• 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.
SkyWalker

SkyWalker

observing y'all from my UFO. inevitably coming dow
Joined
Last seen
Messages
986
Reaction score
0

Profile Posts Latest Activity Postings About

  • Words
    I have several SeTi's male cousins and familiar people and several male TiSe relatives. It is difficult to find an Se-type or an EP type, in general, without the "playful" persona. Although Je-doms may often appear "playful", the playfulness of a Je-dom is different in that it is always directed on someone, whereas an Ne or Se type can be playful with plain events or objects. No, My brother is far from an ExxP type. He doesn't "swim with the fun", he "forces the fun." He's also very "responsible" or at least tries to appear responsible, and often tries to act as an authority on his younger brother, punishing him on occasions.
    oh and keep in mind: ego/id+super is a motif, it can apply to different things. It still works well for the N/S/F/T division, and in fact explains why the different blocks are given the functions they are.
    My model keeps changing, and idk if it has achieved anything yet.

    Well what I have at the moment is a sub division of each function into 16 different variants. By taking just one of N/S/F/T and determining where it fits on relevant dichotomies, you can determine the person's type.

    e.g. take the Feeling of INTJ. We already know it is introverted, and it is the directive function of the lower conscious block (or simply, tertiary), it is more strict/rigid (J-dom like), and is in connection with S. Thus it has the subscript code Fidjs (in no particular order at the moment).

    So we have this tri-dichotomy of introvert/extrovert, adaptive/directive, judgement-dominant/perception-dominant. I now think that this manifests throughout the whole system, and may be the key to building it up from the ground level.
    I just noticed three dichotomies that occur everywhere in the structure of types. These can be represented by conscious/unconscious*, ego/id and super/[non-super]. These are in correspondence with: P-dom/J-dom, PiJe/PeJi, E/I (which I have demonstrated exists at the level of functions), also N/S, NF-ST/NT-SF, F/T, and in accordance with socionics describe the various function blocks (but they said super-ego is conscious, when it is actually super-id that is conscious).

    (conscious/unconscious is a misnomer, and needs to be changed. Unconscious processes here can be thought of as the things you do without really thinking about it, automatic somewhat, whereas Conscious is just freely following thoughts/actions).

    pretty cool I think.

    Also, this tri-divisional model generalises much more easily to other areas of psychology (you could try it for abnormal psych).
    It is possible to have both Ti and Fe going at the same time, so you get an ever renewing Ti, subject to overall energy levels. (e.g. like breathing in and out at the same time). You can further more do this with all of your functions at once (four conscious/four unconscious).

    The goal of Typology is in learning how to get into this state of being, or as close to it as possible.
    Ti and Fe are antonyms. To cope with the real world, you must be able to process information while not making any overall changes to your brain state. Thus, if you process one thing, you need to undergo the antonymic process so as to return to a neutral brain state.
    SkyWalker
    regarding your last post > yes i think this is true. we discussed this before.

    external real life seasons have nothing do with it, its your internal season.

    p.s. this my evolutionary theory on it: we mammals have an internal temperature regulation, unlike reptiles. reptiles assume the temperature of the environmet. reptile minds are swung accross the seasons by the environment, but mammals have internal temperature regulation and can set their own internal season. the seaons (whether external for a reptile, or internal for a mammal) colors the perception of the animal
    Hey how much relevance does real life season have to how we see things? Is it true spring-summer = optimistic, autumn-winter = pessimistic? And summer-autumn = sself based, winter-spring = group based?
    e.g INFJ is convergent-implcit, ENTP is divergent-detached, ISTJ is convergent-explicit, ESFP is divergent-involved.

    Raw information is taken by the respective IJs and split into explicit and implicit. Then these converge the information and pass to the EPs. They then diverge the information according to detached and involved considerations, and then pass back to the IJs.

    You can make many cycles like this to see how a set of raw data will develop depending on what types are processing it, and in what order etc.
    Something I thought of, that seems possibly good: I is convergent and inward, E is divergent and outward, P is divergent and inward, J is convergent and outward. And this bit is from socionics: N is implicit and detached, S is explicit and involved, F is implicit and involved, T is explicit and detached.

    You can view information processing (on an interpersonal level) as occuring in cycles based on this. I'll explain that later.
    Also: are you able to make sense of a parallel CF system to the one MBTI uses in which there are p and j types for given functions rather than i and e? e.g. INTP is Tp Nj Sp Fj, ENTP is Np Tj Fp Sj.

    This gives INTP = Tip, Nej; ENTP = Nep, Tij, etc. and thus identifies type based on the top two processes alone.

    Usually being P type means you "adapt" to the flow of information, whereas J type means you "direct" it. presumably, a J type has an adaptive auxiliary, a P type a directive one.

    If a rational function is extroverted and judging, or introverted and perceiving, then it is dominant. If an irrational function is extroverted and perceptive or introverted and judging then it is dominant.

    Does this idea fit into your model?
    S perceives that which directly relates to our notion of reality (concrete), N to that which is related only indirectly (abstract). N must therefore be lowered down to get to S.

    Does a similar relationship exist between F and T? I think Fi/Fe asks why/how as well, but in a different sense. We may reduce this to love/hate, but personally I think this simplifies a bit too much. The whole spectrum of emotion is used to, I believe, categorise information according to how it "feels". Fi attempts to reduce these feels under broader feeling categories, whereas Fe uses its store of feelings to determine how to do something.

    How do F and T relate?
    There are robots which are given a program (Ti), and then they execute this program (Te) but then find that they are conflicted by other robots also executing their programs, so must go into co-ordination mode (Fe), and from these interactions derive a set of values so that future co-ordinations go more smoothly (Fi), and input these into the program (Ti).
    With the seasonal perception cycle we symbolise the life cycle of the Idea. First, the seed is found - a potential in this seed is seen and thus is it preserved. Second, there is the phase of the growth of this seed - the unleashing of this potential. Then, once it has been actualised, it may be utilised - its fruits are harvested, until its finite nature is perceived, at which point its fruits are clinged to, feeling as if nothing more is left. Yet, more seeds are found, and thus the cycle restarts.

    How may we explain T and F in terms of cycling? Game theory wise, one needs a means of valuation, one then uses this value filter on real world objects to determine what one values or devalues, and then performs rational calculations to attain such valuations and then works to achieve them. Unresolvable conflict may follow, which means a re-evaluation of ones ideals.

    Have you a better explanation? What I just described suggests Fi->Fe->Ti->Te
    It was based on another cycle which goes Ni->Ne->Si->Se. I was wondering if they were describing the same thing, or if the seasonal cycle is a different thing to this other cycle. I'll keep it how you have it.
    SkyWalker
    About perception I am really confident in the way i did it: Se and Si should be switched in what you just posted.
    - Se is looking through summer glasses (it pursues the win of the moment).
    - Si is looking through autumn glasses (it avoids the loss of the moment).

    For judgement:
    I agree with Te only ;)

    Fi is not noon, because at noon you dont relax, you are at max wakeful state, at max competitive level to fight the day, to fight the strong rays of the sun at noon. To me that is Fe.

    Evening and midnight are Fi and Ti, or vice versa, I dont know. Used to have a model for it, but I am confused about these last 2
    Season-wise, Se might be a competition for resources associated with autumn. Si is summer, when all the plants have grown, and we can methodically harvest and consume. Ne is the growth phase still, and Ni is still the seed phase.

    Day-wise, Te may be morning, Fi noon, Fe evening, Ti night. Te starts the day through efficient work, Fi can then relax and consider its valuations, Fe brings the group together over evening communal activity, Ti analyses in the dark, then once again gives rise to Te work.
    Socionics suggests four cycle groups of information processing. They are:

    INFJ -> ENTP -> ISTJ -> ESFP -> ...
    INTJ -> ENFP -> ISFJ -> ESTP -> ...
    INTP -> ESTJ -> ISFP -> ENFJ -> ...
    INFP -> ESFJ -> ISTP -> ENTJ -> ...

    The first two are like the seasonal cycles of perception that you suggested, split into two groups, but with the crucial difference that Ne passes to Si and then to Se and then to Ni, rather than Ni to Ne to Se to Si to Ni. Also, we have Ti passing to Te then Fi then Fe. So introversion passes to extroversion of the same kind, and then that passes to the opposite kind.

    Maybe we had it wrong? Or maybe this is a different kind of cycle?
    Words
    i knew your own conception, but I couldn't help noticing a different pattern.
    Yeah that's what I mean. But I believe that to be the socionics Ni/Ne which would correspond to N-aux vs N-dom in MBTI terms. So then both ENPs and INJs are pursuant of new N-ideas, and avoidant with their auxiliary.

    From your experience, would you say INPs or INJs are the more N-pursuant/N-avoidant ones? and which the more J-pursuant/J-avoidant?
    Awesome, it's like esoteric scripture lol. I'd like to carry it around.

    Have they read any part of it?
    Words
    "observing from my UFO"? "coming down"? "joining for mundane stuff"? "Skywalker"?

    ..sound's pretty Ni'sh.
    haha. Well, there are many ways to interpret the idea. You can keep the understanding as I had it before, but I think the ideas are flexible enough to be applied to many divisions.

    What I mean now is in terms of avoiding and pursuing - whether you try to fit to how things are and not deviate, or if you don't care about that and would rather ignore that and pursue. Function interaction is a balance of avoiding and pursuing.

    So for example, a :Ti: type (T-aux) will work within a Logical system and not want to deviate, whereas :Te: (T-dom) will use the Logic for their own purposes, and actively change it.

    :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.
    So MBTI i and e mean subjective and objective, but don't truly mean introverted and extroverted, because that implies energy flow, so actually the MBTI dominant of all types is extroverted and the auxiliary is introverted. Socionics i and e mean introverted and extroverted, but not subjective and objective - socionics gives the first function the title "base", which is how you conceive of the world object-wise, whereas the second function is called "creative", which is what you add in subject-wise. At the moment I am "pursuing" socionics, so I will use its terms.
    Hey. You know how when you said introverted functions avoid, and extroverted functions pursue, and I was confused because it felt like I used Ni to pursue pleasure. Well, I believe your conceptualisation of i and e is closer to the socionics one, in which I'm actually Fi-Ne. So I am pursuant (energy outwards) with N, and avoidant (energy inwards) with F. This is also somewhat how I had characterised id vs superego. Ego probably comes from the interaction between functions. i = superego, e = id, i->e->i->e = ego. (note: different from what Freud meant. This is just avoid - pursue - reason/balance
    Black Rose
    Percentages is better description but lopsided.

    Te may be mostly in the left brain but is unknown.
    Black Rose
    you confuse the Jungian feeling function with emotions, this is not the same as the feeling function.

    Then Fi is only a perspective on what exactly. I decide to feel a certain way or make stories about why I feel a certain way afterworlds?
    Black Rose
    I read your conversations with Artsu Tharaz and EyeSeeCold

    I am INFP - Fi is my main function and I thought my experience would help you out a little but I was not clear in telling you, Mostly I do that by not fully forming my thoughts and correct mistakes after they happen.
    Black Rose
    Pleasure vs pain

    But Fi, Fe is judgment on emotion reaction to them in social vs individualist context. Sad angry fear happy are the four disgust are base emotions but emotions come in as food in variety. Not only is it natural for deferent types of positive and negative to be physically felt but also mixed like instrumental orchestras.

    I contemplate good and evil allot so self control mean I must balance my guilt of not living up to what I as a person should be.

    For not telling people about Jesus because of the pain of embarrassment I felt guilty and hell sermons made me imagine being in hell for not living up to social standards.

    Hot showers were mental torture for me.

    Not to upset you but do you have any meditation tips.
    Schopenhauer (a strong introvert) writes:

    "...the nature of man and animal is such that we never really notice or become conscious of what is agreeable to our will; if we are to notice something our will has to have been thwarted... On this fact is founded...: the negativity of well-being and happiness, in antithesis to the positivity of pain."

    Pleasure = something that happens, but not something we will; the will in this case only comes into being when some painful event has occured.
    Well, at any time we are influenced by them all, but JCF is, afterall, based on approximations. We use not only all 8 functions, but a whole spectrum of cognitive processes which extend all around and beyond them. Yet, despite this, the 4 function model remains highly useful.

    I'm personally of the belief that we can quite accurately model our processes as if functions grouped pair-wise as per my latter description. The reasoning is off, but it's the results that count, and I believe we can obtain good results with this model.

    It says: we have a primary function (dominant) and three secondary functions, which combine into three modes of being. Through mastery of each of these 3 aspects (i.e. the 3 secondary functions, as filtered through the dominant), we may come to a mastery of our self.
    Do you think we use our functions like dom+aux and ter+inf, or as dom+aux/dom+ter/dom+inf? Can the dominant function, or indeed any function, act on its own or does it need a second function for their to be flow? Is thought really just the product of applying one function to another? Can the mind therefore be stilled (as per meditation) by focusing on purely your dominant function?
    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Information_aspects
    The IM Aspects deal with inherent information, information that is fundamental and unchanging. So what you'll be looking at and discussing is something you can actually "see" like when you discuss science. IM Aspects utilize the "Objects and Subjects" or "Bodies and Fields" theory of energy.

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=IM_elements
    The IM Elements are the general functions: Te, Ti, Fe, Fi, Ne, Ni, Se, Si. The meanings of these will never be complete so their definitions are constantly being upgraded and fine-tuned. You might find "Logic" for Ti in one place, but then see "Understanding" at another. IM elements are relative. IM elements do not represent the actual cognition of types, but the general areas the functions relate to because of the types that have them.
    "There is 2 classes of this:
    - long term planning: e.g. suffer now for greater self-pleasure later. (T-function).
    - for another (individual/group/ideology), whether short term or long term: e.g. suffer so the other/ (individual/group/ideology can be helped (if friend) or opposed (if enemy) (F-function)"

    This sounds good. The first comes straight from "T = logic", the second from "F = ethics". When I'm in pure-thought mode (Ni+Ti) the first fits me best, but in how I actually end up interacting with the envrionment (Ni+Fe) the second fits. Then there are the times when I'm both alogical and amoral (Ni+Se). WOLFZ HOWL
    I still think you are discriminating between T and F. I would say it's because people who come to the functions from MBTI have to work around behaviorist perspectives. Would you mind rebuilding from scratch? You would have to if you're getting into Socionics by the way.


    Information Aspects: Aspects of reality that are inherently of a certain Information Metabolism.

    Information Elements: Elements of reality that are contextually of a certain Information Metabolism.

    Functions: Information Metabolism as it applies to a psyche of a type(functions vary according to types).

    IM elements are helpful for differentiating the general functions of typology.

    IM aspects are for analysis and understanding of what these "functions" really are and how they manifest.

    Functions are helpful for understanding how types operate individually and relationally, and also for analysis of the psyche.
    So, as I see it now, you are right: introversion becomes focused when solving negative (avoidance) tasks, extraversion becomes focused when solving positive (pursuit) tasks. Associated with each of these is avoidance of pain and pursuit of pleasure. I believe, however, that we can go beyond merely pain vs. pleasure, and perhaps frame it as "negative spiritedness" and "positive spiritedness". This removes the difficulty of what I see as -passive- pleasure or pain avoidance, and also covers cases where the kinds of pain or pleasure may be rather subtle.
    Actually, I think I can see it now. When it comes down to it, while I do derive pleasure from my Ni, and while I also avoid pain with Fe, I agree about the motivational aspect. Ordinarily, my Ni will not be deliberately directed to anything in particular, but will just freely follow trains of thought. My Fe will go either largely unused, or used in an non-structured manner.

    However, when I am facing some sort of internal conflict, Ni comes in to problem solve. It only becomes truly active in order to settle a kind of internal pain that arises - it otherwise lacks focus. Similarly, it is when there is a particular goal that I wish to achieve that Fe becomes structured. Introversion becomes an avoidance mechanism, extraversion becomes an achievement mechanism.
    Hm. So introverted functions are preservant, extraverted functions are expansive. Is it necessary to bring pleasure/pain into it? (I'll note that it is indeed philosophically significant)
    INFJ. How is Ni pain-avoidant? How is Fe pleasure pursuing?

    To me it seems the other way around - Ni is pleasurable, both Fe and Ti aren't quite so much. Perhaps using irrational functions is pleasureseeking, rational functions are pain avoidant?
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom