# Robert Plutchik's Basic Emotions and the Cognitive Functions



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Wtf can you take your stereotypes and assumptions somewhere else please. Expecially drawing blanket statements about how the types are.


Oh shit, here we go with accusations again - you are on a TYPE website - get it?

Not intending to keep this going, I was on my way to unsubscribing this thread (can't follow everything) but I just couldn't resist commenting on that one.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> Oh shit, here we go with accusations again - you are on a TYPE website - get it?
> 
> Not intending to keep this going, I was on my way to unsubscribing this thread (can't follow everything) but I just couldn't resist commenting on that one.


Indeed I am, and you just drew a blanket statement about how I am supposed to be based on that and your comment was ridiculously typist. It's one thing if you've asserted with "All the INTJs I've *personally *met" but you did no such thing; you made a blanket statement suggesting that *all *INTJs are paranoid and cautious based on nothing more than your own at probably best, anecdotal information on the matter.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Indeed I am, and you just drew a blanket statement about how I am supposed to be based on that and your comment was ridiculously typist. It's one thing if you've asserted with "All the INTJs I've *personally *met" but you did no such thing; you made a blanket statement suggesting that *all *INTJs are paranoid and cautious based on nothing more than your own at probably best, anecdotal information on the matter.


Do you see the fear or paranoia on this defensive response? I've been at this forum for more than a year, I actually like Ni discussions. If my observations were not from *my* experience HERE - what else would it be? People don't wear INXJ stamped on their forehead.

But also, Jung's premise of opposites, the inferior function - if Se is trust than logically Ni is dis-trust. The Se jumps in and makes things up as they go along the Ni dom is against doing this. 

Do you really need every single thing to be qualified by saying somebody might not fit this? It's not understood on a type site that individual lives and situations, experiences and interpretations are complex?

If it needs to be so complex nothing can be categorized then why be on a type site? And if you only want to hear sweet talk about everybody don't read Jung.

It wasn't meant to be any big deal, just off the cuf,f and I would expect many InXJ's would see why it looks this way to an ENTP.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Isn't this subject part of the basis for that new Pixar movie Inside Out?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

fucking whatever


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> I mean, if _anything,_ I would think of Ne as anticipation.


Can you explain a bit further? 



> Perhaps emotions _are _connected to cognitive functions in some way--


What is the difference between _cognitions _(OP) and Jung's cognitive functions? (besides the fact that _cognitions _are used scientifically)



> But, there's no way it's as clear cut as that. Perhaps, for example, one engaging in Ti could also be engaging in any myriad of emotions that exists, but for entirely different reasons. The human brain and its chemistry


I disagree. We have eight basic emotions (according to Robert Plutchik). All other emotions/feelings are combinations of these basic emotions. How on earth do you connect trust, disgust, sadness... with Ti?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> Nope. Any function can be involved in calculating threats. This has nothing to do with internal structure and logical relationships specifically.
> 
> One could even say that they are all involved.
> 
> ...


It isn't the imagination itself that induces _fear_, but the fact that a man is holding a knife and you don't. 

"Getting stabbed would be awful" induces _sadness _and/or _disgust_.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Tellus said:


> Can you explain a bit further?


I don't think so. I wasn't really taking it _that _seriously. I was just throwing it out there.



> What is the difference between _cognitions _(OP) and Jung's cognitive functions? (besides the fact that _cognitions _are used scientifically)


The scientifically used cognition includes pretty much everything we do, think, act. Cognitive functions are a way of describing worldviews and perspectives, and our _motivations _for these actions. (From my understanding of it.)



> I disagree. We have eight basic emotions (according to Robert Plutchik). All other emotions/feelings are combinations of these basic emotions. How on earth do you connect trust, disgust, sadness... with Ti?


Well, I don't necessarily _agree _with Plutchik, so that's irrelevant. I think that emotions tend to go beyond categorization and simplification in this way. The simple fact is, I'm _not _connecting Ti with any of those emotions-- I am saying that we can engage with Ti and be _experiencing _these emotions, regardless of whether they are connected or not, based upon a myriad of variables. In my opinion, this just isn't something you can pin down.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> Ni should be fear - the opposite of trust. INFJ's, and INTJ's are the most cautious, even paranoid type. Ti fear, I just don't see it. and the anger from Te isn't from Te its from the Te users Fi when you see that baseball bat of truth it comes across intense because of Fi, and all the wasteful or values violating things that happen from being stupid.


The opposite of _trust_ is _disgust_ (see OP).

I don't claim that a cognitive function _is_ an emotion, but that there is a connection between Fi and _sadness_ etc.

_Cautious_ is more related to _anticipation. 

_"baseball bat of truth..." Can you provide a concrete example?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> I think this theory is unnecessarily complicating things and does more to obscure than it does to reveal. It is not intuitive and strikes me as the kind of thing thinkers cook up when they're being clever by making associations that follow logically, but in reality do not exist, or only partially apply in some vague, abstract manner that - as I say - is obscure and not immediately obvious, and therefore next to useless.


How does it complicate things according to you?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Because it's not logical and treats the phenomena in a vacuum without even considering the complexity of them. It's detaching from actual observable reality and how people are like and simplifies stuff like the functions and emotions to the point that none are recognized to be either. It's just a load of cuckoo.


Can you provide a concrete example?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Tellus said:


> Can you provide a concrete example?


Concrete example: I, as a human being, am capable of showing a large range of emotions and feelings and can do that at any given point in my life. These experience are not related to my cognition.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Tellus said:


> How does it complicate things according to you?


Let me be more specific.

It doesn't complicate anything for me, because I'm not the one asserting that any of it is true.

It complicates things for you, because now you've got to prove it. And by extension, it complicates things for anyone who agrees with you, because they have to help you prove it.

You have proven nothing.

Hence, you're just trying to seem clever.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Tellus said:


> The opposite of _trust_ is _disgust_ (see OP).
> 
> I don't claim that a cognitive function _is_ an emotion, but that there is a connection between Fi and _sadness_ etc.
> 
> ...


_If you want examples of Te you can troll Te dom threads - this was an expression used in a discussion __between myself and Te dom - the term was Te dom's wording that Ti was more like a scalpel and Te baseball bat.

_I agree with @Abraxas - the whole assigning emotion to each function is an ineffective layer of complication.

Plus I think it is a mistake to treat J functions and P functions using the same metaphor.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Let me be more specific.
> 
> It doesn't complicate anything for me, because I'm not the one asserting that any of it is true.
> 
> ...


You either see the connection or you don't...


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Concrete example: I, as a human being, am capable of showing a large range of emotions and feelings and can do that at any given point in my life. These experience are not related to my cognition.


I disagree. Do you think the cognitive-behavioral-emotional (CBE) model (see OP) is inaccurate?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> Plus I think it is a mistake to treat J functions and P functions using the same metaphor.


???


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Tellus said:


> ???


Honestly I think the whole theory in this thread is a waste of time and doesn't help people understand what Jungian functions are.

P functions are a different animal than J functions. When you get what Jung means about rational and irrational - by his meanings, in his writings - THAT helps you understand a lot about personality theory including MBTI.

This emotion theory seems to make behavioral observations for people to take or leave, it might as well be horoscope.
It is kind of hit and miss, easy to poke holes in. For example Fi people often seem negative but how do you know it's not inferior Te making them worry? - when you see Fi's brooding that is, not to say all Fi doms are handicapped with inferior Te.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Tellus said:


> I disagree. Do you think the cognitive-behavioral-emotional (CBE) model (see OP) is inaccurate?


There's not much to get from the link in the OP, but what it seems to suggest is that it attempts to categorize and classify the entire range of human emotions which actually just further reinforces my point - none of these feelings are explicit or unique to any particular cognitive type preference, which means that they are entirely unrelated phenomena since I can go through a wide range of various emotions just during one day alone. It's simply not type-related. It's intrinsically human to experience a wide range of various emotions, even if we may be more likely to experience certain kinds more than others, but those preferences are more innate due to environmental factors and our upbringing and possibly temperament, than related to socionics IMs. Especially since socionics IMs also deal with information in the environment, the kind of information we pick up from it. From this assertion alone it's ridiculous to say that Fe=joy, because it fundamentally ignores what Fe actually is in socionics and treats it as if existing in a bubble.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

What this kind of looks like (the whole theory) is how an Fe dom feels about types; think about it.

If you were to study or just read about the life of Einstein, you might think he was quite courageous. Most people categorize him as Te dom (INTP). BUT if you are an Fe dom, you assume everyone would be you (joyful because your Fe means joy for you), ......... IF they didn't have problems like *fear* or *ange*r standing in the way :laughing:.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Tellus said:


> Are 'negative', 'worry' and 'brooding' examples of _sadness_?
> 
> _Anxiety_ is a combination of _anticipation_ and _fear_ (see attached image).
> 
> View attachment 350034


My point is that parallels of behavior are not functions. If you just want to file people you can use a horoscope or hair color or whatever you want. Functions as described by Jung are about understanding how personalities *process* the world and life experience differently. Sadness is a reaction to who knows what - whoopie do. A reaction out of context tells you nothing. Even if you say a person has sadness traits, what does that mean? - nothing. So that even if you saw a behavioral emotion related pattern, it doesn't tell you if this is activation of a dominant or inferior, or just chemical.

If you are interested in brain chemistry Dario Nardi has interesting work, not exactly chemistry but mapping of brain activity and type parallels. Attaching emotion to functions makes an understanding of functions useless, compared to mind mapping of electrical activity showing patterns of the brain in use.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Tellus said:


> _John and Catherine have been married for 20 years and they have two kids. Yesterday Catherine found out that John had cheated on her, and she is furious, she is sad, she feels distrust..._
> 
> Why is she furious (anger)?


You seem to not know the difference between the content of a persons life and a favored processing method. Catherine could be any personality type and have this experience. A function stack is a favored method. How the hell should I know, or why should I care, about a fictional characters "reasons" for having a feeling.

Hey, maybe she's pissed at the boring life she stuck to because of social pressure and he just crapped on that social cred.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Of course it is. You place much too emphasis on the +-. It doesn't affect ITR and IME.


ITR = intertype relations, IME = IM element

Do you agree with these descriptions (below)? If yes, don’t you think ILI’s suggestive function (-Se) matches SLE’s base function (–Se) better than SEE’s base function (+Se)? 

How do you view –Se? Do you see it as Se with just a touch of ‘-‘? If so, is there ‘+’ as well?

*Quality*
sign "+" - "positive", competence in the positive region of properties and incompetence in the negative region;
"−" sign - withdrawal from the "negative", from negative properties towards positive properties, competence in both positive and negative regions;
*Scale*
"+" sign - locality, the "big plan", specifics, itemization within the sphere of the function;
"−" sign - globality, "the general plan," universality of the function;
*Direction*
"+" sign - the orientation into the sphere of responsibility of the function (interest in protection of "own sphere");
"−" sign - the orientation outside of the sphere of responsibility of the function (influence, "pressure" on the other "localities");
*Distance*
sign "+" - "close" psychological distance;
sign "−" - "far" psychological distance.



> Furthermore, +- isn't a part of model A to begin with. Do you even know what an information processing is?


Socionics = model A. Is this your argument? 

There are model A, model A systemic version, model B, model B1, model T, model F, model G…

There is a reason for all these models; socionists view model A as an approximation.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Tellus said:


> ITR = intertype relations, IME = IM element


Nope. IME=information metabolic exchange. IM=information metabolism. It doesn't suggest any interaction with the environment.


> Do you agree with these descriptions (below)? If yes, don’t you think ILI’s suggestive function (-Se) matches SLE’s base function (–Se) better than SEE’s base function (+Se)?


I really don't care for either +Se or -Se. Se is Se. Furthermore, the entire gamma quadra has +Se and beta -Se. Gamma tries to maintain and keep their ground or focus on how to gain new ground; beta tries to remove or take away or undermine ground. 



> How do you view –Se? Do you see it as Se with just a touch of ‘-‘? If so, is there ‘+’ as well?


I find it a largely useless and meaingless nitpicky dinstinguishing quality really has little to no bearing on IME. 



> Socionics = model A. Is this your argument?


I don't fucking know what my argument is anymore, except you are overthinking something simple to the point it gets entirely reality-removed because none of this has any bearing on actual perceivable reality as we actually engage and interact with it. 



> There are model A, model A systemic version, model B, model B1, model T, model F, model G…


All the models are inherently built on model A the foundational block. You can't get around this. 



> There is a reason for all these models; socionists view model A as an approximation.


And you think your model in your head is more accurate? You don't even consider the actual human factor lol.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

I still don't know what it is @Tellus believes he is accomplishing by making these convoluted attempts to merge unrelated psychological theories.

Do you think this will make it easier to understand people? Because it doesn't. You're not going to predict the behavior of others any more effectively because "Ti is fear".

Do you think this fills some hole in existing theory? Because it doesn't. It does not address any flaw or poorly-understood part of socionics. If anything, it adds an unnecessary shaky layer of complication which creates a bunch of holes that will require even more time to fill with nothing to show for it.

Do you think this will make you look intelligent? Because it doesn't. Mostly people are just bewildered at your obstinate devotion to a weird personal theory even you don't seem to really understand.


If there's no point to this thread besides to get feedback on some half-baked idea you came up with while dicking around in your own mental sandbox, I suggest buying some Legos and creating your own imaginary world in the privacy of your own room. At least then whatever it is you come up with would have some basis in reality since you'd be playing with real plastic bricks.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Everything merges into one. That is certainty.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Everything merges into one. That is certainty.


And a river runs through it. I love that.

“Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. 
I am haunted by waters.”


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> And a river runs through it. I love that.
> 
> “Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs.
> I am haunted by waters.”


Yeah... I never saw that movie LOL. I was talking about the universe moves towards absolute entropy, upon which, gravity converges.

I do like that quote though. I should probably watch that movie lol.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Yeah... I never saw that movie LOL. I was talking about the universe moves towards absolute entropy, upon which, gravity converges.
> 
> I do like that quote though. I should probably watch that movie lol.


I think it actually refers to Taoism. The path. Way of no way. What is a path? Nothing. It is just a clearing in the woods. All parts of the forest are tempting. But a path runs through them all. It is different for everybody. That is why it can't be taught.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> My point is that parallels of behavior are not functions. If you just want to file people you can use a horoscope or hair color or whatever you want. Functions as described by Jung are about understanding how personalities process the world and life experience differently.


"Parallels of behavior are not functions"?

Are you claiming that the cognitive functions aren't related to our behaviors? (which would contradict the following sentence)



> Sadness is a reaction to who knows what - whoopie do. A reaction out of context tells you nothing.


Sadness is a reaction to a (or some) cognition (~ cognitive function)... CBE model (see OP).



> Even if you say a person has sadness traits, what does that mean? - nothing. So that even if you saw a behavioral emotion related pattern, it doesn't tell you if this is activation of a dominant or inferior, or just chemical.


Yes, I claim that there is a connection between EII/ESI and the emotion sadness. 

I agree, typing based solely on emotions would probably be difficult.



> If you are interested in brain chemistry Dario Nardi has interesting work, not exactly chemistry but mapping of brain activity and type parallels. Attaching emotion to functions makes an understanding of functions useless, compared to mind mapping of electrical activity showing patterns of the brain in use.


I think Dario Nardi's work is interesting. 



> You seem to not know the difference between the content of a persons life and a favored processing method. Catherine could be any personality type and have this experience. A function stack is a favored method. How the hell should I know, or why should I care, about a fictional characters "reasons" for having a feeling.


I do NOT claim that she is a certain type just because she is furious. You are missing the point.



> Hey, maybe she's pissed at the boring life she stuck to because of social pressure and he just crapped on that social cred.


Finally...

Why does she feel that her life is boring?

Why does she feel social pressure?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Zamyatin said:


> Do you think this will make it easier to understand people? Because it doesn't. You're not going to predict the behavior of others any more effectively because "Ti is fear".


I don't claim that "Ti is fear" (which I have explained in earlier posts). I claim that Ti induces _fear_. 

Can you provide a counterargument? "No, Se induces _fear_ because..."


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

But does this make it easier to understand people? It simply looks like additional unnecessary fluff to me.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Entropic said:


> I really don't care for either +Se or -Se. Se is Se.


Okay, so you don't agree with the descriptions (by socionists) in post #63, right? Quality, Scale...



> Furthermore, the entire gamma quadra has +Se and beta -Se. Gamma tries to maintain and keep their ground or focus on how to gain new ground; beta tries to remove or take away or undermine ground.


This is incorrect!! (post #59 )

ILI, LIE --->* -Se

*ESI, SEE ---> *+Se*



> All the models are inherently built on model A the foundational block. You can't get around this.


I haven't claimed that model A is incorrect, but it is incomplete.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Tellus said:


> I don't claim that "Ti is fear" (which I have explained in earlier posts). I claim that Ti induces _fear_.
> 
> Can you provide a counterargument? "No, Se induces _fear_ because..."


Are you serious? My counterargument is that it makes no sense whatsoever to try to combine unrelated phenomenon like emotions and IEs. The end. You still haven't justified it.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Tellus said:


> "Parallels of behavior are not functions"?
> 
> Are you claiming that the cognitive functions aren't related to our behaviors? (which would contradict the following sentence)
> 
> ...


People can be angry for Fe reasons, and people can get joy from Ti activities. Learning something tickles me. The discovery or conceptual inter-workings of a system as a revelation, can be a joyful experience - as it's own end, not a means to an end.

That you might only use Ti to protect yourself - would be you, your own use for thinking. Your interpretation of your friend who says people are stupid, this might how you would feel in order to think his thoughts. Fi, at PerC, and in real life is sometimes responsible for silly, comical, and beautiful expression - it has it's own joys.

My own experience of Fe, and I'm low Fe, but I know when I come out of my head to be more in-tune with "the group dynamic" and it is more neutral than joyful, or whatever, depending on the situation. I'ts not particularly joyful for me to be in the group, get along, and relate - other than it's value to bring me variety, I get stale if only in my head, or in my head too long. Fe can require a lot of patience and politeness I don't see this as joy.

That you perceive Fe as a joyful experience for you, or you evaluate demonstration of Fe as a demonstration of joy - is just you, and other people who put Fe high in their function stack.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> "The cognitive-behavioral-emotional (CBE) model recognizes that each individual is composed of cognitions, or thoughts; behaviors, or actions; and emotions, or feelings. These dimensions interact almost automatically—thoughts influencing feelings, feelings influencing behaviors, and behaviors prompting thoughts and feelings..."
> 
> We have eight cognitive functions, and we have eight basic emotions according to Robert Plutchik.
> 
> ...


Sorrow opposes Anger. The difference is pride.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Jung described feeling (2) functions as feeling toned *cognition. *The word cognition means Knowing; The type of judgement that Jung talks about is *criteria* based, not mood based. If cognitive functions were purely reactionary , E-Motion, we would have no typical pattern that makes up a personality. So even when we talk about emotion - functions make the distinction not that we emote - but *what we emote about*. 

*Fe* - *evaluation* based on a group dynamic. Fe Joy = inclusion, harmony and togetherness. Fe fear = being alone. Fe anger = when unspoken rules of the group are broken.

*Fi* - *evaluation* based on internal standards. Fi Joy = shared values, causes, getting recognition and indulging or sharing personal tastes. Fi fear = being insignificant. Fi anger = encounter of what one deems as evilness or unworthiness.

*Te* - strategy and tactics based on what is most verifiable to be true in an absolute sense. Te joy = productivity and achieving factual clarity. Te fear = being wrong or fooled. Te anger = impatience and dislike of inefficiency.

*Ti* - strategy and tactics based on mechanical and metaphorical insight from knowledge and assessment of context. Ti joy = comprehension, diagnosis, and formulation. Ti fear = being limited. Ti anger = intellectual dishonesty (or intellectual carelessness), and logical inconsistency.

Pathways in your brain develop because of use; initial conditions get reinforced. You prefer what has become habitual or highly fine tuned, skilled or quick for you. This makes more sense than saying some people like to be angry or sad. <although people can have conditions and disorders aside from functions.

@Jeremy8419 that ESFJ's come across as bubbly doesn't mean they aren't tortured souls in their own way. Some of them seem to live in fear they might not be "normal", taking a public opinion pole for what to wear and whatnot, profusely cutting themselves down so "girlfriends" will tell them they are okay. < not everybody, just sayin. . . .

I think the association is a deceptive cultural norm or assignment - like songs or movies. Fe is a large percentage of population. Would an American strongly EJ esfj be seen as joyous in some particular Asian culture? Maybe the association would be insecurity not joy.

That some introverts are shy doesn't mean introversion = shyness. That most times extroverts are assumed to be confident - doesn't mean they are.

Jung's functional opposites Ne/Si, Se/Ni, Ti/Fe, Fi/Te - these make sense to me and I don't see the value of this other system. I do see how someone could associate Si with disgust, if you are looking for survival gut reactions - but I don't think that makes this overall theory work.

I don't associate Ne with emotion. It's just my default filter; the way I normally see, multiple angles to something, and I only know this from comparison with how others seem to "see" differently. I could associate multiple negative emotions with deprivation or Ne starvation maybe. If I had to pick an emotion for Ne it would be full engagement, alertness, aliveness. Surprise? - I might associate something negative like something I needed that fell through, or an unasked for responsibility (irritating).<Things can be a surprise and not be Ne at all, more like lack of Ne.

Looking at your link, i think Se and Ne can both be described as optimism.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Zamyatin said:


> Are you serious? My counterargument is that it makes no sense whatsoever to try to combine unrelated phenomenon like emotions and IEs. The end. You still haven't justified it.


Emotions and cognitions are very much related according to the CBE model (OP).

"*Cognition *is the set of all mental abilities and processes related to knowledge: attention, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and "computation", problem solving and decision making, comprehension and production of language, etc"

We take in information (Se, Si, Ne, Ni) and we make decisions (Te, Ti, Fe, Fi). Do you claim that there are cognitions which are not subsumed by the eight cognitive functions?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Tbh, I don't even remember that conversation.

The CBE is a field (system) of objects (emotions). What Tellus is wanting is to have those objects be viewed as fields via socionics. He wants each emotion to be given it's own socionics personality type.

Disney's Inside Out shows I think 5 of the emotions. If you watch the movie, you can type them. Really, though, each of the 8 would be semi-identicals.

Everything can be further dissected into fields. Doesn't matter which system you use on a level. Using a different one on a higher level is perfectly acceptable. Programming does this constantly. You may use assembly on one level, then pull that into C# and into C+ on the next level, then pull both of those into Java on the next. It's inconsequential. It's just preferences.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

*Model A vs. Model B
*
LII = mathematician

"*Deduction* is drawing a conclusion from something known or assumed. This is the type of reasoning we use in almost every step in a mathematical argument. For example to solve 2x = 6 for x we divide both sides by 2 to get 2x/2 = 6/2 or x = 3. What we know or assume is that 2x = 6 and that you can divide both sides of an equation by any non-zero number and the equation is still valid. From these two facts we deduce that x = 3."

“An algorithm may be viewed as controlled logical deduction”

Socionics :: Information Elements

Te: external activity of objects... events (what, how, where), activity, behavior,* algorithms
*
Viewpoint: Ti does NOT include deduction.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...cognitive-functions/15773-maths-ti-vs-te.html

"I think the main difference is that Te will accurately go through each step of an equation to reach a goal, while Ti makes jumps and will 'see' the inner workings of an equation.

Math is a tool to be used by Te. Te wants to go from A to B.
Math is a system to be understood by Ti. Ti wants to know all the ways to reach B from A."


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


*THE BIG QUESTION*

*Model A: LII with Te as Ignoring function... or
*
*Model B: LII with -Ti/+Te as Base function

*Talanov (model T) has proved that 'i' in Ti does not correspond to Introversion.


----------

