User Tag List

First 71516171819 Last

Results 161 to 170 of 207

  1. #161
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edchidna1000 View Post

    Fi in Socionics is all about personal judgement i.e. ascertaining how one feels towards things... whether a person is bad or good, a situation positive or negative, whether the person is attracted or repulsed by something etc.

    As a result, an Fi lead is going to be very particular about their feelings towards things and strive to adhere to these feelings. I wouldn't say that they are selfish because they are very much about adhering to their feelings, only doing what they think is good and adopting a very moralistic attitude. They also have enough Fe ability to not come across as unfriendly in most situations. Usually they will politely say their disagreement and back out of the group activity if they feel negatively towards it.
    See, in Jungian theory, an introverted mindset may consider external things of course, but what make a person introverted is where the thoughts "end up". There is too much judgement here to external things. Feelings to me are not "I like X & not Z", but concepts of value; not what is good, but what does good even mean? Application of judgment to the outer world is done far less, hence not much motivation to act or express feelings. Feeling - or rational valuation - is turned inward then, constructing concepts of value, not categorizing everything into existing values. It's only when something is very close to one of these ideals or violates it that it's really "applied" at all & a connection between a concept & the object is made.

    I see a person with Fe as their second function applying their feelings more, as they direct them outwards. They do this because they experience feelings as founded on objective things.
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

  2. #162
    Senior Member edchidna1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE Fe
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by senza tema View Post
    I do both, however, the first predominates over the second by far. I'm not a misanthrope by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't believe that the unworthy deserve my care or attention. I do evaluate people in terms of how I feel about them and keep my distance from those whom I dislike or distrust. "Bad people" sounds a bit cartoonish, but yeah, I have definitely done my best to keep away from people whose behavior and actions I find distasteful. Continuing to remain in their company is difficult for me because my distaste colors everything about the situation and I have a hard time hiding it.

    I would say I'm quietly warm with the people I love and their happiness and welfare is important to me, which definitely does involve positively affecting their emotions sometimes though I'm not a natural cheerleader. I tend to adapt to people's moods rather than the other way round (though that might be e9 speaking.)
    Alright, that sounds pretty Fi-leading to me.

    How would you say you are with coercion by yourself or others? Are you good at pushing people to do things you think right? Are you more about just trying to see the good in others and avoid aggressive conflicts, getting trodden on as a result? Are you more of a martyr or an avenger?
    Founder and President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  3. #163
    Senior Member edchidna1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE Fe
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    I actually prefer Enneagram in terms of that. I mean, if Socionics axioms were less unfounded, more closely connected to reality in a way, then I would be fine with a derived system from such axioms.

    Anyway, what I originally meant by Socionics structure being no better than the Enneagram one, it was more about how the basic axioms in Socionics do not lead to such a comprehensive theory on their own. Meaning, correlations do possibly get confused with causation in Socionics. Let me know if you disagree about that but then do please show me how you can derive everything from the axioms without adding observations. Afaik even the Reinin dichotomies came from observation. Or Gulenko's cognitive styles, they also originate from observation. And let's not even talk about Reinin or Gulenko but stick with the definitions of functions and then derivation of Model-A from that. I see several logical jumps there too, adding in stuff that isn't directly derived from the definitions in a strict sense. Do note that associations in general are not considered logical by me.
    I would agree that there are some pretty big jumps, especially in some of the Reinin dichotomies which I myself do not endorse.

    If you look at the basics leading up to Model A, I would say its a mixture of deduction and addition of pretty reasonable factors.

    For instance, if we look at any IM element, we can see that it is composed and can be explained entirely by dichotomies...

    Extroverted Sensation for instance... Extroverted, Irrational, Static, Involved and External. If you understand each of the dichotomies, you understand Se (the information it metabolises). It is deduced.

    Now an example of a reasonable addition is the formulation of Model A, the eight functions that the IM elements slot into. For instance it is reasonable to posit that a person values/subdues and is strong at/weak at metabolising a certain kind of information and that valuing and strength are different qualities and thus different dichotomies. As a result, it is reasonable to form the four blocks that make up Model A

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    It doesn't mean serotonin has nothing to do with any of that but clearly it's more complex than just a direct causal link and that's a problem for me yep I prefer seeing the whole chain of causations...
    Pretty much what I'm currently going over in my Metaphysics of Science seminar.


    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    I have never seen an explanation for that one, it just seems to build on common sense logic or something. Not that Socionics does not make that mistake in places. (It does.)

    The sites I linked to were just examples to show some of the structures Enneagram theory has, though the Horney one is definitely not that mainstream .
    Well, I still wouldn't say it is a reasonable addition like what I defined above.

    Mmm... a structure can be attributed but I'd prefer the structure to be deliberate from the beginning.

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    I see a problem here. When you attempt to classify information as e.g. objective or personal, it will no longer be just direct low level analysis of information in a basic sense but it will be involving higher level concepts that relate more to the complex workings of a person. We might as well start classifying information in the same complex way as we classify people etc.
    Well, it's really two dichotomies: Detached/Involved and External/Internal.
    Logic would be Detached and External while Ethics would be Involved and Internal. This might be a better way of explaining it. I should probably have included these in the first article, thinking about it.

    It is a reasonable addition to say that information is either Internal or External... either originating within oneself (ideas and sentiments) or from the world around us (sensations and structures).

    It is a reasonable addition that information is either directly, viscerally involved in our human experience (sensations and sentiments) or distanced from it (ideas and structures)

    [QUOTE=valaki;2226840]
    Looking at it from another side, there are dichotomies for the information aspects listed here http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...mation_element

    They are nice and basic, satisfying my requirement above. Now, you can build more than just 8 information aspects from those, no? Why are there only 8?[/QUOTES]

    The problem is that not all dichotomy combinations are possible... for instance... How can something be Involved and External i.e. Sensation and also Rational? and then, how can something be Extroverted and Irrational i.e. Ep but Dynamic?

    Could we perhaps try and think of a kind of Sensation that is Rational? Isn't it the point that physical experience is perceiving the environment rather than making a judgement on it?

    Can we think of Ep working dynamically? Isn't it the point that this temperament jumps suddenly from activity to activity rather than subtlely flowing from one thing into the next?

    I would argue that dichotomies like Static/Dynamic are more sufficient than necessary though.

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Uh and sure enough, another big jump is how we go from information aspects to supposedly existing processing modules in the brain, so-called information elements
    Not quite information elements but Elements of Information Metabolism... once we know that there are eight aspects of information, we need eight sorts of metabolising that information i.e. how a person approaches that information, acting on it and integrating it. It's once again a reasonable addition.

    Now we could alternatively say that there is just one Metabolising engine that performs eight different jobs at varying levels of efficiency... it would amount to the same result really. Separating it into eight separate things helps explanation in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Okay. Where do you see issues with reconciling it with the other stuff about Enneagram?
    Well, they seem to be using very similar terminologies to explain rather different things. I'm not entirely sure if they can cooperate or will contradict. I would be more at ease if someone presented both sets of dichotomies together and showed them in a working whole.


    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Yet, none of it makes sense to me. O_o
    I think it will be helpful for you to see Fi in action... here is a portrayal of a pretty famous ESI. See how Fi judgements are put across with a steely Se tenacity.




    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    I see what you mean but I don't think it's a good idea to pre-determine number of factors in this way.
    Well, I'm always open to more reasonable additions if people have suggestions. A theory shouldn't be fixed forever if it wants to remain accurate.


    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Btw... Big Five theory actually isn't about just 5 traits, it's just the five ones at the top of all analysed personality traits structured in a way.
    Well, 30 facets generalised under 5 traits.


    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    You could still add more types without changing the currently existing integration/disintegration lines, just make a new group of the new types... like 3-6-9 is a separate group from the other 6 types.
    It kinda screws up integration/disintegration though, doesn't it?
    Founder and President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  4. #164
    011235813
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edchidna1000 View Post
    Alright, that sounds pretty Fi-leading to me.

    How would you say you are with coercion by yourself or others? Are you good at pushing people to do things you think right? Are you more about just trying to see the good in others and avoid aggressive conflicts, getting trodden on as a result? Are you more of a martyr or an avenger?
    My unsatisfactory answer to this set of questions is that I'm kinda middle of the road on all these issues. First of all: coercion. What do you actually mean by this? I'm generally pretty compliant and I can be a pushover sometimes--because I don't like seeing people upset or in trouble or super stressed and don't like turning down pleas for help (though I do admit that I want at least some appreciation in return). However, I don't react well to bullying and I will not tolerate being spoken to or treated with disrespect.

    I've been called sweet and compliant by some people and stern and resolute by others. My boss has said that my manner can come off as a little imperious (which I find hilarious, because she is extremely bossy herself). On the other hand, in my own head, I'm keeping track of what I'm standing my ground on and what I'm ceding and I feel extremely resentful internally if I begin to feel like too much of a pushover in terms of giving way to people.

    In terms of pushing people to do the right thing, I've had mixed results. Some people acknowledge that I've made them reconsider their course of action out of guilt while others have flounced and told me that I'm judgy and sanctimonious and proceeded to be obnoxious. I prefer to cut off close emotional dealings with the latter category if the transgressions are severe, because I can't trust them anymore and I know we'll hit another ethical crossroads sooner or later and they'll disappoint me again. Sometimes I hold out hope but I'm still worried that it's futile.

    Leading off of that point, it's frustrating for me when those very people whom I find unbearably shady have other stellar qualities because my distaste for the bad stuff leaves me unable to wholeheartedly enjoy the good, even when it's luminous and beautiful. I've tried to separate the two and judge different qualities separately in my mind but it just doesn't work. It's actually kinda painful. :/

    I do prefer to stay away from aggressive conflicts though I'm maybe a tad bit scrappier than the typical e9 description would suggest. Mostly because I can't self censor when I'm really unhappy about something and end up making a big deal out of it. I'm really quite contained on the whole though.

    The word 'martyr' sends chills down my spine. I prefer the sound of avenger, but I'm not really bad ass enough. I find revenge tales compelling and sympathize with characters who seek revenge, but I also believe to some extent in pacific Buddhist ways and think forgiveness is a profound virtue.
    Last edited by 011235813; 01-31-2014 at 11:36 PM.

  5. #165
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by senza tema View Post
    My unsatisfactory answer to this set of questions is that I'm kinda middle of the road on all these issues. (...)
    this post and another post of yours in this thread sound like ESI > EII, to me anyway.

    I can assure you of one thing, your Fi is alien to me :P In my mind no question that you're strong in valued Fi...

  6. #166
    011235813
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    this post and another post of yours in this thread sound like ESI > EII, to me anyway.

    I can assure you of one thing, your Fi is alien to me :P In my mind no question that you're strong in valued Fi...
    Thanks for the input.

    What do you mean about Fi being alien?

  7. #167
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edchidna1000 View Post
    I would agree that there are some pretty big jumps, especially in some of the Reinin dichotomies which I myself do not endorse.
    Glad we agree then to some extent I think I am more sensitive to "smaller" jumps than you, though.


    If you look at the basics leading up to Model A, I would say its a mixture of deduction and addition of pretty reasonable factors.
    To me "pretty reasonable" isn't good enough.


    For instance, if we look at any IM element, we can see that it is composed and can be explained entirely by dichotomies...

    Extroverted Sensation for instance... Extroverted, Irrational, Static, Involved and External. If you understand each of the dichotomies, you understand Se (the information it metabolises). It is deduced.
    Uh, no, not all of the stuff that's generally attributed to Se is completely deduced by those. If you disagree, do please explicitly explain everything attributed to Se by these dichotomies.

    E.g.: "Information about spatial territory, ownership, and influence", "one is powerful or not", etc...


    Now an example of a reasonable addition is the formulation of Model A, the eight functions that the IM elements slot into. For instance it is reasonable to posit that a person values/subdues and is strong at/weak at metabolising a certain kind of information and that valuing and strength are different qualities and thus different dichotomies. As a result, it is reasonable to form the four blocks that make up Model A
    Oh that word "reasonable"


    Pretty much what I'm currently going over in my Metaphysics of Science seminar.
    Oh?


    Well, I still wouldn't say it is a reasonable addition like what I defined above.

    Mmm... a structure can be attributed but I'd prefer the structure to be deliberate from the beginning.
    By deliberate structure from the beginning, you mean building up the whole theory on an initial idea of structure right? That's pretty deductive too, I guess my thinking is different, I'm a looot more inductive.


    Well, it's really two dichotomies: Detached/Involved and External/Internal.
    Logic would be Detached and External while Ethics would be Involved and Internal. This might be a better way of explaining it. I should probably have included these in the first article, thinking about it.

    It is a reasonable addition to say that information is either Internal or External... either originating within oneself (ideas and sentiments) or from the world around us (sensations and structures).

    It is a reasonable addition that information is either directly, viscerally involved in our human experience (sensations and sentiments) or distanced from it (ideas and structures)
    That does sound better


    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Looking at it from another side, there are dichotomies for the information aspects listed here http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...mation_element

    They are nice and basic, satisfying my requirement above. Now, you can build more than just 8 information aspects from those, no? Why are there only 8?
    The problem is that not all dichotomy combinations are possible... for instance... How can something be Involved and External i.e. Sensation and also Rational? and then, how can something be Extroverted and Irrational i.e. Ep but Dynamic?

    Could we perhaps try and think of a kind of Sensation that is Rational? Isn't it the point that physical experience is perceiving the environment rather than making a judgement on it?

    Can we think of Ep working dynamically? Isn't it the point that this temperament jumps suddenly from activity to activity rather than subtlely flowing from one thing into the next?
    I don't actually see a problem with Extroverted + Irrational + Dynamic... just don't call it EP then

    I mean I don't logically see a problem, but don't ask me to make up a new temperament, I'll leave that to you Ne types :P


    I would argue that dichotomies like Static/Dynamic are more sufficient than necessary though.
    What do you mean by more sufficient but not necessary? :o


    Not quite information elements but Elements of Information Metabolism... once we know that there are eight aspects of information, we need eight sorts of metabolising that information i.e. how a person approaches that information, acting on it and integrating it. It's once again a reasonable addition.
    But how's that working in reality? To me this is a pretty big jump.

    I mean the idea of different thinking processes is fine and great but I'm not quite sure that they are divided by information aspects in such a sense. After all what your brain gets as raw input has nothing to do with our high level concept of these "information aspects". It's quite easily possible that the organization and processing of the data is done differently. I once read that these socionics information aspects are believed by some to be actually out there in the world in a sense. Well I would disagree on that.


    Well, they seem to be using very similar terminologies to explain rather different things. I'm not entirely sure if they can cooperate or will contradict. I would be more at ease if someone presented both sets of dichotomies together and showed them in a working whole.
    Oh well terminology is one thing :p

    You are right though about the "working whole"


    I think it will be helpful for you to see Fi in action... here is a portrayal of a pretty famous ESI. See how Fi judgements are put across with a steely Se tenacity.
    Well thanks for that link :p


    Well, I'm always open to more reasonable additions if people have suggestions. A theory shouldn't be fixed forever if it wants to remain accurate.
    Well said


    It kinda screws up integration/disintegration though, doesn't it?
    No, say, we add types 10 11 and 12 and then the integration/disintegration lines are like this, ...10->11->12->10...

    (Just like with the 3-6-9 group being separate from the other 6 types.)

    That doesn't fuck up the already existing ones :P

  8. #168
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by senza tema View Post
    Thanks for the input.

    What do you mean about Fi being alien?
    Np

    Fi: well, a lot of the things you said in post #164, are things that I just don't do, I don't at all focus on it etc. All these words like "transgressions" and "ethical crossroads", are not things I deal with. :p In general I don't do this judgement thing about character that you elaborated so much about. And especially the part that your partially "bad" perception of someone's character will ruin everything with them, I can't imagine myself focusing on that sort of stuff. Or, looking at the positive side of your judgements now, "luminous and beautiful" aren't words I ever use to think of someone. All in all, completely foreign way of thinking to me. Oh and "interpersonal/psychological distance", that too, if you get what I mean.

    You could ask then how do I view people? Well pretty impersonally most of the time. I look at someone and I just see the external part of them. If I know someone more deeply, I will know about their behaviours, thoughts, opinions, things they like or not, and so on, but I don't try to put some concept of their personality into words. It's more vague than that and more instinctual. I have of course called people by "names" before but that's in the moment and not fixed/static at all and it's usually done out of a strong emotion. Also, often I just focus on the enjoyment of stuff when spending time together, instead of focusing on the other person as a character or whatever the hell . Yes that does come with the side effect that I'm not selective about people in terms of such personal judgements. I'm sometimes selective to a degree but I base that on other criteria. And a lot of the time not discerning at all (not selective). Handling everyone in the same impersonal fashion is more my thing. That doesn't mean I'm not nice or kind or anything, though.

    I'm pretty sure that what I just described now is alien to you. :P

  9. #169
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    @edchidna1000

    did you see post #160?


    Another thing; I saw this from you in a post "You are also understated in physical movement which would point to Controlled movement and your manner of communication lacks in emotional variation, being quite monotone, indicating Sober communication".

    What's this "Sober communication" thing? Another system of yours?

  10. #170
    011235813
    Guest

    Default

    @edchidna1000: I'm curious about where you're getting the clumsy, controlled, delicate and tough stuff from. Because it seems instinctively true to me.

Similar Threads

  1. Find Out Your MBTI Type [ProProfs]
    By Nørrsken in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 08-21-2017, 06:17 AM
  2. Easy Function Descriptions! Totally legit! Figure out your true type! etc.
    By Jeremy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 12-09-2016, 07:30 PM
  3. Is there a test you can do to find out your friends type?
    By Thinkaboutit in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-03-2010, 03:58 PM
  4. A simple way to figure out your Enneagram type
    By evilrobot in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-29-2010, 06:50 PM
  5. How did you find out your type?
    By Economica in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-15-2007, 03:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO