User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 24

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Yeah, I don't care that much about full consensus, nor coming up with something that is empirically proven in any hard sense.

    I have a naturally very skeptical mind, and, if something manages to pass those gates, there's likely something to it.

    Where hard empiricism can be had, awesome; where it cannot, I will use my mind's abilities.

    Being able to think correctly is all one really needs then. And I have that.
    Alright we think differently about the need for evidence and consensus. Of course it also depends on the objective. When one just theorizes for their own enjoyment a.k.a mental masturbation then none of that's very important; but when a theory is made for the public, I think these things are important.


    That sounds great and all, and in Ti's ideal form, that's how it would look, but, in practice, I think it's a load of bs.

    The subjective factor is extremely inherent in much of Ti thinking.

    In her words, "the midwife" is very much present.
    So for some reason you see Ti as having a personal self involved? Why?

    Ti is subjective in terms of how the things it sees or makes up are not tangible, true. What it deals with is an intangible "map" that's not visible like an actual object is. But this doesn't mean that in this process of seeing it there would have to be a personal self.

    It's really impersonal anyway, you know, repressing F and all that feely crap.

    (Of course that map isn't necessarily perfect so then it should be perfected over time if possible. As long as one's not overly attached to their ideas.)

    Btw in socionics the subjective factor is explained as a focus on interrelationships (fields). This then again doesn't have to involve a personal approach.


    @Alea_iacta_est, when are you going to attempt a write up on Ti/Te (and of course Fi/Fe)? And what do you think about a need for consensus? And relying on some sort of evidence; e.g. making up a test that measures on many people how function aspects tend to go together. Etc. I'm not saying this approach would be hard science but perhaps more fruitful than just drawing up the umpteenth theory from speculation.

  2. #12
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Alright we think differently about the need for evidence and consensus. Of course it also depends on the objective. When one just theorizes for their own enjoyment a.k.a mental masturbation then none of that's very important; but when a theory is made for the public, I think these things are important.
    I don't theorize simply for my own enjoyment.

    I theorize in order to try to be in accord with the truth, and in order to try to make sense of myself and the world.

    To the extent that others feel they benefit from my insights, I am happy to share them.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    So for some reason you see Ti as having a personal self involved? Why?
    Yes.

    Because there is a personal self involved.

    Functions do not operate outside of a person's mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Ti is subjective in terms of how the things it sees or makes up are not tangible, true. What it deals with is an intangible "map" that's not visible like an actual object is. But this doesn't mean that in this process of seeing it there would have to be a personal self.
    I see this as a bunch of meaningless words.

    And I really don't find this route that interesting to go down.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    It's really impersonal anyway, you know, repressing Fe and all that feely crap.
    It's more personal than Te.

    That's the point.

    And by "personal s... once again, I just don't even find this route interesting to go down.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    (Of course that map isn't necessarily perfect so then it should be perfected over time if possible.
    In fact, it's usually, in fact, ESSENTIALLY ALWAYS, imperfect.

    But goddamn those Ti users rarely seem to ever believe that.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    As long as one's not overly attached to their ideas.)
    Yes, and this is the problem.

    Far too often they are.

    Those who aren't, I'm usually ok with.

    Unless they have some other problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Btw in socionics the subjective factor is explained as a focus on interrelationships (fields). This then again doesn't have to involve a personal approach.
    Once again, a bunch of bullshit gobbledegook.

    In fact, way worse this time. Now it's four, not just one.

    "Subjective factor" "focus on interrelationships" "fields" "personal approach"

    All sliding signifiers, and I really don't give a shit about going into them.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    @Alea_iacta_est, when are you going to attempt a write up on Ti/Te (and of course Fi/Fe)? And what do you think about a need for consensus? And relying on some sort of evidence; e.g. making up a test that measures on many people how function aspects tend to go together. Etc. I'm not saying this approach would be hard science but perhaps more fruitful than just drawing up the umpteenth theory from speculation.
    Umpteenth theory from speculation vs umpteenth test from speculation.

    Who really gives a crap.

    Tests do not impress me.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    @Zarathustra

    Heh now I don't know how you got into nitpicking everything I said. That on its own isn't an issue and is actually absurdly funny, you got some serious Ti allergy :P but where I don't find this a very productive use of my time, I will cut this discussion short except if there's actually a point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I don't theorize simply for my own enjoyment.

    I theorize in order to try to be in accord with the truth, and in order to try to make sense of myself and the world.
    Hard to stumble upon truth without evidence. But, I realize we have a different approach here. No need to argue over that then, no objective to achieve with the argument.


    Functions do not operate outside of a person's mind.
    No but as long as we assume there's an actual world that exists - I'm no solipsist myself - then we are in interaction with that world and whatever we discover about it should be directly relevant to it if it's supposed to be functional. Our brains evolved to be able to evaluate the environment in ways that do actually work.

    So yes there's a reason that mathematics can be applied for the real world. It's an association often made that Ti is a lot like math.

    Sure it is entirely possible that the world doesn't just work by certain rules but so far this assumption works pretty well in practice.

    Oh and that's what the Lenore Thomson quote talks about too. E.g. here: "The Idea of the whole must become real, and it must be necessitated by the nature of the parts. What "you" create must already be there, as form latent within the material, already yearning to exist.")

    To me it's one of the reasons why science exists. I know some people like to associate science with Te users but I really don't see it that way. I mean, sure it can be approached in a Te way but just as much in a Ti way.


    I see this as a bunch of meaningless words.
    OK, meaningless to you personally, fine. I don't know why that is though. You are an introvert so I thought it would actually make sense to you, I was just talking about abstracting away stuff from objects. *shrug*


    It's more personal than Te.
    A lot less personal than Fi.

    We are talking about an introverted function here and I'm trying to explain how while something is introverted it doesn't have to be entirely personal.

    I guess you, as a Fi user, find that hard to imagine but just because you find something hard to imagine, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    Here's an example of how it's not as personal as Fi: "Whether people find the way the parts want to arrange themselves into a harmonious whole offensive, whether you find it pleasant or painful, whether you personally like it or not--you see these as distractions." ...Yes again Lenore Thomson

    This doesn't mean that the Ti user can't feel e.g. a sense of wonder at how something works for example. When describing Ti, Augusta calls these "logical feelings" actually. It's a pretty funny name for it but it's a good one.

    (And I know Lenore is MBTI-ish and Augusta is socionics but I see the two talking about the same thing in this case.)

    Where it's more personal than Te is I suppose the willingness to rely on own logic to crack/figure out how something works, for example. Instead of relying on external opinion like I suppose Te does.

    Anyway... If you're honestly interested in how it's possible for a Ji function to be less personal than your Fi, I'm glad to try and explain it more.


    In fact, it's usually, in fact, ESSENTIALLY ALWAYS, imperfect.

    But goddamn those Ti users rarely seem to ever believe that.
    There is nothing human that is perfect. Including Ti, including Fi, including Te, etc.

    This is trivia.

    Science is also all about it, that no models are ever perfect. This scientific approach is pretty nice IMO.


    Yes, and this is the problem.

    Far too often they are.
    That's actually not dependent on type. Again, trivia, not up for discussion. And it's one of the bad stereotypes that you previously expressed the wish to get rid of.


    Once again, a bunch of bullshit gobbledegook.

    In fact, way worse this time. Now it's four, not just one.

    "Subjective factor" "focus on interrelationships" "fields" "personal approach"

    All sliding signifiers, and I really don't give a shit about going into them.
    I was using terms from the theories being discussed in this topic.

    The terms "interrelationships" and "fields" come from socionics. You certainly don't need to delve into these expressions but you expressed a wish for unifying the best parts of MBTI, socionics, etc. and to do that effectively, you'd do best if you familiarized yourself with socionics terminology and what it's all supposed to mean inside the system.

    The term "subjective factor" is jungian and you yourself used this expression originally. So you actually used "bullshit gobbledegook".

    Oh and this is a Ti aspect, the inclination to notice such inconsistencies.


    Umpteenth theory from speculation vs umpteenth test from speculation.

    Who really gives a crap.

    Tests do not impress me.
    I was actually addressing that part of my post to Alea_iacta_est. It was already clear to me that your approach is very different from what I was discussing in that part of my post and therefore it wasn't addressed to you.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    @Alea_iacta_est, when are you going to attempt a write up on Ti/Te (and of course Fi/Fe)? And what do you think about a need for consensus? And relying on some sort of evidence; e.g. making up a test that measures on many people how function aspects tend to go together. Etc. I'm not saying this approach would be hard science but perhaps more fruitful than just drawing up the umpteenth theory from speculation.
    I'm an irrational type, I do things when I feel like it. Add that to the fact that I have discovered how entrancing the show House is after some searching on Netflix, and, well, I'll get around to doing those eventually. It's not even a matter of compiling information, which is primarily already figured out in my head, its a matter of willing myself to type it out and translate it from idiosyncratic and partial visual understanding to the lexical sphere.

    A need for consensus is ultimately paramount, hence me saying at the beginning of this thread that this should be a thread of editing and redefining based on the most opinions and theories out there. Multiple view-points always provides the clearer picture, unless of course the astronomical probability that one of the less favored theories and opinions are, in fact, correct.

    It's entirely possible to build a test, but it's not entirely feasible due to the obscurity of Socionics in the United States (where the majority of the forum users allot from) and the lack of resources and time devotion.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    I'm an irrational type, I do things when I feel like it. Add that to the fact that I have discovered how entrancing the show House is after some searching on Netflix, and, well, I'll get around to doing those eventually. It's not even a matter of compiling information, which is primarily already figured out in my head, its a matter of willing myself to type it out and translate it from idiosyncratic and partial visual understanding to the lexical sphere.

    A need for consensus is ultimately paramount, hence me saying at the beginning of this thread that this should be a thread of editing and redefining based on the most opinions and theories out there. Multiple view-points always provides the clearer picture, unless of course the astronomical probability that one of the less favored theories and opinions are, in fact, correct.

    It's entirely possible to build a test, but it's not entirely feasible due to the obscurity of Socionics in the United States (where the majority of the forum users allot from) and the lack of resources and time devotion.
    Well haha enjoy your show. I know very well how much pita it can be putting shit into words.

    Yeah, I know it requires time to do and evaluate such tests. I was just asking to see your objective more clearly.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Well haha enjoy your show. I know very well how much pita it can be putting shit into words.

    Yeah, I know it requires time to do and evaluate such tests. I was just asking to see your objective more clearly.
    The objective is to compile everyone's opinions in one place, and come to terms with what everyone can agree on and leave the controversial details to be subjected to debate to discern who is closer to the truth.

    Also, spoiler alert, absorbs mechanical/technical/statistical/empirical/anything related to efficiency/et alia information from objects in the environment or the environment itself to be processed and then applied exactly how it was observed in the environment at a later time, while projects logical principles onto the environment and objects within it and subjects the environment to its own theoretical construct of how the external environment should be working according to its framework based on rationalism.

    For those of you picking up the pattern, I'm sure you can figure out what the Feeling Functions might entail.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    The objective is to compile everyone's opinions in one place, and come to terms with what everyone can agree on and leave the controversial details to be subjected to debate to discern who is closer to the truth.
    Yeah, just wanted to know how you wanted to go about finding a consensus. Just simply debating stuff in this thread then? Okay.


    Also, spoiler alert, absorbs mechanical/technical/statistical/empirical/anything related to efficiency/et alia information from objects in the environment or the environment itself to be processed and then applied exactly how it was observed in the environment at a later time, while projects logical principles onto the environment and objects within it and subjects the environment to its own theoretical construct of how the external environment should be working according to its framework based on rationalism.
    That about sounds like leading

    Btw, @edchidna1000 should also check out this thread

  8. #18
    Chaser of Light Dr Mobius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sp/sx
    Posts
    815

    Default

    @Alea_iacta_est In regards to your definition of Si most of it was stock standard and I recognised the addendum as your own conjecture, but the part about Si as internalised power. I was wondering as to whether you could point me towards your sources? I can’t remember seeing socionics Si described as such before.
    “Brighter, now brighter, pay no mind to those who squint, burn with all your heat.”

  9. #19
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Mobius View Post
    @Alea_iacta_est In regards to your definition of Si most of it was stock standard and I recognised the addendum as your own conjecture, but the part about Si as internalised power. I was wondering as to whether you could point me towards your sources? I can’t remember seeing socionics Si described as such before.
    That's primarily because it hasn't been described as such before due to the fact that Socionics sees the functions as subservient to the intertype-relation system instead of exploring them further, instead taking specific information from the functions and rolling with those rather than the generalized concept in order to increase the efficiency of typing. Hence I cannot point to any known source, but I find it rather insightful and perhaps a deeper look into the glossed-over IM element.

    If you disagree, speak your mind so that we don't stray from the path of exploring the IM elements. The more voices, the merrier, and the more accurate probability-wise.

  10. #20
    Stansmith
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by senza tema View Post
    This is great for people who are coming into this stuff from a purely socionics point of view. However, given the user base here, the first introduction that people would have had to these concepts would be the more MBTI-influenced version of cognitive functions, where Si = recognition and appreciation of familiar sensations and Se = observation and aesthetic appreciation of the external environment (hence all the stuff about SP artists).

    The latter, especially, doesn't immediately square up well with Socionics Se.

    I don't really know which direction you want this thread to go though, so apologies if this is inane or off topic.
    It's funny how that works.

    MBTI SP = Freespirited hedonist, enjoying bonfires. This is one popular stereotype, it varies.
    Socionics Se = Practical, authoritative, materialistic, no bullsh-t, making things happen.

    The former attitude is more likely to be associated with a Si-seeking intuitive (ENFp or ENTp) than a Se-base or LSI, for example. I think it's accurate though. Socionics Se does a more satisfying job at describing some of the personalities I've witnessed in action than any Myers-briggs description, particularly in the case of ESI--Se-subtype especially. What would be the MBTI equivalent of that? SFJs? I previously had a difficult time typing one friend of mine in MBTI, yet ESI-Se 'sums her up' perfectly.


    Edit: I apologize if I'm deviating from the original intent of the thread. Which I have a feeling I am.

Similar Threads

  1. The Never Ending Thread
    By ygolo in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-20-2016, 04:50 PM
  2. The lame jokes thread
    By Sahara in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 211
    Last Post: 05-27-2015, 03:29 AM
  3. Replies: 55
    Last Post: 01-10-2014, 05:35 PM
  4. The Entertain Niffer Thread
    By niffer in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 07-04-2007, 02:29 AM

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