Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 05/03/2006, 07:35 PM
time is being time is being is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 108
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

(i think it important to read previous posts before reading this one if you have not done so)

socionics has validity only in so far as it maintains its relation to jungian and analytical psychology. the idea of intuition being wholeness is jungian.

what was jung speaking about when he used the term wholeness?

he was speaking about the "comprehensibility of profound interrelations". he was speaking of mysticism. jung was undeniably a student of mysticism.

wholeness is a great term, and one can only see wholeness through the intuition, not through any other function. thinking function, for example, splits and divides and distances.

jung borrowed the four levels of interpretation from mystical hermeneutics. first level is sense, then feeling, then thinking, then intuition being the highest. he simply applied the four levels to people by saying that each person interprets reality using a dominant function. (note that mystical hermeneutics uses slightly different terms, they being: literal, allegorical, moral, and ultimately, anagogical)

so when i say that intuition is understanding, i am also saying that the other functions do not understand because the other functions cannot apprehend wholeness. i am using "understanding" in a very strict way.

the quote of einstein and his religious sense in a previous post is none other than the apprehension of wholeness. einstein: "To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is." cognition of the unity of existence has and always will be the domain of mysticism, i.e. god.
http://www.religiousworlds.com/mystic/define.html

immediate cognition is intuition, while the thinking function always requires something else to understand what is before it. thinking relies on causality and if-then. it does not apprehend directly. it also relies on memory. it cannot solve problems that it has never seen before, or solve problems that it does not have a construct or principle in which to approach a problem. a trained monkey can do calculus problems, only a human can discover calculus.

i hope i am being clear. getting feedback from self selected intelligent people is very helpful.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 05/03/2006, 10:07 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

I see your point and I recognise its validity. I would say that the understanding applicable to intuition would be "profound understanding" which would be transferred to you in a form of feeling of profound understanding. Intuition is impossible to communicate with words. It needs to be experienced. Profound understanding can happen chaotically or it can be reached via altered states of consciousness. For example a person experiencing such profound understanding may perfectly well feel hot and cold at the same time. Truly intuitive creations usually look like many things and yet like nothing you have seen before.

Logic is also an understanding used in terms of the capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination. If I told you that you have to wind a mechanical toy up to set it in motion this would be Te information. If you asked me why you need to wind it up, this would be Ti question. If I told you because it would not go if you don't wind it up I would not be giving you Ti answer. But if I told you that there is a spring inside the toy that pushes gears that turn the wheels and make the toy move and you need to wind the spring up to set the gears in motion, I would be giving you Ti answer. You would understand two things, that to make the toy move you need to wind it up and why you need to wind the toy up to make it move.

Also it looks like you put too much trust into intuition. On one hand intuition is your connection to the spiritual realm and on the other hand it is just a simple supercomputer that is able to shift through many possibilities immediately and it can and sometimes does give misleading outputs. There is no mysticism in this because your intuition is as good as the information it is fed with.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 06/03/2006, 04:23 PM
time is being time is being is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 108
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

would you agree that intelligence belongs to inuition, or am i being too strict? for example, the primary sensor with secondary thinking has belief but not intelligence?

i want to calrify that it seems to me that the sensing function does not hold beliefs, but the concreteness of the present is all it needs. it has no drive or need for belief either.

is it possible for the thinking function to be something other than belief? and if so how? (science often falls into this category as evidenced by its refusal to produce "laws" in place of "theory")

quote: "thinking relies on causality and if-then. it does not apprehend directly. it also relies on memory. it cannot solve problems that it has never seen before, or solve problems that it does not have a construct or principle in which to approach a problem"


quote: "You would understand two things, that to make the toy move you need to wind it up and why you need to wind the toy up to make it move."

am i wrong to place more value in understanding the toy in itself rather than causalities? (thinking function does aid in understanding/intelligence but does not apprehend wholeness.)

and i hope i am not beating a dead horse. hopefully someone else takes interest.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06/03/2006, 05:18 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

I think you might be right about intelligence and intuition. I would say that intelligence has got to be a combination of thinking and intuition which would provide a good platform for solving problems and figuring stuff out. Thinking in this case would be like breaks on a train of intuition. With very little or non-existing thinking, intuition is likely to start accepting all sorts of beliefs uncontrollably and easily. Thinking is the one thing that is able to watch if this or that belief is making sense. Truly intelligent person would have a complete arsenal of thinking and intuition at their disposal, however someone with domineering intuition might not have a luxury of rational evaluation offered by logic and therefore would be literally lacking intelligence and be more susceptible to believe without analysing the data.

Quote:
Originally posted by time is being:
am i wrong to place more value in understanding the toy in itself rather than causalities? (thinking function does aid in understanding/intelligence but does not apprehend wholeness.)
Intuition will tell you what it is (it's a toy) and what its purpose (it meant to entertain). Logic would tell you how and why this toy is meant to entertain.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07/03/2006, 08:32 AM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Quote:
Originally posted by SG:
Logic is also an understanding used in terms of the capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination. If I told you that you have to wind a mechanical toy up to set it in motion this would be Te information. If you asked me why you need to wind it up, this would be Ti question. If I told you because it would not go if you don't wind it up I would not be giving you Ti answer. But if I told you that there is a spring inside the toy that pushes gears that turn the wheels and make the toy move and you need to wind the spring up to set the gears in motion, I would be giving you Ti answer. You would understand two things, that to make the toy move you need to wind it up and why you need to wind the toy up to make it move.
The above description sums up my understanding of Ti very well:

Ti is an analytical "cause and effect"-tool from which also Te information can be deduced.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07/03/2006, 11:49 AM
jsb'07's Avatar
jsb'07 jsb'07 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 160
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

I don't think you can derivate what functions are from one single function. Just type some people and do some research how functions look like in real life.

If IQ is related to NT, then is EQ related to NF? You see how vicious the modern psychology is? They don't know even by them selfs what they are talking about with their theorys. But still they like to help the people ending up growing cats into dogs and dogs into cats.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07/03/2006, 02:15 PM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Quote:
Originally posted by september83:
I don't think you can derivate what functions are from one single function.
Me neither...
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 07/03/2006, 06:25 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Quote:
Originally posted by Vibration:
Me neither...
Hey Vibe, I was going to ask you what type you were, INTj or ENTp but you've already updated your profile. How long have you known about types?
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08/03/2006, 02:59 AM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Quote:
Originally posted by SG:
Hey Vibe, I was going to ask you what type you were, INTj or ENTp but you've already updated your profile. How long have you known about types? [/qb]
Hi SG,

I known about types for 4-5 years.
Started out with scanning a rediculous amount of MBTI stuff and finally I got stuck on Socionics.

I believe I’m ENTp.
However, sometimes when I read your post, I start wondering if I actually could be INTj.

It appears to me that you're always focusing on one (1) thing (instead of everything).
Your explanations and arguments are very often based on analogies and methaphors.
This is typically me.

Is it possible that an INTj with strong Ne might behave similar to an ENTp or vice versa?
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 08/03/2006, 06:49 AM
Jonathan Jonathan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Well I read somewhere on this site that there's something called subtypes, where you can be EN(T)p (logical subtype), which might be similar to I(N)Tj (intuitive subtype of INTj).

From what I understand, somehow INTjs start with logic and work outwords, whereas ENTps start with intuition (I'm getting this from something Sergei said about thinking of one's dominant function as the more conservative function and the auxilary as the one that one can be flexible with). Am I correct about that?
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 08/03/2006, 09:49 AM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:
From what I understand, somehow INTjs start with logic and work outwords, whereas ENTps start with intuition [/QB]
Sounds like I'm ENTp

Spontaneously I never start with logic.

I have to force myself to start with logic.

I find Ne easy and Ti difficult.

When I force myself to start with boring logic (quenching the enjoyable intuiting) the result comes quicker and with greater efficiency.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 08/03/2006, 02:20 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Quote:
Originally posted by Vibration:

I known about types for 4-5 years.
Started out with scanning a rediculous amount of MBTI stuff and finally I got stuck on Socionics.
Yeah I thought so, your understanding of types shows your experience.

Quote:
Originally posted by Vibration:
I believe I’m ENTp.
However, sometimes when I read your post, I start wondering if I actually could be INTj.

It appears to me that you're always focusing on one (1) thing (instead of everything).
Your explanations and arguments are very often based on analogies and methaphors.
This is typically me.

Is it possible that an INTj with strong Ne might behave similar to an ENTp or vice versa?
Basically I am not what you would call "your typical INTj". I used to be I suppose, but once you get to know your functions - that's the end of it. For example, a typical INTj finds it hard to explain stuff with more than couple of stiff sentences, but I think I am getting better at it, plus I think I am much more open-minded towards the subject of sex and intimacy than I used to be, although I reckon I would never be able to compete with you ENTp guys on the above.

The analogies and metaphors are probably Ne related (so how I use them anyway). They are very handy if you wish to demonstrate a principal or an idea. But I (and other INTjs) also use them to prove arguments and I am really surprised how you can get away with it, because strictly speaking you have to first prove that you can properly relate those metaphors and analogies to the argument and that is not always easy.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08/03/2006, 02:56 PM
Jonathan Jonathan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Talking of analogies and metaphors, I'm interested in this toy analogy of Sergei's and what people think...To simplify:

Saying that the toy goes because the gears turn inside (being a Ti answer)

But what if you change perspective and stand inside the toy? Then you might ask "Why do the gears turn?" And if someone said "To make the toy go around," that would presumably be a Te response.

But really it's the same information: The toy goes because the gears turn, and the gears turn to make the toy go. It's the same thing, but from different sides.

Now I understand that it's just an analogy, but I think it helps explain my own view that the existence of Ti and Te as separate entities is just an illusion. The distinction is true in the sense that we experience it, but if you look behind it, you find that they're not separate things and that it's just a matter of perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 08/03/2006, 04:19 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:

Saying that the toy goes because the gears turn inside (being a Ti answer)
I don't think it is a Ti answer. You might as well say: because of the gears; or because something is inside; or because something turns inside; or because gears turn inside; or any other variation without revealing exactly why.

For example, the Pythagoras theorem (Te) states that (a x a) + (b x b) = (c x c), where a and b are the shorter sides of the triangle and c is the longest side, and the angle between a and b is 90 degrees. Why is that true? Because you can prove this theorem - and this is not a Ti answer. The actual logical sequence showing the proof would be a Ti answer (I am not going to do this here but you can find it anywhere else).
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09/03/2006, 02:39 AM
Jonathan Jonathan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

That's a good point; your original analogy used gears as a metaphor, that is, as only a symbol of or placeholder for the process, and viewed that way it seems Ni/Te. To an extent, any reasoning about the physical world will involve something appearing as Te because we can't deduce anything about the physical world; we can only deduce things about models of the physical world (Te).

But putting that point aside, I think my idea that Te and Ti are just the same T from different perspectives still stands even in math.

Suppose, instead of the pythagorean theorem, we were to prove, or at least outline the proof, for something really trivial, like if A=B and B=C, then A=C.

I figure the reasoning probably goes something like "the definition of '=' means we can substitute A instead of B if A=B; so given B=C, we perform that substitution in B=C, and get A=C."

So in other words, it's "by definition." But even much more complex proofs always boil down to the definition of this or that.

If you then look from the other side, you can say "I'm going to define an operator called equals, with the property that if x equals y, then x also equals whatever y equals."

In that case, you'd be defining something so that it behaves in a certain way that models a particular relationship you perceive to exist. From that perspective, it appears Te.

I would agree that when I have the time to do math/proof stuff, I feel very INTj, but there are lots of people that Socionics people have typed as INTp and ENTj who are quite good in math.

The point is that Ti and Te aren't separate things; they only appear that way, depending on your perspective. I think the same can be said for Ni and Ne; I figure Ne might say, "Hey, I see someone said A=B over here, and someone said B=C over there...connection...A=C." Ni might say "I see this triangular relationship that suddenly comes to me somewhere from my experience, which I'll formulate as A=B and B=C means A=C.

I know these are just very basic examples, but it seems to me that it's all the same "stuff" and that people can go much more flexibly from one to the other than Socionics would tend to assume...even taking a thought that came as Ti or Te and then reinterpreting it in the mind as Te or Ti, to do something else with it, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09/03/2006, 11:17 AM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:
That's a good point; your original analogy used gears as a metaphor, that is, as only a symbol of or placeholder for the process, and viewed that way it seems Ni/Te. To an extent, any reasoning about the physical world will involve something appearing as Te because we can't deduce anything about the physical world; we can only deduce things about models of the physical world (Te).
This is my present understanding of the CORE of an INTp:

INTp's are theoretical theoretical theoretical...
theoriticians...

You never try to identify the core or even adress the question if there is a core at all, no, instead you invent a shell around "it", -a firewall around an "it", where the "it" might be no more than nothing.

What is it about that vacuum that you find so intriguing?

Are INTp's imaginary thinkers?
Do you think in 12D or something?
Are you a set of completely perfectly concistent, adjustable equations that waiting for unquestionable empirical input parameters in order to make the perfect fit with Mother Nature in order to solve all problems in the world in order to.. in order to...?
That would explain A LOT!
That would mean I'm far too stupid to communicate with you basically.

Still, I'm just trying to relate to your "true nature" in order to find an interface for communication.

I believe my thinking could be boosted if I could implement some of your ideas from the IMAGINARY world into the REAL world.

I hope I'm not wasting my time here...
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09/03/2006, 11:59 AM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:
I figure Ne might say, "Hey, I see someone said A=B over here, and someone said B=C over there...connection...A=C." Ni might say "I see this triangular relationship that suddenly comes to me somewhere from my experience, which I'll formulate as A=B and B=C means A=C.
Interesting. I like this. But I want more details from you.

This is a description based on what people say to me about me and how I percieve myself when I use my NeTi:

My eyes are looking at something. Basically, only my eyes are looking at something. My brain is "looking" at something else. People who see me thinks I'm dreaming. They think I'm not there. But I am. However, I'm not "extrovertedly aware" (I don't hear (or hear only vaguely) if e.g. any birds are singing or if someone is talking to me). I'm really inside myself seeing pictures or something. During this state ideas start to pop up in my mind. The ideas are sometimes related to what is happening in the "right now" and sometimes the ideas are related to what has happened during the last few weeks or months or so. The ideas are complete random and have now connection whatsoever. This dreamy process can go on for several seconds and in best cases several minutes.
With my Ti I can later on easily downtrack possible origins of those ideas based on others ideas that came up at completely other occasions.
I think my Ne recognizes similarities in an almost unconcious way and my concious Ti proves how perfect similarities they really are and also in where the similarity is, and how general or useful the idea really is (99% is crap).
Actually, 1 billion new ideas start popping up during my analysis so I can't really separate Ne from Ti.

So:
Please describe in an analogous way, if it is possible, how your mind work.
No firewalls please!
I'm really curious!
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 09/03/2006, 02:53 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:
I figure the reasoning probably goes something like "the definition of '=' means we can substitute A instead of B if A=B; so given B=C, we perform that substitution in B=C, and get A=C."
Condition1 a=b
Condition2 b=c
To prove that a=c

Employing some of the basic axioms of arithmetic http://www.socionics.com/cgi-bin/ult.../2.html#000049

Axiom1 If a=b then b=a
Axiom2 If b=c then b+a=c+a
Axiom3 a+(-a)=a-a=0
Axiom4 a+0=a

Starting Ti:

Based on Axiom2 b=c is b+a=c+a

Based on Axiom1 b could be substituted with a, resulting in:

a+a=c+a

Based again on Axiom2 if (a+a)=(c+a) then (a+a)+(-a)=(c+a)+(-a) you can add -a to both sides of the equation:

a+(-a)+a=c+a+(-a)

Based on Axiom3 you can substitute a+(-a) with 0 resulting in:

a+0=c+0

Based on Axiom4 you can substitute a+0 with a and c+0 with c resulting in:

a=c

This is exactly what we were trying to prove.

I don't want to show you any more examples of how Ti works because it is obvious to me and I am getting bored with your arguments, sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10/03/2006, 03:17 AM
Jonathan Jonathan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Something about me ticks him off. I don't know what it is. I have no problem with INTj discourse; I find it stimulating to debate with SG and looked forward to it, but he doesn't want to play. Perhaps he's trying to prove his theory that INTj&p don't get along (with the assumption that I'm INTp). Or possibly INTjs (or IN(T)js?) just don't like others to challenge them on their turf, or to debate the way other NTs do?

Just for the record, fleshing out rigor to the nth degree doesn't make the argument any different. I was talking more generally about symbolic logic, but as far as arithmetic is concerned, a set of axioms is really just a kind of definition. The axioms of arithmetic are just a way of defining a structure so that certain theorems will result. You could come up with different axioms to create a different kind of arithmetic. Socionists have typed the people who've come up with lots of the foundations, laws, (e.g., Newton, Jung) as Ni.

At any rate, keep in mind that this relativity of I and E idea is just an idea; I'm not claiming to have all the answers. However, does just dismissing it as "stupid" or "boring" really accomplish much?

What really baffles me is that he responds that way, when every post on his site is change in his pocket. Because of my posts and the free content I've put up, more people who Google various combinations of words will find themselves on his site, reading each of our speculations, and being drawn in, which leads to more advertising money for him.

I'm not going to exaggerate the value of my posts, but I think that their lifetime monetary value to him will be at least worth an order of cole slaw or some french fries.
...Don't misunderstand me; it doesn't bother me. I mean, if he gets a free sandwitch for it on me, that's great...I'm not going to complain. I hope my generosity and that of other posters buys him a car or a house or something...I really do...that would be great.

But can you imagine, someone says "I'll order a side for you. It's on me," and the other person says "Your arguments bore me, you jerk!"

What he really needs is an ESFj. He's like an ESFj vacuum. An ESFj would be really friendly and say to everyone, "keep talking. Would you like some coffee and doughnuts?" Cha ching, cha ching cha ching.

I don't think I'll be posting on this site much anymore, maybe every once in awhile, but not to excess as I've been doing. However, I've left messaging on for people who want to keep in touch. I think this site has a great group of people who are really trying to understand more about themselves and other people.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10/03/2006, 07:41 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

You know what, I am glad you got it out in the open, Jonathan. For your information I paid from my own pocket for the forum and the chat software and I don't think I will make my money back anytime soon with the rate you guys are clicking on the ads on these forums. So please don't even think for a moment that your contribution to this forum is going into my pocket. In fact, I think you owe me for your free drink but you don't see it this way, do you? Thanks for telling me what you think and I would be an idiot if I would want you to post here anymore, *sigh* even if I go bust because of that.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM