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
  #21  
Old 06/03/2006, 06:26 PM
Luke Luke is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

If a theory is unsound, it needs changed. I don't care whether it is MBTI, Socionics, or both. It's important for it to be right, not just functional.

Maybe there is a sideways dimension, i.e. unconscious versus conscious that is throwing us off. If I am consciously TiNe, my unconscious mind could still be NiTe. If SG is both consciously and unconsciously TiNe, it would mean we can only communicate on a conscious level.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06/03/2006, 07:31 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

SG is TiNe consciously and TeNi subconsciously like any other TiNe type. And yeah, if doctor said you should have died long time ago and you're still alive who is wrong you or the doctor?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06/03/2006, 09:14 PM
Luke Luke is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

Quote:
Originally posted by Vibration:
I believe both Jonathan and Prometheus are INTp's (NiTe). [/QB]
Now that I think of it in terms of SG being TiNe, it makes sense that I am NiTe as well. It also makes more sense of why I keep misunderstanding what he says.

It appears that would mean the direction is mis-labeled on extroverts as well. For example, "ENTJ" would be NeTi and "ENTP" would be TeNi.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07/03/2006, 05:39 AM
Jonathan Jonathan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

Of course, we're all assuming that Sergei is INTj and not ENTj.

As to the idea of function direction being reverse what we'd expect for extraverts, I see some evidence for both points of view.

On one hand, the type descriptions match MBTI pretty well, and at the same time the theory of the functions for E types matches MBTI for the most part, with the main difference I see being that in Socionics, the ambitious side of ESP types is emphasized more, almost as if the projection of their inferior Ni is played up a bit.

The VI pictures also tend to match what I'd expect for extraverts from an MBTI background. So in terms of finding discrepancies between the two theories, there isn't any obvious conflict on the E side.

On the other hand, the Physicist Richard Feynman is often used as a classic model of what the ENTP type is like. You can find sites gallore that specifically make him the model of ENTP. However, Socioniko.net types him ENTj (http://www.socioniko.net/en/celebr/i...r.html...click on Logical-intuitive extravert, upper right corner.) Of course, that's just one data point.

So with the exception of some historical typing data, I'd say that the functions probably aren't reversed from what we'd expect for extraverts, unless I had more information to think otherwise.

My "hall of mirrors" explanation would be consistent with the view that the functions are what you think they are, but that they can appear the opposite, because it's too easy to assume that you're what you're looking at.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07/03/2006, 06:29 AM
Jonathan Jonathan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

Of course, now that I've gotten people thinking that those of us who in MBTI are INTP but find ourselves different from Sergei are really Ni/Te, I'll offer another theory that also seems plausible. Once we're able to find some tests to compare and rule out such theories, we may be in a better position to understand what's going on here.

The alternate theory involves the following two postulates:
1) Those of us who think we're Ti really are Ti, even though Sergei is too and we seem to be a different type from him.
2) One solves the discrepancy through a combination of function direction and subtypes.

Just a little background here:
Somewhere I read a very instructive thing that Sergei said: That the dominant function in Socionics is the starting point of one's mental process, with the auxiliary being the more free, more flexible endpoint.

This is very different from the way dominant and auxiliary are described in MBTI. In MBTI, the prototypical mental process is always from the perceiving function to the judging function. It is never conceived as being the other way around. The idea that someone may "start" with logic and then move to intuitive applications simply isn't part of the MBTI conception. Furthermore, I think many people assume that their more flexible function is more conscious and therefore their dominant.

In addition, there is a concept among some Sonionics theorists of "subtypes." Sergei addresses subtypes at http://www.socionics.com/advan/qa.htm?1122148825 .

Remembering that the definition of the dominant is now merely the starting point, and, furthermore, the more unchangeable side of one's more conscious functions, it is then possible to conceive that a person may "prefer" the dominant or auxiliary. That preference will appear perhaps somewhat like the dominance of a type in MBTI.

For example, say you're INTp, but not like some other INTp you know who likes everything scheduled and is interested mainly in finance and business. In that case, that person may be INTp logical subtype...i.e., IN(T)p, whereas you might be INTp intuitive subtype...i.e., I(N)Tp.

But that's not the main hypothesis I mean to discuss tonight. I'm going to make an assumption now that I and other people who think of themselves as MBTI-INTPs are possibly EN(T)p.

While Sergei's article on subtypes probably doesn't suggest going this far, I'm going to suggest that EN(T)p will seem somewhat introverted because of the focus on Ti. In fact, if you consider, for a particular individual, the preference of Ti as a strong preference, rather than a slight one, then EN(T)p is then structurally the closest type to MBTI-INTP. From here on in, I'll only consider solid preferences when writing the subtype notation.

Using "->" to denote direction and "!" to denote the "preferred" or focused-upon function, here's a table of how Socionics and MBTI-based theory could possibly be reconciled (just for the NTs):

FUNCTIONS......SOCIONICS....MBTI
Ne -> Ti!...EN(T)p.......INTP
Ne! -> Ti...E(N)Tp.......ENTP
Ni -> Te!...IN(T)p......INTJ
Ni! -> Te...I(N)Tp......INT that acts P
Ti -> Ne!...I(N)Tj......Socially appears ENTP
Ti! -> Ne...IN(T)j......J-like INTP; ambiguous
Te -> Ni!...E(N)Tj......ENTJ, may appear ENTP
Te! -> Ni...EN(T)j......ENTJ

Well, that's all I have time for right now...still haven't addressed my 3rd alternative...non-NT types with strongly developed N and T...e.g., INFp as Ni->Ti, but that's a topic for another day.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07/03/2006, 12:16 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

Okay, Jonathan ... I like alternative explanations, so keep on producing them, please. But now I begin to get a feeling similar to the one I get when I read astrology material.

If you make the theory complex enough, and make room for the functions to "go" in this direction or in that direction depending on the circumstances, it might become too easy to make the theory fit the empirical data. You might end up with a theory that can't be falsified. I'm not prepared to give up my hopes for a simpler explanation until all those simpler explanations are ruled out.

My starting point in type theory is what I can observe. Did I just write that? OMG. Actually I first became interested in the theories, as I always do, but after a couple of years my eyes opened and I began to actually see some of the types in real life. Now I know that some people that I know personally are the same type, because that is obvious from the observations in combination with the theories. So I can know that four people belong to type A without knowing exactly which type that type A really is.

For example, I know that I am not an ENTp, because I know at least four or five people who are definitely ENTps, and I'm not like them. They have something in common which I don't share. There is a clear pattern to be observed. I also know that I am not an extravert, so the above argument is not necessary, unless the distinction between extraversion and introversion is also open for debate.

Another pattern of a different kind, but even more observable, is the pattern shared by those who belong to the type I have identified as the same type as the one MBTI and Keirsey is trying to describe under the label INTJ. I know that those real life "INTJs" are alike in a way that I am not, and therefore I know that I am not the same type. I don't know yet if SG is also a member of that group or not.

At this point I don't know what are the causes of these observable differences. I don't know how I think, I don't know how they think, and I don't know what we should call our different ways of thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08/03/2006, 06:42 AM
Jonathan Jonathan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

Prometheus, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the need to find the simplest possible explanations and find ways of testing of them. A theory that can't be refuted with evidence isn't very useful.

Despite my lengthy post, I didn't have time last night to devise a way of testing what I wrote, but I did try to stay within concepts that are already on the table, as it were. Subtypes and the directional thing are concepts that Sergei has discussed on this site, so I was only taking those existing ideas one step further.

I completely agree also with the strategy of comparison with other people whose type seems more clear. I've been doing that too. The subtype theory is one potential way to explain why people of the same overall type may appear different, but there may be other ways, even taking into account things outside the domain of Socionics.

As you point out, the direction of the prototypical mental process isn't something that's as easily observable as looking at the functions in a "static" way. However, I do notice times when I feel either that my intuition has been stimulated by some sort of issue with logic, or that I've formulated logic based on intuition. I guess that would be a pretty long topic to discuss how exactly the directionality thing works.

Anyhow, all these theories are an attempt to find a satisfactory "simple" solution. My hunch is, though, that the reality is far more complex. I tend to think that the functions, and the types, are really describing certain aspects of phenomena in general, and of mental processes that people are generally capable of.

I think that the Socionics assumption that the mind is as simple as just the constant use of functions in a single orientation may not be correct. Certainly, we see that people tend to develop in certain ways, with some people emphasizing certain kinds of mental processes, and others emphasizing other kinds. But it seems to me that probably many INT types uses both N and T in both the I and E directions.

The sum of all those mental transactions may appear to resemble the lowest common denominator. For example, I was editing a photograph, and applying a feature in the graphics software where you can make it appear that the picture is on canvas. I wanted the effect to be very subtle though, so I made it very fine-grained. However, when I zoomed out, the sum of all those tiny canvas patterns caused very noticeable patterns at a macro level.

I think the same thing happens with the mind. It seems ridiculous to think that I might only use Te as my T, except to use Ti only as some distant, subconscious function. All the capabilities are there, and we probably all use them to some degree.

Another thing that this discussion makes me think of is what you might call, for lack of a better name, the relativity of I and E. For example, we've all been talking about how hard it is to tell if one's T and N are I or E. But I don't think it's right to think of, say Ni and Ne as different tools one picks up and down, as if one were a screwdriver and the other were a wrench.

Sergei, in another post, compared Ti and Te to answering the question of why does one have to wind up the toy. The Te answer is supposed to be to make it go, and the Ti answer is because of the gears inside, etc. For sake of argument, I'm going to summarize it this way, even though the example is slightly different:
Ti Question: Why does it go?
Ti Answer: Because of the gears.

But do the gears inside tell us why it really works? We think they do, but really it's just because by answering the question, we've signaled our interest in "why" questions. Here's another question: Why do the gears have to turn around? One answer is, to make the toy go. That sounds like a "Te" answer. But in fact it's just an inversion of the Ti answer that the toy goes because of the gears.

So, it seems that really, T is just T, and N is just N...and whether it's I or E depends on your vantage point. What's I and E anyway? At the broadest level, we think of them as "in" vs. "out." But what's "in" and what's "out" depends on where you're coming from.

Here's a picture of how my mental process often appears to me:

I have an inkling about something and decide to imagine something about it, and that leads me to certain revelations (Ni), but sometimes the imagination is triggered by studying some logical structure and trying to understand it based on thinking of what it is not (Ti/Ne), and in either case this imagination leads to some sort of codification (Te), which I don't think of as absolute, but rather think of as a something that could be part of a larger structure or could be evaluated against other ideas (Ti/Ne), and so forth. So it's kind of a cycle that involves different functions, not just functions within one static formulation.

Now, the whole time I'm doing this, I'd probably seem to an outside observer to be spaced out (N), self-absorbed (I), deep in thought (T), and oblivious to any schedules or practical things that need to be done, or social structures (MBTI-P)....Hence, in MBTI terms, INTP. But in terms of Socionics, was I using Ti and Ne or Ni and Te? Well, the answer is probably both, but probably some of those more than others.

Okay, that's my rant for today...Thanks for paying attention (anyone who has read this far).
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08/03/2006, 10:30 AM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

I like you guys!

You are like a firewall in my system. If I pass the firewall you will define the next firewall outside mine and so on... I assume this process will go on until the outer boundary of our universe has been reached. First then, we can come to a mutual understanding.

Right?

I'm still trying to understand you.

Somehow you should be the inverted me.

NiTe
NeTi

It should be possible for me to understand you.

(I'll just have to make a four dimensional projection of myself and then transform it back to NiTe.)
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08/03/2006, 10:44 AM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

I think I just found the solution...
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08/03/2006, 10:49 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

What is it? What is it? Tell me right away!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08/03/2006, 11:14 AM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

Quote:
Originally posted by Prometheus:
What is it? What is it? Tell me right away!
Hahaha! I knew it!
Now I understand you.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08/03/2006, 01:21 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

I'm jealous. I wish I did it too ...
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08/03/2006, 02:48 PM
Jonathan Jonathan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

I think part of the solution is to realize that we're not the types; we only think we are. Once you recognize that you can think in any of the orientations, and become aware of all the functions and how you can use them, then you can listen to people of any type and feel "Gee, I'm just like that sometimes."

Before, we were talking about differences, like...gee, I know someone who's INTj, INTp, ENTp, etc., etc., and I'm not like them and then it seems as if I'm no type. But then there are times when I hear an INTj, and INTp, and ENTp, etc., talk, and I think, gee, I'm exactly like them. And then it seems as if I'm all the types.

Ever feel like that?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08/03/2006, 03:44 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

I've never felt that I'm all the types, but the more I learn about types, the more I can see the many differences between persons belonging to the same type. The pattern that is unique to one type is still very clear, but the picture becomes more full of nuances.

I have thought that I'm not the most typical example of an MBTI INTP, but I really don't know, since I have no empirical evidence or statistics to back it up with. One thing that all the ENTps I know personally have in common is that they always get very high results on spatial intelligence. I'm not as good at it, but I think my verbal intelligence is higher than theirs. So it's interesting to read about INTps that they are interested in languages. I don't think I have seen that aspect being accentuated that much in the INTP profiles from MBTI and Keirsey.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08/03/2006, 04:27 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

Quote:
Originally posted by Vibration:


You are like a firewall in my system.
Ahaha, so true!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08/03/2006, 07:30 PM
Luke Luke is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

Quote:
Originally posted by Prometheus:
I've never felt that I'm all the types, but the more I learn about types, the more I can see the many differences between persons belonging to the same type. The pattern that is unique to one type is still very clear, but the picture becomes more full of nuances.
That sounds like an ENTP-ish speculation. Using intuition for things around you to try and connect-the-dots. I think I am NiTe/INTp because I want to make things clearer around me and use my intuition to plug it all together into something more satisfying that I can then share.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09/03/2006, 02:55 AM
Jonathan Jonathan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

I think both are important...both part of a complete cycle of understanding...you observe the pattern of the data; you assign meaning to that pattern; and then you re-conceive it as a coherent, unified model, and turn it into a logical formulation that you can share.

(There's a little known typologist named Walter Lowen who had a theory that went kind of like that.)

In any event, I think we shouldn't feel restricted to the Socionics "boxes." It's completely natural to perform the mental transactions of all of the types, or at least of a few that you feel close to.

Somehow Socionics makes us think we can only be one or the other. In the last day or so, I felt very ENTp. I always want to know if there really is some type that I am, just so that I'm not blind to something so fundamental about me. But I keep on arriving at the conclusion that I'm whatever type I feel like at the moment.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09/03/2006, 06:49 AM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default Re: Laid back vs. orderly types

Quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Quote:
.
That sounds like an ENTP-ish speculation. Using intuition for things around you to try and connect-the-dots. I think I am NiTe/INTp because I want to make things clearer around me and use my intuition to plug it all together into something more satisfying that I can then share.
(((Yes Luke, I think you might be right. Perhaps all I do is speculate. But I think we have different grounds for our speculations. Read the text below and you will get some ideas on how my mind works.)))

LESS IS MORE

I believe, “less is more”, so thanks for a short message Luke, because I like it that way and sorry for the lengthy explanation WHY I like it this way...


“time is being” demonstrated an INTpolator in some earlier post where he quoted SG and send the INTj-text through an INTpolator (I liked his experiment very much by the way):

SG wrote:
"Every person has a hidden agenda. This agenda often governs one's intentions and behaviour. People are often unaware of its origin, but can always feel its significance. Some people are more affected by it than other people. Every type requires an optimal condition in which it can function properly. If such condition does not exist, a person will normally attempt to create it. However, due to the nature of the hidden agenda, if and when the optimal condition is reached, the person will occasionally put themselves in a situation where the stability of this condition is threatened."

Time is being wrote:
”and after being processed through the INTpolator: socionics theorizes that in addition to having a type, people also have a hidden agenda. while the hidden agenda may seem obscure at first, it can be seen to predict one's behavior. the obscurity comes from the location of the hidden agenda, the unconcious. the unawareness, nevertheless, does not impede on some feeling its significance. people vary in differing degrees of being responsive to the unconcious. the theory of unconcious motivations holds validity in some observable instances. the hidden agenda which is semi-unique to each type causes the type to seek the optimal condition which is determined by the hidden agenda. when the optimal condition is percieved not to exist, it is believed that the type attempts to create it. however, despite the evidence that supports the idea of the hidden agenda, there exists further evidence that suggests that the hidden agenda is not a motivational factor as it has been observed that when the optimal condition is reached, a person will place themselves in a situation that threatens the stability of the condition. the nature of the hidden agenda is not completely understood at this point. other hypothesis are also being considered as possibly explaining behaviors more clearly.”


Okey let’s do it in my ENTp-way...

SG wrote:
"Every person has a hidden agenda. This agenda often governs one's intentions and behaviour. People are often unaware of its origin, but can always feel its significance. Some people are more affected by it than other people. Every type requires an optimal condition in which it can function properly. If such condition does not exist, a person will normally attempt to create it. However, due to the nature of the hidden agenda, if and when the optimal condition is reached, the person will occasionally put themselves in a situation where the stability of this condition is threatened."

I’m now sending the text through my ENTpolator:


Animals have instincts.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That’s it.
.
.
Not satisfied?
.
.
.
.
I know that your’re not satisfied yet.

Okey let’s do it again... sigh!

SG wrote:
"Every person has a hidden agenda. This agenda often governs one's intentions and behaviour. People are often unaware of its origin, but can always feel its significance. Some people are more affected by it than other people. Every type requires an optimal condition in which it can function properly. If such condition does not exist, a person will normally attempt to create it. However, due to the nature of the hidden agenda, if and when the optimal condition is reached, the person will occasionally put themselves in a situation where the stability of this condition is threatened."


Again I send the text through the ENTpolator:

A molecule will react if it can lower its energy during the reaction.
The lowering of energy in itself, often governs the faith and reaction pathways of molecules. Molecules are often unaware of Mother Nature when she tells them: “in order for you to react, you must lower your energy”, but they always feel her significance. Some molecules are more reactive than others. Every molecule has an ideal environment (temperature, pressure etc) in which it is stabilizes and does not decompose. If the environment is too tough for a gang of molecules, they will normally counterbalance the environment (e.g. by increasing their speed or start vibrating) such that a new system is created. However, even if the lowering of energy in itself normally leads stable molecular systems, a few molecules in such systems will occasionally end up in a situation which might threaten the stability of the whole system.

This analogy RELATES dead- and living matter (it relates personality theory with thermodynamics in physics and chemistry if you wish). You might create a thermodynamic theory for living people this way, though I wouldn’t dare to do it...
.
.
.
Some people say that a picture can say more than 1000 words. I believe this is true.

However, I also believe that a few hundred words in a compressed form, e.g., in form of an analogy, can illustrate 1000 pictures... simply because analogies points at (and discovers) the RELATION between things. I believe the analogy is the closest you can get to a mathematical equation (=A RELATION).
I think ENTp's are good at compressing language into fewer words (analogies) OR expanding mathematics into words (analogies).
(I might be completely wrong.)

There are people out there who can compress analogues even more into mathematical equations (can you believe it?). Mathematical equations can actually compress lengthy and tiresome wordly descriptions of our world into a logical RELATION containg few symbols (like X,Y,Z etc) each having a very well defined meaning.
If you are interested in compressing analogies into mathematics you should probably consult an INTj.
(I might be completely wrong.)


If an INTj or ENTp would believe in absolute truth and in the same time want to find and create UNIVERSAL order (truly believing that their own findings really is part of the absolute truth) they should probably report all their results to an INTp.
(I might be completely wrong.)

I am very open to believe that there is some “absolute truth” out there and I believe we might be approaching it everytime we discover RELATIONS in the world.
I am also very open to the possibility that we might as well just be looking at our self in the mirror when we’re trying to do so.

What more "truth" is there than relations, -relations that are built on something that we consider “rock solid” axioms, -axioms that reflect who WE are?

We havn't discussed information from our five senses yet. I believe S-information is closer to the "truth" than any mind games with analogies, speculations, theories or whatever, can take us.

This gives the expression “Less is more” a new meaning, doesn’t it?

This new meaning can be used to create new analogies...

ENTp
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 02:46 AM.


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