is the most boner thing ever and when you add Fe to it, I ruin my clean pants.

[borderline]

Originally posted by Ashton @ Jan 12 2008, 03:32 AM

– Internal Field Dynamics (IFD)

Ni - Internal Field Dynamics (IFD)

Keywords: Essence, Hypostasis, Fundament, Inherence, Consilience, Emergence, Apperception, Gestalt, Holistic, Irreducible, Stochastic, Non-Linear, Cynosural, Nucleus, Attrahent, Coalescence, Focalization, Extractance, Distillation, Essentiation

I think Ni is more about perceiving the essences of things. Of phenomenon, trends, situations, people, etc. Ni will pick up on the fundamental gist of what something is or what's going on, and can infer the latent underlying patterns present. Ni perception has a holographic property to how it operates, whereby upon becoming aware of any 'part', Ni allows you to recognize the 'whole' that it's a constituent of. The perception may not completely clear at first encounter, but there will often at least be some vague inclination or instinct present that will eventually ferment into a crystallized clarity.

The process by which Ni works as it does isn't really something that avails itself to deductive analysis where one can map themselves going from point A to B and can tell why they perceive whatever it is (in contrast, I notice that Ne *can* do this about itself). With Ni, it seems that the process is very non-linear and discontinuous, consisting of a lot fuzzy, chaotic, disparate leaps that occur just under the hood of the consciousness... that is, one doesn't have much direct cognizant access to it as it's happening. And the resultant perceptions rendered from all of this will more or less spontaneously percolate into one's awareness in a peculiarly emergent fashion. Sometimes it all happens in a fraction of a second (ideal for crisis situations), other times it can take many days, weeks, or months.

As one becomes aware of a situation, a person, or a problem you're trying to solve... whatever it is, it's as though Ni receives a large packet of information about whatever it is that one is perceiving, all at once. It hits you instantly, as though your Ni is trying to "tell" you something, and there's a distinctive quality of knowingness about the information you receive. And you may not know exactly what it's telling you yet... but nevertheless, you have a vague impression, sense, "feeling," or instinct of the end, essence, or totality of whatever it is you're perceiving. Other times it might come through imagery of a symbolic/metaphorical nature, or just free-flowing dynamic visualizations that describe something to you when you look at them. Usually, it will be a bit "unrefined" at first, but something definite is certainly there. You know the conclusion well before you know the steps it's going to take to get there. Sometimes you kind of have to let it evolve and unfold until it becomes clearer. Or maybe start teasing it apart with Fe or Te to begin organizing it and turning it into something coherent.

The person cannot really say how they know, but only that they know. And the more that is a dominant feature of one's psychological functioning, the more it seems that one's ability to communicate these things dissolves into a haze of apparent ineffability that would just be a semblance of senselessness to most. Obviously this can be a major downside. In Ni-INXps and Ni-ENXjs and some others, you'll notice them saying more things like, "I dunno how I know, but I know! I can't explain it, just trust me alright?" And having more prevailing usage of indirect metaphor, idiosyncratic cliches, strange idioms, synecdoches, and metonymies in their speech - especially when describing things. Between others of similar enough type, the meanings are easily conveyed. Try to talk about these things to those without or those whose is not as developed, and they'll likely find themselves the voice of one crying alone in the wilderness. I notice that intensive makes a lot of the Alphas/Deltas very uncomfortable, probably in the same sort of vein that their would make Betas/Gammas uncomfortable. This is especially true of Xe-ESXjs and Xi-INXjs, many of whom will often respond with hostile self-righteous condemnation against someone using significant . And they will say things like "No, you can't know that!" "You have no right to say that!" "You are a crazy idiot!" Etc.

---

Originally posted by Ashton @ Jan 12 2008, 03:32 AM

How Differs from

Ways Ni Differs From Ne

To convey the gist of this difference, I've used the analogy of fractals before to describe the contrast between Ni and Ne. Something like this:

Each fractal is very complex when looked at from the outside, and you can follow the surface of it indefinitely trying to map it out and see all the intricacies, discovering new paths and connections - that is what Ne sees. However, each fractal is actually generated by a very simple characteristic equation. This equation would be it's "essence"... or say, the "inside" of the fractal - that would be what Ni sees.

More specifically, I've noticed the following features of Ne that are unique it as opposed to Ni:

• Ne perception seems more localized to me actually in terms of how it... moves? It's like I can literally watch their minds jump from node to node in a very discrete way as I hear them talk. I say localized because it's like they can only go to a node that's connected to the node they're already on. Which gets frustrating to me because I already know where they're going to end up, but it's like they have to methodically judge the weight of every possiblility before they can finally decide on an outcome. However this can be good because they will consider possibilities I would have instinctively deemed pointless and ignored.
  
  
• There is an advantage of Ne IMO, in that they can trace their steps. I mentioned this briefly in the above. I can't do this at all, since my mind doesn't really make the steps Ne does. Many things just occur to me in flashes of perception and I don't know how I got there and I don't know how to articulate it to people, but I know I'm right. So I just come off sounding like a raving lunatic most of the time to everyone that's not Ni if I try to actually explain it.
  
  
• Ne is more of a positive feedback function - it can and will keep going forever without bound under it's own influence and can potentially make infinite connections and rearrangements. Ni can perhaps be thought of as more of a negative feedback function - it distills things down to an ever finer precision and purity and extracts that fundamental insight... but the more you peel the layers off of something and the closer to the "core" you get, the less you are able to do so. I think potentially there gets to be a point where the introduction of new insights terminates because there will be a hard limitation on how far you can see and refine. Though it's debatable if anyone ever reaches that limitation in their lifetime. Nevertheless, I think with every Ni type there is a sort of belief they carry that a hard boundary exists at some level where there really is just nothing essentially new left to know. You really do begin to see that everything is just permutations, patterns, repetitions, and cycles of things you've already seen before. As many have said for thousands of years, "There is nothing new under the sun."
  
  
• Ne tends to remain exclusively anchored in and contextualized to whatever particular framework of a core idea/concept it's working in, and branches out from there. In contrast, Ni tends not to be bound to any given framework and will readily shift in and out different frameworks and different contexts when dealing with the same idea/concept or when comparing different ideas/concepts. I think this quality of Ni actually frustrates many Ne types quite a bit in various ways. Perhaps this can contribute to the inclination among Ni types to come off so vague and overly general to A/Ds?
  
  
• Ne deals in parts, not wholes. It's an Object function, so this makes sense. Realistically speaking, I think Ne only evaluates one node or one possible branch at a time. I don't see Ne operating in any holistic sort of sense, or having a sense of "wholes." Again, this goes back to the word I used earlier, about Ne being very 'localized' in how it goes about it's activities. This might have something of an added benefit that it allows one to be more exhaustively detailed and speak in less potentially confusing generalizations. Either way, in general Alphas and Deltas seem to kill my brain with more details than I would like? Also in general, they seem to ask a lot more questions for purposes of their own clarification, than I would like. I just like gists and overviews to get main ideas, and then like to go off on my own from there. And if I give a gist of something, I like to do it real short and quick like and I want people to get it immediately and see exactly what I'm saying so we can move on to something else. Which in general only really works with other Ni types.
  
  
• Ne is much better than Ni at utililzing concrete terminology, and seems to much prefer that things be described using a more concrete style of detail that makes parallels with real tangible/physical sorts of objects. Overall, the language of Ne is more concrete in the terms that it uses to phrase what it says such as analogies and metaphors, how it makes comparisons and contrasts, and the way it illustrates examples when giving explanations. I believe it's because Si and Ne actually tie into eachother, as though Si is supplying Ne the context within which to work.

[borderline]

– Internal Object Statics (IOS)

Ashton, on Sep 4 2007, 07:43 AM, said:

Repressed ... not sure what you mean exactly because "repressed " in a Socionics sense might mean Role or PoLR or something else, I don't know. Because I don't think there's any literal such thing as a "repressed function." Everybody has , it's just that your reactions to it will vary depending on your type. "Repression" would imply that it is something being subdued, restrained, inhibited. Which is not the case in types. You may not like something and you may not have much awareness about it, but that isn't the same as repressing something.

But anyway...

So I think of as something like... "Perception of Surface Isomorphisms." Calling it "Intuition of Possibilities" and/or equating it with words like "potential" or "complexity" or "creativity" is horribly misleading and probably nothing but aggrandizement on part of Aushra and others. Go ENTps! But yeah, it is not about those things.

