Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

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


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #81  
Old 27/08/2009, 03:04 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
You are playing with semantics here. I am not talking about judging and perceiving functions, I am using perceiving in the literal sense of how deal with information as an organism within the world.
That is not the literal sense of the word "perceiving". If you deal with information, you are doing something with it, not just perceiving the world. To perceive something means not interpreting it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
However, even just now, you must realise that as an introvert, you yourself would be a subjectivist (if we are to use your definitions), which cancels out what you are trying to say about (or have said in the past) yourself being an "objectivist", and is still a refutal about you say about LII and ILI.
The definitions of the terms "subjectivist" and "objectivist" are not mine, they are Jung's and Reinin's (and used very similarly among philosophers in general). I am comparing with , nothing else. And in this context is objectivist, is subjectivist. If you don't understand this difference, you don't understand the difference between an ILI and a LII.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Do you have a link to this?
Have you read what is said on wikipedia about all the terms I put in italics in my previous posts? Do that, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
You were talking about naturalism, which is seperate from being a naturalist.
No, it isn't. If you are a naturalist, you can't believe in God (except from being a pantheist, but that isn't to believe in God), but naturalism does not imply a belief in God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
You don't even know what you are talking about!!!!!!!!!!!
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I am an expert on this subject. The only meaning of "naturalism" that is relevant here is the philosophical one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
It seems you are talking incoherently then. How am I supposed to answer this, if I am offering a refutal of what you are saying when you are saying something else?
You still don't understand what I am talking about, probably because you haven't done your necessary study of the basics of Socionics. Now, read the relevant parts of Jung's Psychological Types, and make a serious effort to understand what he says. And then read about the difference between Objectivists and Subjectivists in the Reinin dichotomies.
  #82  
Old 27/08/2009, 03:47 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
That is not the literal sense of the word "perceiving". If you deal with information, you are doing something with it, not just perceiving the world. To perceive something means not interpreting it.
Quote:
The information that a person's psyche is able to perceive, and its quantity and quality, is determined by the stimuli-providing environment, as well as the quality, strength, development, and training of the systems receiving the information. A person with sharp vision, acute hearing, or well-developed sense of smell finds out more about external reality.
Definition of perceive:
Quote:
1.to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses: I perceived an object looming through the mist. 2.to recognize, discern, envision, or understand: I perceive a note of sarcasm in your voice. This is a nice idea but I perceive difficulties in putting it into practice.
So every (living) organism perceives things, yet you continue to evade the point I put to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
The definitions of the terms "subjectivist" and "objectivist" are not mine, they are Jung's and Reinin's (and used very similarly among philosophers in general). I am comparing with , nothing else. And in this context is objectivist, is subjectivist. If you don't understand this difference, you don't understand the difference between an ILI and a LII.
You are talking about both the philosophical and/or the Reinin dichotomy? You need to explain what definition you are using. I have already explained how an ILI and an LII (and all other types) both perceive things subjectively, in a philosophical and a literal sense, and that if you are saying that Ti is subjective, and that ILI's are not, then that is incorrect, because
Quote:
Augusta emphasizes the importance of understanding the role of fields. [*NOTE: Her use of the word feeling is not to be confused with ethics, or 'feeling' as a psychic function]
... A person's feelings — the subject of psychology — are nothing other than a manifestation of this same field. Half of humanity — all introverts — are oriented in reality not towards objects, but towards their feelings — their relation to objects.
and








Quote:
Each organism receives two sorts of information from its surroundings:
  1. sensations/impressions that form into perceptions and convey information about the qualities and states of bodies
  2. sensations/impressions that form into feelings and convey information about fields
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
Have you read what is said on wikipedia about all the terms I put in italics in my previous posts? Do that, please.
Yes, but I no longer understand how you are using the terms. I've already addressed positivism, yet you now seem to be referring to something Reinin and or Jung says. Perhaps you mean the merry/serious dichotomy? I was asking if you have the link to Jung that you were talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
No, it isn't. If you are a naturalist, you can't believe in God (except from being a pantheist, but that isn't to believe in God), but naturalism does not imply a belief in God.
Again, you were talking about naturalism, surely i've already explained that naturalism and being a naturalist are two different things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I am an expert on this subject. The only meaning of "naturalism" that is relevant here is the philosophical one.
But you start to talk about naturalism again not naturalist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
You still don't understand what I am talking about, probably because you haven't done your necessary study of the basics of Socionics. Now, read the relevant parts of Jung's Psychological Types, and make a serious effort to understand what he says. And then read about the difference between Objectivists and Subjectivists in the Reinin dichotomies.
Do you mean you've been talking about merry/serious all along? If it's similar to the philosophical sense, or a literal sense, i've already addressed that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
You still don't understand what I am talking about, probably because you haven't done your necessary study of the basics of Socionics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
I would be interested if you would read Ashura's semantics of information aspects, and try to post how what you are saying fits in with what she has said.
This is actually what I asked you to do.

Last edited by Cyclops; 27/08/2009 at 03:53 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
  #83  
Old 27/08/2009, 04:36 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Where does Reinin use the term subjectivist and objectivist?
The difference between a Subjectivist and an Objectivist in the Reinin dichotomies is the difference between and . The difference between Merry and Serious is the difference between and . People often believe (incorrectly) that Merry and Subjectivist is one and the same thing, and that Objectivist and Serious are also one and the same thing. But that is a mistake. However, they are often put in the same category (Merry/Serious) and explained together. You can read about it anywhere in the socionic literature.

Reinin's difference between Subjectivsts () and Objectivists () is essentially identical with Jung's difference between Introverted Thinking (subjectivist) and Extraverted Thinking (objectivist).

And if you understand all this, you also realize that Kant's philosophy, as well as Husserls phenomenology, are clearly , whereas philosophical naturalism as well as the natural sciences in general, are clearly .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
You need to explain what definition you are using. I have already explained how an ILI and an LII (and all other types) both perceive things subjectively, and that if you are saying that Ti is subjective, and that ILI's are not, then that is incorrect, because
Only the introverted types perceive things "subjectively" in the sense you are talking about, but the introverted ego function of an ILI is , not .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Yes, but I no longer understand how you are using the terms. I've already addressed positivism, yet you now seem to be referring to something Reinin and or Jung says. I was asking if you have the link to Jung that you were talking about.
Positivism is reductionistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism , and it is linked to a general determinstic view of the world, where everything that exists, all properties are external. It is a mechanistic world view that is clearly in essence. That world view stands in direct opposition to all kinds of holistic world views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism and holism is linked to the systems thinking of LIIs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Again, you were talking about naturalism, surely i've already explained that naturalism and being a naturalist are two different things.
Irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
But you start to talk about naturalism again not naturalist.
Irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Where is the objectivist and subjectivist Reinin dichotomy? If it's similar to the philosophical sense, i've already addressed that.
It's extremely similar to the philosophical sense of the terms. But you obviously haven't understood anyhing yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
This is actually what I asked you to do.
It's impossible to explain anything to you here, if you don't understand the basic concepts involved. First you must understand what Reinin and Jung meant by being Subjectivist and being Objectivist.

is not focused on external objects. Instead it is focused on the thinking process itself. Like all introverted functions is turned inwards, towards the subject. To understand what this really means you can read this excerpt from the wikipedia article about phenomenology, which explains what is the essence of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy) :

"Though many of the phenomenological methods involve various reductions, phenomenology is essentially anti-reductionistic; the reductions are mere tools to better understand and describe the workings of consciousness, not to reduce any phenomenon to these descriptions. In other words, when a reference is made to a thing's essence or idea, or when one details the constitution of an identical coherent thing by describing what one "really" sees as being only these sides and aspects, these surfaces, it does not mean that the thing is only and exclusively what is described here: The ultimate goal of these reductions is to understand how these different aspects are constituted into the actual thing as experienced by the person experiencing it. Phenomenology is a direct reaction to the psychologism and physicalism of Husserl's time."

and this http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/ :

"The discipline of phenomenology may be defined initially as the study of structures of experience, or consciousness."

This focus on the structure of thinking is what is really meant when Jung and Augusta are talking about Introverted Thinking and . But it is very poorly explained by Augusta (at least in the translations usually found on the Internet).
  #84  
Old 27/08/2009, 04:42 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

wow, that's an old quote. I edited that post something like 40 odd minutes before you responded.
  #85  
Old 27/08/2009, 05:06 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
wow, that's an old quote. I edited that post something like 40 odd minutes before you responded.
It takes a lot of time to write answers that are exactly to the point and involves checking a lot of links. It would be much easier if you could find the relevant material all by yourself and study it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Do you mean you've been talking about merry/serious all along?
Absolutely not. People simply don't understand that there is a difference between Merry/Serious and Subjectivist/Objectivist. They hang together, but they are not the same thing. You can read about Subjectivist/Objectivist in the section about Merry/Serious, but don't make the same mistake as Expat and others and confuse them.
  #86  
Old 27/08/2009, 05:42 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

You see, there's some of this i've already addressed, which you've glossed over I think, so I think i'll come back to some of my previous quotations.

I'll try to work through this just now (or again, in a way)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
The difference between a Subjectivist and an Objectivist in the Reinin dichotomies is the difference between and . The difference between Merry and Serious is the difference between and . People often believe (incorrectly) that Merry and Subjectivist is one and the same thing, and that Objectivist and Serious are also one and the same thing. But that is a mistake. However, they are often put in the same category (Merry/Serious) and explained together. You can read about it anywhere in the socionic literature.
Is the information in the merry/serious dichotomy which pertains to subjectivist and objectivist on wikisocion what you are talking about here, so that I can talk to you about the same thing?
Quote:
Reinin's difference between Subjectivsts () and Objectivists () is essentially identical with Jung's difference between Introverted Thinking (subjectivist) and Extraverted Thinking (objectivist).
You see, i've made points that they aren't, and indeed don't have to be, but I want to talk about the same thing as you.
Quote:
And if you understand all this, you also realize that Kant's philosophy, as well as Husserls phenomenology, are clearly , whereas philosophical naturalism as well as the natural sciences in general, are clearly .
To get to that stage, we should actually use Ashura's definition of socionics, this is what I understand to be the basics, but we can get to that again.

Quote:
Only the introverted types perceive things "subjectively" in the sense you are talking about, but the introverted ego function of an ILI is , not .
The dominant function is and again, using Ashura, there is an argument to say that the philosophical terminologies apply to all types, and especially that in the lead makes one relate everything to themselves to begin with along with LII's, and all introverts (but not just introverts). Philosophies are also something that we can adopt, and there are other factors such as how the functions play out in terms of a model X outlook, and that Fi is "subjective" in some literal sense, you see you can say that Te/Ti are two halves, but you can also say that Te/Fi are two halves. We can address this later too, in a way, I think.

Quote:
Positivism is reductionistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism , and it is linked to a general determinstic view of the world, where everything that exists, all properties are external. It is a mechanistic world view that is clearly in essence. That world view stands in direct opposition to all kinds of holistic world views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism and holism is linked to the systems thinking of LIIs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking
Do you want to start using the reinin outlook on positivist and negativist first of all? You see you're making conclusions here based on this dichotomy which we haven't discussed, and you seem to chop and change between different meanings of the words (philosophical, literal, reinin)

Quote:
Irrelevant.


Irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant. Surely I can't be expected to know what you're referring to at a given moment, when you change the perameters and contexts possibly in your own head, without communicating them.

Quote:
It's extremely similar to the philosophical sense of the terms. But you obviously haven't understood anyhing yet.
Although i've been in part talking about how we all view the world as per Ashura's definition of socioincs, and that is the basics of socionics, we'll look at what's written about reinin dichotomies on wikipedia in the article of merry/serious, if that's what you're talking about. You should remember that reinin dichotomies are something which is an extension of socionics, see?

Quote:
It's impossible to explain anything to you here, if you don't understand the basic concepts involved. First you must understand what Reinin and Jung meant by being Subjectivist and being Objectivist.

is not focused on external objects. Instead it is focused on the thinking process itself. Like all introverted functions is turned inwards, towards the subject. To understand what this really means you can read this excerpt from the wikipedia article about phenomenology, which explains what is the essence of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy) :

"Though many of the phenomenological methods involve various reductions, phenomenology is essentially anti-reductionistic; the reductions are mere tools to better understand and describe the workings of consciousness, not to reduce any phenomenon to these descriptions. In other words, when a reference is made to a thing's essence or idea, or when one details the constitution of an identical coherent thing by describing what one "really" sees as being only these sides and aspects, these surfaces, it does not mean that the thing is only and exclusively what is described here: The ultimate goal of these reductions is to understand how these different aspects are constituted into the actual thing as experienced by the person experiencing it. Phenomenology is a direct reaction to the psychologism and physicalism of Husserl's time."
and this http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/ :

"The discipline of phenomenology may be defined initially as the study of structures of experience, or consciousness."

This focus on the structure of thinking is what is really meant when Jung and Augusta are talking about Introverted Thinking and . But it is very poorly explained by Augusta (at least in the translations usually found on the Internet).
Right, we can look at this later. I put this quote together because you seem to be making leaps based on your own interpretation (among other things), and you mention Ashura at the end, which i've already discussed - but we can get back to that too.

Can we agree to talk about: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ry_and_serious aspect of the parts pertaining to subjectivist and objectivist? AND remember we should also look at how Ashura defines things too? I simply need to know just now that we can talk about the same thing. (Although I was speaking to an ILE recently who seems to have access to more information about reinin dichotomies, and spoke a little about this dichotomy, I can't check that out just now, but it's possible that what we'll discuss is misrepresented not because it's in the merry/serious dichotomy, but because the information there isn't correct. Do you have access to reinin's book on his dichotomies? I've thinking about aquiring it, or trying to, he was in London recently, apparently there's some copies of his book available).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Can we agree to talk about: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ry_and_serious aspect of the parts pertaining to subjectivist and objectivist?
Maybe this is important part just now.

Last edited by Cyclops; 27/08/2009 at 05:44 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
  #87  
Old 27/08/2009, 10:05 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Is the information in the merry/serious dichotomy which pertains to subjectivist and objectivist on wikisocion what you are talking about here, so that I can talk to you about the same thing?
Yes. 1-2 in Merry refer to , and 1-2 in Serious refer to . 3-5 in Merry refer to , and 3-5 in Serious refer to .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
You see, i've made points that they aren't, and indeed don't have to be, but I want to talk about the same thing as you.
To get to that stage, we should actually use Ashura's definition of socionics, this is what I understand to be the basics, but we can get to that again.
You can't understand what Augusta is talking about unless you first understand Jung and what is meant by the subjective character of . You will begin to understand it if you read about phenomenology and realize that it is typically in nature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Do you want to start using the reinin outlook on positivist and negativist first of all? You see you're making conclusions here based on this dichotomy which we haven't discussed, and you seem to chop and change between different meanings of the words (philosophical, literal, reinin)
Positivism (that is logical positivism in the philosophy of science) has nothing whatsoever to do with Reinin's posititivist/negativist dichotomy. And that dichotomy is totally irrelevant here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Although i've been in part talking about how we all view the world as per Ashura's definition of socioincs, and that is the basics of socionics, we'll look at what's written about reinin dichotomies on wikipedia in the article of merry/serious, if that's what you're talking about. You should remember that reinin dichotomies are something which is an extension of socionics, see?
They are perfectly in line with classical Socionics. They don't contradict each other in any way. Reinin explained it to Expat, when they met in person in London: "I don't see my dichotomies as replacing Aushra's model - I see them as adding up to her ideas". That's exactly what they are. The Reinin dichotomies are not another version of Socionics.
  #88  
Old 28/08/2009, 01:45 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reinin subjectivist
3. The subjectivist, in contrast to the objectivist, is not inclined to deduce/derive "objectively accurate" laws and regularities (Summarizing/generalizing for this purpose their experiences and those of other people). Instead assumes that other people have different criteria, different views, therefore defines/treats another's actions as either accurate or incorrect, necessarily doing it with a "subjective" determining factors – evaluates in accordance to a personal system, "their system", actions, intentions and so on. Subjectivist are inclined to propose (Or to impose) not the "correct way" or some other way to do things – but general concepts on how to perform actions i.e. they do not say "Do it this way!" they say "Look at it this way!". They do not consider, in contrast to the objectivist, that in every situation there exists only one "objectively correct/true" way of doing something – in any situation, in their opinion, there are many ways one can act, approach/view the situation. When they feel something was done in an inappropriate manner they will most likely ask: "What is this?" (In contrast to the objectivist who will most likely ask "Who did this?"). When they speak of optimality they speak of optimality within a framework of the concept, they use a subjective approach (Form the point of view of being more optimal compared to what). Therefore they attempt to contrast other people's views to their own and to explain their position (To verify concepts): "If it is like that them we shall do this, it is different – we'll do something else"
4. "Verification of concepts" - the general (common) phenomenon for subjectivists, it concerns not only the different was of acting/doing, but also concepts, terminology and so on. Subjectivists are in greater degree "adjusted" to the fact that different people have different meanings/understandings for same concepts, words and so on. The perceive the terminology (As well as actions of people) as a part of the subjective concept of different people – an extenuation of personal opinions, occupied positions, personal intention etc.: "So we have agreed that we shall name it this way". In contrast to he objectivist, who receives terminology as "objective", subjectivists understand the differences of terminologies (This concerns even well established terms) and they attempt to contrast them ("Well you say it is like that but I disagree")
5. Lexicon: when discussing actions and joint activities they use expressions like "Let me present my point of view" "According to my understanding" "personal criteria" "it matches accepted beliefs" "I have concluded" "they insisted" and so on. They in detail describe verbal communication – especially their part in it, their "interventions" in the conversations and what they were (Or were not).

Quote:
Originally Posted by reinin objectivists
3. In objectivists there is an idea of "objectively known facts", regularities, laws in general (common) experience; they consider that there exist "true in general", "always correct" laws. They suppose that other people can have their views, hold their position, but at the same time do not consider that any action can be viewed true or false depending on their point of view (This allows the existence of "objectively accurate" actions). Therefore from the point of view of the objectivists, actions can be different – subjective, determined by personal preferences and motives, and objective (Where there is only one "correct", "best" way to do something). Objectivists define actions as correct or incorrect contrasting them to their representation of what is "objectively correct". When they think that there is only one optimal solution, they are inclined to propose (Or impose) ways to accomplish an activity (Not propositions on how to accomplish an action like the subjectivist) which they think are the best: "No – you will do it "the correct way"". When speaking of optimality, they speak of optimality in general – "objective optimality" (they consider that they know the "correct", "best" ways of doing something). In joint activities they offer the "most effective" way of doing something. In disagreement they first "verify" concepts used, check whether the other person knows the concepts and terms "correctly".
4. In contrast to the subjectivists, they are not inclined of "verification of concepts". They assume that the terms, concepts have only one unique interpretation ("correct", "accurate" one) – often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently within the framework of other concepts. They operate with concepts like "objective reality" like unequivocal facts, in such cases they do not attempt to "verify the concepts": "It refers to this". Thus in those cases they consider that they know a thing correctly, how it "really is" (The view certain pictures of the world as uniquely true): "You say it's like this while in reality is like this".
5. In description of actions or in discussion of joint activities instead of "explanatory" lexicon they give mass of examples (All "correct" and "incorrect" actions are based on examples)
OK, I may not understand this dichotomy propery. At the moment I can't choose between them in regards to my type.
  #89  
Old 28/08/2009, 02:10 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reinin subjectivist
3. The subjectivist, in contrast to the objectivist, is not inclined to deduce/derive "objectively accurate" laws and regularities (Summarizing/generalizing for this purpose their experiences and those of other people). Instead assumes that other people have different criteria, different views, therefore defines/treats another's actions as either accurate or incorrect, necessarily doing it with a "subjective" determining factors – evaluates in accordance to a personal system, "their system", actions, intentions and so on. Subjectivist are inclined to propose (Or to impose) not the "correct way" or some other way to do things – but general concepts on how to perform actions i.e. they do not say "Do it this way!" they say "Look at it this way!". They do not consider, in contrast to the objectivist, that in every situation there exists only one "objectively correct/true" way of doing something – in any situation, in their opinion, there are many ways one can act, approach/view the situation. When they feel something was done in an inappropriate manner they will most likely ask: "What is this?" (In contrast to the objectivist who will most likely ask "Who did this?"). When they speak of optimality they speak of optimality within a framework of the concept, they use a subjective approach (Form the point of view of being more optimal compared to what). Therefore they attempt to contrast other people's views to their own and to explain their position (To verify concepts): "If it is like that them we shall do this, it is different – we'll do something else"
Quote:
Originally Posted by reinin subjectivist
4. "Verification of concepts" - the general (common) phenomenon for subjectivists, it concerns not only the different was of acting/doing, but also concepts, terminology and so on. Subjectivists are in greater degree "adjusted" to the fact that different people have different meanings/understandings for same concepts, words and so on. The perceive the terminology (As well as actions of people) as a part of the subjective concept of different people – an extenuation of personal opinions, occupied positions, personal intention etc.: "So we have agreed that we shall name it this way". In contrast to he objectivist, who receives terminology as "objective", subjectivists understand the differences of terminologies (This concerns even well established terms) and they attempt to contrast them ("Well you say it is like that but I disagree")
5. Lexicon: when discussing actions and joint activities they use expressions like "Let me present my point of view" "According to my understanding" "personal criteria" "it matches accepted beliefs" "I have concluded" "they insisted" and so on. They in detail describe verbal communication – especially their part in it, their "interventions" in the conversations and what they were (Or were not).

Quote:
Originally Posted by reinin objectivist
3. In objectivists there is an idea of "objectively known facts", regularities, laws in general (common) experience; they consider that there exist "true in general", "always correct" laws. They suppose that other people can have their views, hold their position, but at the same time do not consider that any action can be viewed true or false depending on their point of view (This allows the existence of "objectively accurate" actions). Therefore from the point of view of the objectivists, actions can be different – subjective, determined by personal preferences and motives, and objective (Where there is only one "correct", "best" way to do something). Objectivists define actions as correct or incorrect contrasting them to their representation of what is "objectively correct". When they think that there is only one optimal solution, they are inclined to propose (Or impose) ways to accomplish an activity (Not propositions on how to accomplish an action like the subjectivist) which they think are the best: "No – you will do it "the correct way"". When speaking of optimality, they speak of optimality in general – "objective optimality" (they consider that they know the "correct", "best" ways of doing something). In joint activities they offer the "most effective" way of doing something. In disagreement they first "verify" concepts used, check whether the other person knows the concepts and terms "correctly".
Quote:
Originally Posted by reinin objectivist
4. In contrast to the subjectivists, they are not inclined of "verification of concepts". [I am] They assume that the terms, concepts have only one unique interpretation ("correct", "accurate" one) – often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently within the framework of other concepts. They operate with concepts like "objective reality" like unequivocal facts, in such cases they do not attempt to "verify the concepts": "It refers to this". Thus in those cases they consider that they know a thing correctly, how it "really is" (The view certain pictures of the world as uniquely true): "You say it's like this while in reality is like this".
5. In description of actions or in discussion of joint activities instead of "explanatory" lexicon they give mass of examples (All "correct" and "incorrect" actions are based on examples)


Those are my initial thoughts as to what I think could apply to me (the bolded parts).


I was especially curious about this part of objectivist dichotomy:

Quote:
Originally Posted by reinin objectivist
In joint activities they offer the "most effective" way of doing something. In disagreement they first "verify" concepts used, check whether the other person knows the concepts and terms "correctly".
Because it occured to me that it's possible that i've been trying to verify the concepts used with you in our discussion (note the confusion with subjectivist/objectivist as a philosophical outlook, the reinin outlook, or the literal outlook, naturalism and naturalist), but it appears you were not doing this? Does this mean that possibly I am objectivist in this part, but you were not?

But then it says:

Quote:
Originally Posted by reinin objectivist
4. In contrast to the subjectivists, they are not inclined of "verification of concepts". They assume that the terms, concepts have only one unique interpretation ("correct", "accurate" one) – often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently within the framework of other concepts.
So here I am being a subjectivist, not an objectivist (and it seems to contradict itself somewhat, i'm thinking for the moment).

Maybe it means that an objectivist only tries to clarify terms when in a discussion, and subjectivists....don't while they are in discussion? But when else would one attempt to verify a concept, if it's internal then it doesn't matter.

So I'm thinking i'm maybe reading this wrongly just now. If so please correct me and/or clarify what it means, thanks.


EDIT: For some reason the bolded parts of my initial reinin objectivist/subjectivist dichotomy is being split into two parts each, despite me deleting the quoted parts and saving, for some reason they are reappearing, hope it's not too confusing to read.

Last edited by Cyclops; 28/08/2009 at 02:11 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
  #90  
Old 28/08/2009, 03:14 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
I was especially curious about this part of objectivist dichotomy:

"In joint activities they offer the "most effective" way of doing something. In disagreement they first "verify" concepts used, check whether the other person knows the concepts and terms "correctly"."
That's what I do all the time. An Objectivist wants to find out the truth, the objective truth. He wants to get the facts right. And there is a correct way of understanding concepts, and there is an incorrect way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Because it occured to me that it's possible that i've been trying to verify the concepts used with you in our discussion (note the confusion with subjectivist/objectivist as a philosophical outlook, the reinin outlook, or the literal outlook, naturalism and naturalist), but it appears you were not doing this?
You were doing it, and I was doing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Does this mean that possibly I am objectivist in this part, but you were not?
That we both are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
But then it says:

In contrast to the subjectivists, they are not inclined of "verification of concepts".

So here I am being a subjectivist, not an objectivist (and it seems to contradict itself somewhat, i'm thinking for the moment).
No, you are an Objectivist in that respect too. You were trying to correct my use of terms according to what you perceived as the correct use of those words. The bolded quote is a very poor translation of the original text. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Look at how it is explained under 4 in Subjectivist to get a better understanding of what it is about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Maybe it means that an objectivist only tries to clarify terms when in a discussion, and subjectivists....don't while they are in discussion? But when else would one attempt to verify a concept, if it's internal then it doesn't matter.
Objectivists believe that there are objective truths, facts, and correct and incorrect usages of words/concepts. Subjectivists are relativists who dislike talking about truths and correctness; they present their own views but are not very interested in establishing what the (objective) facts are. The Subjectivist are more "tolerant" different opinions, which means that they are disloyal to the truth.
  #91  
Old 29/08/2009, 11:30 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

I'll come back to this Prom, i'm just a little busy at the moment (because there is more I wish to type, and I think there are other ways to interpret what this dichotomy could be saying). I'm not forgetting earlier things on the thread in this particular discussion too.

I suppose I could ask you just now, in relation to current part of discussion re this reinin dichotomy, if you're sure of:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
The bolded quote is a very poor translation of the original text. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
How can you be sure of the whole translation? As in which parts can we agree to use or not? Perhaps the dichotomy is meant to be subjective, as it's written by someone who would type themselves as a subjectivist within their own dichotomy.

I could see it being taken in a subjective manner!

I think you mentioned it being related to Jung when he spoke of Te and Ti, do you mean where he talks about the functions here: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm or somewhere else (if there is a link)?

Also, I believe Reinin himself said that he expected some of his dichotomies to become redundant.
  #92  
Old 29/08/2009, 12:41 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
How can you be sure of the whole translation?
I am not sure of the whole translation. But you only have to take a brief look at that sentence to realize that it is very poor English. Its meaning is unclear and could mean anything. Whatever the intended meaning in the original text, we know for sure that we shouldn't translate it like that. To understand what was probably meant, we have to look at the whole context, and therefore we have find the meaning by reading the other sentences, and the examples in particular.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
As in which parts can we agree to use or not? Perhaps the dichotomy is meant to be subjective, as it's written by someone who would type themselves as a subjectivist within their own dichotomy.
We know it by comparing it with everything we know about the types. We realize that the Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy describes the fundamental (and relevant) differences between and .

And if we have studied the types in more depth, from many different angles, we also realize that the very same dichotomy has been described by others in the past. William James described two different temperaments in philosophy. He called them rationalists and empiricists. Jung discusses James's dichotomy in chapter VIII of Psychological Types, and makes an improvement on it. Instead of talking about rationalists and empiricists, he suggests the labels ideologists and empiricists. And I agree with Jung that that is a good idea, that more accurately captures the essence of what is at stake here.

Jung says that James's dichotomy is the difference between an introverted and an extraverted attitude to the problems in philosophy, and he is right about that, but, as Jung points out himself, James's dichotomy "is almost exclusively concerned with the thinking qualities of the types" (p. 319). It is not about introversion and extraversion in general, but specifically about the difference between and .

The ideologist (the "rationalist" in William James's typology, and the "subjectivist" in Reinins dichotomies) loves principles, whereas the empiricist (the "objectivist" in Reinin's dichotomy) puts the facts first.

The ideologist is idealistic, the empiricist is materialistic.

The ideologist believes in free will, the empiricist is more fatalistic (believing in determinism and wants to explain what happens in the world in terms of causes and effects between external objects -- just as I have been trying to explain before).

The ideologist is more religious, which we can see if we study the real types -- INTjs are clearly more religious, or at least less often atheists than INTps. That also proves that Socionics is wrong when it describes the INTps, and as connected to spirituality and such things. That is simply false, and the type and functions descriptions should be corrected to fit reality. The empiricist (and the INTp type in general) is irreligious.

The ideologist is dogmatical (insisting on the system, the model, the theoretical "filter" which the ideologist wants to put on reality -- an interpretation), whereas the empiricist is skeptical (skeptical of theories, systems, criticizing others, wants to check if the theory/system actually is consistent with the empirical facts, etc.). You can only be skeptical an undogmatic if you believe in objective truths, because if there are no objective truths, you cannot be wrong.

It is the empiricist's loyalty to the truth/the facts that makes him less dogmatic than the ideologist, who tends to ignore objections and facts that contradict his theory. This difference also makes the empiricist more tough-minded than the ideologist, a difference that is clearly reflected in the difference between the "soft" Alpha quadra and the "tough" and serious Gamma quadra.

Simply put, is tough, materialistic, empiricist, skeptical, irreligious/atheist, and facts oriented. The world, including humans, is seen in an external perspective as a world of objects, whose interactions are explained deterministically.

is tender-minded (in comparison with , but we are talking about thinking/logic here, not feeling/ethics), idealistic, dogmatical, religious, and focused on principles and systems instead of empirical facts. The world is seen in an internal perspective emanating from the subject, as a world of agents with free will. A world view has a more "human touch" than a world view. You can see that human touch in, for example, Kant's philosophy, Jürgen Habermas's philosophy, and in the views of Noam Chomsky -- all of them are clearly oriented, and all of them could be INTjs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
I think you mentioned it being related to Jung when he spoke of Te and Ti, do you mean where he talks about the functions here: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm or somewhere else (if there is a link)?
Yes, read about how Jung explains the differences between Ti and Te in chapter ten (in the link). The relevant passages are not all in the same place, so you should read about Ti and Te in general, as well as about the introverted thinking type in comparison with the extraverted thinking type.
  #93  
Old 30/08/2009, 01:42 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

The objectivist/subjectivist dichotomy does not describe the "fundamental" differences between Te and Ti. The subjectivist/objectivist dicohotomy is a dichotomy designed to describe the difference in types in the Fe/Ti and Fi/Te quadras, namely, the former as alpha and beta, and the latter as gamman and delta.

This is why it is included within the merry/serious dichotomy.

To understand what a dichotomy means, it means to contrast one set of things against the other. So in the case of reinin dichotomies, to describe how they were formed, I thought this to be illuminating:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
As seems clear from what I've read of the original Reinin/Augusta papers, and the Lytov interview with Reinin, it went like this.

Reinin proposed the existence of the dichotomies based on the 4-dichotomy mathematical calculations. That is to say, if you have a system based on E/I, N/S, F/T, and P/J, you can propose those dichotomical combinations, as in:

NT + SF vs NF + ST
NJ + SP vs NP + SJ
ET + IF vs EF + IT

etc etc.

Then, having arrived at the dichotomies - which, so far, meant nothing, nothing at all, but letters - Reinin and Augusta went through them, trying to match them to what they knew of the types from personal observation and from functional analysys.

Then, they proposed that "NJ + SP" = strategic and "NP + SJ" = tactical, etc .

But, as Reinin said in the interview, in some cases they were more certain than others, and he fully expected that empirical observation would confirm some dichotomies and nullify others.

Which is why the idea that the dichotomies should be the main base of socionics, or even of equal weight as model A, has no base whatsoever - unless for those who choose to believe so
So all Gammas and Deltas are therefore serious and all alphas and betas are therefore merry (and objectivists and subjectivists) by the essence of what it means (and why and how it was created) to be a dichotomy.

That is - the dichotomies were made to contrast 8 of the types against the other 8.

If alphas and betas are subjectivists, in the sense that you interpret it, then you can you explain why there is a clear example of an objectivist in the form of Einstein? (an ILE and therefore Ti in the ego block).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
Jung says that James's dichotomy is the difference between an introverted and an extraverted attitude to the problems in philosophy, and he is right about that, but, as Jung points out himself, James's dichotomy "is almost exclusively concerned with the thinking qualities of the types" (p. 319). It is not about introversion and extraversion in general, but specifically about the difference between and .

The ideologist (the "rationalist" in William James's typology, and the "subjectivist" in Reinins dichotomies) loves principles, whereas the empiricist (the "objectivist" in Reinin's dichotomy) puts the facts first.
What you also have to remember is that when Jung spoke about the functions in his phychological types, he was speaking about about functions in the dominant position. When he speaks of a form of thinking, he is speaking about how the dominant introverted thinking leads back to the subject, and the dominant extraverted thinking is concerned with the object. Jung actually states in his dichotomies that all introverts are concerned with the subject (the subject being themselves).

Therefore you cannot really make a distinction between LII's and ILI's in this basis because they are both introverts primarily concerned with relating information to themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrometheusJung says that James's dichotomy is the difference between an [I
introverted[/i] and an extraverted attitude to the problems in philosophy, and he is right about that, but, as Jung points out himself, James's dichotomy "is almost exclusively concerned with the thinking qualities of the types" (p. 319). It is not about introversion and extraversion in general, but specifically about the difference between and .

The ideologist (the "rationalist" in William James's typology, and the "subjectivist" in Reinins dichotomies) loves principles, whereas the empiricist (the "objectivist" in Reinin's dichotomy) puts the facts first.
Jung speaks of the differences in some aspects of dominant introverted and extraverted thinking, he does not speak of creative or

In regards to rationalism and empiricism, which you are equating with objectivism and subjectivism, you should hopefully be aware that the line is really blurred, because Spinoza and Descartes, (both probably LII's) who were rationalists, were also empiricists because they were advocates of the scientific method, and consequently, Hume, an empiricist, (who I think you type as ILI) felt that some knowledge could only be reached with a rationalistic approach.

So you can see that the line is not as distinct as you would make it out to be.

I've proposed a (possible) reason for this earlier on in the thread, and it co-incides why it is all inclusive in the merry/serious dichotomy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
The ideologist is more religious, which we can see if we study the real types -- INTjs are clearly more religious, or at least less often atheists than INTps. That also proves that Socionics is wrong when it describes the INTps, and as connected to spirituality and such things. That is simply false, and the type and functions descriptions should be corrected to fit reality. The empiricist (and the INTp type in general) is irreligious.
The vast majority of clergy i've known have been ESTj and INFj. They are objectivists (as we've established by the reinin dichotomy description in this post) and therefore you would also class as empiricists.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
It is the empiricist's loyalty to the truth/the facts that makes him less dogmatic than the ideologist, who tends to ignore objections and facts that contradict his theory. This difference also makes the empiricist more tough-minded than the ideologist, a difference that is clearly reflected in the difference between the "soft" Alpha quadra and the "tough" and serious Gamma quadra.
Are you forgetting that Beta and Delta also exist, and also have and ? Beta are not soft, but delta could be described as so. I think you could perhaps better consider this being related to Se/Ni and Ne/Si axis.
Quote:
Simply put, is tough, materialistic, empiricist, skeptical, irreligious/atheist, and facts oriented. The world, including humans, is seen in an external perspective as a world of objects, whose interactions are explained deterministically.
I know plenty of SLI's and ILI's who are not tough, they are soft and kind hearted. Again, you are trying to attach extraverted outlooks onto , materialism is mainly a gamma trait, and the number of agnostic people in the world is increasing, however I see no reason to suspect this is due to a change in type distribution, you're reasoning is flawed.

As I pointed out earlier, a dominant type can believe in God simply because it's tradition and regarded as a "well known fact", so in that case it is simply true. Therefore, this (and other) well known established facts that would be accepted by a type does not necessarily make the fact true. The facts are by no means a full proof method either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
is tender-minded (in comparison with , but we are talking about thinking/logic here, not feeling/ethics), idealistic, dogmatical, religious, and focused on principles and systems instead of empirical facts. The world is seen in an internal perspective emanating from the subject, as a world of agents with free will. A world view has a more "human touch" than a world view. You can see that human touch in, for example, Kant's philosophy, Jürgen Habermas's philosophy, and in the views of Noam Chomsky -- all of them are clearly oriented, and all of them could be INTjs.
I think you could perhaps also consider not to use LII as an information dump for various philosophies that you personally do not agree with.

Last edited by Cyclops; 30/08/2009 at 01:51 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
  #94  
Old 30/08/2009, 04:46 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Summary: It seems that the intention of the merry/serious dichotomy is as a quadra dichotomy, that is: how Te/Fi and Fe/Ti work together. So i'm not sure if we "need" this dichotomy per se, one can observe such a thing in quadra values, I suppose.

I found this translation, it could be interesting:
Quote:
Merry (subjectivists):
"merriment - large quantity of emotions... The company of friends, we are exchanged news, it is possible to cut through, songs to popet' ". "entertainment - this is the involvement, when it is possible to actively pouchastvovat'. When you look or read - these are instruction, and merriment - this is active, and even excited state, which 4 never I confuse with leisure (slack state)... Perhaps, merriment for me - this is the excited contact, which (in contrast to the quarrel, the fight and so forth.) reaches pleasure ". "reading the books, opera - is not entertainment... Merriment - high vital tone ". "merriment - some liberation, when all seem by not too serious". "merriment - these are happiness, recklessness, everyone in this participates, collapse some framework". "if me they lead into the company and do not represent, then to me it does not comprise the labor to be introduced by the very". the "majorities of those, with whom" I am scutched ", I can not know on the name". "the order of the mastery of contact can be any, become acquainted is not compulsory". "for me in the company names are not important". "4 in the week only memorized its name, although they kissed already to the utmost extent" (about the acquaintance with the future husband). "when I see that someone something so does not make, it is necessary to ascertain that this my matter. If me this concerns, the first reaction - to step back and to give to that making "to nakhlebat'sya"... I have its criteria, as it is must. In other people there can be their criteria ". "first place axe, explain, why so you make". "I calculated, that expressed that the fact that it considered it necessary and that relating to this theme".

Serious (objectivists):
"to me it is difficult to demarcate work and merriment. Merriment... is complicated to determine ". "everything I approach seriously, even to leisure". "always in the serious it is possible to find something prikol'noye, and vice versa". "to learn is must gaily. Work without the entertaining element is impossible ". "that this merriment - is not understandable. What is leisure - is understandable what entertainment is - also ". "for me it is important so that they would present me, or, it is still better so that about me previously something they would describe in the company". "I enter with the man into the contact within the framework proposed to them, I do not go for them, if I do not know, it will be to it pleasantly". "I do not love to tie or when others tie: suddenly the aunt, whom 4 for the first time I see, begins to call "detkoy" or somehow still ". "name - this is important. If his person does not say, frequently this means that he wants to rather end contact ". "if it is done not since must? Oy! To me simpler to select and to make than to explain. In my opinion nail can be driven in only by one method ". "there are the things, with respect to which it is evident objective what so to make inexpediently and to eat an optimum method of operations. It irritates, if man systematically makes something not then ". "when I see that something is done ineffectively, in me" the guts into the knots are tied "". "heavily I survive, when something clearly contradicts the common sense, and I can to make 4 anything. If I can interfere into the situation - I interfere, regardless of the fact, it concerns me, or not ". "the methods, inherent in man within the framework of his experience - not the same, that objective things (evidently according to the result)".
I'll perhaps have to digest this some more in regards to my type.

I might look at the aristocratic/democratic dichotomy here, it seems a good enough way to learn about these dichotomies (although in truth I am currently not fully sure of the use of them), I suppose.

Last edited by Cyclops; 30/08/2009 at 04:49 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
  #95  
Old 30/08/2009, 05:50 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
The objectivist/subjectivist dichotomy does not describe the "fundamental" differences between Te and Ti.
Perhaps not all of the differences -- but the most striking and important ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
The subjectivist/objectivist dicohotomy is a dichotomy designed to describe the difference in types in the Fe/Ti and Fi/Te quadras, namely, the former as alpha and beta, and the latter as gamman and delta.
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
This is why it is included within the merry/serious dichotomy.
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
To understand what a dichotomy means, it means to contrast one set of things against the other. So in the case of reinin dichotomies, to describe how they were formed, I thought this to be illuminating:
No, Expat is not illuminating, he's clouding the issue. How the dichotomies were formed in the first place is irrelevant. The reason why Gammas and Deltas are Serious is , the reason why they are Objectivists is . The functions are at the bottom here. They explain what we can observe empirically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
So all Gammas and Deltas are therefore serious and all alphas and betas are therefore merry (and objectivists and subjectivists) by the essence of what it means (and why and how it was created) to be a dichotomy.
No. All Gammas and Deltas are Serious and Objectivists because they value and more than they value and . All Alphas and Betas are Merry and Subjectivists because they value and more than they value and .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
That is - the dichotomies were made to contrast 8 of the types against the other 8.
Trivial and irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
If alphas and betas are subjectivists, in the sense that you interpret it, then you can you explain why there is a clear example of an objectivist in the form of Einstein? (an ILE and therefore Ti in the ego block).
If Einstein is a clear example of an Objectivist (I think that I have previously stated that he can be seen as an Objectivist, but I'm not sure that he's a clear example of an Objectivist, because in other ways he can probably be seen as more of a Subjectivist), then there are several possible explanations for that phenomenon, for example:

1. Einstein was not an ILE, or

2. There is something wrong with the Reinin dichotomies, for example that they don't fit all types equally well. We have no definite proof that the Reinin dichotomies actually fit, except from a lot of empirical observations, which seem to confirm a lot of what is described in them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
What you also have to remember is that when Jung spoke about the functions in his phychological types, he was speaking about about functions in the dominant position.
No, that's incorrect. Very often, and specifically when Jung discussed the types of various thinkers, philosophers, scientists, etc., he discussed both the dominant and the auxiliary (creative or whatever we want to call it) functions. A few examples: Jung said about himself that he was primarily a thinking type but also was very intuitive. He thought that Kant was more of a pure thinking type than Schopenhauer, who also had intuition as a strong function, and he thought that Nietzsche was an example of introverted thinking but that his intuition was stronger and influenced his thinking even more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
When he speaks of a form of thinking, he is speaking about how the dominant introverted thinking leads back to the subject, and the dominant extraverted thinking is concerned with the object.
No. You don't understand Jung correctly yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Jung actually states in his dichotomies that all introverts are concerned with the subject (the subject being themselves).
Yes, but that's irrelevant here (as I have also indicated in a previous post).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Therefore you cannot really make a distinction between LII's and ILI's in this basis because they are both introverts primarily concerned with relating information to themselves.
Irrelevant. We are not comparing with here (two introverted functions that are the dominant ones in LIIs and ILIs respectively), we are comparing with , which are the two ego functions of LIIs and ILIs respectively.

The difference between how an LII and an ILI relates to the philosophical problems of forming a world view, how they deal with facts, arguments, etc., is the difference between and , and that is the difference between a Subjectivist and an Objectivist, and that is the difference between an ideologist and an empiricist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Jung speaks of the differences in some aspects of dominant introverted and extraverted thinking, he does not speak of creative or
Wrong. He discusses William James's two philsophical attitudes (in another part of the book than chapter 10). He does not make a distinction between different positions of the functions in the psyche, at least not in the discussion about James's types.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
In regards to rationalism and empiricism, which you are equating with objectivism and subjectivism, you should hopefully be aware that the line is really blurred,
The line is distinct and clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
because Spinoza and Descartes, (both probably LII's) who were rationalists, were also empiricists because they were advocates of the scientific method, and consequently, Hume, an empiricist, (who I think you type as ILI) felt that some knowledge could only be reached with a rationalistic approach.
We don't know the types of Spinoza and Descartes. They are not as clear examples of LIIs as Kant; it's not impossible to imagine that they are mistyped. And Hume might be some other type than ILI, even though he is often typed as such. What is clear, however, is that Hume valued over and was therefore an Objectivist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
So you can see that the line is not as distinct as you would make it out to be.
The line exists, and I can see it, even you might have to do some more study before you see it as clearly as I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
The vast majority of clergy i've known have been ESTj and INFj. They are objectivists (as we've established by the reinin dichotomy description in this post) and therefore you would also class as empiricists.
The vast majority of clergy are ethical types (NFs), which means that their world views are not primarily based on reason and facts. They are not included in the group of types we are comparing here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Are you forgetting that Beta and Delta also exist, and also have and ?
Beta ENFjs and INFps don't have in their ego block, and Delta INFjs and ENFps don't have in their ego block. Only types with a thinking/logical ego function are relevant in this discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Beta are not soft, but delta could be described as so.
Idiotic and false. Every ethical type is correctly described as more soft than every logical type.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
I think you could perhaps better consider this being related to Se/Ni and Ne/Si axis.
Definitely not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
I know plenty of SLI's and ILI's who are not tough, they are soft and kind hearted.
Ridiculous. In that case you have mistyped them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Again, you are trying to attach extraverted outlooks onto , materialism is mainly a gamma trait, and the number of agnostic people in the world is increasing, however I see no reason to suspect this is due to a change in type distribution, you're reasoning is flawed.
My reasoning is perfectly in order.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
As I pointed out earlier, a dominant type can believe in God simply because it's tradition and regarded as a "well known fact", so in that case it is simply true. Therefore, this (and other) well known established facts that would be accepted by a type does not necessarily make the fact true. The facts are by no means a full proof method either.
There is a general type pattern to be seen, but you don't see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
I think you could perhaps also consider not to use LII as an information dump for various philosophies that you personally do not agree with.
The reason why I don't agree with them is because they are based on a world outlook and I, naturally (because of the type I am) happen to prefer a based philosophical and scientific outlook. And it happens to be very likely that Chomsky, Habermas, and Kant are in fact LIIs. If you don't see it, you are not competent enough in typing.
  #96  
Old 30/08/2009, 06:51 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Prom, you don't understand the reinin dichotomy. It is a fact that Ashura and Reinin intended the merry/serious dichotomy to represent the Alpha-Beta and Gamma-Delta divide. It is a fact that their intention was to show this divide along the Fe/Ti and Fi/Te axis.

As i've eluded to on a few posts, in socionics Fe/Ti and Fi/Te work together.

(This is also the reason why they are reinin dichotomies - at least here, and in general, to seperate 8 types from 8 types).

As a side note, I think you've indicated that you don't see quadra values as a useable method of typing, or something like that, consequently you therefore shouldn't use the merry-subjectivist and serious-objective dichotomy because reinin and ashura mean it as quadra differentiation, so by your own logic you should not be using this dichotomy at all. (which is maybe why you see the distinction of it being a distinction of 8 types to 8 types as irrelevant). You do not understand what reinin means by his dichotomy(s), and you don't seem to understand that Te and Fi etc work together, nor do you seem to realise that by model A an individual posses these functions, and are unconciously influenced them to an extent by "attitude" and such even without some sort of dual or otherwise influence.

I've already demonstrated as fact that the empiricists and rationalists are really a vague line and they use both.

Consequently, your lack of understanding of socionics which I have I suppose taken the time to demonstrate and prove here, and your attempts to somehow relate this to philosophy simply muddles your understanding of the types (and this dichotomy).

Consequently, this is perhaps the real reason why various independent people dispute things with you within socionics (and maybe some other things) - you do not understand.

(I suppose the last two paragraphs are actual conclusions for yourself and maybe others who read and are curious, and in a way advice for yourself).

ETA: sorry, I don't really think, in light of this (and other things) that you can help me find my type. I do however thank you for your input, all this I suppose, although not really helping me find my type, has at least provided me with a 'mental' exercise to an extent, and some clarification on some other matters.

I am currently tempted to ask you to refrain from further input on this thread at least in regards to my type, and maybe in general on this thread also. I could perhaps suggest if you want to talk about philosophers (or something else), it perhaps deserves to be on another thread really.

Edit: Also, there's enough maybe to at least suspect on this thread that you don't understand socionics enough to be sure of your own type. There is for instance (among many things) a lot in your behaviour which Jung describes as dominant introverted thinking. So I suppose to use your own reasoning, if your type is wrong (etc) then everything you say about other types is wrong (because you don't seem to understand that the "laws" of socionics can be applied to others independently of applying them to oneself, it doesn't have to be related to the "subject" which you base your typings, and mine - the/my methods, and no doubt others as well).

Last edited by Cyclops; 30/08/2009 at 06:59 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
  #97  
Old 30/08/2009, 07:57 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
It is a fact that Ashura and Reinin intended the merry/serious dichotomy to represent the Alpha-Beta and Gamma-Delta divide.
And I said that it is irrelevant. Don't you understand what that means? The origin is irrelevant. Period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
It is a fact that their intention was to show this divide along the Fe/Ti and Fi/Te axis.
Their intentions are also irrelevant. But of course it shows a divide along the Fe/Ti and Fi/Te axis. So what? That is not the issue here. The issue is about the difference between and , which has to do with the Objectivist/Subjectivist dichotomy -- not the Serious/Merry dichotomy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
As a side note, I think you've indicated that you don't see quadra values as a useable method of typing, or something like that, consequently you therefore shouldn't use the merry-subjectivist and serious-objective dichotomy because reinin and ashura mean it as quadra differentiation, so by your own logic you should not be using this dichotomy at all.
I, personally, can use quadra considerations in typings, because I know the types much better than the average person on these socionic forums. But, as a method, it is still much worse than other typing methods. However, you shouln never ever start with looking at the quadras, because that is totally idiotic and inevitably lead to mistypings -- which we see countless examples of among the incompetent fools on socionic forums.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
You do not understand what reinin means by his dichotomies, and you don't seem to understand that Te and Fi etc work together, nor do you seem to realise that by model A an individual posses these functions, and are unconciously influenced them to an extent by "attitude" and such even without some sort of dual or otherwise influence.
You are obviously a total moron. You don't understand how little you know about the types in comparison with me.

Quote:
I've already demonstrated as fact that the empiricists and rationalists are really a vague line and they use both.
You have demonstrated that you are a blind idiot that is incapable of seeing general type patterns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Consequently, your lack of understanding of socionics which I have I suppose taken the time to demonstrate and prove here, and your attempts to somehow relate this to philosophy simply muddles your understanding of the types (and this dichotomy).
Once again you prove that you are an idiot.

(But if you take a look at Smilingeyes's material, you should realize that you exhibit -- just like I do myself -- a typical creative behaviour in this post and in this thread overall.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Consequently, this is perhaps the real reason why various independent people dispute things with you within socionics (and maybe some other things) - you do not understand.
The level of general understanding of the types and competence at typing is very low on these forums. They are incompetent idiots, whereas I am almost never wrong. That's the difference. You can choose yourself which side you want to put your money on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
ETA: sorry, I don't really think, in light of this (and other things) that you can help me find my type. I do however thank you for your input, all this I suppose, although not really helping me find my type, has at least provided me with a 'mental' exercise to an extent, and some clarification on some other matters.
As is now pretty obvious: You are incompetent at typing and know very little of the types and Socionics in general.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
I am currently tempted to ask you to refrain from further input on this thread at least in regards to my type, and maybe in general on this thread also. I could perhaps suggest if you want to talk about philosophers (or something else), i perhaps deserves to be on another thread really. Thanks though dude, I hope you get it eventually

Edit: Also, there's enough maybe to at least suspect on this thread that you don't understand socionics enough to be sure of your own type. There is for instance (among many things) a lot in your behaviour which Jung describes as dominant introverted thinking. So I suppose to use your own reasoning, if your type is wrong (etc) then everything you say about other types is wrong (because you don't seem to understand that the "laws" of socionics can be applied to others independently of applying them to oneself, it doesn't have to be related to the "subject" which you base your typings, and mine, and no doubt others too).
I hope you will realize that you are an idiot some day. Your incompetence is disgusting.
  #98  
Old 30/08/2009, 10:34 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

My enneagram is either a 1 or a 6, although I am leaning towards a type of 6.
  #99  
Old 30/08/2009, 10:58 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
My enneagram is either a 1 or a 6, although I am leaning towards a type of 6.
Okay. There's actually an alternative explanation for your delusion available. If you really are an early bird, and you have tried the best you could to describe your own behaviour correctly in the past (even though you seem to have failed in that case), then you are an ISTj and type 1 in the Enneagram. That typing (ISTj) would also explain your inability to spot your own logical mistakes in reasoning. But that's the only way you can be a leading type, because you are clearly not an INTj.

If, on the other hand, you are really a 6, then you are an ISFj -- but that logically implies that you have failed miserably both at typing yourself and at describing your own behavior correctly.
  #100  
Old 30/08/2009, 11:08 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Okay. There's actually an alternative explanation for your delusion available. If you really are an early bird, and you have tried the best you could to describe your own behaviour correctly in the past (even though you seem to have failed in that case), then you are an ISTj and type 1 in the Enneagram. That typing (ISTj) would also explain your inability to spot your own logical mistakes in reasoning. But that's the only way you can be a leading type, because you are clearly not an INTj.

If, on the other hand, you are really a 6, then you are an ISFj -- but that logically implies that you have failed miserably both at typing yourself and at describing your own behavior correctly.
There is another explanation here: You are a blithering idiot.
Closed Thread


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 05:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 SOCIONICS.COM