• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Artsu Tharaz

The Lamb
Joined
Last seen
Messages
3,134
Reaction score
0

Profile Posts Latest Activity Postings About

  • From what do you base this reasoning on? You practically are saying Socionics is ideal for Socionics.
    I didn't claim functions to be oriented between Internal and External, again I'm not sure where you picked that up. World = Outer Energy. Self = Inner Energy.



    Now can you tell me where the mis-communication is?
    You're loosing me here. Let's get back on track.

    "So, ignore the MBTI letters, ignore the function model, and look at third tier dichotomies only"
    Right. I looked at the Third Tier and from the Third Tier, we have: Merry/Serious, Decisive/Judicious, Evolutory/Involutory, Positivist/Negativist .

    Correct?

    Now what I did here:
    was an attempt to make a quick clarification to see if we could derive meaning. With that meaning we could then speculate at how they combine to form distinct Cognitive Styles.
    No these are all Socionics and Third-tier related. Merry/Serious and Decisive/Judicious are containers for FeTi/TeFi and SeNi/NeSi respectively. I changed names up to give a different perspective on how they manifest.


    I don't even use MBTI, so I don't see where you got that, especially considering I acknowledge them to be mutually exclusive.
    Merry/Serious - World-Ethics & Self-Logic vs Self-Ethics & World Logic.

    Decisive/Judicious - World-Sensing & Self-Ideation vs Self-Sensing & World-Ideation.

    Evolutory/Involutory - ??? (Although someone posted this on that Socionics forum, seems accurate)

    Positivist/Negativist - ???


    World = Extraverted, Self = Introverted, Ideation = Intuition
    Right, I understand the theory, but how the Cog Styles appear just isn't so clear as the initial dichotomies and any other group you could deduce. So it's hard to really say anything.

    Although, what do you mean in the section 'it only uses half of the third tier dichotomies available to it..."?
    Socionics is a theoretical model-tool, like mathematics. So claiming that theory justifies reality is backwards. I am skeptical, though I do agree with: Static/Dynamic, Merry/Serious, and Decisive/Judicious; though Asking/Declaring and Aristocratic/Democratic might have some merit. For the others, I would wait to see comparative studies done before claiming anything.

    Underfocused base wouldn't make any sense because ILE and EII process different kinds of information. I think I may be able to see your type, but I'll have to wait til I get back.
    Puffy
    Calm and energised? Maybe. Like I said in the "type members" thread, I think there is a tendency in INFJs to use their Ti as a means of controlling their emotions. This is one of Adymus's suggestions, I can just see it in myself so am inclined to agree. The result though is that I think you see a "superficial" calm in me to some extent.

    I would actually agree that I am calm, I just had a phase earliar this year when my emotions over-bubbled and I couldn't control them; I would just become spontaneously angry for weeks. It made me realise that my calm, or Ti, is like a lid over a boiling pot of water. I think there is turmoil beneath the surface calm, perhaps that is true for other INFJs as well.

    Could you quote the long message I sent you back to me in PM? Sometimes I write things in a trance, I'm curious now to re-read what I sent you.

    P.S. I think the "dream" thing is why I like film as an artistic medium. David Lynch described film as like a dream pastiche; I agree.
    I see some things about Cog Styles to ring true(mostly scattered descriptions), but on the whole, it's too much of a coincidence to be validly complete as it is. Major oversights. In theory, you are correct about the 4 styles, but they have little practical evidentiary basis - no one really knows what they look like. That goes for most of the Reinin dichotomies also.


    I will be able to follow your symbolism, but it would be fallacious of me to reason or agree with it.


    As for Cog Style denotation, I don't think it really matters which gets what Greek terminology, unless they meant something. I'm fine with writing out their original names.


    Negative on the SLI. Do you interpret that as ISTJ or ISTP? Though I still say no to either one.
    ILE was due to the aforementioned interest in typology. The ILE archetype is Logical Explorer, which some of the writings seem to come from.

    I'll send you my full list of archetypes in pm and tell me if you think any one fits you.
    I'm not sure you're EII :p.

    The heavy interest in typology distorts the otherwise natural persona projected from sociotype. I bet you could pull a type out of that, but I'd rather it be seen clearly than me straining to identify a type.
    I don't have much faith in those reinin dichotomies. But there is a difference in how Ne comes off in Base vs Creative. The Base is free, uninhibited, neutral and very objective esp with regards to others. The Creative is subject to the Base, and seems more calculated/instrumental/helpful/involved/active(do you get the idea?).

    Apply these semantics, or these, and I think you will understand what I'm trying to convey.


    In terms of quadra, not sure yet.


    LII is a stretch cause the suppression of Logic>Ethics makes it a pretty formal type.


    Hey, if it's not too much, could you try these tests?(o, wait, I think you did already, results?)

    https://bitbucket.org/Brilliand/hugotest/get/77c7c100fce6.zip
    http://www.sociotype.com/tests/%28includes
    http://sociotest.narod.ru/info.htm (use translator)
    Yea I agree.

    Not stereotypically(my fault would be focusing only on your interest in typology, as I don't know much else);EII not at all, and LII would a stretch.
    What do you think about ENTP? You asked for my guess and that would be it; from an archetypal viewpoint, there isn't any other I can see so far.
    SkyWalker
    about your first post:
    I agree that S is reality and N is abstract.
    N=imagination of reality
    N is like your own built-in mirror of reality.
    N is a copy of reality, flowing/analog/continueus like real reality (not discrete/digital/step-wise(decision-after-decision) such as T and F ).

    T is thinking for yourself. F is thinking for your group (thinking for higher layers, e.g. collective spirits/entities). Te=Fe and Fi=Ti, except that the size of the body is different.

    (will chat soon with you about the second post, have some questions)
    SkyWalker
    Ti (midnight) > Te (dawn) > Fe (noon) > Fi (dusk)


    Te & Fe are active, Ti & Fi are passive

    My intuition says:

    - Te=dawn is 99% sure.
    - Fe=noon is 90% sure
    - Ti and Fi might be switched, but I put them the way they are because then they are arranged like we arranged the seasons. (Te being opposite of Fi and Ti being opposite of Fe)

    ---
    using the above, i made up something like this:
    ----


    Te(dawn) is when its all clear, new day, new task to finish. and you always wake up ALONE (there is no social stuff involved)

    Fe(noon) is when everybody is on its task and you have to deal with everybody.

    Fi(dusk) is when you reflect (from within) upon what you think of all those other people that you dealt with during the day.

    Ti(midnight) is deep sleep, ALONE, where everything is analyzed into a meaningful framework
    SkyWalker
    Se is summer and Si is autumn, why did you switch them?

    Se reaps benefits now / pursue win now (harvest/take the fruit from the tree in summer, its there in plenty and you should eat it now)

    Si saves beneftis now / avoid loss now (store the harvest, we must save some for winter)
    SkyWalker
    You said:
    :Ne: for example is like an idea generator, whereas :Ni: prefers just to stick to one idea-set, but always fears that these ideas will be proven wrong. They don't like considering new ideas for the sake of it.

    To me this is the cause:
    Ne is pursuing what might be won
    Ni is avoiding what might be lost

    And I think you just said is the effect (of that cause). Right?
    You're right about the Forer effect, though somehow I missed emphasizing that the Reinin Dichotomies are confusing for being something other than what they are described by on Wikisocion. What I'm talking about is shown in my last post.

    Testable resources I'd like to try are Jung's Psychological Types Ch. X, Gulenko's Cognitive Styles, and the article I linked you to.
    Socionics fundamentally uses a three letter code for types, there is no XXXX or J/P. Sometimes by specific quadra/type descriptions, sometimes the Four Dichotomies, sometimes by general valued IM elements.

    Here are some tests to see how they operate:
    http://socionics.us/tests/1/0.htm
    http://www.okcupid.com/tests/refined-socionics-test-20
    https://bitbucket.org/Brilliand/hugo...c7c100fce6.zip (open "ptest_intro2.htm")
    http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta-1-r.html?0:::
    http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta_turbo.html
    http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta_turbo_xl.html
    http://www.sociotype.com/tests/
    http://sociotest.narod.ru/info.htm (translator-ready)
    http://www.mizami.nl/public_html/questionnaire/pretestQuestions
    lol. Dunno if it's intentional but it'd be funny if it was.


    I won't agree to disagree, but I think it should be put on hold at least. It is unintentional, we are inescapably perceiving different aspects of the typology issue.
    SkyWalker
    I think you were really spot on, when you used to say ego=T, and superego=F. (I didn't say it back then because it had to settle with me.)

    But..... Now you changed it!

    You are now thinking that i/e is somehow associated with superego and ego, this seems wrong to me.
    Depends, seeking reconcilement can be due to dialectical arguing, a non-confrontational personality, synthetic problem solving, obsessive curiosity etc. A few things are attributed to reconcilement in Socionics, to be honest, but on what you said:

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Intuitive_Logical_Introtim#7.__Extraverted_Intuition

    "ILIs often have difficulty adapting themselves to new intellectual interests. They would rather limit the amount of new information that they have to learn. Consequently, they may be prone to recycling interests until the same interests become a drudgery, even so much that intellectual progress becomes stunted. "
    They're not the same thing, no, but they intend the same thing, which is Ti. As reconcilement you can accept MBTI Ti-Ne - > Socionics Ni-Te, but they do not actually correlate with one another. And this becomes especially critical because that's inconsistent with ENTJ being represented by the same functions in both systems, yet it changes for INTP. The actual definitions of the functions are being tampered with when you do that.

    It is highly improbable that functions correlate systemically when there is no exact and absolute interpretation of either set of functions in both systems.


    Useful? I'm not sure, but it is definitely purposeful. Many things end up having no use, can't really say for this discussion, but I'm not one to agree to disagree. Objectively, there must be some conclusion we can both agree on.
    This is our situation now. The reason why it is fallacious to think both can coexist is explained in the following:

    Tim eats an orange(objective Ni) and gets a yellow rash(IP), and later eats an apple(objective Ti)and gets a blue rash(IJ). His perspective changes and he now realizes that apples(Ti) give you blue rash(IJ) and oranges(Ni) give you yellow rash(IP).

    Objects exist independently. We experience them subjectively. Therefore we have divergent perspectives of the same object, but similar intentions of reference. Regardless of perspective, objects have attributes that can be experienced by anyone.
    That doesn't hold up(I agree with the way you explained it earlier, but only as a reconcilement of perspectives, not as a valid correlation, if that's what you intended).

    "I believe Ni base to be equivalent with Ne auxiliary, and Te base to be equivalent to Ti dominant and so on."

    Je is objectively something. Pe is objectively something. Ji is objectively something. Pi is objectively something. It's equivocation to say that MBTI Ti and Socionics Ni are the same thing.


    Let:
    Objective Ti = Apple, IJ temperament = blue rash
    Objective Ni = Orange, IP temperament = yellow rash

    Bob says apples(Ti) give you a blue rash(IJ), yet Tim says oranges(Ni) give you a blue rash(IJ). Why do they disagree? Bob's idea of apples(Socionics Ti) is accurate of apples(objective Ti), Tim's idea of apples(MBTI Ti) is inaccurate of apples(objective Ti), Tim's idea of apples(MBTI Ti) is actually representative of what oranges(Objective Ni) are.
    The way I reframed them is in the style of Socionics, yes, but I wasn't going for precision. I was just making a point.

    Here's a clear and unambiguous one: temperaments. Both systems claim functions induce distinct temperaments. Temperaments are actually observable to anyone so this topic is arguable. Temperaments are EJ, EP, IJ and IP. If both systems can clearly identify an IP temperament in a person, only one of them can be correct in attributing that to dominant Ji or Pi. Holding both views under the same rules and circumstances is a contradiction("Pauli exclusion principle").

    INTP, for its IP temperament, is either a Ti dominant type or Ni dominant type. Which function causes IP temperament?

    ^ Simple setup, what do you think(about the situation, not the answer)?
    I'll look at it again to make sure. I did see the correlation you were talking about though.


    Yeah it isn't used in MBTI. I can't find the right words either. How about: MBTI makes functions out to be the result and not part of the process? Like "Fi is moral compass or Fe is reacting in the situation" instead of Fi handles information that deals partly with what is a person's conscience, Fe processes information about situational dynamics and the interactions within"?


    I think this is what Model A's functions addresses. Ne Base is different from Ne Creative, and those are different from Ne Role etc. Hmm, but I don't think a new prefix is necessary. Some things between the two models are definitely incompatible, meaning you have to side with one and abandon the other. It won't work to try to find alternative perspectives, lest you deviate and end up creating a model of your own. Nothing wrong with that though, I have my own pet concepts.
    Okay, I meant the Freud stuff in the PM too though.


    Can you expand on Objective/Subjective(Environment/Personally based) in terms of the functions? I can't tell if you're referencing this or this.

    Yeah, your interpretation of I/E is applicable. MBTI isn't way off though, their approach is just behaviorism. Stick with E = Independent Objects, Psychic Energy Exudation; I = Dependent Subjects, Psychic Energy Absorption.

    I see the last part you're speaking on MBTI's functional model, you're right, but it's nothing to worry about. The model doesn't really say much, only the first two functions have any orientated meaning: Your primary(I/E) and your secondary(I/E).
    Hey would you still be up for discussing those ideas? I think I've mentioned already how typology can be tiring, even when I see the point to be made. It's like it never ends once it starts. If yeah, we'd have to set a clear result and keep it in mind, while not branching off.
    Black Rose
    It seems I like consistency and probabilistic sets of theory.

    But what if Fe is more people focused. externally I do tend to know when a person thinks morally but for Ni to be dominant I would expect myself to internalize more relationships then I currently do now.

    I had aspergers when I was little and currently am diagnosed with schizoaffective.

    As pure types do not exist I must rely on the wisdom of others knowledgeable in the system. You did mention it and I was reminded of that thread so in effect I was confused for 8-9 months being INFP.

    If you have any suggestions I would appreciate them.
    Why is it interesting I am ENFJ? does it have to do with you INFJ.
    cheese
    Some French are nice. Apparently it's the parisians that ruin it for the rest of them (according to the ones I've talked to).

    Anyway.
    cheese
    Right, do that. I remember one of the few girls here had almost no trace of accent at all. BM and Hado on the other hand are pretty pronounced. Perhaps it's a male/female thing.

    (I realised I may have been offensive by implying all sydney people are automatically on the 'assassinate' list. I forgot to correct it to "that's why I'm surprised you're from there" and "you're more like a frenchman smoking a baguette but with the militance of a german revolutionary/baker" and "I imagine you nonchalantly holding a 'PRO-CHOICE!" placard at a protest outside a baptist church, casually adjusting your beret". Alright, that may be worse, I dunno. Are you on the pod'lair team by any chance? Or an INFJ?)
    cheese
    You're from Sydney?! Well, perhaps that explains it. I'm not sure if I mentioned in the last message that I hate people in Sydney (...no, I didn't) but, well, I do. The youth, at least. And everyone who gets drunk and turns into an American - oops, animal, freudian slip there - with their vacant, staring eyes and mindlessly aggressive shoves. Aaaargh. Love the city, hate the friday-nighters. I can't believe you're from Sydney. Hardly anyone on this dratted forum is. I think there's Beat Mango, LAM, me and that was it till you came along and ruined our unholy trinity.

    The hardness which I'd ascribed to being American comes from being a Sydneysider, I guess. Still though. I simply cannot read INTP posts in an aussie accent. It makes no sense. All those bastardised vowels. Maybe you've got a neutral accent? How else would your words come out the way they do? You're melting my brain!
    cheese
    You're Australian! (I think.) Saw you on the infj forum. I was surprised - you don't seem Australian. More liberal American, or perhaps some sort of European. Or maybe you're from Melbourne and spend a lot of time in a classy bar with a cigar in one hand and expensive beer in the other. If you don't drink beer we're disowning you. Unless it's fermented Queen's snot. That might pass.
    Words
    i don't know how to articulate it in any other way...sorry. It reminds me of something. No biggie.
    shoeless
    i understand that. i do. the problem is the fact that many people who find themselves emerged in the world of MBTI don't understand that, and it does become abused frequently. i have nothing against typology as a system, i just no longer abide by it the way i used to, and feel the need to "enlighten" (for lack of a less arrogant sounding term) people who do seem to take it more seriously than it ought to be taken.
    Black Rose
    I am the catalyst, my role is not to make explicit every detail but to give the general view so that others may succeed in creating new environmental/ideas to explore. I will wait for augmented reality to implement most of my ideas via collaborative telepresence.

    Email is still primitive for words hold not much 3rd dimension.
    GYX_Kid
    yeah i agree that the self/environment perceiving vs. judging is pretty significant, the fact that it isn't directly displayed in MBTI and that you have to know it in each type might make yours more convenient there

    i'd have to get used to the other part, and think of it in terms of something like... extroverted sensing and extroverted thinking are the 'defaults'
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom