User talk:Jonathan

Jonathan, I have created an article on Common biases in socionics and would be interested in your contributions. (Admin 08:18, 27 June 2007 (CDT))

Sure, I'd be glad to add something; not sure if I can do much right away. Were you thinking along the lines of possible biases within the theory itself (e.g., biases found in articles about Socionics) or common misconceptions by people who are less informed about Socionics? Or maybe both? --Jonathan 22:31, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I was thinking more of possible systemic biases found in articles about socionics by multiple authors (for example, an intuitive bias that I have addressed indirectly here). For the second kind, we can start an article called "common misconceptions about socionics." (Admin 01:18, 28 June 2007 (CDT))

Okay, I added some thoughts. They're rather subjective in nature, not encyclopedic as one might expect for a Wiki, but I think these particular kinds of observations represent my kind of contribution. It's a start, anyway; we could add more references and examples so that it's not all from my point of view. Anyhow, thanks for making the suggestion. :) --Jonathan 20:13, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Here's another article I think you'll be interested in. (Admin 13:35, 5 July 2007 (CDT))

Thanks. As you know, that's my big interest. :) This is something I've thought about for many years, and I can say you've done an impressive job. I've written some very extensive comments and critiques in the "Talk" page. I'd be quite interested in your feedback on these comments. If we can get to truly good definitions here, that would really be something. --Jonathan 23:20, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Socionics Meeting

The one thing I'd recommend is that we should know approximately where everybody is staying.  That
would make it easier to pick the best locations for everybody. I think niffweed had found some
site where people can pick their location or something like that on a map...does anyone remember what
that website is called? 

http://www.frappr.com Niffweed17 05:44, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. :) --Jonathan 08:25, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

The one frustrating part is that it seems to keep track of each person as being in only one place; so if people like to use that to indicate to others where they live, using it for where they're staying will mess it for them. Maybe we should look at the tools under Google Maps. --Jonathan 08:49, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

...Or you could make another frappr specifically for this purpose. Niffweed17 12:28, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

...Okay, thanks...I'll take a look at it. On first glance, it looked as if whatever website one attaches it to, it still goes out to the Frappr site and changes a user's information globally. That might not be the case, it just appeared that way. --Jonathan 13:23, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

i tried it and it doesn't do that. i made a map for this purpose; you may want to make a thread for it in the forum. [1] Niffweed17 14:54, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Talk pages

It's fine to go off-topic, but please try to start a new section (or de-indent) when appropriate. Thehotelambush 23:05, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Sorry. Which place were you referring to? Or just in general? --Jonathan 13:21, 22 July 2007 (BST)

Just in general. And it's a bit confusing to have the same discussion on two pages! But don't mind me, overactive Ti... Thehotelambush 02:27, 26 July 2007 (BST)

Yeah, I understand. I try to keep things sectioned and organized, but digressions are hard to avoid with me, because to me the digression usually seems more interesting than the "on-topic" part. Concerning the discussion on two pages...I meant to discuss the Robespierre issue on the LII discussion page, but then it made me think of cultural differences, which related to the other page. However, then Expat answered the issue about Robespierre in the second place, which may have caused it to get confusing. That's why I put the link there. I'll try to keep things organized as best I can. --Jonathan 03:01, 26 July 2007 (BST)

lol, thanks. Thehotelambush 03:09, 26 July 2007 (BST)

A different way...

I think you're on to something with this, but I would switch the descriptions of Ji and Je. "Knowing the principles to expand from a given point" sounds more dynamic than static.

I understand your point, but I'm not sure how to reconcile it with my model yet. On the one hand, Ji (static) functions seem to be concerned with understanding the "map"...the general principles, whereas Je (dynamic) functions seem concerned with guiding action through a particular path. But on the other hand, it seems to me that when Ji people do things, they know what principles, rules, guidelines, etc., to follow and their actions do seem to me to be building outward...that is "bottom up," whereas it seems that Je people tend to say things like "This is goal; this is what we're trying to achieve here," and have a sense of how they want it all to look in the end, even if they don't know the technical details of how that will happen.

I may be wrong about that (e.g., maybe these are really Se types), but it does seem to me that the whole thing "flips" depending on which way you're looking at it.

By the way, of this list, which composers' music sounds Je (dynamic), and which sounds Ji (static) to you?

* J. S. Bach

* Mendelssohn

* Borodin

* Domenico Scarlatti

(P.S., I know that's not fair, because all music is both dynamic and static at the same time. But what I'm focusing on is this....Do the intricate combinations in a Bach fugue that unfold to create an organic structure sound like Ti or Te to you? Does the way that Mendelssohn seems to have a very clear sense of how the sections are functioning as "blocks" over time sound Ti or Te to you?)

--Jonathan 14:37, 26 July 2007 (BST)

One other example...suppose a person knows all about how electricity works (statics) and uses that knowledge to build a network, which expands over time as needed. Does that sound like Ti to you? And suppose a person says "Let's build a building. I want the building to look like this: A dome here, and cube here. That's the goal. Now let's figure out how to make it happen...." Does that sound more like Te? --Jonathan 14:49, 26 July 2007 (BST)

The more complex the real-life examples you use, the less you can attribute them to any single function. To know how electricity works is a mix of Te and Ti, and the rest you described is a mix of Si, Ni, Te and Ti. Expat 15:07, 26 July 2007 (BST)

Agreed. But I'm trying to explain through use of examples and analogies a general concept, so the fact that the examples and analogies aren't perfect isn't really the point. (It seems you're doing the same thing as I was doing with your "ship" analogy.) The first thing is, do you get the underlying concept that I'm talking about; and secondly, do you see what I mean by how Ji vs. Je seems to "flip" depending on how you're looking at it? I'm also trying to assess if it could all be as simple as to reverse them (as theHotelAmbush suggests), so that what I thought was Ji is Je and visa versa...unlikely though, given that Hotel's other descriptions of Ti seem similar to the way I'm thinking of Ti. --Jonathan 16:05, 26 July 2007 (BST)

The reason that Se is not really "perceptive" is that it is extroverted, i.e. concerned with making an impact in the external world rather than simply perceiving it. Ji provides it with a direction; it tells it where the goal lies. On the other hand, Je is constantly making tiny changes, course corrections based on dynamic Pi input. (This is partly based on Expat's descriptions of it.) So the MBTI trait Perception could be related to introversion, in a sense. Thehotelambush 06:27, 26 July 2007 (BST)

Yes. A pure "perceiving" trait, as in just perceiving and not doing anything about it, would be just the introverted versions. But I see both Se and Ne as "perceiving" in the sense that they are irrational: gut feelings, spontaneous. Se means perceiving the spatial static properties of an object together with a drive to change them. Now if you mean that a desire to change them already means some "judging", fine -- I disagree with it. The Ne and Se drives are, uh, visceral, irrational, animal if you will. Expat 14:09, 26 July 2007 (BST)

Thanks for the explanations. ("Judging" doesn't have anything to do with it here.) I guess the one thing that bothers is me that between Se and Ne, when people discuss Ne, they often talk about perceiving possibilities (i.e., taking in a form of information) and less about a drive to do something about them. Often, when people talk about Se, they mention the drive to change things, but forget about the "perceiving the spatial static properties of an object" part. It was that asymmetry that was bothering me.

The interesting thing is, all of the functions, even the introverted ones, involve a corresponding drive to do something about their particular area...even if "doing something" means just writing down one's thoughts, or sitting there thinking. Somehow, people seem to describe Se alone as "doing," which may be a misconception. --Jonathan 14:20, 26 July 2007 (BST)

The mere act of reaching out for a pen in order to write something with it is already a use of Se (you know how far the pen is so you can reach it, and you know how heavy it is so you can lift it) and Te and Si (you know, also from your experience, that that pen will write something). Expat 15:10, 26 July 2007 (BST)