Socionics and You

[EyeSeeCold]

I went to Wikisocion to refresh my memory and verify my doubts, and I'm pretty much certain he's taken liberties in re-defining the terms to conform to his ideas, which to the best of my impression diverge.

Introverted Intuition on Wikisocison

vs

The MBTI Introverted Intuition

Read them and compare. They are nearly identical.

This invalidates the claim that the sociotype ILI is the equivalent of MBTI INTP. If the ILI has the Ni described above, he's an Ni dominant in MBTI too.

*sigh* In your attempt to destroy my sense of competence you overlook the fact that I may actually be correct. I did not redefine terms. Ni in MBTI and Socionics are not identical. Any experienced Socionist will tell you that, and you'd be a fool for fiercely thinking so without skepticism when you have been told otherwise. The differences are subtle but create a huge impact, so I advise you read more instead of searching for even a scrap of information to disprove me.

My goal is not to make you conform to Socionics, my goal is to make you all, whom are interested, to question MBTI's accuracy.

 

[Fukyo]

*sigh* In your attempt to destroy my sense of competence you overlook the fact that I may actually be correct. I did not redefine terms. Ni in MBTI and Socionics are not identical. Any experienced Socionist will tell you that, and you'd be a fool for fiercely thinking so without skepticism when you have been told otherwise. The differences are subtle but create a huge impact, so I advise you read more instead of searching for even a scrap of information to disprove me.

My goal is not to make you conform to Socionics, my goal is to make you all, whom are interested, to question MBTI's accuracy.

Admittedly, I am no socionist, but I don't see how Socionics is the best interpretation of Jung's work.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Admittedly, I am no socionist, but I don't see how Socionics is the best interpretation of Jung's work.

Well that's fine and dandy, you can have your opinions. But this isn't a discussion of opinion, at least it is not what I intended.

 

[Fukyo]

Well that's fine and dandy, you can have your opinions. But this isn't a discussion of opinion, at least it is not what I intended.

You forget your own opinions, and proving them.

 

[Glordag]

Well that's fine and dandy, you can have your opinions. But this isn't a discussion of opinion, at least it is not what I intended.

Then why did you create a thread to state an opinion?

I'm not claiming that MBTI is perfect. Like many others here, I especially find fault with the idea of using a questionnaire to try and type someone, and then having that marketed to the free world as some tool to place people in the workforce. That said, I think that Myers did great work in expanding Jung's theories, and my observations thus far have found MBTI to be a very consistent and convincing method of typing people insofar as it takes it.

MBTI seems to follow directly from Jung's theories in my eyes and the eyes of many others. Your arguments thus far all seem to come from the predetermined standpoint that MBTI is flawed. Thus, MBTI (I won't speak for the Socionics) has been taken out of context and presented incorrectly in the attempt to demonstrate the flaws you believe to exist.

I questioned myself several times, and so had to go back and read through both Gifts Differing and the relevant sections of Psychological Types, but I am still not convinced of anything you are saying, especially since several things you have said are in direct conflict with what Jung and Myers wrote in their respective books, as I illustrated previously.

I think the simple fact that many of us are typing people and better understanding interactions and personality traits as a result of the MBTI types speaks loads for the usefulness and consistency of the system, regardless of whether or not it actually holds 100% true to Jung's theories.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Then why did you create a thread to state an opinion?

My intent was to identify where MBTI conflicts with Jung. Using this knowledge you'd then be able to better understand yourself with a greater understanding of Socionics or even just MBTI.

MBTI seems to follow directly from Jung's theories in my eyes and the eyes of many others. Your arguments thus far all seem to come from the predetermined standpoint that MBTI is flawed. Thus, MBTI (I won't speak for the Socionics) has been taken out of context and presented incorrectly in the attempt to demonstrate the flaws you believe to exist.

My subjective organization of information is to blame here, I am trying to best to be as objective as I can.

I questioned myself several times, and so had to go back and read through both Gifts Differing and the relevant sections of Psychological Types, but I am still not convinced of anything you are saying, especially since several things you have said are in direct conflict with what Jung and Myers wrote in their respective books, as I illustrated previously.

Again, I blame this on the subjectivity of my thought organization. Understanding relies on the coherence of both parties. Though I still hold that Myers diverges from Jung in a way that creates underlying problems that are not immediately perceivable.

I think the simple fact that many of us are typing people and better understanding interactions and personality traits as a result of the MBTI types speaks loads for the usefulness and consistency of the system, regardless of whether or not it actually holds 100% true to Jung's theories.

So you are saying usefulness should be substituted for accuracy? Maybe in a life or death situation, but typology is not urgent. But I digress, this is not a discussion on ethics.

 

[Glordag]

So you are saying usefulness should be substituted for accuracy? Maybe in a life or death situation, but typology is not urgent. But I digress, this is not a discussion on ethics.

Why should MBTI have to be accurate with regards to what it takes from Jung (though I believe it is) if it is useful and consistent in its own right?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Problems stemming from unseen flaws. like I said some posts ago, MBTI makes you think you need to improve the areas of Fe and Si but doing so could cause psychological disorders. INTPs need Se and Fi.

 

[Anthile]

Problems stemming from unseen flaws. like I said some posts ago, MBTI makes you think you need to improve the areas of Fe and Si but doing so could cause psychological disorders. INTPs need Se and Fi.

Source?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

3) Jung himself wrote that THE SAME psychological types could be observed among mentally ill and mentally sound people. Moreover, he wrote that people fall into neuroses when they cannot live “according to their natural types”, for example, when an extraverted person in a collective overfilled with extraverts has to play a role of an introverted person. In other words, mental illness, according to Jung, is often caused by the “treason of one's inborn type”, when one attempts to be not what he psychically is.

Relationships with conflictor types are cited as particularly troublesome: it is not uncommon for a person in a close relationship with their conflictor to develop an acute neurotic condition.

http://forum.socionix.com/topic/52-long-and-short-range-functions-ii-function-blocks/
Skip to neurosis, it mentions the 3rd and 7th functions, for INTPs that's Si and Fe respectively.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...l/3572-attention-fe-neurosis-block-types.html


Read more here

In a family conflict relations lead to psychosomatic illnesses. After parting with konflikterom, one feels the significant relief. Under the pressure of external circumstances konfliktery may at some time put aside their differences and work "in harness". Dangerous these relations and the fact that conflict - silent, introverted often do not show their feelings towards konflikteru - extrovert, while they will not break through in some kind of act.

I am sure that anyone with ESFJ family members would be willing to testify.

 

[Glordag]

I have yet to see where MBTI claims that INTPs need to develop Fe. In Gifts Differing the only claim is that auxiliary functions should be developed, whatever that is for the type. So, for MBTI INTPs that would mean we should develop Ne. I think you're likely referring to forum responses where people have claimed INTPs should develop Fe, and this doesn't have widespread agreement from everyone. In fact, my experience has, as you've referenced, shown that trying to fit in with others and do things like "develop my Fe."

I feel that I've matured best when I use my Ne to try and understand my Fe. Actually using my Fe is usually disastrous, but sometimes necessary when trying to appease another.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I said it makes you think that. Because it gives you two areas that you are deficient in and coincidentally those areas happen to be the ones that society regards the most.

With MBTI results being open to interpretation, it is possible that one will try to immerse himself in those areas which, as I stated earlier, could cause psychological problems.

 

[Glordag]

I said it makes you think that. Because it gives you two areas that you are deficient in and coincidentally those areas happen to be the ones that society regards the most.

With MBTI results being open to interpretation, it is possible that one will try to immerse himself in those areas which, as I stated earlier, could cause psychological problems.

So let me get this straight -

You're faulting MBTI because people incorrectly read their own ideas into it? One could easily do the same thing with Jung's work, you know. If you take the premise that one should "only be their natural self" to the extreme, you might find INTPs becoming so hermetic that they shut themselves off from the world entirely and develop delusions that could possibly lead to murder or suicide.

Besides, MBTI results probably aren't quite as "open to interpretation" as a lot of people likely believe. Like I said before, Myers makes it quite clear that the road to improving oneself and leading a happy, well-adjusted life lies in the auxiliary function.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

So let me get this straight -

You're faulting MBTI because people incorrectly read their own ideas into it? One could easily do the same thing with Jung's work, you know. If you take the premise that one should "only be their natural self" to the extreme, you might find INTPs becoming so hermetic that they shut themselves off from the world entirely and develop delusions that could possibly lead to murder or suicide.

Besides, MBTI results probably aren't quite as "open to interpretation" as a lot of people likely believe. Like I said before, Myers makes it quite clear that the road to improving oneself and leading a happy, well-adjusted life lies in the auxiliary function.

I made this thread to help people, who are interested, to understand Socionics, to understand the flaws of MBTI so they can regroup their own knowledge to help themselves.

Every response in this thread derails it from the main purposes, introspection and skepticism. Coming to me with your beliefs in MBTI is not the way to approach this goal, doubt MBTI, doubt Socionics, doubt me, doubt everything. Go back to the source and form your own authentic opinion.

Rene Descartes had to abandon all of his beliefs to reach the conclusion that the only truth is that he is a thinking thing. There is no way you can reach a higher understanding unless you question your foundations.

 

[Glordag]

I made this thread to help people, who are interested, to understand Socionics, to understand the flaws of MBTI so they can regroup their own knowledge to help themselves.

Every response in this thread derails it from the main purposes, introspection and skepticism. Coming to me with your beliefs in MBTI is not the way to approach this goal, doubt MBTI, doubt Socionics, doubt me, doubt everything. Go back to the source and form your own authentic opinion.

Rene Descartes had to abandon all of his beliefs to reach the conclusion that the only truth is that he is a thinking thing. There is no way you can reach a higher understanding unless you question your foundations.

You mean like how I went back to Psychological Types and Gifts Differing, and read much new material on Socionics that I hadn't bothered with before?

You don't think our debate has fueled introspection and skepticism?

If you state an opinion and your own interpretation of a framework, does not the questioning of that interpretation further what you aim to achieve with it?

I don't know what response you're looking for out of this thread. Were you expecting us to accept what you said with arms wide open and not challenge you on the points that we find dubious?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I don't know what response you're looking for out of this thread. Were you expecting us to accept what you said with arms wide open and not challenge you on the points that we find dubious?

I was hoping that you guys would read my first post with an open mind, doubt MBTI, doubt Socionics and let your natural drive to believe guide you to new insights.

 

[Glordag]

I was hoping that you guys would read my first post with an open mind, doubt MBTI, doubt Socionics and let your natural drive to believe guide you to new insights.

Ah, I genuinely didn't gather that at all. Your original post was a collection of controversial statements, which lends itself more to debate than to introspection, in my opinion. I think stating things as a series of open-ended questions might have been more conducive to the goal. Instead of "INTP is this, not this," you might have said "Suppose for a minute that INTP were not TiNe, what are the other possibilities? Socionics might offer some insight. <insert quote>. Now let us step away from MBTI and Socionics and look only at behavioral trends and Jung's original analysis."

At least for me personally, this would have resulted in more of a response along the lines of "interesting...I have noticed <detail> about people, and Jung said <quote>, so I kind of wonder if there are functions that have been left out entirely."

Just my two cents.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I think stating things as a series of open-ended questions might have been more conducive to the goal. Instead of "INTP is this, not this," you might have said "Suppose for a minute that INTP were not TiNe, what are the other possibilities? Socionics might offer some insight. <insert quote>. Now let us step away from MBTI and Socionics and look only at behavioral trends and Jung's original analysis."

Ok then.

Let's look at the Thinking function. Te would mean thinking that is exerted on the external world correct? Applying objective logic to to situations that are happening or could happen. So the inverse, Ti, would meaning thinking that is exerted on the internal world, i.e. the self, right? Logic in Ti would therefore be subjective, but still logic.

Also, Ne is intuition exerted on the external world and Ni would be intuition exerted on the internal world.

So TiNe INTP would be a archetype that applies logic internally and is externally intuitive.

Ok, we know this, but what does it mean to apply logic internally and to be externally intuitive?

Introverted-ness is concerned with the self, so if you are dominant Ti would not that mean you subject your own thoughts to logic? In other words, you are primarily concerned with logic. Ne, being that its energy is focused outward, would be objective, since it originates from the external world. So Ne receives objective information.

So now we have a person who is primarily concerned with personal logic and receives secondary objective information from the world. It's judgment focuses on the subjective self and it's objective perception flows into the subjective self. Any energy that is exerted on the external world would have to be objective and impersonal then, no? Because it's judgment, Ti, is exerted on the self, while it's perception, Ne, is exerted on the world.

This paints the picture of a character who sees the world from his logical self, which is built upon subjective, irrefutable truths, but who interacts with the external world in an objective way. A theory proposed by such a character would then take in objective information(Ne) and focus judgment on matters of the self and the self's truths(Ti) and not external matters such as society and society's behavior.

Would not such a theory that concerns external matters be proposed by a character who perceives information from the self but judges on external objective information? NiTe. In other words, this character takes in information from the observations by the self but does not exert judgment on the self, rather it uses the information to make judgments externally. To put it more simply this character perceives the internal world, filters the information subjectively and then makes a judgment about the external world. Would not this character be the one to tend to make objective theories(Te) about the world based on personal observation and subjective introspection(Ni)? Now, is this not the INTP character?

 

[Glordag]

Let's look at the Thinking function. Te would mean thinking that is exerted on the external world correct? Applying objective logic to to situations that are happening or could happen. So the inverse, Ti, would meaning thinking that is exerted on the internal world, i.e. the self, right? Logic in Ti would therefore be subjective, but still logic.

Also, Ne is intuition exerted on the external world and Ni would be intuition exerted on the internal world.

So TiNe INTP would be a archetype that applies logic internally and is externally intuitive.

Now we're cooking with fire. I'm not sure I would choose these exact words, but this is agreeable enough. Perhaps I wouldn't say that Ne "exerts" itself on the external world, more just that it deals with the external world. I also wouldn't say Ti necessarily "applies logic internally" but rather logic is applied more to internal ideas and concepts. Still - close enough.

Ok, we know this, but what does it mean to apply logic internally and to be externally intuitive?

Introverted-ness is concerned with the self, so if you are dominant Ti would not that mean you subject your own thoughts to logic? In other words, you are primarily concerned with logic. Ne, being that its energy is focused outward, would be objective, since it originates from the external world. So Ne receives objective information.

I'm not 100% sure that I would say Ne is always objective. Supposedly, one of the primary processes of Ne is to infer consequences, possibilities, and effects from external stimuli. These inferences may or may not be objective, but would likely be derived from objective sources.

So now we have a person who is primarily concerned with personal logic and receives secondary objective information from the world. It's judgment focuses on the subjective self and it's objective perception flows into the subjective self. Any energy that is exerted on the external world would have to be objective and impersonal then, no? Because it's judgment, Ti, is exerted on the self, while it's perception, Ne, is exerted on the world.

No, I do not agree with this. Just because you receive objective information, that does not mean that your interactions with the world will be objective. If Ti is the dominant function, then it is very likely that interaction with the world will have been influenced by a personal, subjective factor. Ne develops the desire to move from one domain to another, but interaction with those domains is still largely Ti. The information to process likely just comes through Ne.

Ne picks up the information, Ti analyzes it and makes the decisions (generally).

This paints the picture of a character who sees the world from his logical self, which is built upon subjective, irrefutable truths,

No, this character sees the world through Ne, which is more likely to be objective insight.

but who interacts with the external world in an objective way.

It seems like you switched Ne and Ti somewhere in here. Most of the decision making (which I suppose is what I would call interaction) is Ti. The "seeing the world" part is perception or Ne.

A theory proposed by such a character would then take in objective information(Ne) and focus judgment on matters of the self and the self's truths(Ti) and not external matters such as society and society's behavior.

I think you have to be careful with how you're describing Ti. Ti doesn't necessarily stand for thinking about things that only involve the self. It means thinking of ideas and concepts that are mostly subjective in nature, as opposed to thinking about things and people that are largely objective in nature.

Would not such a theory that concerns external matters be proposed by a character who perceives information from the self but judges on external objective information? NiTe.

Sure, I can agree with this.

In other words, this character takes in information from the observations by the self but does not exert judgment on the self, rather it uses the information to make judgments externally.

Still something I can agree with, though I'm a little iffy on the wording again.

To put it more simply this character perceives the internal world, filters the information subjectively and then makes a judgment about the external world.

Ok, here is where I think you've deviated. Why would this character filter the information subjectively? Filtering involves a decision making process, which is a process of the judging function. This character would judge via Te, so filtering information would be in an objective, externally oriented manner.

Would not this character be the one to tend to make objective theories(Te) about the world based on personal observation and subjective introspection(Ni)? Now, is this not the INTP character?

How can you make an objective theory about something when you start from a subjective premise? Ni's are often described (even by Jung himself) as sort of the "prophet" type. Many of their ideas just seem to come from thin air, because they are extremely subjective and based on intuition. This can manifest as anything from a cult leader with an innovative dogma or a brilliant scientist with an innovative theory. In the former case, the subjective and intuitive idea produced an erroneous and subjective dogma. In the latter case, the subjective and intuitive idea produced an objective and scientifically sound idea.

I would argue that the INTP makes subjective theories about the world based on objective observation. This is why an INTP's ideas will many times seem outlandish and subjective, but will be grounded in objective truth. Consider a debate in the two cases:

INTP: Theory seems wacky and offbeat, but the INTP always manages to come back with sound evidence and sources to support the point. The steps to get to the theory/conclusion sometimes seem muddled and arbitrary, but when you really question the premise you discover that it comes from an objective truth.

INTJ: Theory seems logical and all the steps used to create the theory check out, but when you really question the premise the INTJ falls back on "that's just how it is...it's obvious!"

That's my two cents, anyways.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

TiNe means that you perceive externally but judge internally. Do we perceive the world in all its objectivity and make logical judgments about our inner world? NiTe means that you perceive the world from your internal subjectivity and make objective judgments about the outer world. Aren't we the latter?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

INTP: Theory seems wacky and offbeat, but the INTP always manages to come back with sound evidence and sources to support the point. The steps to get to the theory/conclusion sometimes seem muddled and arbitrary, but when you really question the premise you discover that it comes from an objective truth.

In the argument for NiTe:
The theory seems spacey because it is culled from an internal perception(Ni), other people don't see the world in the same way that the INTP does. Sound evidence and sources seem Te to me. The truth is objective because it was an external judgment. An objective judgment(Te) about the subjective world(Ni)?

INTJ: Theory seems logical and all the steps used to create the theory check out, but when you really question the premise the INTJ falls back on "that's just how it is...it's obvious!"

In the argument for TiNe:
The INTJ's logic(Ti) falls on claims that something is obvious, external perception, Ne? A subjective claim about the objective world, no?

 

[Glordag]

TiNe means that you perceive externally but judge internally.

Ok, fair enough.

Do we perceive the world in all its objectivity and make logical judgments about our inner world?

Yes, I think so. Just one minor clarification - I'd say we make logical judgements often about and generally from our inner world.

NiTe means that you perceive the world from your internal subjectivity and make objective judgments about the outer world. Aren't we the latter?

No, I don't think so. In fact, one of the hallmarks of the INTP is refusing to make objective judgements about the outer world. We are so focused on thinking about ideas and concepts instead of actually thinking about practical solutions or decisions involving things or people that we never actually want to commit to an answer or conclusion. In our mind, the answer is never clear and the verdict is always out, and we often don't even think that an objective judgement is possible.

In the argument for NiTe:
The theory seems spacey because it is culled from an internal perception, other people don't see the world in the same way that the INTP does. Sound evidence and sources seem Te to me. The truth is objective because it was an external judgment.


In the argument for TiNe:
The INTJ's logic(Ti) falls on claims that something is obvious, external perception, Ne?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Yes, I think so. Just one minor clarification - I'd say we make logical judgements often about and generally from our inner world.

Making logical judgments (Te) about and from our inner world (Ni).

 

[Glordag]

Making logical judgments (Te) about and from our inner world (Ni).

Logical judgement doesn't imply Te. It could just as easily imply Ti. I'm at work at the moment, so I'll have to pull the Jung reference that directly describes this later.

Likewise, the inner world could mean any number of things. If you are describing an inner world of insights and perception, then I would agree that we are talking about Ni. If we are describing an inner world of thoughts, reason, and extrapolation then I think Ti would be more accurate.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Did you read the other post that you quoted but did not respond to?

What about this:
Wouldn't a scientist fit TiNe better by perceiving the external world intuitively and making judgments directed toward the self's observations?

Wouldn't philosopher fit NiTe better by perceiving the internal world intuitively and making judgments directed toward the external world?

 

[Glordag]

On Introverted Thinking:

Its aim is never an intellecual reconstruction of the concrete fact, but a shaping of that dark image into a luminous idea. It wants to reach reality, to see how the external fact will fit into and fill the framework of the idea, and the creative power of this thinking shows itself when it actually creates an idea which, though not inherent in the concrete fact, is yet the most suitable abstract expression of it.

But no more than extraverted thinking can wrest a sound empirical concept from concrete facts or create new ones can introverted thinking translate the initial image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical accumulation of facts paralyzes thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency to force the facts into the shape of its image, or to ignore them altogether in order to give fantasy free play.

On Extraverted Thinking:

This type of man elevates objective reality, or an objectively oriented intellectual formula, into the ruling principle not only for himself but for his whole environment. By this formula good and evil are measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. Everything that agrees with this formula is right, everything that contradicts it is wrong, and anything that passes by it indifferently is merely incidental. Because this formula seems to embody the entire meaning of life, it is made into a universal law which must be put into effect everywhere all the time, both individually and collectively.

On logic applying to both types of thinkers:

Extraverted thinking, then comes into existence only when the objective orientation predominates. This fact does nothing to alter the logic of thinking; it merely constitutes that difference between thinkers which James considered a matter of temperament.

At this point I must concede to mixing words earlier and not giving a clear picture of how the two types of thinking receive information. Jung makes it quite clear that Te both derives from and orients itself towards the objective. Ti does the same for the subjective. So, in reality, perception is not directly tied to where the judging function starts its analysis, as we both were sort of indicating. Rather, the judging function will pick and choose those things from which the perception function(s) has gathered and go from there.

In the case of NiTe, this would mean that the character would constantly perceive new ideas, thoughts, and internal insights, but focus on and orient outward from those the ones that relate to objective reality. The Ni might come up with an image of a musician on stage playing a glorious tune to millions of onlookers, while the Te would latch onto the facts - what being a musician requires, what makes somebody become a musician, what one must do to play music that is pleasing to others, etc.

In the case of TiNe, this would mean that the character would constantly perceive the unconscious details of the objective reality but focus on those things which have subjective meaning. The Ne might look upon a playground and perceive details about how the playground came about, how many trees died to create the playground and how many children have derived enjoyment from the swings, while Ti would then focus on and orient inwards the subjective elements of the information generated - what does it really mean to have a playground, how does this playground relates to me, whether or not this playground represents the human condition, etc.

I tried to come up with good examples, but I discovered that doing so is an exceedingly difficult task...

 

[Glordag]

Did you read the other post that you quoted but did not respond to?

What about this:
Wouldn't a scientist fit TiNe better by perceiving the external world intuitively and making judgments directed toward the self's observations?

Wouldn't philosopher fit NiTe better by perceiving the internal world intuitively and making judgments directed toward the external world?

I did. I actually first forgot to respond to it, and then responded and had my session time out due to my work connection being awful ): .

What difference does putting a scientist or philosopher into one or the other bracket matter? That's extremely difficult to say one way or the other anyways...I could make valid arguments both ways. In fact, I think most "career" guidance I've seen for MBTI (though I wouldn't put much stock into it) describes both as equally valid for INTP and INTJ.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

In fact, I think most "career" guidance I've seen for MBTI (though I wouldn't put much stock into it) describes both as equally valid for INTP and INTJ.

Well yeah that's the part of the problem I'm claiming MBTI has. The INTPs profession by natural tendency should be in a whole different direction than the INTJ. By MBTI their skills seem meshed together.

I agree that you could argue cases for both as it's true, since there are different types of philosophy.

But look, I am saying that INTPs are intuitive-logical thinkers and have less firm logic than INTJs who are logic-intuitive thinkers and have a firm grounding in logic.

The same MBTI observations shows that INTPs are less rigid logically and more experimental with their thoughts. Hell, it's even obvious here, so far, in my time here on this thread, I've yet to see the creations of an INTP who is logically stiff. But if you went to an INTJ forum at first glance they all seem like robots.

I don't know what else to say. There's only so much I can relay, understanding comes from within.

I don't know if I even reached anyone, I'd like to have hoped so, but I guess what I am proposing is too radical even for INTPs.

 

[Glordag]

But look, I am saying that INTPs are intuitive-logical thinkers and have less firm logic than INTJs who are logic-intuitive thinkers and have a firm grounding in logic.

The same MBTI observations shows that INTPs are less rigid logically and more experimental with their thoughts. Hell, it's even obvious here, so far, in my time here on this thread, I've yet to see the creations of an INTP who is logically stiff. But if you went to an INTJ forum at first glance they all seem like robots.

Right, I agree with this. I think the disagreement comes from whether you consider TiNe or NiTe to be the "stiff robot". I'm sticking with NiTe, and I think my quotes by Jung on introverted and extraverted thinkers illustrates that by pointing out the subjective, creative way of thinking in introverted thinkers and "rigid rules" that govern the lives of extraverted thinkers.

I don't know what else to say. There's only so much I can relay, understanding comes from within.

I don't know if I even reached anyone, I'd like to have hoped so, but I guess what I am proposing is too radical even for INTPs.

Yeah, we're very likely reaching the point of debate saturation where there aren't many other ways that we can try and drive our point home. With any luck, others will read over what we've done here and at least come up with some new insight and conclusions of their own. Thanks for being civil - on any other forum and with any other type of person this likely would have already gone to the realm of personal insults and idiocy.

 

[echoplex]

Glordag, I'd been away from this thread for awhile and remembered some things I wished I'd said/asked earlier, only to find you've echoed many of them. I think this quote sums up alot of what I was thinking...

I think the disagreement comes from whether you consider TiNe or NiTe to be the "stiff robot".

Right. I think this is all about how you characterize functions, function hierarchies, positions on that hierarchy, etc. One thing I've realized is that it really doesn't help much at all to simply know which functions a type is made of. People keep talking about Ni this and Ti that, but it's like they're talking about different things anyway (and that's even before the socionics people get involved!). Plus, people tend to inject their own biases into functions, especially if they believe they have them (whatever 'them' is, lol).

EyeSee, it seems you are saying this: soc. NiTe = mbti TiNe and soc. TiNe = mbti NiTe. However, I don't think (though I could be wrong) you're saying soc. Ni = mbti Ti, soc. Ti = mbti Ni, etc. In other words, I don't think you're talking about individual functions translating to different functions between systems, but rather function pairs translating that way. It seems your idea is that while soc. Ni may not be exactly the same as mbti Ti, the cumulative effect of soc. NiTe describes a personality that is roughly similar to the effect of mbti TiNe. What I infer from this is that you're saying soc. NiTe translates most accurately (though perhaps not perfectly) with mbti TiNe, as opposed to mbti NiTe, due to differences in function meanings between the two systems. It seems to be your advice to those trying to translate between systems to not switch the J/P, as usually advised, but to leave it alone in recognition of your interpretations.

If this is what you're saying, then I'd wonder how accurately you think it translates. Is it (in your mind) that soc. NiTe = mbti TiNe, or just ~=~, or something else? It seems to me you're comparing different personalities that you consider similar enough to call equal. One thing this brings to my mind is the call for subtypes to expand upon the 16 we have now. Perhaps such an expanded system would show the differences between configurations you consider to be the same within a 16 type format. imo, based on your interpretations, soc. NiTe is 'somewhere between' mbti NiTe and mbti TiNe, in terms of what type of personality it describes. It's a personality that doesn't accurately fit into mbti imo, though opinions will vary as to which it's closest to.

 

[Glordag]

That sounds mostly correct, echoplex. When I went back to read the descriptions of Ti, Te, Ni, and Ne as written in Psychological Types, I actually had a pretty hard time coming up with good rationale to explain why TiNe or NiTe works well for describing INTP. This is mostly because Jung speaks of the functions chiefly as standalone representations. When he describes Te, he describes it in such a way that it leaves little room for the other functions.

This is no accident, of course. Jung tackled Psychological Types to examine the personalities at the extreme, and makes little concession otherwise in his descriptions. As such, it takes some serious thought to expand his function descriptions into the dominant-auxiliary framework. I think you're right to say that a large part of our disagreement comes from combining functions in this manner.

After all, we seemed to (mostly, not completely) agree on the meaning of standalone functions. Our disagreement seems to have stemmed from what occurs when two or more functions must work together.

That said, I think it's important to realize that every type still has a dominant function, and this, in my opinion, is the pathway to determining your type. Forget about MBTI and Socionics, and read Jung's descriptions of each type. Whichever type you most identify with is very likely your dominant function.

This narrows down your MBTI/Socionics type to one of two options.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Yea everything you said is correct, echoplex. It doesn't accurately fit, of course, because they are focusing on different aspects of the character. The differences are in both the functions and function pairs, but in the former the biggest disagreement is in what Ni represents.

In Socionics, Ni itself represents the same thing that TiNe is trying to describe - detached introspection and intuitive insight, but it also is deemed the "intuition of time", being able to perceive trends from the past, present and future in its introspection.

White (introverted) intuition
All processes take place in time; they have their roots in the past and their continuation in the future. Time is the correlation between events that follow each other. This perceptual element provides information about the sequence of events and people's deeds, about their cause and effect relationship, and about participants' attitudes towards this — that is, about people's feelings that these relationships engender. Such an individual perceives information from without as feelings about the future, past, and present. For example, a sense of hurriedness, calmness, or heatedness, a sense of timeliness or prematureness, a sense of proper or improper life rhythm, a sense of impending danger or safety, anticipation, fear of being late, a sense of seeing the future, anxiety about what lies ahead, and so forth. At any given moment of one's life one has such a sense of time. One cannot live outside of time or be indifferent toward it. Thus, a certain sense of time is an integral part of the individual's psychological state at any given moment. This perceptual element defines a person's ability or inability to forecast and plan for the future, evade all sorts of troubles, avoid taking wrong actions, and learn from past experience.
When this element is in the leading position, the individual possesses innate strategic abilities and is able to choose the most optimal moments for different activities: when to give battle, if necessary, and when to avoid battle, when that would be more appropriate. Interaction in time might be interpreted as the ability to avoid collisions with objects and hence avoid objects' reflection within oneself.

In MBTI Ni is basically the reverse of Ne, filling in the missing piece. The closure seeking aspect of Ni in Socionics could be attributed to introverted judgment coupled with Ne, but otherwise it is not covered.

Glordag, yes, you could say it doesn't matter cause it all boils down to two types, but what I was getting to was that in Socionics type matters especially because intertype relations and their effects is the basis for the theory. But if you have the wrong type, the whole system would be inaccurate for you.

 

[Jedi]

I thought it was much more simple than this. Again, is not the only difference the categorization (socionics relying on the dominant function, MBTI relying on the extroverted)?

I think most INTPs, here at least, identify as being an INTP because of the TiNe function descriptions, which seem pretty universal across the board. You can argue that one who has TiNe may be called an INTJ, for socionics sake, but the fact remains that they possess TiNe.

EyeSeeCold:

Why do INTJs (NiTe) tend to be more organized externally then INTPs (TiNe)? Would not external organization rely on extroverted judgment (Te)?

Would you consider an MBTI ENTP to actually be an ENTJ?

 

[Saoshyant]

After all, we seemed to (mostly, not completely) agree on the meaning of standalone functions.

According to Socionics though, that is the main point of the disagreement. Let's not complicate things here too much. If you guys are agreeing to the same definitions, then I'd imagine your debate is going around in circles.

You brought up Jung's writings earlier, but I urge you to look one paragraph later where Jung describes the 'types'; with the header the 'introverted thinking type' and 'introverted intuition type'; and not just 'thinking' and 'intuition'. I find these paragraphs are the best for understanding.

I broke down the 'introverted thinking type' partly in the previous Socioncs thread (and why MBTI INTPs do not fit that description) and I can break down the 'introverted intuition type' if you would like as well.

Also my friends of the INTJ, INFP, and ISTJ varieties were invaluable to help me understand and self-reflect. Checking out videos on youtube was a helpful resource as well.

 

[Glordag]

According to Socionics though, that is the main point of the disagreement. Let's not complicate things here too much. If you guys are agreeing to the same definitions, then I'd imagine your debate is going around in circles.

You brought up Jung's writings earlier, but I urge you to look one paragraph later where Jung describes the 'types'; with the header the 'introverted thinking type' and 'introverted intuition type'; and not just 'thinking' and 'intuition'. I find these paragraphs are the best for understanding.

I broke down the 'introverted thinking type' partly in the previous Socioncs thread (and why MBTI INTPs do not fit that description) and I can break down the 'introverted intuition type' if you would like as well.

Also my friends of the INTJ, INFP, and ISTJ varieties were invaluable to help me understand and self-reflect. Checking out videos on youtube was a helpful resource as well.

I read through the type descriptions in the following paragraphs. I'll have to go back and look at what you wrote in the other Socionics thread. To my eyes, INTP fits with Jung's introverted thinking type rather well.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

@Jedi & others

Keeping in mind that functions have some differences this is what I noticed.

In MBTI, I tested as thinking-intuitive-sensing-feeling and got introverted P. I then tested in Socionics as thinking-intuitive-sensing-feeling and got introverted j.

I went crazy wondering how could I be a j in Socionics, when I picked the same areas of preference as in my MBTI tests. What I realized is that you have two Egos. One is your natural state, the other is your protective/backup/integrated state. In Socionics you are tested for the natural Ego. In MBTI you are tested for your integrated Ego. Introverts are forced to interact daily (school, work) which is why you may be confused about your natural Ego.

This is why Ps come out as js because the MBTI result was their second Ego. This secondary Ego is a j in Socionics, because it is the one that is called upon in interaction. Js resort to ps and ps resort to js. I have noticed this even for extraverts but you have to pay attention.

This is also why if you test P in MBTI you stay a p in Socionics - If you identify with an MBTI Ego, say TiNe, then you have to select TiNe as your integrated secondary Ego in Socionics, which makes you naturally NiTe(with Socionics function description of course).

Saoshyant is right. Having an INTJ friend does help tons. You can see their Ti logic which comes naturally, which I sometimes engage in, but it is really only situational to prove a point. ('Your logic is flawed', 'that's incorrect' etc). I don't normally talk to people that way.

 

[Glordag]

@Jedi & others

Keeping in mind that functions have some differences this is what I noticed.

In MBTI, I tested as thinking-intuitive-sensing-feeling and got introverted P. I then tested in Socionics as thinking-intuitive-sensing-feeling and got introverted j.

I went crazy wondering how could I be a j in Socionics, when I picked the same areas of preference as in my MBTI tests. What I realized is that you have two Egos. One is your natural state, the other is your protective/backup/integrated state. In Socionics you are tested for the natural Ego. In MBTI you are tested for your integrated Ego. Introverts are forced to interact daily (school, work) which is why you may be confused about your natural Ego.

This is why Ps come out as js because the MBTI result was their second Ego. This secondary Ego is a j in Socionics, because it is the one that is called upon in interaction. Js resort to ps and ps resort to js. I have noticed this even for extraverts but you have to pay attention.

This is also why if you test P in MBTI you stay a p in Socionics - If you identify with an MBTI Ego, say TiNe, then you have to select TiNe as your integrated secondary Ego in Socionics, which makes you naturally NiTe(with Socionics function description of course).

Saoshyant is right. Having an INTJ friend does help tons. You can see their Ti logic which comes naturally, which I sometimes engage in, but it is really only situational to prove a point. ('Your logic is flawed', 'that's incorrect' etc). I don't normally talk to people that way.

I feel like we need disclaimers to point out that these things are highly controversial standpoints.

I'm re-reading Jung's types and even going through and making bullet points that stick as closely to Jung's original language as possible in an attempt to really, honestly, openly, and truly figure this out. Thus far, I'm not seeing Ti as being involved whatsoever in telling someone "your logic is flawed" or "that's incorrect". Doing so would show a primary concern for external facts, which is precisely what Jung stresses Ti strays very far away from.

Also, of note, my best friend of 14 years is decidedly INTJ, as is my boss and very likely my father, so they are arguably the type that I am most familiar with.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I'm re-reading Jung's types and even going through and making bullet points that stick as closely to Jung's original language as possible in an attempt to really, honestly, openly, and truly figure this out. Thus far, I'm not seeing Ti as being involved whatsoever in telling someone "your logic is flawed" or "that's incorrect". Doing so would show a primary concern for external facts, which is precisely what Jung stresses Ti strays very far away from.
.

You missed my point, I said I engage in Ti but only to prove a point, to demonstrate something I feel I could not get across otherwise. Naturally Ti is concerned with the relationship of ideas, consistency and structure etc. When I demonstrate to others that they are wrong I point out their inconsistencies(not with respect to external information but their subjective tendencies).

Controversial? Maybe, but it can be proved right(or wrong), unlike abortion which isn't even right or wrong it's just an act.

 

[Glordag]

You missed my point, I said I engage in Ti but only to prove a point, to demonstrate something I feel I could not get across otherwise. Naturally Ti is concerned with the relationship of ideas, consistency and structure etc. When I demonstrate to others that they are wrong I point out their inconsistencies(not with respect to external information but their subjective tendencies).

I got the point, and my own still stands. When you are directing to someone that they are wrong about something, that is more likely a behavioral result of Te than Ti. It is an action aimed at an object about an external idea. It is concerned with a fact. Pointing out someone's inconsistencies is an action concerned with an object (the other person). It has little subjective importance.

I also don't know where Jung says that Ti is concerned with consistency and structure, and I think Ti is only concerned with the relationship of ideas in terms of how they relate back to the subjective person.

 

[Saoshyant]

Also, of note, my best friend of 14 years is decidedly INTJ, as is my boss and very likely my father, so they are arguably the type that I am most familiar with.

Since Jung's description of Ni-type is relatively brief, I'll paste it here with my emphasis on the words that stand out to me.

The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition. As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and -- in the case of a productive artist-the shaping of perception. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle. [p. 509]
If an artist, he reveals extraordinary, remote things in his art, which in iridescent profusion embrace both the significant and the banal, the lovely and the grotesque, the whimsical and the sublime. If not an artist, he is frequently an unappreciated genius, a great man 'gone wrong', a sort of wise simpleton, a figure for 'psychological' novels.

The form of neurosis is a compulsion-neurosis, exhibiting symptoms that are partly hypochondriacal manifestations, partly hypersensibility of the sense organs and partly compulsive ties to definite persons or other objects.

Now, these are the points that jumped out to me. It is very easy just to highlight stuff and cherry pick to prove a point, so I try to avoid that. But I guess I have to prove a prove somehow! You could argue some of the points, like the "unappreciated genius", but I believe the other points are clear from my experiences. So just to recap, I am arguing that the above is describing INTP and INFP. And I am assuming you are taking that the above would be describing INFJ and INTJ.


Jung's description of Ni-type does not go into as much detail as the Ti-type (I wonder why? ), so we unfortunately do not have too much to work with. And again with the Ti type I am arguing Jung's Ti describes the INTJ and ISTJ types. You are taking the stance of that correlating with INTP and ISTP. I'll highlight some stuff from the Ti description that stood out to me.

-often gauche
-inconsiderate and domineering
-he appears prickly, inaccessible, haughty
-teaching has, at bottom, little interest for him,
-With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending.
-will break out with venomous and personal retorts against every criticism

So basically you have to ask yourself which ones describes me best? Or which describes the INTJ best?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

@ Glordag That's from MBTIs interpretations.

What Jung said sticks in my head, the introverted thinking type thinks about something objective but it always end back with the self. I think that is Ti because I think the person's logic is flawed. To them it may not be so. I am not basing a person's logic according to some objective fact.

This is purely my own interpretation of Ti according to what Jung wrote.

 

[Glordag]

Since Jung's description of Ni-type is relatively brief, I'll paste it here with my emphasis on the words that stand out to me.



Now, these are the points that jumped out to me. It is very easy just to highlight stuff and cherry pick to prove a point, so I try to avoid that. But I guess I have to prove a prove somehow! You could argue some of the points, like the "unappreciated genius", but I believe the other points are clear from my experiences. So just to recap, I am arguing that the above is describing INTP and INFP. And I am assuming you are taking that the above would be describing INFJ and INTJ.


Jung's description of Ni-type does not go into as much detail as the Ti-type (I wonder why? ), so we unfortunately do not have too much to work with. And again with the Ti type I am arguing Jung's Ti describes the INTJ and ISTJ types. You are taking the stance of that correlating with INTP and ISTP. I'll highlight some stuff from the Ti description that stood out to me.

-often gauche
-inconsiderate and domineering
-he appears prickly, inaccessible, haughty
-teaching has, at bottom, little interest for him,
-With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending.
-will break out with venomous and personal retorts against every criticism

So basically you have to ask yourself which ones describes me best? Or which describes the INTJ best?

Right, I understand where you're coming from completely. I just finished carefully reading through the entire section on introverted thinking, and took two entire pages of bullet points (which include the very 6 bullets you mentioned above). At this point, it seems that I may just be taking the other of the two options you mentioned. I will reserve saying I am 100% decided until I carefully read over the other functions and make similar bulleted lists for Ni, Te, and Ne. At that point, I will review each bulleted list and try my best to open myself up to the possible interpretations.

I will concede that, upon glancing back at Gifts Differing, I am not totally impressed with how Myers handled her interpretation of Jung's types. Some things stick out as just plain wrong, and I'm not crazy about how she organized the information. She tackled tying the perceiving and judging functions together before she even mentioned separate introverted and extraverted types of each function. That immediately biases the reader away from what I believe Jung was trying to impart.

 

[Glordag]

@ Glordag That's from MBTIs interpretations.

No, that's from the careful review and analysis I just completed of Jung's description of the introverted thinking type. In fact, I'm now becoming rather put off by how Myers organizes and describes the functions in Gifts Differing, so I'm going to be avoiding using MBTI as a reference as much as possible from now on.

What Jung said sticks in my head, the introverted thinking type thinks about something objective but it always end back with the self.

Jung stresses a subjective origin of thoughts for Ti much more than an objective origin. I have the following bullets marked down on Ti:

• Decisions oriented by subjective data.
• Begins and ends with the subject, but may range far into reality.
• Ideas have origin in a subjective foundation.
• Will hardly go out of his way to win others' appreciation of his idea.
• Stubborn and headstrong in the pursuit of his ideas.
• Speaks with clauses to avoid being incorrect. Is scrupulous.

I think that is Ti because I think the person's logic is flawed. To them it may not be so. I am not basing a person's logic according to some objective fact.

This is purely my own interpretation of Ti according to what Jung wrote.

This shows a concern for an objective fact and another person's idea, and also demonstrates the need to work with an object in reality. Much of what we're doing in this thread is Te, though I imagine we're largely doing it at the expense of Ti. The Te seeks to demonstrate fact, while the Ti seeks to organize the facts into these separate frameworks we've developed. Unfortunately, both Te and Ti are known to produce notoriously stubborn behavior .

 

[EyeSeeCold]

No, that's from the careful review and analysis I just completed of Jung's description of the introverted thinking type.

No I meant my words were based off of MBTI interpretations.[/quote]

This shows a concern for an objective fact and another person's idea, and also demonstrates the need to work with an object in reality. Much of what we're doing in this thread is Te, though I imagine we're largely doing it at the expense of Ti. The Te seeks to demonstrate fact, while the Ti seeks to organize the facts into these separate frameworks we've developed. Unfortunately, both Te and Ti are known to produce notoriously stubborn behavior .

But see Te logic declares things are true because they are true. Such as 'all circles are 360 degrees', or 'every man is a male' or '2+2=4'. Determining that someone is right by Te would include presenting quotes, logical deduction, and basically external data, Te logic detaches from the self. Determining that someone is right by Ti would include self-truths coming from within, the self is bound to these criteria for they cannot objectively determine whether someone is right or wrong. This would be things such as 'Bob is at the party because he told me he was going to the party, therefore he is not home'. This is Ti because the fact relies on the self's information that Bob was going to the party. Bob is not at the party because he is at the party, but because I was told so.

Te: Logic holds true regardless of my existence
Ti: Logic depends on my existence

I suck at information organization.

 

[dark]

I found a Carl Jung book and started looking at his actaul definitions, very interesting stuff. I would advise someone to read atleast his definitions before taking a side, only then can you actaully understand, or maybe not.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

My INTJ friend said he'd never take sociology or psychology classes because he already knows how to do those. Why? Because that's the ego where he has his self-competence (NiTe). This is the ego that MBTI tests for. My friend is interested in mathematics and such because that is his self-development ego (TiNe).

Likewise, in my youth I scoffed at mathematics because I understood it easily. Now, with the realization that I have trouble with it, I lost my sense of self-competence, because that was how I determined my intelligence. When I took government/economics/(world) history I was the most outspoken student in class, those areas were interesting to me.

Remember this?
hxxp://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=200292

Math was pretty much my foundation. To know that I have no future in it would completely disrupt my whole image.

This is a concept of Socionics but it is a real world phenomenon. People determine their place in society by how well developed their self-competence Ego is.

For me:
NiTe - I Learn
FeSi - I Lack
SeFi - I Need
TiNe - I Know

 

[Glordag]

But see Te logic declares things are true because they are true. Such as 'all circles are 360 degrees', or 'every man is a male' or '2+2=4'. Determining that someone is right by Te would include presenting quotes, logical deduction, and basically external data, Te logic detaches from the self. Determining that someone is right by Ti would include self-truths coming from within, the self is bound to these criteria for they cannot objectively determine whether someone is right or wrong. This would be things such as 'Bob is at the party because he told me he was going to the party, therefore he is not home'. This is Ti because the fact relies on the self's information that Bob was going to the party. Bob is not at the party because he is at the party, but because I was told so.

I don't agree with your example. If someone (an object) told you that Bob (another object) was at a party (an objective piece of information), and you form a conclusion about that object (Bob is not at home), how is this subjective?

Now, if someone told you that Bob was at a party, and you jumped into "Of course Bob is at a party - he's an ESTP. They love to party. I imagine that he will probably go out to the clubs afterwards, considering that's the breeding den for people like him. Then again, types are known to surprise. Maybe as an ESTP matures, they are less likely to do these things," then I would be much more willing to call this Ti (though it's really a combination of Ti and Te).

In that example, objective piece of information was carried into the realm of your ideas, symbols, and theories. This is the effect of Ti, in my opinion.

Te: "Just the facts, ma'am!"
Ti: "Who cares about the facts if they don't mean anything?!"

Te: "Concerned with the details surrounding Bob and the party." - Who, what, when?

Ti: "Concerned with the ideas coming from and implications of Bob's being at the party." - Why, what does this mean?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I don't agree with your example. If someone (an object) told you that Bob (another object) was at a party (an objective piece of information), and you form a conclusion about that object (Bob is not at home), how is this subjective?

Ti requires one to accept information as truth.

Te does not require one to accept information as truth, because it inherently is truth.

If someone told me Bob was at a party and I agreed and believed it, I made Ti judgment because it would not be a logical contradiction for Bob to not be at the party. The person could have lied or Bob could have left or never went.

If Bob died at the party and someone told me and I didn't believe it, I again made a Ti judgment. However, the statement, Bob died at the party is a Te judgment. It does not require me to accept it, he still died at the party.

 

[Glordag]

Ti requires one to accept information as truth.

Te does not require one to accept information as truth, because it inherently is truth.

If someone told me Bob was at a party and I agreed and believed it, I made Ti judgment because it would not be a logical contradiction for Bob to not be at the party. The person could have lied or Bob could have left or never went.

What? Why does Ti require one to accept information as truth? Ti requires only an input of data, whether that's objective or subjective. Ti then takes that data and internalizes and subjectifies it.

Accepting the fact that Bob is at the party offhand could be indicative of several of the functions. I could see arguments for calling it Te, Ti, Ni, Ne, Fi, Fe, Ti, or any combination of those..

The important thing to realize is that this starts with an object. Judgment occurs based on some other number of perceptions, and this will direct the object either inwards or outwards. It's hard to pin down what happens in the middle with the judgment and perception, but if you look at the origin (the object) and where it goes, it will at least give a clue about what functions are at work.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

We are going in circles arguing semantics. I can tell we mean the same thing but are going about it in different ways.

From this point on, I will only post quotes when expressing a point.