Personality Cafe banner

21 - 24 of 24 Posts

3,277 Posts
You seem to be assuming that consciousness is simply a light switch illuminating something that's already there.
No lol I didn't make that assumption and it doesn't even follow from anything I said.

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.
That's not how I see consciousness when I define it in a technical sense; it's simply your conscious executive functioning.

Your idea on it being emergent and higher level is the basis of some very nice philosophical views and we can even make sense of it in the above technical way again, in terms of how it's an extra layer of managing processes in the brain to make the processing more flexible. The unconscious processes that are not handled via this extra layer remain unflexible and automatic.

But, from this it does not follow that the unconscious processing is not high level as compared to the low level neural functions. Also, in terms of socionics, this layer of conscious functioning is not part of the model on the IEs and it does not need to be. The idea is that any type (or element) of information processing (IE) can be managed either consciously or unconsciously. The information still remains the same information.

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.
No, I do not think you need to assume a homunculus (i.e. the anthropomorhizing issue) to explain the conscious way of processing.

I do not see why you think there is only two levels of seeing how the brain->mind works: 1) low 2) high. It is not that black and white. So no, your idea about unconscious functions making socionics low level is not exactly logically following from anything. Sorry.

You could even say that those information elements (functions in your word usage), conscious and unconscious alike, are emergent on a high level from how the brain functions ;p

Yes the definitions are not entirely clear cut due to the whole model being high level, not at all defined on the lowest physical level. Of course it is still possible that there is a connection between the lowest level (physical/neural) and the highest level (socionics). That is, it could still be reducible to the low level.

But, fundamentally that's the wrong way to approach socionics, as we do not know yet how it can be reduced.

...I do still like to try and imagine how it can be reduced, of course, I'm a reductionist very much heh

I didn't say it was more general than other IEs. I said it was general, period.
Yes but that is not an issue, it does not mean it's going to include other things (such as Te) where it should not.

What would be an issue is not that but whether subcategories of a general IE/function category (see below more on that) must always belong together*. This in socionics does introduce the issue of fuzziness if they really do not always belong together. Otoh, it does not have to invalidate all observable general trends. They can still remain valid in the sense of them still existing, just will be weaker trends. This applies to the entire model including ITR (Intertype relations).

*: ...which does not mean that they'd belong to a different general IE/function category as defined by socionics, just simply, not being there like socionics says it is.

"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."
What you highlighted is still not Te.

Se in socionics is about kinetic energy, remember that? That energy is required to be able to do anything with physical -directly sensed- objects. So yes, when I talk about moves, manipulating objects, it is in the sense of moving them in the Se sense and manipulating things along the static Se traits. You do not just stare at objects passively all the time lol

Te has a different approach to that. I already explained a bit of that earlier or you can check the socionics Te definitions.

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" -
Yeah, I never said I focused on expediency and economy and stuff like that. I don't really have any conscious focus on that.

And this is where your current understanding of socionics is still lacking. The thing is that the separation between conscious (mental) and unconscious (vital) functions is very much core to understanding the system. So when you say Te is included, it is not, because I am talking about conscious things. Te is not there. It's as simple as that.

Of course, the unconscious functioning will contribute in the background, in which sense Te is implicitly there indeed, and the socionics model says just exactly that. Also not just Te is there implicitly but Si. Te and Si make up the entire unconscious ID block. Are you following me here?

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...
No, there is actually no real overlap between the functions/IEs. When I say they are not entirely clear cut what I mean is that the functions/IEs are really all-encompassing, that is, they encompass several subcategories of information processing.

Can you see why I'm saying there is no overlap of the kind you are complaining about?

There is overlap though in the sense that the I/E attitudes of the same function dichotomy (e.g. Ti and Te of T) share some fundamentals (T in this example).

Then IEs can be categorized along certain properties, such as Static/Dynamic, Internal/External, etc... This isn't overlap in the sense you had an issue with it. I do think those properties hint at some ways of how the brain/mind's functioning is organized on a high level. And I believe you were fleshing out some of it in your original posts. A tiny part ;) It is hard to do it without investigation into the actual hardware directly.

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.
No, it was concrete aspects of concrete things. Whatever non concrete (not directly sensed by the 5 senses) aspects you thought of, you only imagined that between the lines of what I said. I can elaborate on Se information if you want.. but it's really just directly sensed static traits of objects and the world. Anything beyond that is no longer Se.

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.
Well, some stuff won't even translate, I don't think so. Because it's not stuff out there that's directly sensed.

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.
Everyone sucks at that then, no one can truly follow all of their thinking all the time.

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.
No it does not extravert the logic. You just put your thinking into words. That does not make it extraverted. I do not see why you think it does..... In socionics, the IEs you verbalize with ease are the Ego functions. So Ti ego will verbalize Ti and it does not make the Ti ego go into Te consciously in any way whatsoever. Te will remain in the ID block, operating unconsciously.

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.
I like your enthusiasm about cognitive psychology/neuro stuff, heh. (Referring to how you linked to that concept)

Anyway, Te is not this. Te in socionics is the Dynamic logic of external facts and actions. Do you understand me here?

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.
What? I do not find it fair that you try to assume and pigeonhole what I think and how I think. Where on earth do you even see "unfruitful tunnel vision". Just because I work by a different understanding? Seriously?! You might as well claim you yourself are getting that tunnel vision.

I think I have been rather open about this stuff, always asking you to explain more wherever stuff was unclear to me. And I'm open to hearing it if I misinterpret some of the things you say. Or if you have a model in your head that makes more sense than what I have so far. I do not see how this is "tunnel vision". Not more than what my (and YOUR) type is inclined to do :sad:

Anyway yeah I would appreciate it if you didn't shut down the discussion just because you think whatever bullshit about me. Why not discuss our ideas further and accept it if I disagree and try to follow why I disagree, OK?

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.
Ah if it doesn't feel actually that good and is a bit draining over time then it still sounds like just over-aspiring Ni HA. Strong Ti subtypes do have more focus on Ni than other LSIs.

I only really brought this up about your type because I just do not think your idea on forcing yourself to use your ID functions (Te in this case) consciously is going to benefit you as a Ti ego. What would benefit you as Ti ego is recognizing how Se can actually work together with your Ti. Are you following me here? Let me know.

And, that's also why I'd like to continue this discussion with you. You stopped short of discussing the Ti+Se more deeply. And I think it's a good and very relevant topic here...

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.
For that last sentence in this paragraph, I can accept the rest of your reasoning about this part. ;) :cool:

Intuition VS sensing is not very obvious at all.
Well to me it's obvious in myself, of course it's harder to see functions/IEs in other people but that's not specifically an issue about N vs S, just the whole typing process is harder to do due to lots of ambiguity. Though I find that it helps to focus on trends over time instead of trying to interpret a specific situation while missing its actual context for the person being typed.

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

But it could be, and I'm not terribly into authority fallacies.
Eh, socionics can be researched like anything else in science. So I don't have an objection to it in this sense. I do think it describes something real... whether the framework can be improved or if there is actually a better framework is another issue altogether. Thing is, I have been into some parts of psychology for a while and I have never seen anything explaining things that socionics explains. And I find that really really.. significant.

I am a reductionist by default and if you are too, then I can understand your frustration with how socionics only really makes sense from a high level view. But I've slowly learnt over time that that is still a valuable view.

I hope you are following me here. Again, let me know.

3,277 Posts

Still alive? I enjoyed some parts of our discussion - even if I didn't agree with quite a lot of things - and interested in hearing from you.

42 Posts
Discussion Starter #23

Still alive? I enjoyed some parts of our discussion - even if I didn't agree with quite a lot of things - and interested in hearing from you.
Yoo. I'm back after a long hiatus. Sup.
21 - 24 of 24 Posts