• 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.

EyeSeeCold

lust for life From California, USA
Joined
Last seen
Messages
7,828
Reaction score
0

Profile Posts Latest Activity Postings About

  • In terms of dichotomies based on N, ILE has: tactical, care free, whereas XII has: strategic, farsighted. Would you say my N is more the former or latter?

    The other main differences (other than E) to account for are either the Tij or alpha values vs delta. What makes LII a stretch compared to ILE?
    Edited as per request:


    aaaaaabcdeeeeeeeefgggghiiiikllmnnnooooopprrrsssssttttttuuvvy
    Melllvar
    It ruins everything when you have to explain it. Although I did already explain it. Then deleted it three hours later because it ruined everything. :\

    I'm disappointed in this place.
    Auburn
    Oh! ..I'll probably disappear any second now. ;D
    (just passing by to pick up some of my old things, but thanks. Nice seeing you around.)
    nexion
    Ah. That is what I had suspected, though I couldn't be sure (even though I haven't even seen that movie).
    Dimensional Transition
    Me neither. I have a few shitty game trophy avatars though. Let me look up who has the Music Euphoria badge now... Well goddamn. The highscores have just been deleted it seems. I guess they just do that automatically?
    oh and I like that cognitive styles thing: it groups types in the same way that I had been thinking about recently, as a parallel (orthogonal, rather - you could pinpoint one's type based on quadra and cognitive style, neither of which is really hinted at by the MBTI dichotomies) to the quadras, but in terms of development of one's ideas. The groupings were based on having the same conscious IMs, in the same cyclic order, e.g.

    Fi->Ne->Ti->Se->Fi->Ne->Ti->Se->Fi...

    The EII/ILE/LSI/SEE (Causal Determinists) all have these functions, and in this cyclic direction, and so group together based on consciously perceiving the same information and perceiving it moving in the same direction, but they each focus on a particular point of the movement. You could view the type on this scale as a linear spectrum, where for example one might have the base anywhere between two of the IMs.
    I'm thinking I might not bother trying to apply sociotyping to people, since that will probably mean that I will naturally try to reinterpret all the data to look how I think it should look.

    I will focus specifically on the notion of Information Aspects, and instead view the sociotypes simply as theoretical processors of that information (which probably means the manifestation of sociotype in any given person varies across time - though is largely static - as one focuses on different kinds of information).

    What do you think of using like Nw and Nb (white intuition and black intuition) to denote the IMs rather than Ni and Ne, since that means confusion with MBTI etc.? Or if not is there an unambiguous and convenient (using the shapes isn't convenient usually) way of denoting them?
    SkyWalker
    not yet read it.... am still working on a project for a few weeks and then i will start. will let you know! until that time we are just admiring the looks of the huge album! ;)

    at least we know now why it was a bit more expensive
    lol from mizami i just got: ILI > [IEI, ILE, LII] > [IEE, EII, LIE, EIE]

    from the "cognitive styles" i am quite sure that i am inductive. i guess i'm not sure what sociotype i am. o_O

    could it be the case that socionics ties too many different dichotomies under each different type, when in reality the splits don't really occur like this?

    what would you say is the most valid but succinct way to determine one's own type?
    SkyWalker
    BTW I bought the Red Book, it's huge, like an XL photo album. Nice collectors item! All my friends say: hey what's this?? this is nice! (and they dont even have a clue what it is, this is just the way it looks)
    btw, as for Forer effect with the Reinin dichotomies, making a test for them to see how people who don't know what each refers to would be a good way to see if these things actually do correlate with what they say they do.

    I don't know if I'll end up delving far enough into it or not to actually make something tangible. I'll probably stop once I've figured out how I would do it if I was going to, lul.
    Again, with the seeming contradiction that Ti-Ne -> Ni-Te, but Te-Ni -> Te-Ni, as I explained this can be justified by associating MBTI e and i with the base and creative, and socionics e and i with the dominant and auxiliary (taking into account the two primary functions only).

    I think I would probably have to do a lot of research into those dichotomies before I can make anything utilisable. Do socionics tests test for function placings, or do they test primarily for the MBTI dichotomies?
    Would you be interested in helping me make a Socionics type test? It would feature questions that indicate a large range of dichotomies (these), the small groups, as well as questions relating to which IM you have in each function, rather than having lots of questions which all test for the same 4 dichotomies.
    Why are you representing socionics Ti and mbti Ti by the same object if they're not the same thing? You're begging the question. =/

    I still can't see why the two views are inconsistent with each other. MBTI Ti-Ne -> Socionics Ni-Te

    However, maybe this is not a useful discussion? Maybe I'm generalising, but it is much more Ne (N-dom) to want to reconcile different perspectives, whereas Ni (N-aux) just prefers to stick to the same set of ideas, correct?

    Just keep in mind that I will be interpreting everything as though both were looking at the same thing, but we needn't discuss beyond socionics.

    Basically though, I see the MBTI model as the 'cause' and socionics as the 'effects', but that MBTI tries to make the cause=effects which is why it fails.
    Like I said when we were talking the other time, I believe the main difference to be that socionics changes the reference point to be the environment rather than the natural viewpoint of the person, and by doing this they are able to way more effectively look at how different types manifest and how they relate. I still believe the MBTI "INTP = TiNeSiFe" etc model to be valid though, e.g. that Te creative is a subjective/self-formed process (MBTI Ti dom), whereas Te base is environment dependent (MBTI Te dom).
    MBTI Ti dominance causes an IP temperament, and Socionics Ni base causes an IP temperament. I believe Ni base to be equivalent with Ne auxiliary, and Te base to be equivalent to Ti dominant and so on.

    So because both systems define i and e differently, and dominant and base don't mean the same (for introverts, the base and auxiliary line up) Ji in one and Pi in one both have the IP effect.

    Basically, the dominant function is associated with energy from the person, and the auxiliary sort of is a back up for this - but this same description applies roughly to the primary socionics e function (energy comes from the person) and primary i (energy to the person - awareness of a particular field).

    An introvert is introverted because their base is not where their outward energy comes from - so MBTI decided to call the extroverted function dominant instead, but then they also switch the i and e because of -where- the information comes from. This is just a matter of convention though.
    Those Fi/Fe explanations are just meant to be reframings of the MBTI definitions, rather than how socionics sees it yes?

    The new prefix would be to indicate what the MBTI interpretation is, however since the notion of an IM is different to a CF this won't totally make sense.

    What do you see as being something which one model says which is imcompatible with the other?
    The idea I have of what "introverted" and "extroverted" means is different in each model, so I'm wondering if both interpretations are correct, and that you have basically four kinds for each function, e.g. subjective extroverted Intuition for the INJ.
    Well, unless you had something interesting to add re: Freud we don't need to. I think the ego/id/superego model, or at least how I've conceived of it, is quite fascinating nonetheless.

    Basically, I agree with what you just said about I and E, but I don't think MBTI uses that same definition. They use a -based on the impressions already present to the subject? or based on impressions directly seen in the environment? e.g. Fi is seen as being like a moral compass, but Fe is seen as reacting directly off of what is happening in the situation. I don't think this is what is meant in socionics by the terms.

    Basically I am supposing that how Socionics describes things is correct, and how MBTI is is correct too, and seeing what this implies. What it implies is that MBTI i functions always map to creative and role, but e functions map to base an vulnerable, and similarly socionics i maps to MBTI auxiliary tertiary, socionics e maps to MBTI dominant and inferior.
    I think socionics explains outward manifestations of different types way better than MBTI does, so I think I'll be using it from now on instead. Does my interpretation of i and e seem reasonable? And would you agree with Base and Vulnerable being objective (environment based) whereas Creative and Role are subjective (personally based)?
    You can ignore the branching off stuff, you know how Ne is ;) . And I can see now that XXXX = XXXx, providing that the systems are interpreted correctly. I do believe that both the MBTI function model and the Socionics one are both correct, but that they use different definitions of i and e in the functions, as well as what the dominant means. i and e in MBTI = Objective vs Subjective, but i and e in Socionics seems to be about outward energy vs inward energy like I believe Jung said, which is sort of like active vs passive. I think the base function = primary objective function, creative = primary subjective function, role = secondary subjective function, vulnerable = secondary objective function. All MBTI dominant functions correspond to socionics e functions, because the dominant function is the means by which outward energy is expressed and is active, whereas the auxiliary is i, being passive. Tertiary is i, inferior is e.
    SkyWalker
    you are into socionics, and i finally am reading wikisocion. how do you see information aspects vs information elements vs functions? i read what they say on wikisocian, but its kind of vague
    SkyWalker
    1) I-vs-E: I agree with your introversion/extraversion comparison (this is exactly what i said, but in other words)

    2) T-vs-F: I focused on dying, but OK lets focus on suffering for a cause.
    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)
    SkyWalker
    You can die/suffer for your own cause.
    No you can't, since you cease to exist.
    there exist no cause for (purely-)yourself to die.
    you can only do this for your survivors (thus others).

    Prove me wrong, name a cause for your case?
    SkyWalker
    Ti and Te are able to sacrifice, either for the Self or for external collectivity

    can you explain to me how one could sacrifice itself FOR THE SELF?

    you can't sacrifice for the self. you can only sacrifice for the collective
    wooah spooky. I've never actually read any Aristotle, but after writing that my mind yelled out to me "Aristotle's four causes!", so I read it just now and it's very similar to what I just said. :D

    So, scrap this soul etc. business, let's move to Aristotle.

    There are four causes: the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause and the final cause. This replaces soul, body, mind, spirit. A good thing too; this discussions was a little too new-agey for my liking.
    SkyWalker
    I am talking about pure T or pure F here.
    In real life this purity doesnt exist.
    T-doms in real life still have some F to relate to others, but I stand by the fact that pure T cannot. (btw perception is also involved to be able to "perceive"others, we are just talking decisions/judgements/choices about others here)

    (pure) F is not obligated to help others, it can also oppose others. but yes, if active, it is obligated to either help or oppose, it HAS TO split into 1 of them. this splitting into agreeable/disagreeable is exactly what F does, and in fact, this has been described by Jung as well.
    Physicalism is like Idealism/Phenomenology then? I got the impression they were contrary viewpoints.

    So, my Soul is your Spirit, my Spirit is part of your Mind... then what is your Soul?

    I know what you mean by noumenon being too limited. I just can't think of a single word to describe it, other than Spirit. Basically, it is any state of being which does not refer to an external object. Mind is the structural make up of the soul.

    Suppose we were making tools from clay. The source of clay, and the clay itself, is the soul. The boundaries and shape of the clay, its physical existence, is its body. The actions the tool can perform, what it is actively doing at any time, is its mind. The person who is moving the tool to begin with is the spirit.
    SkyWalker
    Te/Fe are using society as a base for their answers
    Ti/Fi are using their inner self as a base for their answers

    But that doesnt make Fi selfish. Fi's inner-self could for example say "sacrifice yourself to help others", that isn't considered selfish (even though the inner-self wants it.)

    (Te/Ti cannot say to themselves "sacrifice yourself")
    SkyWalker
    about extraversion/introversion and T/F: Both Te&Ti are indifferent to others and thus both can deadlock. Both Fe&Fi are "splitters" into help/oppose. Fe and Fi just have different reasons for help/oppose.
    Fe is HOW to help/oppose. (e.g. HOW does it feel in current society)
    Fi is WHY to help/oppose. (e.g. WHY does it feel like that in my inner instinct)
    Fi might be subjective but Fi is certainly not selfish as in "selfishly indifferent"
    SkyWalker
    artsu> i see spirits like this too, interrelations between different minds: as in group spirit, as in a superorganism in which individual human cells join. (or alternatively, on a smaller scale, our "human-minds" are spirits as well: as in interrelations between different neurons, as in a superoganism in which individuals neurons join).

    soul is a weird word. soul is more like the MBTI-type of a spirit??
    We don't even know if the cup exists at all, except that it is an element of our consciousness. Our subjective body refers to all of the objects of our consciousness, our mind is how we process this data.

    Soul actually doesn't operate across people; rather it is like a single pointsource which all existence stems from, and interacts with the other worlds. Spirit only exists through the interrelations between different minds, and is used to shape them. Body = phenomenon, Spirit = noumenon, Mind = judgments, Soul = true subject.
    SkyWalker
    (continued: )
    Pure F-entities just help or oppose and never do something for self (they dont "think" for themselves, they only "feel" for others). They need rationalities/actions of others to decide upon whether to help or oppose.

    A single deserted entitiy (without peers and without memory of past peers) will therefor not exhibit F, since there is nothing to help or oppose (unless it would still have memory or fantasy of other peers). This will of course never happen in real life.
    SkyWalker
    A physical body of matter is not required to exhibit "Feeling".

    For me: T is like a processor that chooses/judges/decides what to execute for itself (exclusive self-control), and F is like a processor that chooses/judges/decides what to execute for others (shared control by group). T is indifferent and does not know help/oppose, T just executes the plan for self disregarding all others. 2 pure T-entities can deadlock if they try to control the same thing: T-entity1 going left, T-entity2 going right > result=stay in the middle for ever. you need F to decide whether to help or oppose the other, F is the only way to get out of a deadlock.
    We may give an alternate interpretation of each of these, not from the perspective of an individual, but from existence as a whole. Here, soul is that underlying aspect of consciousness which existence presupposes and unites all; body, again, can be thought of like the material world, mind represents the divides in individual consciousness, and spirit is an aspect of perception which exists across minds but is not body (it forms from relations between minds - thus we may speak of the spirit of a culture, or of other non-material beings).
    I think I would switch spirit and soul around. I would extend the notion of material universe to "consciousness which is not our own consciousness". Body is that property which allows to affect, and be affected by, that which is not part of us. Soul is the primary aspect of our being, which is unmoving - the true Subject. Mind and Spirit then represent two aspects of individual perception.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom