Socionics vs Objective Personality: Jack Aaron and Binyamin Tsadik Timecodes

-(around 5 minutes) Objective Personality Masculine and Feminine is similar to Static/Dynamic (immovable and movable) but not the same (Jack thinks it relates to Inert/Contact, and also feminine with agreeableness)… IEI more stereotypically feminine, SLE more stereotypically masculine… Binyamin brings up Aesop’s Fable the Willow and the Reed (feminine bends in the wind and doesn’t break)

-OP allows every function to be static/dynamic, Socionics chooses decisively in each case.  Binyamin has a masculine and feminine graph with Se and Ni, all the functions fall on this spectrum, reminds me of Ibrahim’s spectrum and Gulenko’s hormones.  Socionics Se corresponds only to masculine Se in OP (feminine Se is more like Ne)

-(12 minutes ish) Binyamin considers Si/Ne to use facts (Se doesn’t use facts in Binyamin’s opinion, but Jack points out that Binyamin’s Se definition is about collecting facts), Binyamin: Si idea of a fact is always true, Se idea is that a fact can be wrong too, e.g. (Sky is green is an Se fact, the sun revolves around the earth).  Jack wants to distinguish this from a proposition.  Jack mentions that what is assumed to be true has to do with the Beta types enforced narratives (Ti/Se), not as much about independently tested propositions, but more a set of beliefs that if you cross them there are consequences.  We can always doubt and what level we hold acceptable of doubt is debateable.

-(16 minutes) Do Se types doubt their perception of reality more Jack asks?  Binyamin thinks Se is more situational, truth is more what is behind the facts, they wouldn’t associate facts with truth.  Jack associates “concepts” with Extroverted Intuition, Ben with both kinds of intuition (Ni is more personal).  Ni is like fractal, gather more and more facts to change the Ni infinite fractal perimeter (facts mold and sculpt it to be more and more refined).  Ne has less personal attachments to concepts, just gets 10 more, but more personal attachment to facts.

-(20 minutes) Jack asks why subjective has more to do with refining (but on WSS blog that is also how Jack defines it).  Objective lacks personal attachments, it is shared by everyone.  Binyamin: introverted functions develop a firm structure by 20 years of age, to change requires more work and refining.

-(25 minutes) Masculine thinking won’t move when it is challenged, feminine thinking will be more open to reinterpreting what they have interpreted.  Jack thinks masculine/feminine correlates more with stubborn and flexible, and he thinks his thinking is feminine (but it is masculine in OP), since he wants to change his mind one day, his Fe is masculine because he wants to set the mood

-(29:30) masculine Se for Binyamin, very sure of what happens, resists gaslighting.  Jack thinks it would be more someone who wants things to be a certain way (sensible, but probably more masculine Si in OP).  Socionics is based partly on observation, Aushra started this.  Jack’s mother and fiancé are very particular about their current environment, things need to be a certain way.  Jack doesn’t mind the physical environment changes too much.

(35 minutes) Jack has more masculine Ne, wants to control whether possibilities are shut down or not.  Binyamin: Feminine Ne types sometimes lock into positive possibilities, some keep all open, some get stuck in negative possibility circles.

(38 minutes) Jack: why would a savior get stuck in negative possibility?  Aren’t saviors more responsible?  Binyamin and Dave think cog functions exist due to pleasure and pain.  Dominant is a pleasure effect (so failure doesn’t bother you)/.  Inferior function, afraid to fail, failing causes a lot of pain.  But in the long run, you get lasting pleasure from having overcome the pain.

(42 minutes) Organizing seems more Rational according to Jack, seems more deciding how it should align and arranging it in that way.  Binyamin: functions don’t work on their own, when judging interacts with introverted perceiving it will use that organized information.  Ni and Si dom are organizing information, it’s up to interpretation, they are looking for certainty (Tony Robbins human need of certainty). Dave and Shannon found the Tony Robbins correlation by applying it in practice.

(46 minutes) Jack worries that the OPS definition aren’t objective based on this.  Binyamin says they are because they deal with the expression of the function, not its metaphysical essence (reminds me of functional states).  Jack: How are we controlling against bias in noting behaviors?  Binyamin: Dave and Shannon have bias training, they are biased from being in the same quadra and other quadras have different meanings.  Jack: Socionics doesn’t claim to be objective, does OP have peer reviewed articles?  Binyamin: academia dropped the ball on typology, that’s why YouTube is so booming.  Jack: why don’t Dave and Shannon write a paper on their metholodogy?  Binyamin: they are planning to, but not useful yet, no use until people demand proof (evident enough that they come from a place of observation)

(50 minutes) Jack: requires a lot of trust in Dave and Shannon!  Socionics doesn’t claim to be objective. Binyamin: his own channel was an investigation to see whether OP holds up in practice (McKenna and the aquarian age, so many cults, so much strangeness, epistemological overdose, this is just what we are dealing with).  Jack: we’re not really objective, but we are trying to observe and make sense of things so it is similar to OP.  Binyamin: the reason they use Objective is because subjective would be typing yourself, objective is someone else typing you and especially several others coming to the same conclusion out of 512

(53:30 minutes) Jack: reliability is not validity, Pod’Lair warm wizard hands, they came to the conclusions consistently and with consensus but didn’t apply well to personality (actually, their consensus was much lower than reported and Thomas has changed his reads almost entirely multiple times), it’s something on the way to reliability.  Also, they haven’t thought much about how well it fits together as unsuperfluous as possible.

