# Towards a more integrated vision of IEs



## Piercie (Oct 25, 2013)

This is a post where I will rant for an eternity about some systematical observations I've made, and where I envision that things should be headed in Socionics _(fully aware of the hubris here, guys!)_
I'm an _LSI-C-Ti_ (Ennea 5) and I study Cognitive Science, so a few of my observations are (hopefully) on the relationship between Typology and Neuroscientific evidence (more precisely, the connections between them.)
Finally, as a disclaimer I'd like to point out that I don't claim to be an expert in either Socionics or Neuro, so I'm anticipating correction on some of the finer points, and maybe links to reading material that I've missed and is pertinent to the subjects.

Okay. So here's the topic of the day; if I could wave a magic wand and change how people discuss Type, I would add emphasis on two key things:

The _important inescapable connections_ *between the I/E elements* of each domain (e.g. Ni & Ne)
(What I think is) the _inevitable synthesis_ between (Si & Ni) and (Se & Ne), respectively.

*The case for connections between the I/E of IEs being underrated*

_A common objection_ to MBTI (and I would argue by extension to Socionics, even though it does a better job there) is that people aren't normally that divided between an extraverted and intraverted expression of the same domain.
A friend of mine is a postgrad theoretical Neuroscientist, and this was his criticism too.
I think most people would agree that some kind of preference indeed does exist; but the way our models have been formulated It's easy to make the mistake of thinking that merely one orientation in that domain is necessary for a realized life.
*Is it?* I'm going to argue that It's clearly not.
*Study case: LII* - _It's practically low-hanging fruit:_ some LIIs are active in e.g. University like the mentioned friend, but when I take a look around It looks more like an exception rather than the rule. A stereotype has emerged portraying LIIs as the most aloof, unproductive Type of all, and us LSIs aren't much to brag about either._Clearly_, regardless of how an LII is supposed to be, an impulse to implement and/or have an outward report for his Ti is necessary to realize his potential. *But how does it come about?* It isn't simply being in touch with his creative Ne, because playing with ideas just fundamentally isn't the same as playing with logical implementations, though the Ne has a supplementary role to the Ti formation. There is an *urgency* missing there which only manifests in the Ti-leads that have balanced their dominant I/E dichotomy. _(I don't know much about the LII with an implicit Ni, but supposedly that is also a thing, and I'm curious as to how that would compare with and/or differ.)_
I know this (Te) from experience, as well. As an LSI I've been both, and even though being in touch with my Se and overall psychological health surely is a contributing condition, having an active *implicit Te* is a different experience from just pondering systems on the down-low after some recreational Se during the day. If it weren't for implicit Te, I wouldn't bother to make a post like this one; after all, the logical consistency of my Ti doesn't depend on other people's input, but trying to generate some kind of *momentum with my thinking does.*
_Ti fuelled by an Ni vision_ *without* Te to generate momentum doesn't actually get us anywhere, because as any Introvert knows, It's quite easy to put the real world on hold. *The open question* is of course how this Te is generated specifically, whether it is reached through a complex pathway or a burst directly from Ti.
Another example for good measure would be Ni. An ILI's brain requires some kind of implicit Ne to inform him of the substance of his ideas and what is worth pursuing, or perhaps to give substance to his visions to begin with. Without such an equilibrium, It's like it becomes impossible to explain why a vision is worth pursuing, there is a disconnect between what is envisioned and what the world really is like, created by this absence of Ne. We observe this in young Ni-leads who are into mysticism and have an overblown sense of the Ni's importance. They don't know where their ideas come from, because again, they don't know _how their ideas work._ This is often attributed to Se deficiency, but in my second case I'll explain a connection between Se & Ne that makes this picture potentially more complicated.
I like to explain this role through Ne = *how ideas work* while Ni = *how ideas are related.*
If e.g. an ILI has some minimal sense of how ideas work (Ne being the ideas made up out of patterns observed in the spaces between abstract objects) it creates a shortcut for the ILI to create more accurate visions for his lead. I think this is what happens naturally as an Ni-lead matures, the brain stores some understanding of how ideas work, probably indirectly, and the Ni/Ne begins to slowly form a synthesis through it, which leads to more Ne activity subservant to Ni.
An Ni-lead with no Ne would experience his visions as mystical revelations and be prone to superstition, since there's no way to make sense of _how his vision works (and relates to abstract mental objects.)_ There's a process of continual refinement of his Ni course as Te & Se facts informs him, but if we posit that his Ne doesn't play a part _at all_ then the unfolding of NiTeSe over a lifetime would be extremely tedious. Besides, some people are clearly brighter than others, and that difference can't be defined as _just doing more of something unrelated_ to the solution (simply knowing how all ideas _*can be*_ related will still not give you a wholesome picture of what's going on in the domain of intuition, and neuroscience leaves us no impression that the brain would be that compartmentalized. _Most people use most of the brain, most of the time._ And Ni, after all, is a whole-brain pattern according to Dario Nardi.) This leads us into:

*The case for a better synthesis between sensing and intuition*

_As a Ti-lead_ I like to believe that there's a logical strategy, a model I can develop that perfectly gets rid of the problems created by psychological preferences. I've had some limited success, which encourages me to envision a better formulation between primarily Se & Ne (as a Ne-PoLR, I know the struggle!) but also Si & Ni by logical extension.
_Si & Ni are notorious_ for their deceptive similarity, even though they are supposedly wildly different functions. I hear Si is also the least understood. The interesting thing here is that *both probably utilize the whole brain to some extent.* Si is strongly related to episodic memory - snapshots or even whole sequences of events that actually happened to us per se. And one thing we learn in Cognitive Science as part of basic Neuro is that *the brain stores episodic memories all over the Neocortex;* if you stimulate a random part of the brain's cortex a random memory can be recalled from it, pretty much regardless of which area of the brain was stimulated. "It was like I was standing there in the hallway when I was 12!"
Let's look at it this way:


*Si* _draws upon the whole brain_ *to* _recall complex sense-related objects/events_ and internal states that are pertinent to the individual and central to new sense-experiences.
*Ni* also _draws upon the whole brain_ *but to* _envision how abstracted objects/events can be related_ to each other and which of them are pertinent to the central objective and new experiences.
In similar vein, I would posit that:

*Se* stays vigilant to _incoming sense-experiences_ *to* _respond to novel sense-related objects/events_ that are focused in the present and central to latent kinetic potential.
*Ne* stays vigilant to incoming possibilities involving abstract objects (that may or may not have kinetic counterparts) *in order to* _respond to novel patterns/ideas_ explored in the present and central to those objects/events'_ inherent form._

Not only is Si and Ni sometimes confused _as the same,_ but so is Se and Ne. For the former, both zone out and appear highly contemplative, for the latter both can appear silly and out of place. I think that *ultimately* we should view these functions as existing on two transitional axes, going from _concrete_ to _abstracted,_ but potentially still part of a shared organizational system of some sort.
*The ILE or LII resembles the Se-ego* in the limited sense that _Ne is concerned with objective objects. The properties of these objects aren't negotiable, and metaphor is irrelevant. Either they are related or they're not._ This is why I think LSIs are more intellectually creative than LIIs. At the end of the day they view it as an impersonal discovery since the objects already exist in a platonic-esque mental space.
But the Se/Ne difference lies in the fact that Ne concerns itself with the latent possibilities of supposed, potentially existing objects, while Se concerns itself with the latent force inherent to objects.
_*This is where the line between Se and Ne begins to blur:*_ a reason I'm writing this is because as a self-proclaimed cerebral Se-ego, I feel like the differences have been exaggerated, or at least that they're small enough to simply compensate for with another cognitive strategy. Either Se is implicit to the process of using Ne, or Ne is implicit to the process of using Se - but _*they are both fundamentally concerned with the workings of objects*_. What's an object, anyway? Does an active imagination coupled with mild synesthesia turn abstract objects into Se processes? If our subconscious throws mental objects on us out of the blue, does it connect to Se and form a feedback loop? I think it all depends on our brain's capability to form syntheses between modes of thinking.
Similarly, in a library of Si experiences, there's no doubt tons of information for how abstract objects can be related (Ni) and high Si and Ni in the same person could begin to blend into a simple technicality of which aspect that is being considered at the time, much like an optical illusion where a face appears between the mountains.

To end on a personal note about my journey, something very simple like opening another browser tab and googling something can give me enough of an Se boost to create a small bridge between intuitive connections to keep me going. In one 'sense,' It's because I'm connecting my thinking process to my sensory reality. But it also connects to Ne, because I'm looking for new connections to feed my envisioning process (Ni), which in turn guides my Ti. The cognitive patterns we've developed aren't necessarily the best ones. They're the ones that were naturally selected for, but evolution is more of a Te process than a Ti one  So, what's really the difference between having an Se report versus Ne report in the midst of things? A technicality I think, and one we can integrate.

*Q. What do you guys think; do we need a basic reformulation of how the IEs are related and will it set us free from Typism and Typological fatalism?*


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Piercie said:


> I'm an _LSI-C-Ti_ (Ennea 5) and I study Cognitive Science, so a few of my observations are (hopefully) on the relationship between Typology and Neuroscientific evidence (more precisely, the connections between them.)


Are you doing your MA?




> A common objection[/I] to MBTI (and I would argue by extension to Socionics, even though it does a better job there) is that people aren't normally that divided between an extraverted and intraverted expression of the same domain.
> A friend of mine is a postgrad theoretical Neuroscientist, and this was his criticism too.
> I think most people would agree that some kind of preference indeed does exist; but the way our models have been formulated It's easy to make the mistake of thinking that merely one orientation in that domain is necessary for a realized life.
> *Is it?* I'm going to argue that It's clearly not.


Hmm, well, how do you tell people aren't normally that divided there? I'd like to hear more on this.

The socionics model does not assume that only one orientation is necessary. The ID block supports the Ego block by the different orientation being strong operating in the unconscious.




> *Study case: LII* - _It's practically low-hanging fruit:_ some LIIs are active in e.g. University like the mentioned friend, but when I take a look around It looks more like an exception rather than the rule. A stereotype has emerged portraying LIIs as the most aloof, unproductive Type of all, and us LSIs aren't much to brag about either. _Clearly_, regardless of how an LII is supposed to be, an impulse to implement and/or have an outward report for his Ti is necessary to realize his potential. *But how does it come about?* It isn't simply being in touch with his creative Ne, because playing with ideas just fundamentally isn't the same as playing with logical implementations, though the Ne has a supplementary role to the Ti formation. There is an *urgency* missing there which only manifests in the Ti-leads that have balanced their dominant I/E dichotomy. _(I don't know much about the LII with an implicit Ni, but supposedly that is also a thing, and I'm curious as to how that would compare with and/or differ.)_


I am not following here. Why would Ne creative not ensure the implementation of Ti ideas?




> I know this (Te) from experience, as well. As an LSI I've been both, and even though being in touch with my Se and overall psychological health surely is a contributing condition, having an active *implicit Te* is a different experience from just pondering systems on the down-low after some recreational Se during the day. If it weren't for implicit Te, I wouldn't bother to make a post like this one; after all, the logical consistency of my Ti doesn't depend on other people's input, but trying to generate some kind of *momentum with my thinking does.*


The momentum, the impact, that is what your Se creative is for.

And yes, I agree that the I/E needs to be balanced... via your creative, IMO.




> _Ti fuelled by an Ni vision_ *without* Te to generate momentum doesn't actually get us anywhere, because as any Introvert knows, It's quite easy to put the real world on hold.


Yeah, I do think you need Se more than Ni. As an LSI, Se is your Producing function in the Ego block which takes further your Accepting Ti's logical picture of reality and implements it.




> _As a Ti-lead_ I like to believe that there's a logical strategy, a model I can develop that perfectly gets rid of the problems created by psychological preferences. I've had some limited success, which encourages me to envision a better formulation between primarily Se & Ne (as a Ne-PoLR, I know the struggle!) but also Si & Ni by logical extension.


There are no such problems created by the basic socionics model. Even just using Jung's ideas on how differentiated vs undifferentiated functions work is sufficient.

I do like your ideas on Ni/Si reviewing a lot of internal connections and Ne/Se vigilance on new incoming objects. I do not know what organizational systems are in place in the brain that can be linked to these shared properties of IE but I've wondered before how Dynamic and Static is such an important dichotomy in terms of implementation. This dichotomy is of particular interest to me as Jung never managed to discover it yet it makes so much sense for defining the socionics IEs by dichotomous traits one of which is exactly this dichotomy. I also played with the justification of limiting it to 8 IEs instead of more, where you can't just randomly assign Dynamic/Static to combinations of the other basic dichotomies to generate IEs.




> *The ILE or LII resembles the Se-ego* in the limited sense that _Ne is concerned with objective objects. The properties of these objects aren't negotiable, and metaphor is irrelevant. Either they are related or they're not._ This is why I think LSIs are more intellectually creative than LIIs. At the end of the day they view it as an impersonal discovery since the objects already exist in a platonic-esque mental space.


I'm not following here. Why do you think LSIs are more intellectually creative than LIIs? In what sense?




> _*This is where the line between Se and Ne begins to blur:*_ a reason I'm writing this is because as a self-proclaimed cerebral Se-ego, I feel like the differences have been exaggerated, or at least that they're small enough to simply compensate for with another cognitive strategy. Either Se is implicit to the process of using Ne, or Ne is implicit to the process of using Se - but _*they are both fundamentally concerned with the workings of objects*_.


I think Se is quite different from Ne in terms of how Se strictly delineates objects by what is actually there and sensed while Ne does not do this. Ne sees mental objects that are determined from an associative network of sorts, I'm a bit vague on the exact nature of that network but it somehow determines the Ne object's internal Ne traits. The differences are not exaggerated whatsoever. I do not know how you experience your Ne PoLR but let me tell you, you can't directly replace that Ne PoLR by Se creative. It can only be achieved in a very very roundabout way. 

It is OK to be a "cerebral Se ego", you are after all Ti subtype of a Ti lead type.




> What's an object, anyway? Does an active imagination coupled with mild synesthesia turn abstract objects into Se processes? If our subconscious throws mental objects on us out of the blue, does it connect to Se and form a feedback loop? I think it all depends on our brain's capability to form syntheses between modes of thinking.


Whoa I am not following again. I have the mild synesthesia too btw  But no, abstract stuff is abstract stuff, Se is traits that you can sense directly. I think the rest of what you are writing here is quite... speculative Ti going too deep into itself. 




> To end on a personal note about my journey, something very simple like opening another browser tab and googling something can give me enough of an Se boost to create a small bridge between intuitive connections to keep me going. In one 'sense,' It's because I'm connecting my thinking process to my sensory reality. But it also connects to Ne, because I'm looking for new connections to feed my envisioning process (Ni), which in turn guides my Ti. The cognitive patterns we've developed aren't necessarily the best ones. They're the ones that were naturally selected for, but evolution is more of a Te process than a Ti one  So, what's really the difference between having an Se report versus Ne report in the midst of things? A technicality I think, and one we can integrate.


This is again weird to me. If you feel like opening a browser tab is equal to a Se boost, you need to get outside more.  But honestly, yeah, you sound very deprived of sensory experiences.

I guess it also sounds like you are highly focused on your Ni and sure why not do that if you get somewhere by doing so. 

I still disagree that the difference between Se and Ne is just a technicality.




> *Q. What do you guys think; do we need a basic reformulation of how the IEs are related and will it set us free from Typism and Typological fatalism?*


No. None of the typist practices follow from properly understanding the socionics model and from Jung's original ideas either. The socionics model is very much about having all eight functions, them being in blocks organized in a specific way along with differing dimensionalities of information processing. Do you understand how this is highly relevant to your issues?


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

It kinda sucks you only focus on ILI when talking about Ni-leads. Also it is good to understand that Ni leads have Ne on ignore. You say Ni is about how ideas are related. A good example would be Elon Musk who invent all kinds of stuff, well they are all based on old ideas pretty much. And so are many of todays inventions. Electric cars, spaceships but refine design, solar city, even electric jets. They are not really new concepts. But they might be the absolute best solution to todays problems as we know them. 

About Ni and Si looking the same, would be for the not direct approach towards objects in the objective reality. Same as Se and Ne would both be direct.


----------



## Piercie (Oct 25, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Are you doing your MA?
> 
> Hmm, well, how do you tell people aren't normally that divided there? I'd like to hear more on this.
> The socionics model does not assume that only one orientation is necessary.


BA. I should've thought this thread through more.
The division applies _mostly_ to the MBTI community, but I'm not fully satisfied with how It's dealt with in Socionics either. My objection comes from an intuition of how the brain works which simply doesn't fit the conceptualization in Typology including Socionics. I'll try to break it down into more concrete terms.
To put it more tangibly, the processes in the brain represented by Ti simply do not function without some of the processes represented by Te, and vice versa. _We don't need to identify brain regions to verify it since we have definitions on both sides and can simply compare models (which is what Cognitive Scientists do.)_
Rote math, is it Te or Ti? How do you do Ti without the Ti-centric part of the brain making a rote math connection? Aren't syllogisms inherently mathematical? These modular 'building blocks' of the brain must be shared by functions realistically speaking, and because of that I think we should emphasize how the orientations build on each other and work together if we want to bridge Typology with Neuroscience. Either that, or a complete overhaul.
Don't get me wrong, Socionics and dimensionality has helped greatly in admitting that a Ti-lead will have sophisticated Te to boot. But the picture painted is that this is a seperate category of activity that e.g. an LSI will "be able to do but don't like doing" - well... tough luck.
I don't know, really. The more I think about it the more it all falls apart. What's so extraverted about it, anyway? Some things in the definitions are just general brain modules used all over the place, mashed together with abstract impressions. Is the logic extraverted because It's an extraverted function, or because the person is being extraverted about his logic? This latter view feels more true to the science. And again, this is about accurate representations, not the fact that we could read this into the Socionics if we happen to be wiser and still make it fit somehow.



> The ID block supports the Ego block by the different orientation being strong operating in the unconscious.


I've never heard it being described as in the unconscious. Based on descriptions I've taken it as a burst effect, it comes out implicitly but becomes conscious, then quickly goes away in favor of the dominant orientation.
If it indeed operates in the unconscious, e.g. Te in the shadows partly powering Ti, that's exactly what I'm looking for. I just want people to realize that without Te the Ti-lead is practically f***ed.



> I am not following here. Why would Ne creative not ensure the implementation of Ti ideas?
> The momentum, the impact, that is what your Se creative is for.
> 
> And yes, I agree that the I/E needs to be balanced... via your creative, IMO.
> ...


I think what I answered before should clarify it a bit. Here's the thing, to transition smoothly from thinking about logical structure to implementing it into something, there has to be an unspoken Te in the translation process. Or in the other words: Abstract Structure -> Ways to apply -> Momentum to implement -> Result.
Or possibly: Abstract Structure -> Momentum to implement -> Ways to apply -> Result.
The first being TiTeSe and the second TiSeTe.
Whichever happens to be more accurate, *Te by definition* represents a process we all rely on. Heavily.
If you just get rid of Te and say it doesn't apply anymore when you're talking about Ti users, that's *a mess.* If you say it works in the unconscious... okay. But nothing I've come across in Socionics literature have told me this, and I never see anybody explaining this as part of advice for us.
The disconnect without a Te stepping stone is actually one you probably recognize if you have any experience with other Ti-leads, or probably with yourself. Some will never be motivated to implement their Ti and prefer to act as if perceiving is their 24/7 job. I think when that happens, we condition ourselves to not act on Ti, eliminating Te, in favor of using Se for 1) mere mental aggregation and 2) recreational activities. At the end of the day Te fills a role which Se is not a substitute for.
If we have to figure this out by ourselves, something is missing, IMO.



> There are no such problems created by the basic socionics model. Even just using Jung's ideas on how differentiated vs undifferentiated functions work is sufficient.


That's an interesting point. Maybe the scenario I've been trying to describe is better put as an over-differentiation, then.



> I do like your ideas on Ni/Si reviewing a lot of internal connections and Ne/Se vigilance on new incoming objects. I do not know what organizational systems are in place in the brain that can be linked to these shared properties of IE but I've wondered before how Dynamic and Static is such an important dichotomy in terms of implementation. This dichotomy is of particular interest to me as Jung never managed to discover it yet it makes so much sense for defining the socionics IEs by dichotomous traits one of which is exactly this dichotomy. I also played with the justification of limiting it to 8 IEs instead of more, where you can't just randomly assign Dynamic/Static to combinations of the other basic dichotomies to generate IEs.


The static/dynamic dichotomy reminds me of the Two-stream hypothesis




> I'm not following here. Why do you think LSIs are more intellectually creative than LIIs? In what sense?


This is partly isolated using Victor Gulenko's Model G. If you're familiar with it, the difference would be in the LSIs +L over the LIIs -L. But It's mostly to do with Ni over Ne. Ni, as a subjective function, doesn't depend on the properties of the mental objects being preserved in the process, at least not nearly to the same degree.
But I realized pretty quickly after I wrote it that it also depends on the LSI having a strong mobilizing. They're not in the equivalent positions, after all. But insofar that the two types intersect in the intuitive... my best friend is an LII. Smart as the stereotypes. But he doesn't really care much about science, and I get the impression It's not a creative field to him. Because It's all just unravelling the platonic web, you see? It's already there. In the world of ideas.
I don't see it that way. I feel like good ideas is something precious and magical, and the fact that we can build something meaningful out of them is not obvious at all. How I organize my thoughts has a highly personal impact on what I can do and what things lead to. One idea could turn into many inventions, or none, or into a screenplay. To the LII tangental ideas are exploded all over the place, but what are they really for? That's the difference.



> I think Se is quite different from Ne in terms of how Se strictly delineates objects by what is actually there and sensed while Ne does not do this. Ne sees mental objects that are determined from an associative network of sorts, I'm a bit vague on the exact nature of that network but it somehow determines the Ne object's internal Ne traits. The differences are not exaggerated whatsoever. I do not know how you experience your Ne PoLR but let me tell you, you can't directly replace that Ne PoLR by Se creative. It can only be achieved in a very very roundabout way.


I'm completely with you here. What I'm trying to do is simply offer a different take on it. I'm saying they're isomorphic in pretty much all ways EXCEPT the fact that one deals with the concrete and the other with the abstract. And if they're that similar, maybe they're connected on a neuro spectrum going from concrete observed reality to abstract observed reality. The point of this exercise is that if my brain is motivated by Se, I can maximize my mental output by understanding Ne objects as Se objects. I've noticed that a lot of mental problems come from disassociating and over-compartmentalizing, so this is an exploration in the opposite extreme to see what we can do to improve how well our personality facilitates our potential, through mental strategy.



> It is OK to be a "cerebral Se ego", you are after all Ti subtype of a Ti lead type.


Preach it.



> I think the rest of what you are writing here is quite... speculative Ti going too deep into itself.
> This is again weird to me. If you feel like opening a browser tab is equal to a Se boost, you need to get outside more.  But honestly, yeah, you sound very deprived of sensory experiences.


Yeah, tell me about it. But I'm going to change strategy now to try something else. The mistake I made was writing this all on impulse in one go and deciding not to wait and review it before I posted it. It would've been a bit more condensed and made a whole lot more sense. Honestly when I woke up today I just wanted to delete the thread.
Bottom line: I HAVE A DREAM, damn it!


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Piercie said:


> BA. I should've thought this thread through more.


Don't worry :kitteh:




> My objection comes from an intuition of how the brain works


Ha, I like to have those insights too on the brain's workings. They come sporadically but are pretty cool. I like to try and keep/organize them inside a sensible logical framework.




> Rote math, is it Te or Ti? How do you do Ti without the Ti-centric part of the brain making a rote math connection? Aren't syllogisms inherently mathematical? These modular 'building blocks' of the brain must be shared by functions realistically speaking, and because of that I think we should emphasize how the orientations build on each other and work together if we want to bridge Typology with Neuroscience. Either that, or a complete overhaul.
> Don't get me wrong, Socionics and dimensionality has helped greatly in admitting that a Ti-lead will have sophisticated Te to boot. But the picture painted is that this is a seperate category of activity that e.g. an LSI will "be able to do but don't like doing" - well... tough luck.


LSI won't like doing it in a conscious fashion. Actually I'm not even able to put myself in the Te mindset in a conscious way. It's a complete fail if I was to try to extravert my logic. Brain rape. And I don't need Te to work consciously anyway. LSI can do Te tasks effortlessly with TiSe consciously.

No overhaul needed, Ego and ID block work together neatly. Ego is in Mental ring, ID is in Vital ring, the former is conscious, the latter is unconscious.




> Is the logic extraverted because It's an extraverted function, or because the person is being extraverted about his logic? This latter view feels more true to the science.


I don't understand what difference you see between the two. ??




> I've never heard it being described as in the unconscious. Based on descriptions I've taken it as a burst effect, it comes out implicitly but becomes conscious, then quickly goes away in favor of the dominant orientation.
> If it indeed operates in the unconscious, e.g. Te in the shadows partly powering Ti, that's exactly what I'm looking for. I just want people to realize that without Te the Ti-lead is practically f***ed.


You can read about it at wikisocion for example, and in other places, here's a wikisocion link: Function dichotomies - Wikisocion

There is also an article on information metabolism that explains how information flows between these rings but I'm not sure I buy that part of the theory and I can't find the link right now, it's somewhere over at the16types articles section.




> I think what I answered before should clarify it a bit. Here's the thing, to transition smoothly from thinking about logical structure to implementing it into something, there has to be an unspoken Te in the translation process. Or in the other words: Abstract Structure -> Ways to apply -> Momentum to implement -> Result.
> Or possibly: Abstract Structure -> Momentum to implement -> Ways to apply -> Result.
> The first being TiTeSe and the second TiSeTe.


I don't understand why you're so hung up on Te instead of focusing on your Se creative?

Te is of course needed somewhere in the background too. I had a great link somewhere describing how LSI works on TiSi axis and on SeTe axis (and FeNe axis as so called "median dream"). Damn, I need to find it. Let me know if you need it.

But, "ways to apply" is not Te specific. What did you mean there?




> The disconnect without a Te stepping stone is actually one you probably recognize if you have any experience with other Ti-leads, or probably with yourself. Some will never be motivated to implement their Ti and prefer to act as if perceiving is their 24/7 job. I think when that happens, we condition ourselves to not act on Ti, eliminating Te, in favor of using Se for 1) mere mental aggregation and 2) recreational activities. At the end of the day Te fills a role which Se is not a substitute for.
> If we have to figure this out by ourselves, something is missing, IMO.


No, I implement my Ti through Se just fine in a deliberate conscious fashion. I do not have to make Te conscious for this. I would indeed feel crap though if I let go of Se creative for too long.

Are you following me as to why Se and not Te?

As I said, I'm not really *yet* following on you on why it would be Te and not Se, sorry.




> That's an interesting point. Maybe the scenario I've been trying to describe is better put as an over-differentiation, then.


Yeah, Jung does say it's not a good idea to let the dominant function get too far from everything else, especially the inferior function, which will gain too much power in the unconscious against the dominant function in the conscious. Too much of a dissociation between the two is no good.




> The static/dynamic dichotomy reminds me of the Two-stream hypothesis


Oh lol I know of that one, I know how I'm totally the "where" over the "what" pathway, which I find funny to observe in myself, but I don't think this is about Static/Dynamic. Why do you associate it with that?

I do wonder if Dynamic has anything to do with the verbal systems. As those are developed, in an evolutionary sense, out of the introduction of the ability for sequential analysis. That's how a theory about it goes, anyway. I find that interesting.




> This is partly isolated using Victor Gulenko's Model G. If you're familiar with it, the difference would be in the LSIs +L over the LIIs -L. But It's mostly to do with Ni over Ne. Ni, as a subjective function, doesn't depend on the properties of the mental objects being preserved in the process, at least not nearly to the same degree.
> But I realized pretty quickly after I wrote it that it also depends on the LSI having a strong mobilizing. They're not in the equivalent positions, after all. But insofar that the two types intersect in the intuitive... my best friend is an LII. Smart as the stereotypes. But he doesn't really care much about science, and I get the impression It's not a creative field to him. Because It's all just unravelling the platonic web, you see? It's already there. In the world of ideas.
> I don't see it that way. I feel like good ideas is something precious and magical, and the fact that we can build something meaningful out of them is not obvious at all. How I organize my thoughts has a highly personal impact on what I can do and what things lead to. One idea could turn into many inventions, or none, or into a screenplay. To the LII tangental ideas are exploded all over the place, but what are they really for? That's the difference.


Uhh I couldn't be bothered to put my mind towards most of Gulenko's systems much. I do know of the +/- signs of functions, that's fine, but that Model G... forget it. 

And I don't see myself as creative in the standard sense of the word, I'd fail all those psychological creativity tests. I once wrote a paper at university how I thought those creativity tests were no good. :tongue: ...Anyway I'm indeed creative in the sense that I can develop a deeper understanding than most people I know and then put it to good use in tangible reality to create something tangible out of it that has an impact.

So if you meant that, then cool 

But I think LIIs are pretty creative in the "standard" sense of the word because they can just pull from that world of ideas at will. Brainstorming whatever crap. Maybe you just don't value it from your Se POV  I can understand that, you know 

But it does have its own utility, that sort of brainstorming, in certain situations it's rather useful for problem solving.




> I'm completely with you here. What I'm trying to do is simply offer a different take on it. I'm saying they're isomorphic in pretty much all ways EXCEPT the fact that one deals with the concrete and the other with the abstract. And if they're that similar, maybe they're connected on a neuro spectrum going from concrete observed reality to abstract observed reality. The point of this exercise is that if my brain is motivated by Se, I can maximize my mental output by understanding Ne objects as Se objects. I've noticed that a lot of mental problems come from disassociating and over-compartmentalizing, so this is an exploration in the opposite extreme to see what we can do to improve how well our personality facilitates our potential, through mental strategy.


No, I disagree, they are not isomorphic like that. The difference, as I said, is not purely a technicality, it has a lot of actual consequences. There may be a common neural pathway for them, sure, but if one of them already occupies most of that pathway, little will be left to the other one. I hardly believe that you would be able to change this way of utilization of such a pathway by the idea of trying to understand Ne objects as Se objects. This by definition is impossible, Se objects are seen by directly experienced sensory traits while Ne objects are seen by internal traits that are not visible, not there like the sensory traits. I also do not believe that you can easily rework all the neural connections that are already in place to support a Se network, into a Ne network.

I agree that dissociation etc can be a big problem.




> Preach it.


:crazy: I'm not sure how cerebral I would see myself, btw. Eh, I'm half physical, half detached.




> Yeah, tell me about it.


Haha well. So when I mentioned some stuff smells of Ti looping into itself (and maybe into Ni) too much. I'll describe more of my thoughts on that below, maybe helpful in terms of that Ti/Te/Se thing too?

It hurts my head to go that far in Ti. I'm the Se subtype, though. :tongue: I will admit I sometimes go pretty far in Ti myself but I usually try to make myself retreat as soon as I reach the point of creating unsubstantial ideas. I like to keep myself anchored enough in the concrete. 

This in practice means that I do not wander too far from whatever logical system I can create that's based in the concrete. I go as far as I can in terms of directly deducing more logical ideas from that system but as soon as it requires working with concepts that are less than neatly anchored into reality, I stop because at that point it becomes too loop-y (and yes, loopy!) Ti.  It is also a problem because the system at that point is no longer neatly delineated, not a true explanation of things anymore.

I love thinking up systematic ideas otherwise but I need to have at least a little taste of tangible reality with them, such reality should be accessible at least indirectly; except for some of the more abstract ideas that don't need to be aligned with the concrete; those seem to arise from something from real deep inside my mind and do not require extra speculative thinking to arrive at them. They are not designed to be directly interfaced with or implemented for the real world. Thus the concrete is entirely irrelevant for them. There is no issue with properly interfacing the abstract with the concrete. They are just... inspiring. Some of my abstract principles come from these.

So where I feel like Ti gets "loopy" is when I get too speculative with the logic. Just like Jung describes it too, btw. Jung then goes on to say that Ti will descend into unfruitful and "mystical" territory. I think at that point the unconscious Fe starts influencing it too much too. 




> But I'm going to change strategy now to try something else. The mistake I made was writing this all on impulse in one go and deciding not to wait and review it before I posted it. It would've been a bit more condensed and made a whole lot more sense. Honestly when I woke up today I just wanted to delete the thread.
> Bottom line: I HAVE A DREAM, damn it!


What is your dream if I may ask? Creatively using any function at will? :crazy: Something else?


----------



## Piercie (Oct 25, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Ha, I like to have those insights too on the brain's workings. They come sporadically but are pretty cool. I like to try and keep/organize them inside a sensible logical framework.


Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. I usually try to do that.



> LSI won't like doing it in a conscious fashion. Actually I'm not even able to put myself in the Te mindset in a conscious way. It's a complete fail if I was to try to extravert my logic. Brain rape. And I don't need Te to work consciously anyway. LSI can do Te tasks effortlessly with TiSe consciously.
> 
> No overhaul needed, Ego and ID block work together neatly. Ego is in Mental ring, ID is in Vital ring, the former is conscious, the latter is unconscious.


You might be right that I'm overthinking this in terms of Ti. But on the other hand, It's a logical model, don't we want it to be as consistent as possible? I'll explain my point again, maybe slightly better than last time. There's an underlying bias in me here at play, likely from being 5w4.
I like every module or in this case function to have its unique purpose. So to me it follows that if a Te user performs X with their Te, and an LSI performs that same thing X with TiSe, it just makes more sense that something is missing from the TiSe picture and it needs to be described as TiTeSe. If Se is related to things about the sensory world, Te is about how logical structures exist in/on top the sensory world and its dynamics, and Ti is independent structural logic. So to say that a person does only TiSe consciously sounds to me like they are seeing a pattern in the abstract and then magically manifesting it in the world.
Or, to use less hyperbole, It's as if all they need to do is rearrange objects based on Se know-how until they fit a structure. That sounds very limiting.
Like I've told you, I've been in a mindset where I've experienced what I'd describe as TiSe. What happens is I'll be doing both functions, but there's no smooth transition involved. They are like seperate activities and no inspiration to apply the logic on the world in tangible ways. Maybe you feel like the application comes automatically from the use of the two, but maybe sometimes it doesn't.
I know that at some point a month or so back there was a flip in my mindset. When I come up with a logical observation or organization in my mind I immediately get a kick to start doing things I've traditionally associated with Te, like creating a bunch of notes on my desktop, graphing systems on my Whiteboard, or discussing them with people. And sometimes I feel like if I didn't do this, the Ti would just fade into the back of my mind, perhaps building up but never creating a product.

So, the point here is that according to how you've described (that Socionics describes) this, the Te is implicit to the Se. But if it would happen to ever not be, we wouldn't have a way to adress that at all. Maybe this is getting too much into neuro.




> I don't understand what difference you see between the two. ??


What I meant with that was: In terms of the brain, is it performing an _extroverted logical function_ or is it simply an undifferentiated logical system being oriented otwards? It makes a difference. Either the Te is an emergent psychological phenomenon from a T-like system, or the person is actually using Te while having a subdued Ti-like brain module.



> Te is of course needed somewhere in the background too. I had a great link somewhere describing how LSI works on TiSi axis and on SeTe axis (and FeNe axis as so called "median dream"). Damn, I need to find it. Let me know if you need it.


Yes dude. That sounds like gold.



> No, I implement my Ti through Se just fine in a deliberate conscious fashion. I do not have to make Te conscious for this. I would indeed feel crap though if I let go of Se creative for too long.
> 
> Are you following me as to why Se and not Te?


Do you think you could give me a narrative demonstrating how you experience this? I mean, I'm of course not saying you intend to use Te during the process specifically, but I'd still argue It's there in order to even have this work. Maybe you can show me wrong.




> Oh lol I know of that one, I know how I'm totally the "where" over the "what" pathway, which I find funny to observe in myself, but I don't think this is about Static/Dynamic. Why do you associate it with that?
> 
> I do wonder if Dynamic has anything to do with the verbal systems. As those are developed, in an evolutionary sense, out of the introduction of the ability for sequential analysis. That's how a theory about it goes, anyway. I find that interesting.


"According to definitions from classical socionics, static elements *capture "snapshots" of reality,* while dynamic elements *track events in process.* Static aspects of reality tend to remain more or less *fixed* over a significant period of time, while dynamic aspects are *changeable and constantly evolving.*" - sociotype.com


Ventral systemDorsal system

High spatial frequencies - *details*High *temporal* frequencies - motion

*Long term stored* representationsOnly very *short-term storage*

Allocentric or *object-centered*Egocentric or *viewer-centered*
They both describe similar system dynamics. One taking snapshots for the long term and the other tracking events in progress. Spatial vs Temporal specialization. Maybe a mental archetype? These elements would exchange information in Socionics right? They do in the Two-stream hypothesis as well, since the distinction of the streams is mostly a stereotype. They do cross-communicate.



> Uhh I couldn't be bothered to put my mind towards most of Gulenko's systems much. I do know of the +/- signs of functions, that's fine, but that Model G... forget it.











-L is here labelled as Fractal Logic. Fractals are of course cool as shit, but they have the disadvantage of being rather predictable. 



> And I don't see myself as creative in the standard sense of the word, I'd fail all those psychological creativity tests. I once wrote a paper at university how I thought those creativity tests were no good. :tongue: ...Anyway I'm indeed creative in the sense that I can develop a deeper understanding than most people I know and then put it to good use in tangible reality to create something tangible out of it that has an impact.
> 
> So if you meant that, then cool


What I meant could _potentially_ go a lot further than that, but you've definitely isolated the main point.



> But I think LIIs are pretty creative in the "standard" sense of the word because they can just pull from that world of ideas at will. Brainstorming whatever crap. Maybe you just don't value it from your Se POV  I can understand that, you know
> 
> But it does have its own utility, that sort of brainstorming, in certain situations it's rather useful for problem solving.


I do value Ne, but only in service of something else. That's when it truly shines. Ne too much on its own is like Pinocchio. It's cool in theory and all, but he's not a real boy. This is how I feel about most LIIs I've met. 




> No, I disagree, they are not isomorphic like that. The difference, as I said, is not purely a technicality, it has a lot of actual consequences. There may be a common neural pathway for them, sure, but if one of them already occupies most of that pathway, little will be left to the other one. I hardly believe that you would be able to change this way of utilization of such a pathway by the idea of trying to understand Ne objects as Se objects. This by definition is impossible, Se objects are seen by directly experienced sensory traits while Ne objects are seen by internal traits that are not visible, not there like the sensory traits. I also do not believe that you can easily rework all the neural connections that are already in place to support a Se network, into a Ne network.


But what if they can better share the network? You just have to be better at identifying what is relevant in context. I'm still young, and I'm kind of an oddball and possibly a fraction autistic, so I think I have high neuroplasticity going on. It seems like the perspective I have on things has the power to completely change how I deal with incoming information. If I view an Ne-type discussion as a discussion about mental objects (emphasis on object, something with texture and imaginative reality to it, tying my senses to the object) am I not translating the Ne into Se and creating a smoother NeSe axis? Or would you describe this differently?



> It hurts my head to go that far in Ti. I'm the Se subtype, though. :tongue: I will admit I sometimes go pretty far in Ti myself but I usually try to make myself retreat as soon as I reach the point of creating unsubstantial ideas. I like to keep myself anchored enough in the concrete.


I think for me personally, as a Ti subtype, I am much more prone to delve into the abstract end for its own sake whenever I can imagine that this might payoff in results a few months from now. I mean, to me, ideas and the intellect is power. It's about how you organize your mind and what you are capable of. Knowledge doesn't just inform, it opens eyes. You need eyes to see the doors that will lead you into better realities. I think the biggest difference between me and an NT type is that I heavily focus on whether ideas have texture to them; whether I can see them and do something tangible with them. Almost like an ILI with subtype that emphasies Se in terms of attitude. But I also like to dive deep into the books more than just sitting in my bed thinking. That latter part is awesome too, but only after I've done the former for a while and have something to work with. I love feeling the pieces fall into place after I'm consumed a lot of new information.



> This in practice means that I do not wander too far from whatever logical system I can create that's based in the concrete. I go as far as I can in terms of directly deducing more logical ideas from that system but as soon as it requires working with concepts that are *less than neatly anchored into reality, I stop* because at that point it becomes too loop-y (and yes, loopy!) Ti.  It is also a problem because the system at that point is *no longer neatly delineated, not a true explanation of things anymore.*
> 
> I love thinking up systematic ideas otherwise but I need to have at least a little taste of tangible reality with them, such reality should be accessible at least indirectly; except for some of the more abstract ideas that don't need to be aligned with the concrete; those seem to arise from something from real deep inside my mind and do not require extra speculative thinking to arrive at them. *They are not designed to be directly interfaced with or implemented for the real world.* Thus the concrete is entirely irrelevant for them. There is no issue with properly interfacing the abstract with the concrete. They are just... inspiring. Some of my abstract principles come from these.


Now this is really interesting. I like sifting through lots of abstract stuff because I'm always kind of ambitious with my thinking, I want to find something nobody else has seen before. I always have the possibility of an Se implementation in mind, whether It's a small one or a big one on the horizon.
And I guess it comes from having more Ni emphasis, but I also draw inspiration from half-explanations and half-truths, IMO. Even if something is BS in and off itself, I can still extract elements from it to do something totally new with it.
As for the second portion I bolded up there, I think I've made the mistake in the past of getting intuitions like that but then trying to turn them into useful information, and failing miserably. The way I personally interpreted this is actually that a stepping stone is missing, which in this case would be Ne. I think if there's better implicit (I grant you, unconscious, whatever) Ne even those can turn into practical ideas. But It's interesting how you've chosen to see them as serving their own, unrelated purpose.



> What is your dream if I may ask? Creatively using any function at will? :crazy: Something else?


Sort of. My dream in this context is to create smoother transitions between all functional uses which makes us highly capable in all domains. That's why I called the thread Towards a more* Integrated* vision of IEs. I'd like to see a day where the only thing that stops you from being Mozart is interest and the time dedicated to the piano.
I think the function and role of a personality is essentially to give a unique spin, perspective, on reality. But a perspective isn't inherently limiting to ability, at least not in its purest form, It's just another flavor of the same thing. The limitations arise out of a dichotomization, when our brain decides that _this_ and _that_ thing are mutually exclusive and therefore not worthwhile. Again, I think you would understand my point better if you knew the same amount of Neuro I do. I'm not even that great at it though, I've just soaked a lot of it in (and I've always had a talent for making much out of very little, if I can say so myself.) But as in the workings of synesthesia, the brain doesn't necessarily have to view things that way. A lot of how things are is by evolutionary convenience, you'd be surprised.
I know you said It's fine being a cerebral Se-ego, but in practice, there are pitfalls. We generally don't end up doing certain things as well as NTs, simply because the brain specializes. But if everything can be better translated into the language of that unique personality's spin / essence, that's like the perfect compromise between specialization and generality. Everything ends up feeding the core Ego in a unique path through a unified framework.
I'm not convinced It's possible to the extreme I've outlined, but I'm convinced It's worth researching.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Piercie said:


> You might be right that I'm overthinking this in terms of Ti. But on the other hand, It's a logical model, don't we want it to be as consistent as possible?


My point was it is already consistent like that.




> I like every module or in this case function to have its unique purpose. So to me it follows that if a Te user performs X with their Te, and an LSI performs that same thing X with TiSe, it just makes more sense that something is missing from the TiSe picture and it needs to be described as TiTeSe.


It is actually TiSe Ego + SiTe ID block working together as mentioned before. The ID block is unconscious in the background. The Ego is what is conscious, this is what is under direct executive control, allowing for flexibility in the approach. The ID block will learn in an unconscious fashion and it will remain on the level of automatisms. Those bursts you mentioned, they come from that unconscious ID block, results of unconscious processing. The Ego block's processing is fully available in a conscious way, as a contrast. Of course this conscious access is meant on a very high level of processing of information. Do read that link I've provided you on mental/vital, etc.

Let me emphasize again, this is all about a very high level view of information processing, the whole socionics model would not make sense in any other way, do consider that.




> If Se is related to things about the sensory world, Te is about how logical structures exist in/on top the sensory world and its dynamics, and Ti is independent structural logic. So to say that a person does only TiSe consciously sounds to me like they are seeing a pattern in the abstract and then magically manifesting it in the world.
> Or, to use less hyperbole, It's as if all they need to do is rearrange objects based on Se know-how until they fit a structure. That sounds very limiting.


It's not magic, lol. You see the structure in your mind and you apply or impose it on Se data. Se is of course about physical objects and people, all their visible traits and the moves required to manage and manipulate objects, directly visible situations, environment in general; where the moves may be your own directly physical moves or may be moves by indirectly shifting things via other people to have a visible impact. So that's the area I operate within. I don't see why you think that's limiting? That's like the whole tangible world...

Now of course Te in the ID may contribute to the process but it's not conscious, when I said it'd be brain rape I meant consciously extraverting my logic. That just does not seem possible. But it isn't needed either, anyway.

Hope you get what I meant now. 

Btw I would not define Te as "how logical structures exist in/on top the sensory world". Actually, that's what I do a lot, from a Static viewpoint, with TiSe. Te is dynamic, it will see facts and actions following from each other in terms of small steps/changes easily, it's a very foreign viewpoint to me. It is not structural logic at all.




> Like I've told you, I've been in a mindset where I've experienced what I'd describe as TiSe. What happens is I'll be doing both functions, but there's no smooth transition involved. They are like seperate activities and no inspiration to apply the logic on the world in tangible ways. Maybe you feel like the application comes automatically from the use of the two, but maybe sometimes it doesn't.


I don't know why you feel they are so separate. They will be synergically working together if you care to analyse things of the real world directly related to concretely achievable goals that you actually believe in (Ni HA?). 

That's when I feel at my best, anyway, I don't like too much dissociation by analysing things for too long where I don't directly see what real world impact I will have with my understanding later. I do it sometimes for intellectual challenge and I will also inevitably go deeper in my understanding than what's strictly needed for taking action because I just love understanding in a deep and complex way but what really drives me is what I described above. 




> I know that at some point a month or so back there was a flip in my mindset. When I come up with a logical observation or organization in my mind I immediately get a kick to start doing things I've traditionally associated with Te, like creating a bunch of notes on my desktop, graphing systems on my Whiteboard, or discussing them with people. And sometimes I feel like if I didn't do this, the Ti would just fade into the back of my mind, perhaps building up but never creating a product.


I don't think it's a good way of thinking to associate concrete behaviours with one function or IE. That's not what they are about. What they are about is how you do these things, how you think inside your mind that results in these concrete behaviours. 

Discussing stuff with people specifically, it is absolutely not Te specific.

Your last sentence here however makes sense, that's exactly how it is, it is no good to get stuck in Ti forever and not ever moving to Se from it. Note again the Accepting/Producing dichotomy. Each function block has that.. you go from Accepting to Producing.

Btw I want to ask you, what did you mean in your previous post about how for you your Se is just for "1) mere mental aggregation and 2) recreational activities"?




> So, the point here is that according to how you've described (that Socionics describes) this, the Te is implicit to the Se. But if it would happen to ever not be, we wouldn't have a way to address that at all. Maybe this is getting too much into neuro.


You don't actually even need the neuroscience stuff for this conclusion.




> What I meant with that was: In terms of the brain, is it performing an _extroverted logical function_ or is it simply an undifferentiated logical system being oriented towards? It makes a difference. Either the Te is an emergent psychological phenomenon from a T-like system, or the person is actually using Te while having a subdued Ti-like brain module.


Right, the former is the original jungian approach. Socionics is more like the latter. They are not necessarily in conflict with each other - you can have a system providing the basic T logic and then another that applies an extraverted approach (which in this case will also inevitably be dynamic, interesting) and another that applies an introverted approach and as a result there is Te and Ti parts on top of the basic T logical functioning.




> Yes dude. That sounds like gold.


Socionics Descriptions by Key Indicator - Pastebin.com




> Do you think you could give me a narrative demonstrating how you experience this? I mean, I'm of course not saying you intend to use Te during the process specifically, but I'd still argue It's there in order to even have this work. Maybe you can show me wrong.


I have an understanding built up in my head and then that determines what actions I take in the concrete tangible world. 

I make decisions, rules, priorities that are neatly part of the overall system in my head then I can easily go by all that when taking action. I will then manipulate my environment, objects and people and I understand all this stuff, I know why I do X action or move as part of bigger action, why I put Y object where I put it, why I tell person Z to do X, etc. I guess this is classic +Ti or +L.

Or it can be things that need specifically deep analysis with a very intricate framework in my head about what specific moves to make for whatever complex situation or process, or what reasoning to use, e.g. when programming. 

This is still a lot of +Ti but sometimes it feels more like -Ti  ...the more abstract the stuff is, the more -Ti it feels. But yeah complex yet concrete situations, it's still +Ti and I really enjoy it because logical complexity stimulates my brain and my moves can look real unpredictable to outside observers, lol.

And what I see throughout all this, is my understanding in my head and the environment as it is, with sensory traits of objects. A static view.

I'm sure my brain pulls stuff from Si and Te unconsciously while doing this. The point is, it is done unconsciously.




> They both describe similar system dynamics. One taking snapshots for the long term and the other tracking events in progress. Spatial vs Temporal specialization. Maybe a mental archetype? These elements would exchange information in Socionics right? They do in the Two-stream hypothesis as well, since the distinction of the streams is mostly a stereotype. They do cross-communicate.


I just fail to see this as Dynamic vs Static. The thing is I definitely relate to the "where" pathway more but I also relate to Static. Nothing about the "where" necessitates socionical Dynamic information processing and nothing about the "what" is Static specifically. I'm also quite good at "what" too btw, just "where" seems to take priority first. I use it for navigation rather well 




> -L is here labelled as Fractal Logic. Fractals are of course cool as shit, but they have the disadvantage of being rather predictable.


Yeah the +/- has a few versions, every theorist arrives at different versions of how to distribute preferred +/- elements per quadra, it seems. Too speculative at this point. Though I definitely relate to +Ti and -Se and -Fi, the rest is more blurry.




> What I meant could _potentially_ go a lot further than that, but you've definitely isolated the main point.


Yeah if you mean the idea to be implemented can be really really great, sure, I'm not going to debate that :tongue:




> But what if they can better share the network? You just have to be better at identifying what is relevant in context. I'm still young, and I'm kind of an oddball and possibly a fraction autistic, so I think I have high neuroplasticity going on. It seems like the perspective I have on things has the power to completely change how I deal with incoming information. If I view an Ne-type discussion as a discussion about mental objects (emphasis on object, something with texture and imaginative reality to it, tying my senses to the object) am I not translating the Ne into Se and creating a smoother NeSe axis? Or would you describe this differently?


My problem is you are mixing up levels of abstraction when conceptualizing these things. You can manipulate the way some things flow in your mind on a very high level but it will not necessarily follow that you can also access and satisfactorily influence the level on which it's determined how prioritizing of information processing happens. You made a quite big assumption there.

Also, sure, you could try to imagine the Ne stories in a concrete form, translate to Se, but that will lose the point the Ne originally had. The point that Ne has is something that Se cannot directly express. It's these abstract connections and traits of objects. I just think that's the wrong way of mixing the abstract with the concrete. Let me explain a bit more about that, it'd be like, you take a specific Se instance of a general trend that Ne sees and then all you see is this specific instance. The idea in the general trend will no longer be there. I hope I'm explaining well, Ne is a bit vague to me too, it being my PoLR. 

Btw I like how you said texture.. I'd rephrase that as having a direct taste of the tangible  It's definitely very distinctly different from the Ne stuff. My own POV, anyway. :tongue:




> I think for me personally, as a Ti subtype, I am much more prone to delve into the abstract end for its own sake whenever I can imagine that this might payoff in results a few months from now. I mean, to me, ideas and the intellect is power. It's about how you organize your mind and what you are capable of. Knowledge doesn't just inform, it opens eyes. You need eyes to see the doors that will lead you into better realities. I think the biggest difference between me and an NT type is that I heavily focus on whether ideas have texture to them; whether I can see them and do something tangible with them. Almost like an ILI with subtype that emphasies Se in terms of attitude. But I also like to dive deep into the books more than just sitting in my bed thinking. That latter part is awesome too, but only after I've done the former for a while and have something to work with. I love feeling the pieces fall into place after I'm consumed a lot of new information.


Hmm I think you are definitely heavy Enneagram 5.. that's another difference as that for me is just the secondary fixation. Anyway, I agree that it pays off very much to analyse deep. I think you don't sound like an ILI, what you say about the ideas stuff being tangible sounds like Se, not Te. Just curious, but do you mind it that you don't have a well defined enough goal or direction with all the thinking to ensure you'll have a tangible product of it eventually? Some neat tangible impact. That's the stuff that drives me mostly. I go crazy if I can't put my understanding towards something in reality soon enough.




> Now this is really interesting. I like sifting through lots of abstract stuff because I'm always kind of ambitious with my thinking, I want to find something nobody else has seen before. I always have the possibility of an Se implementation in mind, whether It's a small one or a big one on the horizon.
> And I guess it comes from having more Ni emphasis, but I also draw inspiration from half-explanations and half-truths, IMO. Even if something is BS in and off itself, I can still extract elements from it to do something totally new with it.


Glad you found it interesting.  Yeahh I relate to the ambition thing. We only differ in terms of how the Se implementation must be seen as clearly achievable in my mind. You also certainly have more patience for half-truths stuff than I do, lol. 




> As for the second portion I bolded up there, I think I've made the mistake in the past of getting intuitions like that but then trying to turn them into useful information, and failing miserably. The way I personally interpreted this is actually that a stepping stone is missing, which in this case would be Ne. I think if there's better implicit (I grant you, unconscious, whatever) Ne even those can turn into practical ideas. But It's interesting how you've chosen to see them as serving their own, unrelated purpose.


No, no, the stepping stone is Ni->Se. Those abstract ideas for me contribute to building Ni visions. It works indirectly for implementing stuff, it's like, inspires me, makes me have a purpose in general. They are not the ideas that are to be actually directly implemented. I do not feel the need for any sort of Ne here.

Just out of curiosity, how did you try to turn it into "useful" information?




> Sort of. My dream in this context is to create smoother transitions between all functional uses which makes us highly capable in all domains.


Hmmm I dunno, see my skepticism above. But lol I've argued this topic before. 




> I think the function and role of a personality is essentially to give a unique spin, perspective, on reality. But a perspective isn't inherently limiting to ability, at least not in its purest form, It's just another flavor of the same thing. The limitations arise out of a dichotomization, when our brain decides that _this_ and _that_ thing are mutually exclusive and therefore not worthwhile. Again, I think you would understand my point better if you knew the same amount of Neuro I do.


Well I don't know if I know the same amount of neuroscience you do, I only had a couple courses in it and I like the topic in general. But based on the understanding I have, this is different levels of abstraction to look at, you decide one thing consciously, brain "decides" organization of networks on some lower levels, the two will affect each other in both directions but that setup will not allow your conscious mind full control over the lower levels. Your conscious mind of course can do a lot of things but it cannot directly change things in such a fundamental manner. What you can do is e.g. practice a lot of tasks then you'll learn some things over time and that will help but you can't simply shift perspectives on the highest level at will to change the organization of the lower levels.




> I'm not even that great at it though, I've just soaked a lot of it in (and I've always had a talent for making much out of very little, if I can say so myself.) But as in the workings of synesthesia, the brain doesn't necessarily have to view things that way. A lot of how things are is by evolutionary convenience, you'd be surprised.


I don't think I would be surprised.




> I know you said It's fine being a cerebral Se-ego, but in practice, there are pitfalls. We generally don't end up doing certain things as well as NTs, simply because the brain specializes. But if everything can be better translated into the language of that unique personality's spin / essence, that's like the perfect compromise between specialization and generality. Everything ends up feeding the core Ego in a unique path through a unified framework.


I know what you mean about the pitfalls... 




> I'm not convinced It's possible to the extreme I've outlined, but I'm convinced It's worth researching.


I'd research it also by tools that can directly investigate the tangible aspect too.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Piercie said:


> *Q. What do you guys think; do we need a basic reformulation of how the IEs are related and will it set us free from Typism and Typological fatalism?*


Not really. I think you should study on the role of each function first, before you make these claims. For example, Ne ignoring simply means that Ne potential is implicit in a future vision. The greatest potential in the object world is accomplished by focusing on one narrow vision. Demonstrative Ni in the LII works similarly; understanding the development of something over time serves to create the most sound or proof systems because it means they will hold credence even as our understanding of the world changes etc.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

@Piercie

One more thing. When I mentioned practicing tasks, transfer of learned skill, of ways of information processing to other tasks/situations is also an issue; perhaps if you have practiced a wide enough range of tasks, readiness to transfer in general and globality of processing that type of information can improve. I would imagine this would take a very long time though. I definitely do not see how you could do that via just trying to shift perspectives at will. Practice in tasks is definitely needed


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Not really. I think you should study on the role of each function first, before you make these claims. For example, Ne ignoring simply means that Ne potential is implicit in a future vision. The greatest potential in the object world is accomplished by focusing on one narrow vision. Demonstrative Ni in the LII works similarly; understanding the development of something over time serves to create the most sound or proof systems because it means they will hold credence even as our understanding of the world changes etc.


I want to clarify the part about Ni demonstrative as I realized I was unclear, but I meant that if we can understand development of time, we can create the most consistent kinds of definitions and systems because they will not be changeable due to undiscovered variables that may be unveiled in the future.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Entropic said:


> I want to clarify the part about Ni demonstrative as I realized I was unclear, but I meant that if we can understand development of time, we can create the most consistent kinds of definitions and systems because they will not be changeable due to undiscovered variables that may be unveiled in the future.


Do you just mean that you can try and prepare for such possibilities of discovering still unknown variables in future?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

myst91 said:


> Do you just mean that you can try and prepare for such possibilities of discovering still unknown variables in future?


No. I mean the development of having such essential understanding of a thing that this understanding is so timeless that it will apply across all time and space like 1+1=2, the nature of pi etc.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Entropic said:


> No. I mean the development of having such essential understanding of a thing that this understanding is so timeless that it will apply across all time and space like 1+1=2, the nature of pi etc.


That makes no sense in terms of Ni demonstrative. What I said above is much more linked to Ni demonstrative than this here. This here is just logic.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

myst91 said:


> That makes no sense in terms of Ni demonstrative. What I said above is much more linked to Ni demonstrative than this here. This here is just logic.


How so? Sure it's Ti, but Ni demonstrative would serve Ti, no?


----------



## Piercie (Oct 25, 2013)

myst91 said:


> My point was it is already consistent like that.
> 
> Let me emphasize again, this is all about a very high level view of information processing, the whole socionics model would not make sense in any other way, do consider that.


I'm not sure what it means to impose a high-level model on the unconscious, or if you can even claim It's still a high-level model. That's the problem imo.



> It's not magic, lol. You see the structure in your mind and you apply or impose it on Se data. Se is of course about physical objects and people, all their visible traits and the moves required to manage and manipulate objects, directly visible situations, environment in general; where the moves may be your own directly physical moves or may be moves by indirectly shifting things via other people to have a visible impact. So that's the area I operate within. I don't see why you think that's limiting? That's like the whole tangible world...


You're right, It's not limiting when you define it that way. It's just very general. So general in fact, that I'd argue Te is included implicitly in that description. This is kind of interesting (and now I'm deviating from Socionics) but I think you just described what I'd envision to be the entire Extraverted axis from Se to Fe to Te to Ne. And this is exactly what I meant when I said It's a spectrum going from the most concrete to the most abstract. You can understand the world in an undifferentiated way as one big mess of features and levels of interaction because you have that whole axis (and obviously the introverted support axis) and we both simply have psychological emphasis on the most tangible level of it. You're describing everything we can do in relation to Se, which is exactly what I suggested that we have to do to understand it.



> Now of course Te in the ID may contribute to the process but it's not conscious, when I said it'd be brain rape I meant consciously extraverting my logic. That just does not seem possible. But it isn't needed either, anyway.


I'm pretty much starting to agree with all of this. I performed an experiment and analyzed my thought process. I know why X leads to Y but I can't say that I was aware of the conjecture my brain had to make about logical processes to come up with the conclusion.



> I don't know why you feel they are so separate. They will be synergically working together if you care to analyse things of the real world directly related to concretely achievable goals that you actually believe in (Ni HA?).


Are we trying to describe how things are or how they appear? If we only describe how they appear, we're in for a world of pain. Unconscious functions don't appear much like anything at all. More on this further down.



> I don't think it's a good way of thinking to associate concrete behaviours with one function or IE. That's not what they are about. What they are about is how you do these things, how you think inside your mind that results in these concrete behaviours.
> 
> Discussing stuff with people specifically, it is absolutely not Te specific.


Of course not. But that's not what I'm doing. The examples were meant to illustrate _how_ I did stuff, as opposed to how I did stuff before. I'm saying I didn't have to do any of those things, they were surplus, an extra dimension of organization. I see how things work in my mind, I have a conceptualization in there, and I know I will remember it. Yet I still acquired an impulse to extravert a significant fraction of it, purely for external organization. I think a more standard TiSe approach would be to let my environment remind me what's needed and consider anything that falls out as irrelevant, which is what I still do with the majority of my time.




> Btw I want to ask you, what did you mean in your previous post about how for you your Se is just for "1) mere mental aggregation and 2) recreational activities"?


I was describing what happens when the implicit Te isn't active. Your Ti may gather a lot of information but you won't feel like doing anything with it, because your Se doesn't demand that sphere of activity to be satisfied. Let's say you had a peculiar observation about theoretical particle physics, but your Se craves more immediate concerns. Tangible things. You can either spend some fraction of your energy on writing to a particle physicist just to get feedback to see that your thinking lines up with the physics community, or you can dismiss it and let it float in the back of your mind because you're not a particle physicist.
This illustrates the reason why I have a problem with balancing one domain with another in concept. Their spheres of interest ultimately don't line up, so all they can do is hitch rides on each others' momentum.



> You don't actually even need the neuroscience stuff for this conclusion.


What I meant was, maybe I'm looking for a neuro model and I can't demand this of a psychological model.



> And what I see throughout all this, is my understanding in my head and the environment as it is, with sensory traits of objects. A static view.
> 
> I'm sure my brain pulls stuff from Si and Te unconsciously while doing this. The point is, it is done unconsciously.


Alright. I've forfeited this point.



> I just fail to see this as Dynamic vs Static. The thing is I definitely relate to the "where" pathway more but I also relate to Static. Nothing about the "where" necessitates socionical Dynamic information processing and nothing about the "what" is Static specifically. I'm also quite good at "what" too btw, just "where" seems to take priority first. I use it for navigation rather well


I'm not saying they're the same or necessarily part of the same system, I'm saying their similarity might be because they arise from a common mental archetype. My initial observation was just an "oh, this reminds me of"



> My problem is you are mixing up levels of abstraction when conceptualizing these things. You can manipulate the way some things flow in your mind on a very high level but it will not necessarily follow that you can also access and satisfactorily influence the level on which it's determined how prioritizing of information processing happens. You made a quite big assumption there.
> Also, sure, you could try to imagine the Ne stories in a concrete form, translate to Se, but that will lose the point the Ne originally had. The point that Ne has is something that Se cannot directly express. It's these abstract connections and traits of objects. I just think that's the wrong way of mixing the abstract with the concrete. Let me explain a bit more about that, it'd be like, you take a specific Se instance of a general trend that Ne sees and then all you see is this specific instance. The idea in the general trend will no longer be there. I hope I'm explaining well, Ne is a bit vague to me too, it being my PoLR.


Yeah, I think this all goes back to our disagreement about the unconscious function. I still think we can capture the essence of Ne, but maybe we can't be directly aware of how we're doing it. And if we can't be aware of it, surely translating it to Se is no longer applicable. I think what had me confused is the fact that I can model the 1-D vector of Ne, framing experience in terms of the Ego.
I think the axis paradigm I laid out makes sense as an unconscious model though.



> Just curious, but do you mind it that you don't have a well defined enough goal or direction with all the thinking to ensure you'll have a tangible product of it eventually? Some neat tangible impact. That's the stuff that drives me mostly. I go crazy if I can't put my understanding towards something in reality soon enough.
> 
> Glad you found it interesting.  Yeahh I relate to the ambition thing. We only differ in terms of how the Se implementation must be seen as clearly achievable in my mind. You also certainly have more patience for half-truths stuff than I do, lol.


To answer your question I opened up an old textbook on the philosophy of free will and flipped to a random page and read from it. On the surface it seems like a very intangible kind of subject, right? It isn't really. I could immediately spot something potentially useful: human psychology. It explained that negative reinforcement doesn't work, unlike positive reinforcement.
I don't think there is very much that is so ill-defined that it escapes use. Either it has a point or It's full of crap. They way I'm immediately visualizing this information is that it's part of the mechanics of an interpersonal system. When sources go on about hypotheticals, it can of course get irritating, but I find it helpful to visualize it as learning the spaces inbetween the parts. You learn what something is by learning what it isn't, so in a sense, the hypotheticals are just as tangible and relevant as all the rest. This is also another reason why I tend to associate Ni/Ne, if you know everything that something could've been... only then do you truly understand what it actually _is._ The point of something is richer by knowing what the point isn't.
Does a source go off on a long tangent, a complete aside? Well, file it into a different mental category then. Now you're learning about two things 





> No, no, the stepping stone is Ni->Se. Those abstract ideas for me contribute to building Ni visions. It works indirectly for implementing stuff, it's like, inspires me, makes me have a purpose in general. They are not the ideas that are to be actually directly implemented. I do not feel the need for any sort of Ne here.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, how did you try to turn it into "useful" information?


I'm not so sure. Lure out more details by thinking about it, probably.



> Well I don't know if I know the same amount of neuroscience you do, I only had a couple courses in it and I like the topic in general. But based on the understanding I have, this is different levels of abstraction to look at, you decide one thing consciously, brain "decides" organization of networks on some lower levels, the two will affect each other in both directions but that setup will not allow your conscious mind full control over the lower levels. Your conscious mind of course can do a lot of things but it cannot directly change things in such a fundamental manner. What you can do is e.g. practice a lot of tasks then you'll learn some things over time and that will help but you can't simply shift perspectives on the highest level at will to change the organization of the lower levels.


You're very correct.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Entropic said:


> How so? Sure it's Ti, but Ni demonstrative would serve Ti, no?


The point is to show that Ni demonstrative. This is lacking from what you said.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

myst91 said:


> The point is to show that Ni demonstrative. This is lacking from what you said.


How is your example demonstrative Ni? It seems more overall Ne to me.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Piercie said:


> I'm not sure what it means to impose a high-level model on the unconscious, or if you can even claim It's still a high-level model. That's the problem imo.


Why does the unconscious have anything to do with that? Explain what you meant here. I don't see the problem with conceptualizing things on a high level for unconscious processes. It's the same thing as the conscious processes, just differing in some properties.




> You're right, It's not limiting when you define it that way. It's just very general. So general in fact, that I'd argue Te is included implicitly in that description.


It's absolutely not more general than the definitions for any other IE's. Do note the Se specific parts: visible/directly sensed static properties of objects. That is not Te. Te is not included implicitly anywhere. 

Define Te for me in your own words because there seems to be a problem here. ?




> This is kind of interesting (and now I'm deviating from Socionics) but I think you just described what I'd envision to be the entire Extraverted axis from Se to Fe to Te to Ne.


Nope. See above why it was Se specific. There was nothing Ne or Fe in it, Te either because it's Static.




> And this is exactly what I meant when I said It's a spectrum going from the most concrete to the most abstract.


Yes Se is very concrete. I only described concrete aspects. 




> You're describing everything we can do in relation to Se, which is exactly what I suggested that we have to do to understand it.


What? We have to do what? Not following, sorry




> Are we trying to describe how things are or how they appear? If we only describe how they appear, we're in for a world of pain. Unconscious functions don't appear much like anything at all. More on this further down.


I'm again not following you :|

I've been describing ways of thinking.




> Of course not. But that's not what I'm doing. The examples were meant to illustrate _how_ I did stuff, as opposed to how I did stuff before. I'm saying I didn't have to do any of those things, they were surplus, an extra dimension of organization. I see how things work in my mind, I have a conceptualization in there, and I know I will remember it. Yet I still acquired an impulse to extravert a significant fraction of it, purely for external organization.


Talking to people doesn't mean extraverting your logic.

In general, I don't see the point of doing things just for having external organization (which is Te, yes)... For me the agenda is Se, which is visible impact, not simply external organization. Do you understand the difference?




> I think a more standard TiSe approach would be to let my environment remind me what's needed and consider anything that falls out as irrelevant, which is what I still do with the majority of my time.


I don't understand this again. I described what Ti+Se is together. Did you get the idea there?

Did you make a typo.. or why would you consider irrelevant things?




> I was describing what happens when the implicit Te isn't active. Your Ti may gather a lot of information but you won't feel like doing anything with it, because your Se doesn't demand that sphere of activity to be satisfied. Let's say you had a peculiar observation about theoretical particle physics, but your Se craves more immediate concerns. Tangible things. You can either spend some fraction of your energy on writing to a particle physicist just to get feedback to see that your thinking lines up with the physics community, or you can dismiss it and let it float in the back of your mind because you're not a particle physicist.
> This illustrates the reason why I have a problem with balancing one domain with another in concept. Their spheres of interest ultimately don't line up, so all they can do is hitch rides on each others' momentum.


I don't know why you see Ti and Se so parallel to each other and never working together. ?! 

With the physics example, I'm more the latter, lol, but I do try to engage in intellectual challenges so I could actually do the former too. I'm still better off not constantly ignoring Se, though. Have some Se related projects too, I mean.

The spheres of interest for Ti and Se can certainly line up.




> What I meant was, maybe I'm looking for a neuro model and I can't demand this of a psychological model.


Well I think good psychological models can line up with the actual workings of the brain.




> I'm not saying they're the same or necessarily part of the same system, I'm saying their similarity might be because they arise from a common mental archetype. My initial observation was just an "oh, this reminds me of"


Uh, common mental archetype, is this some Ni stuff here? I'm more like, check if the structural logic is the same, based on the data on the hardware itself. But yeahh I can of course notice logical similarities. I'm just kinda a nazi about them having to match EXACTLY. :tongue:




> Yeah, I think this all goes back to our disagreement about the unconscious function. I still think we can capture the essence of Ne, but maybe we can't be directly aware of how we're doing it. And if we can't be aware of it, surely translating it to Se is no longer applicable.


It's already been defined, the essence of Ne. I can see how something like Ne is going on with some people. Not that I understand it well like Ne egos =D




> I think what had me confused is the fact that I can model the 1-D vector of Ne, framing experience in terms of the Ego.


You cannot. Because it's about something else, Se can't ever directly cover it. Se can try covering all the concretely expressed variables, such as, the specific Se instances of the general Ne trend, as mentioned earlier, but they will never match up with the Ne concept, no matter how many Se instances you take.




> I think the axis paradigm I laid out makes sense as an unconscious model though.


PoLR isn't unconscious. It's in the mental ring. Did you read up on mental/vital?

If that's not what you meant, please explain more what you mean by unconscious model. I lost track here.




> To answer your question I opened up an old textbook on the philosophy of free will and flipped to a random page and read from it. On the surface it seems like a very intangible kind of subject, right? It isn't really. I could immediately spot something potentially useful: human psychology. It explained that negative reinforcement doesn't work, unlike positive reinforcement.


Er, it does work in some cases. I don't think the philosophical concept of "free will" will explain the psychological workings of the mind anyway... because they are simply not about the same thing. The systems in the two different areas created are not going to be directly compatible unless you can show direct logical links between them in a fully satisfying manner. As I said, I am a nazi about these things :tongue:


Anyway. I was originally asking if you mind it if you don't have concretely achievable goals. If you do mind, is that why you think Te would be necessary for you? Or if not that's the reason, then why?




> I don't think there is very much that is so ill-defined that it escapes use. Either it has a point or It's full of crap. They way I'm immediately visualizing this information is that it's part of the mechanics of an interpersonal system.


Mechanics? Like Te? Or Ti? I don't know why you don't mind if something is ill-defined if you are a Ti-lead type. Why do you relate to Ti over Te?




> When sources go on about hypotheticals, it can of course get irritating, but I find it helpful to visualize it as learning the spaces inbetween the parts. You learn what something is by learning what it isn't, so in a sense, the hypotheticals are just as tangible and relevant as all the rest.


You sound Negativist. LSI is a Positivist type in terms of forming/building concepts via focusing on things directly and not on their contrasts.




> This is also another reason why I tend to associate Ni/Ne, if you know everything that something could've been... only then do you truly understand what it actually _is._ The point of something is richer by knowing what the point isn't.


You sound Negativist and Intuitive IE in ego. I'm not trying to retype you btw, but I just really think you sound like this. 




> Does a source go off on a long tangent, a complete aside? Well, file it into a different mental category then. Now you're learning about two things


I will just ignore the tangent unless it's logically relevant. Ne PoLR.


Anyway. Overall, I'm not trying to question your type if you are completely sure that you are LSI, I'd just like to understand more on what you mean. With all this Te vs LSI thing too. Because it seems like we are not on the same page right now.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Entropic said:


> How is your example demonstrative Ni? It seems more overall Ne to me.


Yes it's Ne creative of a Ti system, with Ni demonstrative. The strong skill of considering the future via the - indeed visible in the example - Ne creative focus is the Ni demonstrative in it, to me.


----------



## Piercie (Oct 25, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Why does the unconscious have anything to do with that? Explain what you meant here. I don't see the problem with conceptualizing things on a high level for unconscious processes. It's the same thing as the conscious processes, just differing in some properties.


You seem to be assuming that consciousness is simply a light switch illuminating something that's already there. Consciousness is emergent. Emergent things are inescapably higher-level in comparison to what they emerged from, since emergence is by definition an abstraction from what it emerged from. You can't reduce an emergent thing to the sum of its parts; you can't say it is simply made out of all these brain functions because then it no longer describes the contents of what has emerged.
Psychology =/= neuro.I went into this thread thinking cross-contextually about functions since their definitions are more approximate than definite. but then you asserted that It's only a high-level model, and wouldn't work if it wasn't. If unconscious functions are part of Socionics it's not just a high-level model anymore, for the reasons I outlined above. _It's kind of like anthropomorhizing what your own brain does when it isn't being you._




> It's absolutely not more general than the definitions for any other IE's. Do note the Se specific parts: visible/directly sensed static properties of objects. That is not Te. Te is not included implicitly anywhere.
> 
> Define Te for me in your own words because there seems to be a problem here. ?


I didn't say it was more general than other IEs. I said it was general, period.

_"Se is of course about physical objects and people, all their visible traits and *the moves required to manage and manipulate objects,* directly visible situations, environment in general; where the moves may be your own directly physical moves or *may be moves by indirectly shifting things* via other people to have a visible impact."_

I didn't use my own words. I looked it up:

"*benefit, efficiency, action,* knowledge, *method, mechanism,* act, work, motion, reason, technology, fact, *expediency, economy*, asks "why" to get information, facts, analysis collected data to make logical conclusions, law, legal right, generally accepted knowledge and rules/laws is more the realm of Te" - Sociotype.com

No matter what camp you fall in on this, there's great overlap between all the functions and how they're being defined. I guess that is a not so subtle hint that we shouldn't take it very seriously and see it as the approximation it is...



> Yes Se is very concrete. I only described concrete aspects.


Yeah. Concrete aspects of both concrete and non-concrete things. Which was my point, whether It's a valid one or not.



> What? We have to do what? Not following, sorry


Understand other functions through how _their content_ translates to the senses. I get that it doesn't translate the actual function Se, as you pointed out. But it does translate.



> I'm again not following you :|
> 
> I've been describing ways of thinking.


I'm talking about how we actually think VS how we perceive that we think. They're not the same, because the average person sucks at dismantling his own thought process accurately.




> Talking to people doesn't mean extraverting your logic.


It does if you're talking about your logic, which is all I meant with that phrase. I wrote _extraverting logic_ over _using extraverted logic_ for a reason here.



> In general, I don't see the point of doing things just for having external organization (which is Te, yes)... For me the agenda is Se, which is visible impact, not simply external organization. Do you understand the difference?


Yes. And I frequently do both, which is what I was talking about before. I don't really need a calendar because I can typically store a handful of near-future events in memory and review them in what is called the visuospatial sketchpad. Yet I have a calendar and I enjoy putting things in it and organizing notes. However, if my notation began to take precedence to my ability to keep track of things internally, I think I'd feel pretty bad about it.

There is so much to reply to in your post I can't get to it all right now. Maybe I can respond more over the weekend or something. But I don't think it's very fruitful because you're clearly getting some kind of tunnelvision about this.

As for this:




> You sound Negativist and Intuitive IE in ego. I'm not trying to retype you btw, but I just really think you sound like this.





> I will just ignore the tangent unless it's logically relevant. Ne PoLR.
> 
> Anyway. Overall, I'm not trying to question your type if you are completely sure that you are LSI, I'd just like to understand more on what you mean. With all this Te vs LSI thing too. Because it seems like we are not on the same page right now.




All I'm doing is adressing the topic appropriately. I recognize logically that we need different approaches for different kinds of problems, that's just sense. I don't know if I can use my Ni better than other LSIs, maybe I can. It doesn't feel good to linger on those points, but I can if it's relevant. This is the reason for the arguments I've been trying to make about intuition vs sensing.

I don't think intuitive ego types have patented the logical realization that knowing the boundaries of a bigger system helps you understand the relevant parts of the system. You can look at a glass and consider the inverse of that glass. The space inside it is now the glass and the glass is now space. Now you have a different object. It has known properties, such as being in the shape of an inverse glass. I'm still talking about an object, and in its relation to the glass there might be an important logical pattern with consequences to the real world.

Intuition VS sensing is not very obvious at all.

*Let's just make this very very clear so there is no more confusion about it:*

MY MAIN OBJECTION TO SOCIONICS IS THAT IT'S NOT REAL SCIENCE.
_But it could be, and I'm not terribly into authority fallacies._

:tongue:


----------