What I see doing, is it will look at something... like a concept, a situation, a mental schematic of whatever... and then immediately start perceiving things that *look* similar in form on the basis of their surface characteristics. Metaphorically speaking, this would be like looking at two balls that have the same identical appearance... they are of the same size, shape, color, and texture... yet they have completely different weights and are actually made of completely different materials. would look at the two balls and decide, "oh, these are the same!" cannot factor in the latent characteristics of the two balls, as deals exclusively with surface forms. Conversely, would look at two things of dissimilar appearance and immediately conclude that they must be completely different, even though the two things have identical latent characteristics.

can get misleading when it falsely perceives similarities between things that are different essentially. And when it falsely perceives that two things are different when they are the same essentially. And all kinds of absurdities start to ratchet up.

An PoLR might see as something superficial and trivial. Meaningless or a waste of time. And either get annoyed by it or grudgingly tolerate it and passively wish it would go away.

Sabo, on Jan 6 2008, 02:16 AM, said:

Ashton, that's one of the better descriptions of Ne I've seen... a lot more accurate than just saying "Ne is the intuition of potential" or w/e.

IME, Ne is like a camera that takes snapshots of the world around you -- including objects, concepts, etc. However, unlike Se, it creates a general image of the fundamental, internal traits of this object. The basic form, or essence if you will. This would be what you call "surface characteristics," but the use of the word "surface" betrays your Gamma-ness. Don't you dare try to call my leading function shallow! If you do, I will have to send my Nenjas after you (yes, that was a really lame pun, not a typo. Sorry.).

So where does the stuff about Ne being associated with potential and inventiveness come from? Well, because Ne is about capturing the essence or general form of an object or idea, Ne types tend to see ways in which objects/ideas can be used in new ways that are completely different than their "intended" use. (Actually, there could be some Ti mixed in with the last part ... the bottom line is that Ne is about capturing the form/essence of something without details, which allows Ne types to see the many different uses of said thing -- whether in the logical or ethical sphere -- which is where the stuff about "potential" comes from.)

So yeah, Ne is not about automatically seeing potential, but because of its nature, Ne types tend to see ways to use things in new ways, which may also come across as "inventiveness" or whatever sometimes.

I think "Intuition of Internal Form" or "Intuition of Essence" might be a better name for it than "Intuition of Potential," which doesn't really get at what it's all about.

And how does undervalued Ne manifest itself? Well, I think I'll just ask my quasi-identical on this one...

Ashton, on Sep 4 2007, 07:43 AM, said:

can get misleading when it falsely perceives similarities between things that are different essentially.

Yup. Non-Ne types tend to see Ne as "pointless" or "misleading" because it compares things based on essence/form. strrrng's comment on "incorrect comparisons" is very familiar. My one sentence test for valued Ne: make an analogy between two things that are completely different but that somehow have the same internal form. Ne types and non-Ne types will react very differently to this. Weak Ne types will see the Ne way of looking at things as superficial, removed from reality, etc.

One random observation I have made: Ne types tend to like to do things in different ways just for fun. Ne-haters will see this as silly and pointless. Maybe this is not a general principle, but it does seem to be the trend over the people I have observed and typed (in real life, not teh internets socionix phorumz).

Mk, I'm done talking. Hopefully some of this made sense.

Ashton, on Jan 6 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

Sabo, on Jan 6 2008, 01:16 AM, said:

Ashton, that's one of the better descriptions of Ne I've seen... a lot more accurate than just saying "Ne is the intuition of potential" or w/e.

IME, Ne is like a camera that takes snapshots of the world around you -- including objects, concepts, etc. However, unlike Se, it creates a general image of the fundamental, internal traits of this object. The basic form, or essence if you will. This would be what you call "surface characteristics," but the use of the word "surface" betrays your Gamma-ness. Don't you dare try to call my leading function shallow! If you do, I will have to send my Nenjas after you (yes, that was a really lame pun, not a typo. Sorry.).

I agree that takes "snapshots" as you describe. But it still doesn't strike me as having to do so much with "essences" so to speak. Funny because "Essence" has actually been a word I've been using for lol. I think we're talking about different things because still seems more genuinely surface to me when it comes to Internal qualities of reality - in a parallel sense that seems more surface to me when it comes to External qualities of reality. Both and are kind of more... "primitive" to me in what they do than their Dynamic Field cousins and . Also, there is a very definite way in which and go together that I can see quite clearly how they complement eachother... I have been thinking some that, in a sense there may be 4 "meta-functions" so to speak. That you can think of say, and as dipoles of the same essential thing. Similarily, and would be dipoles of the same thing... I have a sense of how they act in a mutually complementary fashion as well, though I don't know how to describe it. I had a clear insight on this the other day but I lost it .

I made this post about a year ago describing what is like for me:

"My personal interpretation of Ni isn't Socionics canon, as I go based on what I've experienced and what I've seen about it from myself and other Ni types. I tend to figure that if you aren't an Ni type and haven't experienced Ni directly, you can never really know what it's about... which is part of what it's so frikkin hard to pin down precisely and why Socionics has pretty much blundered it in my mind.

I think "intuition of time"... is actually only a subset of what Ni does. The real process of it is much broader in scope. It seems to work something like this...

As one becomes aware of a situation, a person, or a problem you're trying to solve... whatever it is, it's as though Ni receives a large packet of information about whatever it is that one is perceiving, all at once. It hits you instantly, as though your Ni is trying to "tell" you something, and there's a distinctive quality of knowingness about the information you receive. And you may not know exactly what it's telling you yet... but nevertheless, you have a vague impression, sense, "feeling," or instinct of the end, essence, or totality of whatever it is you're perceiving. Other times it might come through imagery of a symbolic/metaphorical nature, or just free-flowing dynamic visualizations that describe something to you when you look at them. Usually, it will be a bit "unrefined" at first, but something definite is certainly there. You know the conclusion well before you know the steps it's going to take to get there. Sometimes you kind of have to let it evolve and unfold until it becomes clearer. Or maybe start teasing it apart with Fe or Te to begin organizing it and turning it into something coherent."

Though I think that and can be inverse processes of eachother in a sense. I've used the analogy of fractals before to describe the contrast between and as well. Something like this:

"Each fractal is very complex when looked at from the outside, and you can follow the surface of it indefinitely trying to map it out and see all the intricacies, discovering new paths and connections - that is what sees. However, each fractal is actually generated by a very simple characteristic equation. This equation would be it's "essence"... or say, the "inside" of the fractal - that would be what sees."

Sabo, on Jan 6 2008, 01:16 AM, said:

So where does the stuff about Ne being associated with potential and inventiveness come from? Well, because Ne is about capturing the essence or general form of an object or idea, Ne types tend to see ways in which objects/ideas can be used in new ways that are completely different than their "intended" use. (Actually, there could be some Ti mixed in with the last part ... the bottom line is that Ne is about capturing the form/essence of something without details, which allows Ne types to see the many different uses of said thing -- whether in the logical or ethical sphere -- which is where the stuff about "potential" comes from.)

So yeah, Ne is not about automatically seeing potential, but because of its nature, Ne types tend to see ways to use things in new ways, which may also come across as "inventiveness" or whatever sometimes.

seems more tangential than essential IMO. Something that takes an existing thing and then synthetically constructs a new arrangement of that thing while more often leaving the internal form intact.

Maybe you're some type? I don't know. It's just when I take Delta NFs and Alpha NTs as a whole, I don't see the "essentializing" process you're speaking of going on with them. Whereas I see it quite vividly with Gamma NTs and Beta NFs...

Sabo, on Jan 6 2008, 01:16 AM, said:

I think "Intuition of Internal Form" or "Intuition of Essence" might be a better name for it than "Intuition of Potential," which doesn't really get at what it's all about.

And how does undervalued Ne manifest itself? Well, I think I'll just ask my quasi-identical on this one...

Yup. Non-Ne types tend to see Ne as "pointless" or "misleading" because it compares things based on essence/form. strrrng's comment on "incorrect comparisons" is very familiar. My one sentence test for valued Ne: make an analogy between two things that are completely different but that somehow have the same internal form. Ne types and non-Ne types will react very differently to this. Weak Ne types will see the Ne way of looking at things as superficial, removed from reality, etc.

perception seems more localized to me actually in terms of how it... moves? It's like I can literally watch their minds jump from node to node in a very discrete way as I hear them talk. I say localized because it's like they can only go to a node that's connected to the node they're already on. Which gets frustrating to me because I already know where they're going to end up, but it's like they have to methodically judge the weight of every possiblility before they can finally decide on an outcome.

The advantage of though IMO is that they can trace their steps. I can't do this at all, since my mind doesn't really make the steps does. Things just occur to me in flashes of perception and I don't know how I got there and I don't know how to articulate it to people, but I know I'm right. So I just come off sounding like a raving lunatic most of the time to everyone that's not if I try to explain it.

There's also another potential advantage in that... is more of a positive feedback function - it can and will keep going without bound under it's own influence and can potentially make infinite connections and rearrangements. can perhaps be thought of as more of a negative feedback function - it distills things down to an ever finer precision and purity and extracts that fundamental insight... but the more you peel the layers off of something and the closer to the "core" you get, the less you are able to do so. I think potentially there gets to be a point where the introduction of new insights terminates because there will be a hard limitation on how far you can see and refine. Though it's debatable if anyone ever reaches that limitation in their lifetime. Nevertheless, I think with every type there is a sort of belief they carry that a hard boundary exists at some level where there really is just nothing new left to know. You really do begin to see that everything is just permutations, patterns, repetitions, and cycles of things you've already seen before. As many have said for thousands of years, "There is nothing new under the sun."

Quote

One random observation I have made: Ne types tend to like to do things in different ways just for fun. Ne-haters will see this as silly and pointless. Maybe this is not a general principle, but it does seem to be the trend over the people I have observed and typed (in real life, not teh internets socionix phorumz).

I dunno about that, pretty much everything I do is for fun lol.

Sabo, on Jan 6 2008, 03:25 PM, said:

Ashton, on Jan 6 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

I agree that takes "snapshots" as you describe. But it still doesn't strike me as having to do so much with "essences" so to speak. Funny because "Essence" has actually been a word I've been using for lol. I think we're talking about different things because Ne.gif still seems more genuinely surface to me when it comes to Internal qualities of reality - in a parallel sense that Se.gif seems more surface to me when it comes to External qualities of reality.

Hmm... maybe essence is too vague to apply to either one. I was using "essence" to mean "basic internal form" -- but from a Ni point of view, this might be too static to be the "essence." I can see why you'd use the term "surface" although I still feel like this doesn't give Ne enough credit. Plus, it seems kind of weird talking about the internal surface of objects, lol.

Ashton, on Jan 6 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

"My personal interpretation of Ni isn't Socionics canon, as I go based on what I've experienced and what I've seen about it from myself and other Ni types. I tend to figure that if you aren't an Ni type and haven't experienced Ni directly, you can never really know what it's about... which is part of what it's so frikkin hard to pin down precisely and why Socionics has pretty much blundered it in my mind.

I think "intuition of time"... is actually only a subset of what Ni does. The real process of it is much broader in scope. It seems to work something like this...

As one becomes aware of a situation, a person, or a problem you're trying to solve... whatever it is, it's as though Ni receives a large packet of information about whatever it is that one is perceiving, all at once. It hits you instantly, as though your Ni is trying to "tell" you something, and there's a distinctive quality of knowingness about the information you receive. And you may not know exactly what it's telling you yet... but nevertheless, you have a vague impression, sense, "feeling," or instinct of the end, essence, or totality of whatever it is you're perceiving. Other times it might come through imagery of a symbolic/metaphorical nature, or just free-flowing dynamic visualizations that describe something to you when you look at them. Usually, it will be a bit "unrefined" at first, but something definite is certainly there. You know the conclusion well before you know the steps it's going to take to get there. Sometimes you kind of have to let it evolve and unfold until it becomes clearer. Or maybe start teasing it apart with Fe or Te to begin organizing it and turning it into something coherent."

I've never seemed Ni described like that, but that's actually a really good description.

Re: the part I bolded... I think this is a good example of the different kinds of essences we're talking about. You mention that Ni grasps "the essence" and "the end" of whatever it's considering. It seems like this is the fundamental difference between Ne and Ni -- Ni is about seeing the essence of things as processes, whereas Ne looks at the essence of things as static objects. Ne perceives static objects, but it also perceives processes as static objects. Ni perceives dynamic processes, but it also perceives objects/situations as dynamic processes. Ne is about capturing the "essence" of static objects or objectified processes. Ni is about capturing the "essence" of dynamic processes or "processified" ( ) objects. And that's how they can both be about "essence" and still be essentially different.

Ashton, on Jan 6 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

seems more tangential than essential IMO. Something that takes an existing thing and then synthetically constructs a new arrangement of that thing while more often leaving the internal form intact.

Yes, but Ne is only able to do that because it first abstracts images of the internal forms of objects from reality. You can't create a new arrangement of external qualities/situation and leave the internal form intact without first abstracting it from said external attributes. This is all I meant.

Ashton, on Jan 6 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

Maybe you're some type? I don't know. It's just when I take Delta NFs and Alpha NTs as a whole, I don't see the "essentializing" process you're speaking of going on with them. Whereas I see it quite vividly with Gamma NTs and Beta NFs...

Well, my type certainly isn't set in stone... but now that I've clarified what I meant by "essence," does the way I'm describing things still seem like Ni?

Ashton, on Jan 6 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

Ne.gif perception seems more localized to me actually in terms of how it... moves? It's like I can literally watch their minds jump from node to node in a very discrete way as I hear them talk. I say localized because it's like they can only go to a node that's connected to the node they're already on.

Static vs. dynamic maybe? In the case of Alpha NTs, they use Ti build "maps" of the relationships between the "snapshots" of the internal forms they have taken with Ne.

Steve, on Jan 6 2008, 05:33 PM, said:

"Sabo" said:

Static vs. dynamic maybe? In the case of Alpha NTs, they use Ti build "maps" of the relationships between the "snapshots" of the internal forms they have taken with Ne.

Well put, Sabo. It seems that in Alpha and Gamma NTs, you have one function that steps forward, and another function that checks it. With Alphas, Ti helps keep the Ne in check, by making sure there's a coherence with everything that's perceived. With Gammas, Ni makes sure that Te has the proper essence from which to work forth.

"Sabo" said:

Ne perceives static objects, but it also perceives processes as static objects.

Yes, this seems like exactly what I do. And I think the way I move through my Si agenda is to notice processes, comment on them, see intrinsic things about the interconnected processes in the Si field.

Also like Ashton said, there could be some meta-function stuff going on, that Ne and Si play off of each other as do Ni and Se. Both dynamic field functions have essences to them. Si perceives "essences", but essences related to what's going on externally, and Ne can jump around from rock to rock looking to do things within these essences. I mean Se could be doing the same thing with Ni essences too.

[borderline]

.

[borderline]

– External Field Statics (EFS)

Steve, on Aug 15 2008, 02:28 AM, said:

Ti – External Field Statics (EFS)

- By Steve

Ti As It Emerges from the Theory:

Ti, like the other three introverted functions, is a field function. With field functions the person sees the relationship that exists between things, and is personally affected by this relationship/field. Thus the output of the field functions consists of personalized data selectively filtered to center around either a unifying evolving essence, as with the dynamic field functions Si and Ni, or a unifying central criterion, as with the static field functions Ti and Fi.

Ti is a judging function, along with Fi, Te and Fe. Perceiving functions involve a passive mode of receiving information, allowing information to flow in “as is” more or less. Judging functions on the other hand involve an active mode toward information. Judging functions exert control and shape the information that comes in - in other words they modify the natural state/states of reality into processed outcomes. You could liken the Judging functions to taking natural ingredients and combining them to produce processed food - think of taking a bunch of wheat and oats, modifying it from its natural state (dry long stalks), and turning it into a rectangular granola bar.

There are two sides of reality, the external and internal. The Judging functions that shape and modify external information are the “thinking functions” Ti and Te (External Field Statics and External Object Dynamics respectively), while the Judging functions that shape/modify internal information are the “feeling functions” Fi and Fe (Internal Field Statics and Internal Object Dynamics respectively). The way the thinking functions operate can resemble “logic” but it is important to note that thinking functions are not logic. Thinking functions are simply ways of shaping/modifying/processing/filtering information from external reality. They may work with information derived from functions that deal with internal reality, but they always turn the internal information into something external (for example Ti making an external structure of different internal Ne observations on things).

Theoretically speaking, each Judging function resembles a Perceiving function in a modified or altered state. For example, Ti is like frozen Si (external field statics vs. external field dynamics), just as Te is like moving Se, and Fi like frozen Ni. (The connection between specific judging and perceiving functions is to be explored further separately). As you can see, each Judging function can be seen as a modified/altered condition of a natural Perceiving mode. This comparison is useful for showing how a Judging function acts with reality: it takes the raw information from the Perceiving functions and filters it, modifies it, processes it, refines it, and makes sense of it.

Essentially Ti operates by freezing a chunk of external field information, holding it in place, thereby creating it a static “structure”; a “grid of interconnection”. Picture a flowing river with a current (dynamic field), and now picture the river suddenly icing over. Now that the river has ice, we can walk on it, examine it, maybe see a fish or two frozen underneath, as if we’re now seeing a frame or snapshot (static) of the whole interaction (dynamic) that takes place when the river (field) is flowing.

---

on a Practical Level

Steve, on Aug 15 2008, 02:28 AM, said:

Ti on a Practical Level:

Ti analyzes and makes sense of the external reality by unifying it into a personalized structure, determined by personalized criteria. Ti uses these criteria to determine if things are coherent or not, and whether or not something’s relevant. So when it comes to say, solving a problem logically, Ti will revert to its personally determined rules for how reality operates, and use those rules to deduce an appropriate conclusion. A key aspect of the way Ti operates is that it is always seeking to pinpoint fundamental principles or laws that exist behind phenomenon. Once these laws are determined, they are incorporated into the person’s working framework of how the world works. If new phenomena happen that cannot be explained by the person’s existing framework, the person then has to change their unifying criteria to incorporate the new “law” behind the new phenomena.

When Ti people learn new information, they will most often have to bridge an underlying concept/law in the material with a concept/law that they have solidified from past experience. If they can’t attain a structural connection, the new material will seem random or irrelevant and have no place in the existing working Ti framework.

For Ti seekers, particularly IXFps, they seek out these “laws/rules” that seem to explain how everything works. Te totally catches them off guard because of its discrete nature, and doesn’t give them the unification they need to properly understand something. Additionally, a Ti hidden agenda type seems particularly content exploring all the different rules of reality/situations that exist for its own sake.

---

How Differs from

Steve, on Aug 15 2008, 02:28 AM, said:

How Ti Differs from Te:

Ti analyzes and makes sense of external reality by freezing an entire group of information and unifying it behind personally determined criteria. Te on the other hand takes discrete nodes of data from external reality and extracts them in an evolving linear form into self-contained, sealed-off “objects”. There is no unification of all the nodes, because each node evolves to be slightly different than the previous one. This phenomenon seems to be why Te is misconstrued as simply stating “facts” or reciting “data”. Yes, Te will process and make sense of things in a seemingly linear fashion, going point by point, but it is not “facts” Te is stating (although it may seem like Te-people state the obvious to Ti-people). Instead it is an extraction/interpreting of external reality into discrete representations.

In summation, Ti is about creating a unified personalized system or framework to understand something, while Te extracts discrete outcomes as information rolls in.

[borderline]

from a Perspective

Ashton, on Aug 29 2008, 06:23 AM, said:

Ajax, on Aug 28 2008, 07:16 PM, said:

Steve, what you said about Te seeming discreet to Fe types is something I have noted for a while now. I also think Fe comes across as quite discreet to Te types but in a different way. I have noticed that Te quadra types often see Fe types as dramatic, emotional and probably crazy .

Actually, I don't think of Fe types as being that dramatic and emotional persay - if anything, they come across less so to me, because I typically have a difficult time reacting to them in an emotional way. I can see what they are feeling, but since it doesn't prompt an emotional response out of me, I can't directly respond to it emotionally. I can see it, recognize it, understand it objectively, but I can't feel it. If that makes sense. It's as if the communication is missing some sort of subtle unconscious cues in it that are necessary to elicit an emotional response from me.

But yeah even apart from that, when I remove that from my perspective, I can't tell that either Fi or Fe is any more/less emotionally discreet than the other. I've heard Fe types complain of Fi being dramatic and emo too. What does seem to be true for me (i.e. as interpreted by my information processing) is that Fe types will more often cluster around one or the other extremes - either they come across as too overtly expressive where it's too much, or they come across as too covert and very difficult to read. More specifically, Alphas will often be too overt, where the expression is overkill and TMI for me. Betas will more often be too covert, where the expression is especially subtle and difficult to pick up on for me. I imagine they come off differently to other quadras.

Ajax, on Aug 28 2008, 07:16 PM, said:

They tend not to quite get how we have moved from one emotional state to another.... that is, they do not really "see" the factors which have caused us to move from one emotional state to something very different and the change can seem rather haphazard to them in the same way their information processing and presentation can seem quite haphazard to us. Though it is a vague description, I do think Fe as internal dynamics of objects or rather subjects is very accurate.

Yeah, that's very true. I don't understand how/why they react to what they do. I can recognize their emotional states, but the causal agents that are inducing it to happen baffle me for the most part and seem to arise out of nowhere. I can understand it after observing for awhile, but only indirectly using Te. It's not something I can understand directly, hence I cannot feel it like they do. It's completely alien to my perception. And I know I don't lack empathy or anything like that, because I can feel the emotional states of other people. But I can't feel the how/why variables that are making those emotional states happen and I think Fe types can? This intrigues me very much.

---

How Differs from

Ashton, on Aug 16 2007, 07:25 PM, said:

FDG, on Aug 16 2007, 10:24 AM, said:

What's the core difference between Fe style of relating and Fi style of relating

You know, I've been struggling with this question for weeks myself actually. So I'm very glad you brought it up.

Growing up around two Fe-dominants (Ni-ENFj, Si-ESFj), as well as an Se-ESTp sister, I've had a lot of exposure to Fe. As a child, I used to watch the way my dad (Ni-ENFj) dealt with people and how he seemed to have a charismatic influence over people. We even joked as a family that "dad is like Hitler" because of this weird influence he seemed to have over people that made them instantly respectful and sometimes even slavishly conciliating towards him. It was so bizarre to watch, almost magical seeming. So I studied it out of intrigue and quickly began to see that there was a kind of science to what he was doing, that there were very objective cues being traded back and forth, and that he was quite conscious of the whole process of what he was doing and what they were doing. Certain tones, certain gestures, all these sorts of things, all delivered on target to elicit certain responses in return. In effect I believe I was seeing Fe, well before I even knew the idea of "Fe" even existed. But in most cases, it isn't as designed or as calculated as one might think. It very well *can* be, but in most instances it's just kind of something that occurs casually, a batting back and forth in the same sort of way two people might spontaneously play a volleyball game, and then go their separate ways just as spontaneously. There typically isn't anything coercive or manipulative about it and it's usually driven by good or neutral intentions. If any Betas/Alphas want to dispute what I've described here, please do.

I think Fe can seem manipulative to Fi types, particularly when Fe is one's Role or PoLR function. I've often tried to emulate Fe myself, especially before I knew what it was, but it's just not a natural thing for me, and hence quickly exhausts me. And when people use Fe at me, it just seems really empty/inert to me and I'm unphased by it. Something seems vacant about it because it just doesn't spark me for some reason. And it leaves me dumbfounded like I am not sure what to do, because I know I'm being unresponsive and I'm unsure how not to be. So I get averse to it because of the associated discomfort of feeling unresponsive when I know someone is trying to engage with me.

What is Fi? That's harder for me to pin down - I think it's harder in general to talk about your own functions... because it's what you're used to, it's as if asking a fish to explain what water is like. I can better say what Fi is not: It's not inherently about morals, principles, values, nor is it about about being humanitarian, saintly, immaculate, non-judgmental, or any of what I commonly see attributed to Fi. It doesn't necessarily make one more likely to be compassionate or any less likely to be ruthless. And doesn't make you go gaga over "cute stuff." And when people make those claims, they're making a simultaneous claiming that Alpha and Beta quadra people are somehow less capable of these sorts of things that they say Fi is about, which is not true at all.

So I don't know if this is Fi, something particular to me, or even commonplace. But in an unhealthy state of mind my Fi gets dysfunctional IMO... and I get paranoid about my relations to other people and/or really cold+detached. Typically, I can sense the distance/closeness between myself and another person, and whether someone likes me or hates me, without any obvious cues. It often comes across like a tactile sensation. If somebody hates me and I'm not sure why, it can actually make me nauseous and weirded out as though some gross presence is looming over me.

Around Fi people, I instantly recognize it's presence - it's just *there*, and induces a calming sense of relaxation and comfort. We may still not get along for other reasons, not understand each other well, or even outright hate eachother. Yet there is no tension in relating to one another, if that makes sense. Conversely, if I have a bond with someone, be it to a good friend or what not, it doesn't really require confirmation. Not that this stops one from lavishing each other with praise/compliments/affection, I still do plenty of that. Contrary to what's often written, I don't think Fi is any less expressive or evocative than Fe, just the manifestation is different. It's a lot like Ti actually, except dealing with relations/emotional content instead of logic/mental content - which is also funny, as I find Fe people complaining about Fi in characteristically similar ways that Te people complain about Ti.

---

What is PoLR?

Krae, on Sep 19 2007, 03:58 AM, said:

... baby don't hurt me? don't hurt my? PoLR.

Ashton, on Sep 20 2007, 03:02 AM, said:

@krae: If you want to make sense of the -PoLR, look at how INTps Sarah and CPig react to . I think you'll see it. Particularly w/ Sarah... remember her alias, "The Punch." Yeah.
Also... think of how you'd react to being directed at you and how your HA plays into that. It is a parallel sort of thing with and IXTps.

In general, when it comes to PoLRs, they make more sense when you take the Hidden Agenda into account. With an IXTp, the HA is ... so directed at them tends to be viewed as something especially unnecessary/bad/annoying because the is what is so paramountly desired. It means you especially prefer to relate to others in an way, and that you enjoy it very much when it happens.

PoLR doesn't make you critical, disdainful, pessimistic, insensitive, isolative, socially retarded, robotically logical, emotionally repressive, or any of the other stupid shit that niffweed is attributing to INTps. All of that is actually far more descriptive of dysfunctional INTjs like himself. So sick and tired of people who don't know any better turning INTp into INTj.

[borderline]

Forms of Malreasoning Frequently Encountered in Socionics

Ashton, on May 5 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

This is a compilation of the different kinds of malreasoning often encountered in Socionics, which I've roughly divided into two categories: Logical fallacies and bad methodologies. Some of these are more or less commonly accepted variants of malreasoning, others I made up definitions for in cases where I couldn't find an existing one to match it to.

This list is not intended to be exhaustive nor definitive. Also you'll probably notice a bit of overlap in some of these, where one could be seen as a redundant subvariant or extension of another. This is intentional where I felt like the specificity was worth illustrating.

Logical Fallacy

False Analogy: Asserting that X is like Z, and that since Z has property Y, then X also has property Y.

Example: This is a fairly ubiquitous practice in Socionics when discussing the theory and what different concepts mean. Aushra herself is notorious for making all sorts of false analogies when discussing information metabolism and functions.

"Se is like Kinetic Energy. Kinetic Energy pertains to movement. Therefore Se pertains to movement."

Hypostatization: Treating an abstraction, concept, or theoretical construct as if it were something concrete, tangible, or a real entity. Also can be known as Reification.

Example: Citing particulars of Socionics type profiles as direct evidence to support one's case for someone being a particular type.

Vagueness: Use of a term/concept in which there are no clear semantic boundaries on when, where, or how it applies. Often this takes the form of a Nominal Fallacy, where it's assumed that because something has been given a name, it has therefore been explained.

Example: Ill-defined usage of information aspects in a poorly explained manner without clear qualification of what they mean or refer to, such as the following all too common scenario:

A: "What is Ni?"
B: "Ni is Internal Field Dynamics."
A: "Okay, what do those words mean?"
B: "Ni deals with internal, dynamic, and field aspects."
A: "You're not answering my question."

Equivocation: Use of a term in two or more different senses/meanings within the same statement. Redefinition and Shifting Ground are sub-fallacies of this.

Example:

Redefinition: An ad-hoc change to a definition of a term, done for the particular purpose of attempting to dismiss an opposing statement. Also known as the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."

Example:
A: "No <type> does this. Person X does this, therefore they cannot be <type>.
B: "But Person Y does this too, how are they <type> then?"
A: "Yes that is correct, but no true <type> does this in that particular way Person X does."
B: "...?"

Proof by Anecdote: Use of case-based reasoning (casuistry) to ostensibly prove or disprove something about a general theory or construct.

Example: "My <friend, relative, whatever> is type is X, therefore I know for a fact that type X really is like this." Note: This also ignores the possibility that their friend may not be type X.

Cherry Picking: Pointing to particular instances/examples that seem to confirm an assertion and justify one's position, ignoring other evidence that would contradict that position. Also known as "Confirmation Bias." Related to the Fundamental Attribution Error.

Example:
A: "Person X did this one particular action one time, therefore it is obvious that this person is an <type>."
B: "But Person X has also done all these other things on so many different occasions that I would suggest are contrary to the <type> you are asserting. I'm not sure how you can draw this conclusion so quickly."
A: "That is all irrelevant. It is clear that anyone who has ever done this one particular action is an <type>."
B: "Um..."

Proof by Repetition: Asserting the same proposition and/or case repeatedly in the face of contradictory arguments, leaving their opponent(s) rebuttals entirely unaddressed. Gradually opponent(s) are worn down by sheer force of attrition and give up trying to reason with the person, leaving the fallacious claim unopposed.

-Typically among a group, this form of argument can induce an "echo chamber effect." That is, with enough frequency and lack of opposition, the fallacious claim begins to be osmotically accepted as legitimate. Eventually nearly everyone takes the claim for granted as true by default and scarcely anyone seeming to remember a time when it wasn't.

Appeal to Authority: Asserting or implying that some statement/theory is more (or less) valid on account of who said it or what source it came from.

Example: Backing one's claim with something along the lines of, "This is what Socionists believe, this is what the experts on Socionics have said, this is the opinion of Socionist X, therefore..."

-Other problems with use of this fallacy: In many instances "Socionists" is undefined, leaving open the question of who or what Socionists are being referred to. Also, what is it that makes one a Socionist or Socionics expert anyway? And just because someone is said to be a Socionics expert, what justifies that their statements should be considered credible or relevant?

Appeal to Common Practice: Asserting or implying that some statement/theory is more (or less) valid on the basis of it being (or not being) in accordance with what is (or professed to be) the standard, accepted, or mainstream paradigm.

Example: Arguing that one is speaking from a "classical socionics" POV, or dismissing something by way of deeming it "not classical socionics."

-Another problem is that there exists no clearly agreed upon definition of what constitutes "classical socionics" - the basic semantics used in Socionics itself remain to be adequately defined. Much less is it certain that adherents to "classical socionics" share commensurable viewpoints, and hence may be talking past each other about different things without knowing it.

False Dilemma: Also known as the "Either/or Fallacy" and "Many Questions Fallacy." Assertions of this form attempt to isolate the crux of an issue as being wholly contingent upon some binary-valued outcome. This fallacy is especially subversive, since not only does it ignore the range of other possible outcomes, but also narrows the scope of an issue down in such a way that is non-comprehensive of other relevant dependencies (evidence, variables, etc.) involved in the issue.

Often this sort of fallacy is used in attempts to redefine the criteria by which the validity of an opponent's argument may be considered, clandestinely shifting the burden of proof in such a way that makes their opponent's stance easily refutable or at least impossible to confirm. This seems to be one of the most popular fallacies to fall for, as people will often accept the invitiation of a false dilemma, unknowingly complicit in agreeing to play by rules that are intended to entrap them.

Argument from Fallacy: Asserting that because an argument itself given to support a proposition was fallacious, then the proposition must also be false. Straw Man fallacies often take this form.

Smorgasbord Thinking: Inventing ad-hoc hypotheses to defend a theory post-hoc when contradictions to it are encountered. Often times this is unconscious.

Loki's Wager: Unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.

Mistaking Deductive Validity for Truth: Assuming that because an argument/theory/system is deductively valid then it also true in reality. Also related to the Hypostatization.

Bad Methodology

Fundamental Attribution Error: Interpreting the behavioral actions of an individual without regard to the context or situational circumstances in which the action was observed in, and deeming the action as something inherent to that individual's personality or character. Related to Cherry Picking.

Example: "Person X exhibited <some vaguely defined and general behavior>, therefore Person X is <some type commonly associated with that vaguely defined and general behavior>."

False Colligation: A fallacious joining or relating together of facts/evidence into a pattern that supposedly reveals a general principle or proves a claim. False Colligations are often built upon a cumulated series of Cherry Picked premises.

Example: Fairly self-explanatory I think. Anything along the lines of, "Person A has done 1, 2, 3, and 4. Therefore we can quite clearly see on the basis of this collection of evidence that they must be <type>." This sort of thing also pops up in various interpretations of Socionics theory.

*A more extreme manifestation of this fallacy would be say, a schizophrenic observing patterns in the asphalt and concluding that they contained messages from God.

Positivist Fallacy: Asserting that because there is no evidence for a phenomenon, that the phenomenon does not exist. Absence of evidence is treated as evidence of absence. Also can be called the "Fallacy of Negative Proof." An exception to this fallacy could be a situation that legitimately involved an either/or outcome between 2 possiblities, in which case it may be reasonable to infer the existence of one due to the non-existence of the other.

Validity Problem: When an operational definition of a term/variable fails to reflect the theoretical meaning of the term/variable.

Example: Definitions of functions that reduce processes of information metabolism into sets of ostensible behavorial traits or as competencies in certain skillsets, when it is not clear that such a reduction meaningfully refers to anything about functions. For instance, saying "Se = aggression, will power, crude language" would constitute an inappropriate operational definition. This is also a problem with the Reinin Dichotomies, Temperaments, etc.

Fallacy of Compromise: Assumes that the most valid conclusion is that which accepts the best compromise between two or more competing positions. Otherwise known as the "Golden Mean Fallacy."

Truth by Social Consensus: An approach which assumes that the most valid point of view is one in which there exists a generalized agreement by a majority of the group as being true.

Example: Socionics Type Benchmark Lists.

Truth by Plurality: An approach which assumes that the most valid conclusion can be converged upon by being inclusive of as many viewpoints as possible.

Example: Forum discussions in general. Wikisocion.

Truth by "Survival of the Fittest": An assumption that the most valid ideas can be arrived at by way of debate and argument between competing points of view, emerging victoriously through force of superior reason and justification that drives inferior ideas to extinction.

Quantitation Fallacy: Assuming that a theory is more likely be true simply because it can be expressed mathematically and/or is supported with use of quantitative analysis.

Example: Smilexian Socionics.

Relativist Fallacy: Asserting that two potentially contradictory statements/theories/models which refer to the same aspect of reality can both be equally valid because "truth is only relative" - i.e., relative to the context of your own perspective, or theoretical outlook, or model of a system, etc. Polylogism is an instance of the relativist fallacy.

-Similarily, the relativist fallacy can manifest as an unreasonable insistence that the phenomenon which the theory/model pertains to, must be discussed and evaluated exclusively within the paradigm of that theory/model and it's context. Other theories concerning same, similar, or related phenomenon are deemed irrelevant, effectively ignoring any question of the theory's consilience with other knowledge about reality. Different paradigms of different theories/models - even if pertaining to the same phenomenon of reality or one fundamentally related to it - are treated as incommensurable to one another. The result is a closed, circular epistemology where the theory can only be understood according to itself, as if to absurdly say, "the theory is valid because the theory says the theory is valid." Also see the Black Box Fallacy.

Example: Arguments that Jungian typology (from which Socionics is derived) has no relevance on Socionics. Similar arguments are made that modern psychological research has no bearing on Socionics.

Black Box Fallacy: The premise that an entity's characteristics may be presented in terms of a model, and that correspondence to a model implies essential similarity. Thinking by analogy results: If two things look alike, they are alike; the question of what prior conditions result in correspondence to the model is considered secondary and unimportant. The implicit idea is that as long as we don't see what is happening inside a box, all that counts is what comes out of the box. What is unseen is relegated to the realm of non-identity (see Epistemic Fallacy), hence that which can't be observed from without and made a part of the model is dismissed as stupid, crazy, "merely subjective," or "not Socionics." Not that this method isn't totally contrary to reason, for instance: If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, chances are it's a duck. The problem is that to understand reality, it is not enough to merely collate a set of particular data with a particular model. One must also discover the preconditions of observation, and understand when to break away and form a new conceptual framework.

Example: Type-by-trait approaches in general.

Epistemic Fallacy: Assertions about the nature/being (ontology) of an entity reduced to existing theory/knowledge (epistemology) about that entity. Theoretical representations are assumed equivalent to the world as it exists (see Hypostatization) - a naivete which ignores that a theory may not sufficiently or accurately encompass the entities it supposedly refers to. This assumption in practice leads to an inverted approach in understanding reality, where the nature of reality is implicitly regarded as supervenient upon our theories about reality, and entities become abstracted into mere theory-dependent constructs whose properties are defined by their theoretical parameters. As a result, any methodology derived from this approach will be ontologically oblivious. No matter how rigorously designed and executed the method of study, it is unlikely to apply to reality in a meaningful way such that it yields accurate/useful knowledge about it's object of study. For a method used must be amenable to the nature of what is being studied, in the same sense that a tool is only useful for tasks it is appropriately suited to - a hammer is great at hammering nails; usually not so great at hammering screws.

Example: The social sciences are notorious for attempting to emulate the research methodologies of the natural sciences. For instance, a mainstream/orthodox economist studies economic behavior of individuals and societies as if it were impersonal, objective, natural phenomena which can be observed, measured, quantitated, and analyzed for causal regularities that can be deduced into "economic laws." The economist does this in fundamentally the same manner that a physicist studies the physical behavior of matter and energy. The difference here of course is that the nature of what a physicist studies is far less complex than the nature of what an economist studies; i.e., systems of people are incomparably greater in complexity and characteristic unpredictability, in contrast to systems of inanimate particles. The latter is amenable to methods of objective measurement and quantitative analysis, the former is not. These methods yield useful information when applied to matters of physics, but yield misleading convolutions when applied to matters of economics. The result has been "economic laws" stated in the form of obtuse mathematical theorems, and facile econometric models which fail to produce useful predictions or explanations about real economic behavior.


-Stuff I'll be adding:

Frozen Abstraction
Boolean Fallacy
Falsifiability Fallacy
Moving Goalpost
Simplistic-Complexity
Spurious Superficiality
I-Cubed
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Perspectivist Fallacy
Hyperliteralization
Discovery Fallacy
Hasty Generalization
Egocentric bias
False Cause
False Dichotomy
Slanting Fallacy
Quoting out of context (Contextomy)
Appeal to Ridicule
Hypocrisy
Burden of proof
Red Herring
Begging the Question
Straw Man
Shifting Ground
Fallacy of Accident

[borderline]

Originally posted by Ashton @ Dec 15 2007, 06:50 AM

What are the functions?

Ajax, on Dec 12 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

Ashton, what you seem to be saying is that we only value or are capable of using four functions.

Yeah, effectively that's what I'm saying. Like I said, I think of the functions as forms of awareness.

An analogy to this would be how the human eye sees color. It does this through 3 different types of cone cells, each of which are most sensitive to frequencies of light in either red, green, or blue... like this:



Obviously these overlap a lot, and the result is that any color you see is a composite of inputs from all 3 cones. So something that is very very red would just trigger the red cones and no blue or green ones. Or a color like purple would fire some blue and some red. Blah blah.


Anyway, now for the point in all of this. What happens when someone is color-blind, is that one or more of these cone cells are defective. So color perception is now limited to inputs from 2 of these instead of the normal 3. In consequence, the entire color spectrum is shifted for these people depending on which cone cell is defective:



So say, if someone's red cones are defective, they can still see things that are colored red, but they cannot see the color red in and of itself. They can only indirectly recognize it's presence as some ugly brownish color.

-----

And so it with the functions. Ones you do not value, you are blind to in that way. The entire "spectrum of your mind" is shifted to see and approach things according to the functions you value. For instance, the Beta mind sees things in shades of , , , only. Non-valued functions , , , can only be inferred indirectly and will always be relativized according to their valued functions , , , . You can't natively possess the awareness of a function you don't value. In and of itself, it is not and never will be a part of who you are.

The mistake in believing otherwise comes about from a fallacy where people think that functions equate to specific behavioral traits or specific skill sets. That is, they erroneously think things like... " = hitting things" " = brainstorming" " = being good at logic" " = empathy"... etc.

Ajax, on Dec 12 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

Have you never used Ne or Ti

There have been times I've attempted to emulate the two, yes. But it's very draining and stressful. It feels really constricting like I don't have freedom of movement and I'm stuck in a strait jacket.

Ajax, on Dec 12 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

Then assuming an acceptance of your theory, how can say an INFp develop their Ti and Se if it was not developed as fully as it should have been earlier?

What do you mean not as developed fully as it should been earlier?

Ajax, on Dec 12 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

I have long believed that everyone is really bad at using their 7th function but I think people can use the third quite a bit. In emergencies something that resembles Te emerges for me in that I suddenly I can more easily see how by moving object A how objects H and F will be affected... that is I can better see complex relationships between objects and how they change based on stimulus.

My thinking becomes more "free" and less structured in a way and I just see connections between things/objects more easily. Is this ability not connected to Te?

Might be , or . Or as Steve suggested. Can you explain that further?

---

Originally posted by Ashton @ Dec 31 2007, 12:44 AM

What the Functions are Not

Observing the presence of what seems to be a particular behavioral action/trait/skill/ability in another person, does not necessarily define what a person's type is, nor does it necessarily indicate the presence or absence of a function. To observe a person and say, "this person did <some action>, they must have <some function>!" or "this person can't do <some action>, they must not have <some function>!" is not an accurate or reliable approach to take. This kind of outlook over-simplifies matters of Socionics types and functions to an extent that they are no longer realistically valid theoretical constructs and it destroys both the pragmatic and explanatory value of Socionics theory.

There are a number of epistemic problems with this approach to Socionics:

• Any type could take on and front an observable behavioral trait and most people wouldn't know the difference.
  
  
• A lack of consensus in perspectives on exactly what behavioral actions constitute a given behavioral trait. For instance, people's conceptions and impressions of what may be "aggressive" or what is "empathic" or anything else, can differ wildly. What seems to be a certain behavior to one person can seem like quite a different behavior to someone else. Furthermore, the behavioral traits that people attest to as belonging to some given type or function, are often too broadly or too vaguely defined, that they become far too open to interpretation. Hence they are useless as conceptual definitions for types or functions, and they are useless as operational definitions that could be used in a diagnostic sense for personality typing. For example, it's not enough to say that, "Gee, person A seems rather speculative and talks about an awful lot of theoretical stuff... they must be Ne/Ti!"
  
  
• There is a wealth of contextual information to consider when deciding whether the behavioral actions of a person does constitute the existence of some given behavioral trait in that person. Unfortunately, most people are notoriously bad at taking into account contextual information when reading the behavior of other individuals. Most typically, behaviors of other individuals get read with no regard to the context of the whole individual themselves or the situational conditions that the behavior is observed in. It's not at all uncommon that one instance of some perceived behavior in another person gets blown out of proportion and falsely construed as some significantly defining feature of that individual's personality or innate character (See Fundamental Attribution Error)
  
  
• Most people make very shallow inferences about what the motives of other individuals are and often believe they have real insight into the inner mind of an individual, when they really don't. Hence most are quick to make ascriptions that some observed behavior about an individual absolutely means the presence of some particular motive in that individual and/or some very definite thing about their inherent character. Most of these ascriptions that people make about most individuals are completely wrong. This is because the behavorial actions of other individuals as they outwardly appear are often treated in a very facile manner where superficial 1 to 1 equivalences are made betweeen certain behaviors and certain motives. These superficial equivalences do not reflect the range of depth or complexity that varies among individual human beings. Hence, most people don't take into account that there can be many different motivations for what is ostensibly the same behavior or pattern of actions. And the actual misassumptions that most people make about the motives or inner character of others is often a product of either projection, naivete, hostile prejudice, or a combination thereof. All of this of course relates back to not reading contextual information very well.

In reality, Socionics personality type and the functions themselves are less about what it is that you do, and more about how it is that you do what you do. It's the style of your actions, not so much the actions in and of themselves. In this way, the functions do modulate subtle qualitative aspects of many observable behavioral actions and abilities. Unfortunately, these are troublesome to objectively define, BUT they potentially could be with enough study and research. For now, they remain something largely subjective that has to be gleaned precisely from within the contextual information that surrounds a person's observed behaviors. Read between the lines with a keen eye for the qualitative subtleties. Look for faint idiosyncracies and quirks, watch a person's body language, monitor the way a person speaks, observe how they write, understand what they value and why, get a feel for the tone and style of their outlooks in life, etc. - aspects like these are where functions leave their mark and one can come to recognize these things if they make an effort to notice them. And if you can pick up on these things, that can be a reliable indicator of functions and a fruitful approach to typing. Start trying to discern these things and you will get closer to something realistic and meaningful about types and functions. Stop taking overly-concrete observations, about behavioral traits you only think you observe about someone, interpreting these observations in a hyper-literal manner with a blatant disregard towards the contextual factors present, and then using that as "evidence" for them possessing a given function or being a given type. This will not work and you will get mislead.

A more apt and realistic picture of what the functions do and how they operate, can begin to be supplied by having an understanding of Antoni Kepinski's ideas on Information Metabolism. While not to be taken as a literal depiction, Kepinski draws a comparison that the psyche possesses an "information metabolism" that operates in an analogous sense to the body's energy metabolism. For instance in energy metabolism, the body must utilize a wide array of different kinds of molecules - oxygen, water, sugars, proteins, fats, vitamins, minerals, etc. Much of which are broken down to provide raw substrate for the endogenous manfacture of other more specific molecules that are unique to the physiological demands of that organism - ATP, neurotransmitters, hormones, other chemical messengers, as well as different types of cells, tissues, etc. The processes of breaking down and synthesizing the different molecules are faciliated by enzymes and one can describe various metabolic pathways that a given molecule will proceed down by listing the sequence of enzymes it will react with from start to finish. All of this is done in order to supply the energy necessary to regulate and maintain the physical life of the organism. Any deviations from optimal metabolic activity will lead to disruptions of homeostasis which can incur declines in health, etc.

With information metabolism, in a sense we're looking at how the psyche regulates and maintains itself, and how it supplies itself the information that is conducive to it's own health. Emanating from both the external objective environment that we exist in and the internal subjective environment existing within us, we get a perpetual stream of raw and unfiltered stimuli percolating into our awareness during every conscious waking moment (and when we dream). Yet before any of that can register as a full-fledged experience in our consciousness, that raw stimuli has to be broken down and synthesized - that is, metabolized - into information that's actually familiar to our own consciousness. This resultant information that is metabolized is then mapped back onto our psyche into what constitutes the recognizable contents of our immediate conscious awareness - our perceptions, impressions, senses, desires, moods, emotions, thoughts, decisions, ideations, fantasies, motives, etc. that make up the ebb and flow of how we uniquely experience life and the world around us. Functions are the determinants of the psyche's information metabolism, fulfilling a parallel role that enzymes do for the body's energy metabolism. Different configurations of functions would then form "info-metabolic" pathways so to speak, and type itself would then be the overall info-metabolic pattern that emerges from the topology of these pathways. Any raw stimulus must first be synthesized into an information format that is actually compatiable with our "info-metabolic capacities" - and ideally it will be information that fulfills a present "info-metabolic need" of the psyche. However, some stimuli will be less easily convertible to a compatiable format of information than others. Some stimuli won't metabolize as "cleanly" persay... the derived information will feel a bit rough and not quite right but perhaps vaguely tolerable. Other kinds though will even be deleterious to your psyche and promote anxiety/neurosis/etc - like say, a poor ESTj getting a bunch of purified Ni extract lunged at them or something. In other instances, you might have excesses of some kind of compatiable format of information and deficiencies of others that you need. So on and so forth, etc. The variety to the dynamics of information metabolism is infinite. Again, this is not to say that this is a literal depiction of what's materially going on, but merely to suggest that something characteristically like this is occurring.

I talk a lot about "consciousness" and "conscious awareness" and such for a very specific reason. This reason is that, the intrapsychic landscape that culminates from a person's type, ultimately has a decisive influence on the language/tone/color of that person's consciousness itself. That is to say, it determines the boundaries and conditions of the qualitative spectrum that their experiential awareness will be regulated by. Grasping this insight is pivotal to actually really understanding functions and the types they compose. In essence, I think you have to confront and understand that an enoromous variance does exist in how people perceive and experience things, even the most seemingly simple and mundane. You have to truly see how the minds of others operate in mannerisms so distinctly different from yours that you probably can't even begin to imagine what it's like to be them and that you probably take your own conscious experience for granted as more or less the experience of all people. You'll find that the reality of functions and types lays precisely in exposing this assumption for the falsehood that it is.

I think when it comes to functions you don't possess in your quadra values, you'll never be able to have direct experiential access to them in any real/actual sense. A non-valued function cannot and never will be part of the 'psychological infrastructure' that orchestrates your individual consciousness. It can only be understood abstractly, and with enough observation and contact with people who have the functions you don't have, you can develop a working understanding of what that function does and derive an accurate conception of what that function is like for the person using it. You could even superficially emulate it yourself to a rudimentary degree, potentially well enough to succeed in duping people into believing that you do really possess it. Beware though, don't do this around intelligent people who do have that function, because they will get suspicious quickly and anxious to call your bluff. Don't make the mistake either of believing that you are actually using the function. The only way to truly use a function, is to experience it directly. If you can't now, you never will.


Anyway, the point of this list is start repealing the common oft-quoted stereotypes that many have in mind when thinking about functions. And to start talking about the functions in a meaningful way instead.

Fi is not...
Empathy, morality, humanitarianism, charity, pacifism, being peaceful, never lying, being Gandhi, being Jesus, being wholesome, being good, being virtuous, being immaculate, innocence, love, romance, stupid sappyass love songs, puppies, being loyal, fidelity to your spouse, cupcakes, cute things, being judgmental, traditional attitudes, chastity.

Se is not...
Hitting things, yelling, aggression, talking shit, pushing people around, being tough, fighting, cussing, guns, big muscles, big cars, having balls, genitalia, bathroom humor, sex jokes, racist jokes, having sex, being violent, being ruthless, killing people, blowing shit up, hiearchical rule, being obsessed with power, being dominating, being confident, having desire, having motivation, having discipline, having will power.

Ne is not...
Creativity, novelty, unconventionality, being original, being a genius, having imagination, synthesis, analogy or metaphor, invention, new ideas, free-thinking, open-mindedness, advancement, insight, possibilities, boundless potential, visuo-spatial thinking, divergent thinking, conceptual thinking, randomness, spontaneity, being scatter-brained, being ADD, shirking the status quo.

Te is not...
Business, bureaucracy, finance, accounting, calculations, measurements, empirical thinking, objective evidence, the scientific method, carrying out procedural operations, step-by-step problem solving, organization, planning, efficiency, being pragmatic, being practical, applied thinking, putting ideas into practice, concrete results.

Fe is not...
Manipulation, fake emotion, pop culture, being superficial, being clique-ish, being a herd animal, lack of individuality, being prone to groupthink, social networking, social roles, adhering to social norms, having manners, being ditzy, being overtly expressive, popularity contests, demagoguery, being dramatic, being emotionally gaudy.

Si is not...
Beauty, art, fashion, having good taste, practicing good hygiene, eating well, taking care of your body, being healthy, having a sense of aesthetics, knowing how to design your living arrangements, knowing how to dress and groom yourself, knowing how to use makeup, smelling good, being physically attractive.

Ti is not...
Being logical, being philosophical, being abstract, theoretical thinking, holistic thinking, mathematics, discoverer of all universal truths, deriver of all reality's laws, designer of all systems, originator of all theories, progenitor of all ideologies, any form of non-empirical thought, making inferences without evidence, a subjective sense for the conncinity or consilence of an idea or system and it's validity in the world, all forms of self-righteous intellectual masturbating.

Ni is not...
Having foresight, thinking ahead, being premeditated, understanding the consequence of one's actions, long-term planning, watching clocks, being timely, knowing how to manage your time, having sense for how long something will take, making predictions, being Nostradamus, making extrapolations, perceiver of all trends, linear progressions.

[borderline]

Dimensions of Functions

anndelise, on Apr 15 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

The other day I came across a socionics site that refers to "Dimension Functions": http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclient&hl=en&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2esocionicasys%2eru%2f (click button theory on the left, then TIM Model on the left, Then Functions on the left, then Dimension Functions on the left). (I don't know why the link didn't take directly to the page )


It's an alternative way of looking at Model A, types, and informational functions and supposedly provides a means of actually measuring a person's functions. (dependent, of course, on how you define the function)

Basically, the suggestion is that the more parameters a person includes when dealing with certain information, the more flexible they are in dealing with (or maybe expressing) that information, and the more likely that this information is a natural part of the person.

While the less parameters the person utilizes, the less flexible they are with that information, and the less likely that this information is a natural part of the person.



What are the parameters?

• Time--Tm: (not to be confused with Ni): Can/does the person recognize/envision how this informational situation likely developed and/or where the development is likely to go? (Uses the information across time.)
  
• Situation--St: Can/does the person recognize/respond to the subtleties of specific informational situations? Are they flexible enough in the usage of the information to apply differently in different situations? Does the person recognize how the "environment" (social/physical/individual) affects the situation and the information?
  
• Norms--Nr: Can/did the person adopt and apply social/individual rules, regulations, customs, practices, and other standards to be followed in assessing the information? Are they rigid in assessing/using the information, reliant on rules/standards to guide them around using this information? Do they focus on and prefer to deal with the "usual" or the "expected" rather than the actual situation? Note: these kinds of standards for assessments come from generalizations of personal experiences, education, traditions, etc. It is "transferable knowledge".
  
• Experience--Ex: Can/does the person draw on own personal experiences? ("nontransferable knowledge") This does not include education, customs, etc.
  • This one is kind of like "I need to see it for myself to understand what you are talking about".
    
  • Also like:
    • A: "It's there, it's there, can't you see it?"
      
    • B: "What's there? What are you talking about?"
      
    • A: " . . . I can't tell you . . , but I swear it's There!"

These parameters give higher insight into a person's usage of specific information, and places focus back onto information metabolism instead of non-relevant traits and biases. It also brings to light some of the issues and arguments between people on this forum, and can even help explain some of the biases.

[/font]Example: Person A's parameters in a informational function are limited to Ex & Nr. They are attempting to describe use of that informational function. People who use St/Tm in that informational function try to tell Person A that Person A is wrong, that the informational function isn't that limited, that it's not based on A's rules/assessments, but are indeed dependent on situation and development over time (which of course, goes beyond Person A's abilities and applications of that information function).

anndelise, on Apr 15 2008, 01:20 PM, said:

Some notes from 16t responses so far:

One of the things that confuses me about the model A listing is that it has the 8th function as involving more parameters than the 2nd. In another article it says something about the 8th function pushing the 1st function into action, or something like that. But I didn't understand any of that.

Model A has always confused me, though, because I just can't see what it developed from. It feels to me like someone skipped from generalizing experiences right into some kind of theory. And I can't make sense of it unless I can see it...experience it, THEN maybe I could follow how they got their rules and such.

What I DO like about it though, is that it offers a clearer (to me) way of communicating about information, a topic, or a particular situation. Without having to focus on model A, nor type, nor functional definitions. Like, we can actually talk about real world things, without the normal socionics trappings, and still be able to assess a person's (and our own) response to some information, a topic, or a particular situation.

*****

A Question: How would we be able to tell how many parameters are in a particular information element in a particular person?

Well, there follows the parameter expansions of Ex -> Nr -> St -> Tm.

So, from what I can gather,
If a person is able to go beyond their personal experiences and discuss and apply rules for normal situations that require using/processing an information type, then we know that they are at least entering the Nr parameter. Some people may be able to recite the rules but be unable to apply the rules. They aren't yet in the Nr parameter.

If the person is aware of and can adjust the Nr to suit a particular situation, then they are likely up to the St parameter. But if they seem stuck on insisting on the rules, and unable to alter the rules for an unusual situation, then they are likely still in the Nr parameter.

But if a person can use/process/discuss an information type or a situation, and how it develops over time, past, present, and future, and is aware of numerous subtleties that can affect a situation where that information type is used/processed, and is aware of when the rules can/should be broken, etc, THEN they are using all the parameters.

So, for example, if I, personally, am stuck to resorting to rules and guidelines and quoting things I've read about the subject, and am confused when someone goes on and on about how different things can affect the subject and how that subject had or could have developed and where it likely will end up, then obviously they are using more parameters than I am.

Though, I do wonder if getting stuck on content can interfere with our interpretation. Like, if we think the person is focusing on, say, Fi, but instead the person is processing Se, then it might be confusing to the interpreter, or misinterpreted. (I don't know how to explain this thought better, sorry.)

*****

Added:
One of the socionics schools that is using this system claims to have some questions that can be used to determine which parameters a person uses for which information aspects. Unfortunately, I couldn't find access to more than some samples which I don't remember where I found those examples. I could try looking, but the examples where so far down the page that i had to copy past russian text into google translator, and even then the examples were difficult to follow. So finding it would be a bitch. (found one of the pages, and the site that had the examples: ..ugh, the link doesn't work, ...oh, here's the untranslated page (duh, forgot that i could do that): http://www.famo.ru/razmernost.php

Some of the types of questions that I thought of (which will likely be pathetic, I know) were:
Regarding information aspect (or situation):

* What personal experiences have you had?
* How do you assess this [given] situation? or
* How would you respond in this [given] situation? or
* How do/would you view a [given] situation?
* What, if any, variabilities of given situation would alter your assessment? or
* What situational factors affect your assessment?
* How would this situation differ if it had been in the past? in the future? or
* How did this situation likely develop?
* How could this situation develop from this point on?

Ashton, on Oct 31 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

BionicGoat, on Oct 31 2008, 12:59 PM, said:

the time one confuses me... not quite sure what it's describing. for some reason i'm getting an image of something analgous to humans evolving to the point of evolving evolution or something. like some kind of feedback shit that power-ups your strongest functions into the 18th dimension and beyond. geometric acceleration/development (lol still haven't slept so that might not make sense).

idk the others are like straight forward describing what they're about, that one gets all stupid vague when i try to wrap my mind around it.

http://forum.socioni...p...post&p=9546

I speculated on it some here. and re-wrote it a bit:

Instead of Time [Tm] parameter, I like to call it Development [Dv] parameter: My best explanation is that this level of function awareness would manifest as a meta-awareness of the function. That is, an ability to willfully step outside of a frame of awareness generated by that function, observe the frame in action as it's occurring, and have a complete sense of what it's doing, where it's going, and why.

[St] parameterized functions: Takes on an assumed role that is more or less taken for granted. One has many degrees of freedom to modulate their expression and can adaptively apply it with both precision and accurracy in whatever ways the details of a situation might call for. Hence, one is natively efficacious at using it, but unlike [Dv] it's done without much ability to reflect on it's own activities.

[Nr] parameterized functions: Usage is distinctly non-native and limited to an emulative capacity only. A person can have some rough understanding of how the function operates, but will be ineffectual at using it in any originative capacity. Actions on part of this function will be inflexible, stereotypical, and largely a product of mimicry. Information rendered by the function will be very coarse, missing important subtleties and details, and inappropriately generalized to situations it should not be (i.e. "if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail"). A person may or may not recognize their deficiencies in using this function. For those who do, these deficiencies can become a source of insecurity, prompting overcompensatory or avoidant behavior, or aggravatingly rigid obliviousness that makes them impossible to deal with.

[borderline]

.