(56 minutes) Jack: what about Socionics you can’t say that it’s real compared to Objective Personality.  Binyamin: no traceable element to the data itself, for example dimensionality is just a nice idea,  Jack: I can see something true in strength vs weakness, norm vs situationality vs. OP there is not much idea of strength, it’s all about saviors/demons and growth, you can’t assume strength from type

(59 minutes) Binyamin: You’ll develop just as strongly with your inferior function if forced to use it, but it will just be painful.  Inferior functions give long-term pleasures, because you push back the tidal waves.  Jack asks: but isn’t the pain from inferior functions because they will go wrong?  Binyamin: but things go wrong for me all the time in saviors like Se and you can push through it, but failure is more painful in the inferior (Ni types won’t do anything because they are so afraid of failing until certain it will work)

(1:05) Binyamin: Ni doms actually succeed in Se more than Se doms, because they are so afraid of that failure, because the failure hurt so much.  Jack: what makes something a dominant function?  Binyamin: it’s that immediate pleasure dopamine reward (skinner box, relates to Gulenko duality/Ne also).  Jack: uses capability and confidence to type people

(1:08) OP and Socionics agree that Ni benefits Donald Trump, he’ll hire someone else to do the Ni since he isn’t responsible for it, Jack sees this as not confident whereas Binyamin sees it as not responsible for it

(1:10) OP has double deciders who have a good balance between the deciders, Jack thinks this is something you have to develop into with the mobilizing but it can happen.  And when you take a hit on the mobilizing, he falls back to his Model A Demonstrative function, OP says instead that he has gone to introverted thinking (Jack sees Te as: what he’s observed to work, more matter of fact speaking, after he made a social faux-pas, in Gulenko’s model the Role function has that kind of protective quality so it makes sense that it is Te for Jack)… interesting that they both feel Fe bothers them (EIE)

(1:13) Jack questions whether identity has to do with Ti, it’s a more subjective thing to Jack (whereas OP justifies by self vs tribe).  Binyamin thinks Jack’s thinking is subjective by Jung’s definition (resplendence of ideas and how they seem to fit together).  Jack thinks Identity is more sentimental.  Binyamin says it works by coming up with logical and axiomatic values.  But Jack thinks he doesn’t necessarily need to be involved in this.  Jack sees Ti more as resplendence and makes sense until it is contradicted, basically thinks making sense, and that’s being conflated with a more personal identity.  Binyamin sees his Ni/Ti as subjective, accumulate over time and make up his identity, Fe/Se change all the time especially Se.  Jack wonders how the Se is masculine.  Binyamin: masculine has more to do with how stubborn he is about the environment at the time, but doesn’t affect its changes.  Ne more the here and now for Jack. Jack doesn’t think of Ne as here and now.  Binyamin clarifies that it is the uncertainty in the here and now.  Jack thinks this is fuzzy language, he can look at his physical reality (and presumably not Ne).  Binyamin thinks the Si has more of permanence for Jack, mirror was there at this date and time.  Jack claims he is not tracking that.  Binyamin says it is because he is Si interior (so he is not “responsible”)

(1:19:30) Jack: why am I not using Se when looking at the physical environment?  Binyamin says that he could use Se.  Jack: and then if I use Ne isn’t that confusing?  Binyamin: Ne is focused on what isn’t there.  Jack: can I use both Se and Ne?  Binyamin: sure.  Jack: why only 4 functions instead of 8?  Binyamin: we can use them, but it is like betraying our first 4.  Jack: How am I constantly using Si?  Binyamin: you aren’t, you don’t feel responsible for it, you had to work for it a lot.  Jack: physical surroundings are uncomfortable it lowers my mood, outsourcing Si has been very beneficial, but it was never about certainty, more about comfort and wellness.  Binyamin: Si will enslave you, won’t let your Ne have the freedom.  Jack: I really want to enjoy the moment, and it can break me out of chasing new possibilities, but I have no confidence to create these experiences for myself.

(1:23) Jack: I used to stick a a paintbrush up my nose to trigger sneezing?  Is that Si?  Binyamin: Why not?  Definition is only a target, many things fit into it, some things could fit into different targets.  OP catches you by taking the environment as personal, as structured and ordered, meaning to the world around you and the moments in your life, more aware on a bodily level, intuitions are only worth what they are because they are grounded in facts and details. Jack: this is vague, I’m having difficulty linking it up to anything. Binyamin: exactly what Ne needs, something to ground its understanding.  Jack: I’d like an example of how this plays out.  Could you see this playing out in another type.

(1:26) Jack: I might not be Ne lead in OPS.  Binyamin: I think you’re a type in reality and a system has to catch you. Jack: Why do you think so?  Binyamin: If types aren’t real then what are we doing?  Jack:  We’re typing to understand type but that doesn’t mean that it necessarily is in reality.  Binyamin: I think the evidence supports that it is real, even Jung and 800 year old books from Judaism seem to be seeing something here.  Jack: I’m open to the idea of different structures being used to explain these phenomena, some might be better.  Binyamin: but we’re also using these structures to observe the structures (self-referential). Jack: I’m happy being a different type in a different system, and it’s not just appearing different, but a different way of structuring things.  Binyamin: agreed, it depends where you draw your lines in the sand

(1:28) Jack: If Dave and Shannon have these fundamental concepts, why use something like Double Decider as a means of typing people rather than Intuition and Sensation?  Binyamin: They can look for which one is higher (Ti/Ne vs Ne/Ti?) since they will use both.  Jack: I can see someone has strong Ne and Ti and then look at something like Double Decider to type them.  Why start with Double Decider or Observer?  Binyamin: They can start anywhere on the map, depends what they notice.  Jack: Since these double deciders and observers have different functions, why would they have comparable phenomena across the whole group?  Binyamin: They didn’t expect the same phenomena, they just saw it and it is what it is.  They see consistently in EP’s that they are double deciding, and consistently in EJ’s that they are double observing?  Jack: So what is it that they are seeing that is intelligible across the whole category?  Binyamin:  That they are not all in on self/tribe and not take things personally and not take people as seriously (Double Deciders).

(1:31) Jack: what makes an INTJ more tribe than not tribe?  Binyamin: Their allegiance is more towards the extroverted thinking, making things work in the world than their Fi.  Jack: What does that have to do with tribe?  Binyamin: Te is a tribe function, it’s making sure that things work in the real world for everyone together.  Jack: Why does Te need to help people?  Can’t it just say screw everyone even though I know how things work?  Binyamin: Because Te is a system for people, want everyone to be equal in the system at least.  Jack: I agree with much of what you are saying about Te, checking the data, making it work empirically, improving processes, what I’ve observed and how I can make it work better, but why must it have to do with people?  Binyamin: Because it’s not fair that it works just for you, and if it’s working for some and not others, that’s not fair so the Te comes in and says this has to work for everyone.  Jack: That’s a huge leap, to go from it’s working to it’s unfair if it doesn’t work for everyone.  Binyamin: the unfairness comes from the Te.  If someone takes a water from a river into your nook, so people downstream don’t get any.  Te comes in to find a solution that works for everyone.  I don’t know WHY, ask them (Dave and Shannon?)… Chris D points out that what they really mean is whether everyone understands the information, so the river example isn’t necessarily good

(1:35:30) Jack: There’s a gestalt here that doesn’t seem entirely consistent

(1:36) Jack: I see a lot of the same phenomena coming up in different ways, there is a lot of difference in single and double decider for example, they start with temperaments and then work out how functions fit into those slots.  Seems erroneous to me.  How do you know what to look for if you haven’t pinned down what the information involved is?

(1:38) Binyamin:  The way Te looks to me is like in World of Warcraft how they are all working together to solve something, teamwork can make a dream work.  Jack;  My problem is that I’ve come across many people who knows how things work and what the facts are by they don’t care about anyone else, they will get in the way of my independence, what I want to do competently, and screw other people because they can deprive me of what I’m trying to do.  Binyamin: right, it’s not about how people feel, but working together and correcting things, making the world function.  Jack:  But I don’t see why it has to be about society.  Te making people come together sounds ideal.  But that’s not necessarily extroverted thinking, it’s more about having a good experience together.  Binyamin:  I don’t think it’s about the experience but about functioning and maintaining.  Jack: Ti vs Te approach to society example, but how does the Te functioning and improving necessarily help society, I can see how it might end up helping society but doesn’t seem intrinsic.  Probably the tribe idea comes from Jung and his use of Objective and Subjective, Objective has an external placement.  Binyamin: that’s not how I see objective but I’ll go with you for now. Jack: with extroverted feeling Jung is clear that it is about group opinion.  Binyamin:  It’s also seeing the spectrum, the spectrum of feeling, the spectrum of thoughts.  Jack: That doesn’t translate to extroverted thinking in Jung, which is more these are the facts.  Introverted thinking perfectly fits together and makes then it’s resplendent, and though it doesn’t have to do with evidence I still want to share it with everyone.  Is that not appealing to the tribe?  Don’t you like to interact and show your ideas?  Binyamin: I am doing that now, but more often I give other people a platform (Fe) rather than doing it for my own ideas, so people care more about my ideas.  Jack: why share your ideas at all?  What do you want that?  Binyamin: Because I think they are good ideas.  They could be good for everybody.  Jack:  but doesn’t that relate to extroverted thinking?  Binyamin: No, because Te wants to maintain the systems that are there for catch on to systems from Ti users, they will want to implement those. Jack: Why is this conservatism intrinsic to Te and not Ti?  Binyamin: Because they are more aware of the systems that are functioning around us, more responsible to them, something doesn’t get clogged up in the processes around them.  Jack: makes sense, it’s a waste of energy to start afresh when things are already working (especially with Introverted Sensation), but why does this apply to the idea of the tribe? (maybe because language and systems are communal syntactic systems?)  Binyamin: systems are in place because we accept them, money is valuable because we accept it as payment, it is good for the whole tribe.  Jack: but aren’t your introverted thinking ideas good for everyone?  Binyamin: yes, but people will be resistant to Ti, they won’t see how it’s working.  Jack: Te types want what works for everyone, so they should evaluate your ideas in terms of how good they are for everyone, but you say they are more likely to reject it despite it being good for everyone.  It suggests that they are independent maxims or motivations that have much smashed together?  Binyamin: Ti doesn’t have to be doing something that is good everyone.  Jack: So why does Te have to do something good for everyone?  Binyamin:  That’s just how I see it working, is it not what you observe?  Jack: I know many examples of Te people who know how to make things work more competently for themselves and specific others they care about and have relationships with.  Binyamin:  So maybe they are actually Ti?  Jack: Te in my understanding is how can I make this work, what are the facts, how can I adapt, how can I adjust?  Binyamin: Well I do that too, does that make me Te?

(1:47) Jack: You could be Te, depends on what you are doing, if you adapt and adjust your viewpoints based on what practically works, but viewpoints aren’t important but what they think works, pragmatism can change from one situation to the next, does it improve outcomes, is it more/less efficient but they have no connection to broader society, but if they do they want to work on developing as a person and I attach that to working better in society.  Binyamin: Te people are concerned about validation from others, they’ll be the first one to help others, they are very generous and kind. Jack: The kind part makes sense, even across all types, but the area of kindness is restricted to those they have relationships with rather than a general group that they don’t personally know.  Binyamin: Te user came and took charge of the situation when my kid was stuck in the car.  They actively try to fix problems around them whereas my Ti is less focused on this.  Making things work better for everybody, very selfless thinking.  Jack: why is Ti less selfless?  Binyamin:  It can be selfless, but doesn’t have to.  Jack: Why can’t Te also be selfish?  The whole basis of OP is Double and Single Deciders and such.  If that part is so tenuous, how does everything else hold up?

(1:51) Binyamin: I’m not the best to talk about it since I don’t use Te, it’s what I’ve observed in practice.  Jack: it leaves a lot of doubt and reason for skepticism.  Not peer reviewed studies, trust in Dave and Shannon and what they can do and demonstrate.  Binyamin: It’s based on my understanding of it, I have qualms with the animal system, but I don’t see a problem with their idea of Te.  Jack: I’ve been typed as main animal Consume, but I do Blast a lot.  I wanted to get into a debate and talk about it to learn about it in case I am wrong.  But I do a lot of Blasting, I go on and talk about things in front of people.  Binyamin: No one said you’re not meant to use Blast, the last animal is the purpose more than anything else, what are you going to do first.  Jack: But Blast is taking a minimal information taking in because you just want to go and tell and share.  Binyamin: You have a blast bucket, you need to fill it with info before you blast, the Blast first have it always filled, always have something to say.  Blast last spends a lot of time filling it up and only rarely spilling it out.

(1:54) Jack: If the last animal is the most purposeful, what makes one animal the top versus the bottom?  Binyamin: It goes down to responsibility, if you won’t blast until you consume, you are more responsible for consume.  Jack: So when consume is your main purpose, you start with Blasting?  Why does it have to be that way?  Have you tracked this linear movement of the animals in all 3000 people?  Binyamin: I don’t think it’s linear or accurate to everyone, I think we can do all the animals at all times, but overall you’re going to be doing more of the responsible savior animals, with the others coming after, and thus those final animals become trustworthy in some way.  Jack: I am skeptical that you have to go through all these hoops to fulfill your purpose.  Binyamin: Right now you are “playing” (OP animal) on  OP, you haven’t fully learned the system but you’re still coming out and playing in order to learn about it.

(1:57:30) Binyamin: Your sleep is Ti Si, so when you planning your day, looking at the info you’ve gathered, using your Ti to sort the Si, going over the facts and making sure it all lines up. Jack: I don’t think I actually do that at all.  Binyamin: So then that’s going to be really low.  Jack: Information elements of the same vertness fit together differently, Ne/Ti is more metaphysical, a theory of different ideas organized into a coherent set of principles, like Socionics and some of OP, concepts are the bricks and structure is the mortar. Se/Ti rules are instantiated in reality, consequences for not following those rules, enforcement of that structure, line drawn in the sand.  Binyamin: that sounds more like Si what you’re describing, Se just is reality, it puts things onto us.  Jack: There’s no imposition of will in Se, making reality what you have the willpower to enforce it to be?  OP is closer to MBTI about sensation then when dividing Se/Si.  Socionics is more about enforcing power (Trump, Putin, Stalin, etc.).  Those who are interesting in climbing status and power hierarchies are more Ti/Se.  Binyamin: Socionics definition of Se is very masculine Se with masculine Te also.  Jack: This is why I wouldn’t type you as LSI in Socionics, and why I’m open to being different types in different systems.  Binyamin: I know that the actual functions I use Ti/Se/Ni.  Jack: But we may disagree over what the actual cognitive functions are

(2:02:30) Jack: I do see how I have similarities to power hierarchy people in how I use thinking, using internal consistency, but I don’t impose it.  Binyamin: I detest power hierarchies and other ISTP’s feel similar to me, even ENFJ’s feel the same.  Jack:  There are two sides to this, those in power impose their will and create what is true, imposing logic, but those who are marginalized become a rebellious force against it.  For example, Lenin or Che Guavara.  Binyamin:  Or Marx as an example.  Jack: We’d type him as IEI, but Ti is blocked with Se.  Meanwhile, we take Te/Si as being different as well, it’s more about evidence base, experience to be working, what might disrupt how things are working.  Binyamin: That’s not me at all.  Jack: You’d be LII or IEI in Socionics most likely.  In terms of LSE or SLI, self-sufficiency is important.

(2:05) Binyamin: I’m SLI in Model G, due to something weird with extroverted thinking.  Jack: When you add new things into the system, you need to make sure it integrates well, it makes sense, and doesn’t lead to things going whack at the beginning.  They have changed function definitions and don’t seem to realize the implications of this, so I don’t trust Model G as a result.  It needs to be shown to be consistent with what exists, or if it replaces it needs to be shown to be better, make better sense of the existing phenomena, to explain more in a more coherent way. (I point out that Binyamin is clearly not SLI)

(2:07) Binyamin: can we compare the nomenclature?  It may seem superficial, but is very functional.  E.g. Erik Thor uses MBTI nomenclature but means something very different by INFJ than MBTI.

(2:12) Jack: The most tribe values are Alpha quadra, the most collective, whereas Gamma is the most independent or self oriented.  Beta is in the middle, they have a tribe but it’s special and exclusive and there are rules to belong.  Delta wants things to work well, so they can develop themselves they foster relationships with others.  Binyamin:  I haven’t really seen this independence and separation with Gamma.  Jack: We’re not necessarily typing people the same way.  All I’m saying is, the things you’re using are not ruled out by us, but we’ve assigned it differently.  In my opinion, since we didn’t create 512 types and managed to make sense of these different phenomena, ours is woven in a more elegant way (which is more Ti).  I could change my mind to OP, if you can account for things in a more elegant way, have greater explanatory power with less superfluousness.  Binyamin: I don’t think it’s necessary for you to switch to OP but it’s good to update your understanding of Socionics and OP has to do the same thing and we all grow and converge on a single system.

(2:15:30) Jack: one such update I made is conscious/unconscious in Socionics, doesn’t work well with the demonstrative function for example, but it is public and private.  Binyamin: I have no problem using Te on a local basis, it feels dirty but I do it.  Jack: What makes me feel dirty when using Se, when I have to take charge and push people out.  Binyamin: in OP that is Blast, not Se.  Jack: If someone were an INTJ and pushing too much and dominating the environment, too much Se for ILI in Socionics system.  Binyamin: ESTP’s aren’t pushing others to do things, just doing their own thing.  Jack: e.g. Donald trump wants to be the boss and wants to be in power and make others do what he wants.  Se isn’t only about that, with Fi is independent and doesn’t want to be bossed but doesn’t want to boss around others.

(2:18) Jack: in correlating Socionics and Myers Briggs, SEE often gets ESTP or ESFP, whereas SLE don’t get ESTP often and more likely get ENTJ.  Binyamin: OP has a superposition going on here, if you see IJ and tribe over self, and blasting, then this adds up to controlling the tribe.  It’s decoupling things and then recoupling.  Systems in society need that, thinks can be tangled up, if you separate them out then you can see how they add together.  Jack: There are many schools in Socionics, some poor quality and some higher quality, we start with quadras and then factor in temperament and strength.  Binyamin:  I think Quadra needs to be used as a cross check in OP, this would have solved some mistypings in my opinion.  You can crosscheck: this person seems to use Ne, do they also use Si?  Then we could see both sides of the coin and be more confident.  Same goes for masculine and feminine: if we see masculine Ne, is the Si feminine?  Jack:  That’s a good approach and similar to what I’ve been doing.  For example, in Boris Johnson we see Ne, but also a deficit in Si, so he is more likely to be ILE.  He is unkempt, and is chaotic in managing day to day stuff but readily comes up with big ideas.  Binyamin: Ne dominants tend to be more ordered and structed than I am, their houses are tidier, their haircuts are nicer, they are gonna be more kempt overall if they use Si more.  Jack seems tidy in certain ways.  Jack: No, most of my seeming tidiness isn’t to do with me. (shows room, it is a mess, but Binyamin says his is much worse)  He has conversations with people and forgets that he is cold and such.  Binyamin: Se people in general have a much worse mess.  Some ni people have clean surroundings since the Se distracts them and prevents them from seeing anything else.  Jack: With Ni and Se users, there is none of that desire to bring things into an aesthetically pleasing whole around them.  Binyamin: also, there’s no meaning, the belongings don’t have any meaning to us.  Jack: for example, Karl Marx lived in squalor, I don’t like squalor but it can accumulate around me until I’m reminded (Karl Marx had a much stronger Ni accentuation).  ESI’s who have Si demonstrative can nonetheless be quite neat.  If I think of an IEI in Socionics, especially more masculine, they can live in a total pigsty and not care, since it’s not important.

(2:28) Binyamin: I’m in a similar position to them.  Jack: my brother never cleans anything, not important, only the film career matters and everything else is narrowed out of it.  Binyamin: that’s what Fi does, prioritizing priorities.  Jack: my brother would be introverted intuition, he must be in the film industry is the important outcome.  My sister is Fi type, it’s all about how she’s reacting to things around her.  She’s particular about forming close intimate relationships with certain people and creates distance with those she can’t trust so well.  Binyamin: It’s hard to know what Fi is from them since it’s hard to put into words.  Jack: I’ve been fortunate to know people good at describing Fi.  I know who I am and what my character is, I want to be with people of like character.  Binyamin: From what I’ve seen, it’s prioritizing, I know what’s important to me and less important to me.  What is critical and what I can give up on.  Jack: what do you mean by importance,  Binyamin: It’s about what’s important to their own character, which Band is their favorite, or music.  Jack: I can think of Ti as also being that prioritizing.  Binyamin: For me, Ti isn’t prioritizing per se, but figuring out where there are contradictions and resolving those contradictions.  Jack: In actually creating their systems, creating systems that are more consistent, there is this idea that some things come first and some things come after that.  Binyamin: only because that’s how they contradict, not because one is more important than the other.  Jack: it depends what one means as important.  If it’s more like significance, like this could be going places, then it’s more intuitive importance, whereas importance of what will create more good then it gets into Fi/Te territory.  Binyamin: I just know that Fi types prioritize priorities all day.  Jack: doesn’t Prioritizing sound a bit too formalized?  Binyamin: yes, they would never use that language.  Jack: I see it more as a sentimental attitude forming, value judgments.  Binyamin: you have to be careful, if it is coupled with Si that makes more sense, when coupled with Ni it’s different but similar.

(2:34:30) Jack: Fi works best with Ne and Se in my opinion, Fi/Ne is good faith judgment and Fi/Se is harsh judgment.  Binyamin: It doesn’t sound like that’s what Fi/Se does, that sounds more like tertiary Fi.  Jack: tertiary in Socionics is mobilizing which is less nuanced, in a stronger position it has more of a sizing up and maybe is a bit less defensive as a result than mobilizing Fi.  What is different about Fi not being tertiary in OP? Binyamin: Tertiary won’t have the balance with Fe, so ISTJ/INTJ, less nuanced like you said, person is good or bad, hate or like, but at the same time there is more of a depth to a tertiary function because it’s such a struggle that it can have a beautiful structure, comes off melancholic, not like an inferior and brushed away, and it’s there to the degree that it’s fragile.  Jack: It’s weak, but also bold and stubborn, a struggled point of pride and overconfidence that is quickly shattered and leads to retreat.  For example, I end up trying to impress people and get positive reactions and end looking like a complete buffoon.  Maybe they’ll even think I’m quite nasty.  The Demonstrative is low stakes and low reward, so I retreat to Te.  I’m not averse to making improvements, seeing solutions, making things work better.  Binyamin: But that will be Ne/Ti for you.  Let’s say your friend’s computer isn’t working, you can do it, but it’s not what you are meant to be doing with your thinking.  Jack: I can do it quickly and make it better.  Binyamin: But you don’t feel responsible for it, it makes your Ti impure in a way.  Jack: I don’t see how it would be Ti, it’s not about internal structure, it’s about finding information and using it in a more productive way to make something work better, and it’s not giving me clarity, I can do it well and I’d say it’s Te.  Binyamin: yeah, like changing your oil or something.  Jack: I like doing that since I recently learned how to drive.  Learning something to apply it and making something work better, I am willing to do it, but it’s boring.  What I find energizing and coming up with ideas, talking about them with others, a clarity of understanding in my head and sharing with others, and creating a positive reaction from other people.

(2:42) Binyamin: So we can talk about Ni, you can come up with a lot of ideas, but when it comes to picking one and going deep on it that’s where it will feel like that’s not what you should be doing.  Jack: I don’t mind going deep, but when it becomes limiting and I’m committed now it’s more a problem.

(2:43) Point I was making before, there’s a tenuous connection between Te and tribe more than Fe and tribe, maybe we can change the nomenclature of tribe to something else.  Tribe seems tenuous to have as the founding post to work out type.  Binyamin: Maybe you can talk to Te dominant types as OP types them, you might put them all as Se in Socionics.  Jack: Se in Socionics, it’s about primal will to have impact, to be the dominant force, it’s too primal for Te not thinking something through.  We started with the IM elements and what makes sense, and then we tried to apply it to reality.  Binyamin: I think Se is misdefined in Socionics, cuts out too many Se users, and maybe including Te users not Se.  Jack: Would you say that just because you typed those people are Se and I’m missing them, or is there something about your definition and how you’ve come to make sense of Se which suggests we are missing something in our definition.  Binyamin: Se is people who are accountable here and now to reality, people who put that as their “god”.  Jack: We would often put that in Si, so we didn’t cut them out the picture but just put them somewhere else.  By making Si so much about organization or certainty, I could just as much say you are cutting people out of Si by doing that.  Really what we’re doing is assigning people to different boxes by different criteria.  Socionics put more thought into the criteria from the get-go, whereas for OP they started with more vague definitions and worked on some methodology and now going back and changing that.  Binyamin: OP is struggling most with the definitions and how you catch people.  First we catch the Se doms, then we ask them: hey, what’s Se for you.  If you start with a definition and then use it to try to catch people, you’re going to have a harder time, because you don’t know how to catch them.  Also, you impose your definition of Se onto them, and if it doesn’t match them then you aren’t Se.  Jack: but you also have a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you start with a definition and you catch them based on that, then you ask them what it is, it will match what you already caught them on.  Binyamin: Right, that’s the problem with Socionics.  Because OP doesn’t start with a definition, it starts with a way to catch them.  Jack: how do you catch something which you haven’t defined?  Binyamin: you define how to catch it, you see how it is expressed rather than what it is.

(2:47) Jack: that’s the point, in Socionics we came to these definitions by seeing how things are expressed, clear themes in reality, say archetypes such as in Jung e.g. the Warrior/Conquerer.  Binyamin: Archetypes are a shortcut.  I wouldn’t use an archetype as a way to define a function.  If you are new to type and want to learn about it through archetypes, that’s great, but I wouldn’t go into the Beebe model and be like this is the end all.  Jack: I’m not talking about Beebe and how he shoehorned archetypes into functions, what I’m saying is that there are salient roles that people play in society around them, why are pointing to people in that sort of way, what’s going on there.  Binyamin: any type could be a warrior.  Jack: I could join the military, but what is the understood ideal of what it means to be a warrior?  Binyamin: if you jumped into the warrior culture, and tried to figure it out with Ne/Ti you might even have an advantage over everyone else.  Jack: We’re not talking about how specific individuals can bend and flex, but the specific motivations themselves, what does it mean to be a warrior or conquerer, you have to drill down to what makes that up and the motivations.  Binyamin: it’s fine to draw the connection from warrior to type once you have figured out type, e.g. these types tend to be this fitness archetype, but I would never use that to type someone or to figure out what type is, it’s backwards.  Jack: you don’t just compare people to archetypes, but archetypes show you what are the things of salience, what are the things to try to understand in building a typology, you have to start somewhere and Dave and Shannon did, because there was something salient, then they captured things that happened to line up with Jungian type.

(2:50) Binyamin: Jung was doing the same things, analyzing patients for many years, then we started organizing them into groups based on dominant function, now have to ask how we can catch these people, and that finding and catching people is a precursor to defining what type is and dive deeper into definitions.  Jack: but you won’t know if you’ve found them until you have some idea of what you’re looking for.  So Socionics is the same in that respect.  Binyamin: the Socionics definition of Se is different from Jung’s.  Jack: yes, that’s true, Jung gave it some thought and we’ve given it more.  When you look at sensation, what is it really about?  Binyamin: If you wanted to compare systems and catch proper people, we have a problem with Se between the two systems, so let’s find people with inferior Ni or Ni dominant and learn from them what Se is, then we can say definitively that Socionics was right or OP is.  Jack: But we might present different people who we think are inferior Ni.  Binyamin: but don’t we have the same definition of Ni.  Jack: I’m not sure we do.  I can see how Ni and Se go together, if you have something who has limiting but long term vision it makes sense that drive and impact to make it a reality comes with it, the Warrior and Shaman. Binyamin: it doesn’t need to be a warrior’s way to make something a reality. Jack: any way where there is taking decisive actions onto reality and impacting it

(2:54) Jack: How we’d approach Se is putting a lot of thought into what makes information and how it ends up being broken up, Sensation is external (concrete and real).  What would two way of approach that be?  Binyamin: back to Jung, it is subjective and objective, personal vs impersonal. Jack: It doesn’t have to be because of Jung, but it may not fit perfectly.  I would say it’s more about an increasing of breadth versus a refining of depth.  That can overlap a great deal.  Are you trying to accumulate more and more territory and influence and impact on your environment.  Binyamin: that’s not information, that’s an action, a decision.  Jack: it does show up in decisions, but others can have more impact and force than you.  Binyamin: I don’t think it has anything to do with power or force, it can but doesn’t have to be.  Jack: The accumulation of more and more concrete things sounds like it would be a bit possessive, having grasp over more.  The opposite with Si, is about refining the quality of sensation, appreciating things for what they are, more refined, aesthetic, convenient, flowing sensory experiences, not trying to take more and more stuff but more about enjoying that moment.  Binyamin: enjoying the moment could go with both, Se or Si, but finding meaning in the physical reality around you is more Si, stacking layers of meaning.  Jack: what would you say is meaning?  Binyamin: the idea of any object like keys for example, unlocking a door or idea, these stack onto the physical object of a key, meaning behind the objects.  Jack: But that’s abstracted isn’t it?  Abstract is opposite of concrete.  Binyamin: for them it is concrete.  Jack: you can’t say for them it is concrete, if we’ve agreed that sensation is concrete and physical, you can’t then say it is abstract.  Binyamin: it’s really subjective to them, e.g. the ring that belonged to their grandmother that had a lot of meaning.  Jack: what is this meaning in a way that is not anything other than concrete?  It needs to be consistent with sensation in general.

(2:59) Binyamin: we could say living a life of meaning for example, which is different from meaning in physical objects.  Living a life of meaning is a life where you’ve created something special in the world.  Jack: what makes it special?  How does this idea of meaning manifest in a concrete way?  What I’ve come up with is Harmony, the physical reality coming together in an elegant and refined way, no clashing or unpleasantness or ugliness.  Binyamin: I’ve seen Si users really like horror genres, and skulls of people, as long as skull has a deep meaning.  Jack: If you hearken back to some abstract and deeper, then it goes into Ni.  What I said as Si is something I relate to quite a bit, what you’re talking about with gothic things is Ni territory.  Binyamin: I don’t think so, maybe do research on people you’ve typed as Si and ask them about it.  This definition started with Jami, and I’ve talked with other Si doms and they’ve all confirmed it enthusiastically. Finding meaning in the physical world.  Jack: I do know people who use Si who also use the word meaning, but in different ways.  People can watch and make up their own minds.  People with Si say it “feels right”, it just flows, not disruption or harsh edges, natural and organic.  Binyamin: no matter what the introverted functions will have more meaning ascribed to them.  Jack: I use the word integrated rather than introvert.  It needs to align in the right sort of way.  For Si, meaning would need to make sense in a more concrete way, because otherwise these little mistakes will creep up to the type level and make huge differences, because we haven’t been as disciplined as we can be, that may be where OP runs into problems, but also perhaps to Socionics.  Binyamin: I think that’s where Socionics runs into problems as well, a lot of people have a problem with the Se definition and how it differs from Jung. Jack: but being different from what Jung was seeing is not in itself a problem.  The originator of the idea is rarely the expert in an idea because expertise is accumulated over time.  Binyamin: But it at least gives him a seat at the table.  Jack: As Kat says aushra wasn’t just trying to match Jung, Jung have her signposts that something is there, we need to pay him his due but we don’t have to agree with him either.  So what is the rationale that we’ve done must be wrong or is likely wrong.  Binyamin: the rationale is that I see Se users that aren’t interested in that impact, or in dominating or power hierarchies and still clearly Se dominant especially feminine Se.

(3:05) Jack: I agree with the hierarchical aspect because that involves Ti, but also what power hierarchies are we talking about, conventional one’s?  Rather I’d say it’s about how they tend to see things in terms of their status relative to others, what exactly the rules are for status can very from person to person, SEE will not be nearly as structured but is more about my power relative to others in terms of a relationship.  Binyamin: Se has a lot of power over Si just because it doesn’t take the physical world as seriously or personally, so less of a problem making a mess and causing chaos.  But that’s not their primary motivator.  Jack: And taking more territory, and that battle and clash of wills, and that does exist in an antithesis.  Binyamin: that’s an expression Se can take but I don’t think it’s fundamental to all Se.  Jack: it seems so fundamental to almost everything.  If you drop a penny in a glass of water, it shifts up doesn’t it?  Greater density displaces lesser density. If types of people prioritize certain kinds of information over others, surely something as fundamental as that should form someone’s motivation?  Binyamin: what if Se is feminine, and what if Se is the water and the penny pushes on them?  Jack: If Se is feminine enough, how is Se definitely different than Ne, how is it definitely different to Si?  Binyamin: it’s fundamentally different, the expression is just different.  Jack: How would it necessarily be different?  Binyamin: Feminine Se has less friction with reality, it will go with the flow a little more.  Se in general is really go with the flow, it is really able to roll with the punches.  Jack: we say that Si is more go with the flow.  Binyamin: Si will not want to go with the flow, Si will want to stay in their house and not go and try new things.

(3:09) Jack: think of it this way, for most of this debate I wasn’t being so challenging, I was more interested in learning and going with the flow, and exploring different Ne possibilities is related to this Si going with the flow. Binyamin: This isn’t a sensory thing, it is an intellectual thing.  Jack: yes, but there is a background of me not pushing you around, organic development.  Binyamin: let’s say you’re on a construction site and you have to help build things, Se will be in the moment making sure nothing is falling on their head, be aware of surroundings, but not pushing and going with the flow.  Jack: I rather like the idea of some craft you are working on where you are just going with the flow and organically working.  When I’m being disrupted continuously it is jarring.  The flow is being disrupted by imposition.  Se is more alert, ready to respond and act, in a state of tension.  Binyamin: for them it is not tension, it is natural and real.  Jack: I’ve found for Se types that the tension and intensity is the thing, if you live with tension then you are alive pushing life to the edge.  You can see it in fiction like Naruto.  These archetypes represent people who actually do exist, not literally but the mentality.  Such as skiers.  Binyamin: but it doesn’t have to be pushing yourself to the edge, it can be aware and not pushing yourself to the edge, it can be reactionary.  Jack: When you’re most alert is when your adrenaline is pumping, when you’re in a situation where you’re on the edge, that hormone exists because you’re being pushed to the edge.  Binyamin: For an Ne user, maybe that hormone brings you into the moment and the Se.  Jack: when you have adrenaline pumping your alertness increases, your heart rate races more, survival fight and flight.  Any person can get that, but Se live for that high adrenaline experience.  Binyamin: I don’t think so, they are just accountable to reality in some way, that high adrenaline might not come because they are so present.  Jack: if they are just batting it away and they can handle it or whatever, is that really a fulfillment or motivation.  Binyamin: you have to go back to what pleasure and what responsibility is it getting.  Jack: the use of “responsibility” as a way of talking about the functions is rather “rational”, more of an “ought” than an “is”, if it’s just reality why is there responsibility?

(3:14) Binyamin: because someone has to do it, someone has to take care of this part, person who jumps to handle it first is the responsible one.  Jack: not necessarily, the first person to step up and react is the person who’s most alert.  Binyamin: there you go, alertness is a great idea of what Se is.  Jack: if you are focused on what’s going on around you and potential threats encroaching, it makes sense that Se is what is going on and how I react to it?  Binyamin: you see this in Deer, some are alert, others just graze, the one’s who notice the threat will alert others to it.  Jack: but that’ the point, threat, response to threat, overcoming threat.  That’s why we are alert, why we evolved it.  Binyamin: that’s one of the aspects that Se can do.  Let’s say somebody found gold by the river, and you’re aware and alert and you run and get your piece.  Jack: We’re trying to get a sense of what’s more primal, makes sense to stick with deer.  If I don’t do this, I’m going to starve to death.  If I don’t avoid danger, I’m going to be killed.  Binyamin: What Socionics describes Se is the deer that fight and battle for supremacy, but that’s not what Se is because there can be a weak deer that’s not fighting but is just alert and aware.  You have to decide what is Se, battler isn’t necessarily Se?  Jack: Se doesn’t have to make you physically strong, you might not be lucky enough for that, the alertness and awareness of what you need to do in the immediate environment.  Binyamin: so it doesn’t have to have force.  Jack: it doesn’t have to be a physical muscular strength.  Binyamin: it’s not even a figurative force, it’s an alertness and responsibility to what is happening around you.

(3:17:30) Jack: I can see how that alertness works as a background effect, we’re naturally alert and know what to do.  How is that a valued motivational sense?  Binyamin: I don’t know, it just is.  Jack: For the demonstrative function, those are types are good and capable with Se, alert and capable of responding the moment, but not putting much of a valued pressure on that thing for its own sake.  The way you describe Se sounds like a lot of LSE’s in Socionics.  They have an awareness of the fight or flight and could be more dominant if they wanted to be.  But they want to see how things work in reality primarily, testing things out and seeing what can be improved.  Dominant Se in Socionics is I must respond to my environment; I must be decisive in acting on it and have that impact.  Binyamin: it’s not only about impact, when things go wrong it’s good to have someone with Se to think straight in that situation, to have that clarity.  Jack: LSE and SLE are both good at thinking straight and solving problems in the here and now, SEE’s and ESE’s as well.  Binyamin: I’m less good at solving things in the immediate environment, when it happens I’m good but it’s not what I’m looking for, but I still use Se as my auxiliary.  I have a lot of dexterity in a variety of situations and it works like magic for me, e.g. catching things I dropped and untangling groceries.  Jack: it’s an understanding you have which is just there.  Binyamin: I’ll move my head out of the way and something will just fly past my head without me being aware that I did it. Jack: We’d see that when something in the ego block there is more of a valued, concerted emphasis around it, but for me, I can see long term outcomes, I’m good at detaching from the here and now and seeing developments, good at using factual information to make predictive estimates.  I don’t place much emphasis on this, I’m more interested in finding ways of explaining things in a way which fits together and exploring possible ways of how things can fit together, that’s more what we’re doing now and I live for that kind of stuff.  I don’t live for predictive estimates and crunching the data.

(3:22) Binyamin: but you’ll get there anyways as a byproduct, because you’re looking at all the uncertainty, you’ll get to the certainty. Jack: it’s more about clarity than certainty for me.  Certainty sounds like no alternatives and stuck, and that might be a bad idea.  Could be something better, I just don’t know what it is.  Binyamin: Certainty is the enemy of Ne for sure.  Jack: exactly

(3:23:30) Jack: I think it’s just an intuitive sense that war and peace would come into the attitudes to the physical world, something to fight and take more, or just refine that perfect experience.  Binyamin: I don’t think so, and I think people who don’t even use Se can go into that warlike state.  Jack: I’m more talking about the concepts behind cognitive functions than the type.  Binyamin: but I can talk about the cognitive functions too.  Jack: I’m not sure of the rationale for why you don’t see it.  Binyamin: I can point to some who use Se like that and others that don’t, it’s just not all present.  Jack: What is the metric you use to say whether a person is Se or something else? Alertness in day to day?  Binyamin: That’s part of it, and through OP you can use the coins, such as gathering and sensing.  Jack: How is being alert in day to day gathering?  Binyamin: We don’t know, it just happens to be.  Gathering is just a way you catch them.  What are you consuming when you consume?  What are the new things you learn?  Jack: factual information, like how something is, who did what where.  Binyamin: how do you get to the conclusions that it’s a factual piece of information.  Jack: if I read about it, it’s a fact, for instance I found out something which is quite cool, if people fart on a flame they create a blue flame.  What am I meant to be consuming?  Binyamin: the fact is the takeaway for you.  Jack: I can see that when I’m putting together an idea in my head and trying to structure a theory, it’s relaxing for me to take in information and I find new possibilities of ways to make sense of things in my life.  Binyamin: you’re consuming possibilities, concepts, to have a factual takeaway in the end.  Jack: That sounds a bit forced.  To me it feels the opposite.

(3:28:30) Binyamin: Are you more concerned with freedom than control?  Jack: when I was younger definitely about freedom, now I’m more about control, I’ve gone from chaotic evil to lawful good.   Binyamin: That’s another way to catch someone, more on the side of freedom or control, sensory dominant and more on the side of freedom than that’s Se.  Jack: So more libertarian in other words?  Binyamin:  I don’t know if it fits into an ideology.  Jack: that’s what I assumed you meant, I like a bit more law and order and I’m not an anarchist.  Binyamin: in your day to day life, if someone were to say you can’t do what you want anymore and you can’t be free, that’s hell for the EP.  EP wants the new.  Jack: I don’t like having my possibilities limited, for example I need you to say that you want to go to bed so we can finish this long conversation.  I can’t stand to limit things and I realize it’s a bad thing.  I’m delaying going to the bathroom and going to bed.  It’s interesting, but I’m aware of what’s being put on the back burner.  Binyamin: IF we can find a sensory dominant that isn’t using force, and you can still type them as an Se dominant, then maybe that’s a good place to learn that maybe Socionics has a problem with its definition.  Best way to do it is type someone with inferior Ni.  I have a few people that I could send your way.