The J Functions as Logos

Home Forums Model 1 Discussions The J Functions as Logos

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #19566
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    As has been stated recently, a revision is underway when it comes to understanding the J functions. This thread follows wholly from the first Computational Metaphor thread (#2 is coming), and is also meant to address a topic recently brought up on Discord, about the differences between Ti and Te (but really, between Ji and Je).
    I'll start with my response in that place:

    Regarding Ti -- I plan to have a proper debate with Jack about this soon. But in general, Jack appears to define differences between, lets say, Ti and Te, through classical philosophical categories that are coherent in themselves.
    However, that is not how one ought to go about making classification systems. Because the natural boundaries we may draw, in models of logic, don't necessarily have a correspondence to whatever human biology requires, in order for it to process reality. And so Jack (and socionics) is looking in the wrong place (philosophy).
    The proper place to look for differences in cognitive aspects is more like cognitive science and computation. So we might ask questions such as-- what separate operations are needed in the metabolism of information within computational models. And in that sense, to sum it up very briefly, CT proposes that Ji (including Ti) is a metabolic process that classifies mental objects in the discrete and singular, self-existent sense. This is necessary (the quantizing) for that to be passed onto other operations. CT then proposes that Je is a metabolic processes that tracks object-vectors and object-positions, in other words causality.
    In this sense, the differentiation between Ji [what is] and Je [how does it move] is more appropriate to how minds conceptualize reality. It's a dichotomy that better models human minds, as opposed to using older ideas in philosophy to try to extract out the difference between Ti and Te.

    As the discussion followed, Safal proposed that the Socionics definition is the way CT is defining Ti, to which Kouhai replied saying:

    Kouhai:
    "L is the objective relationship between two objects and their individual properties - the ratio of objects or the measurement of an object by an object;" ausra in dual nature of man ( https://socioniko.net/ru/articles/aug-duality1.html )
    "Te compares objects to other objects in a matter-of-fact way." - auburn
    L is Ti
    doesn't sound very CT-Ti to me

    The discussion came to a general agreement that Socionics "L" is not the same as CT Ti, and that what Ausra called "Ti" fits the metabolism of Je (Te) appropriately. I summarized this by saying:

    From what I am gathering then, Ausra (as a self-typed) "L" type, is properly typing herself as what would translate over to CT Te. She matches CT's Te cognition and vultology and behavior, the way I wrote in my post.
    But now, a case would have to be made as to why the thing that Ausra is describing as "L" is the same as that which externalizes itself in more 'logistical' organizations at the behavioral level.
    I think this is easy enough to show.
    For example, if you verbally tell a financial manager that so-and-so account is low, and we need funds, and maybe we can borrow some from so-and-so, but then they won't have enough for [x]...
    And the manager solves the problem for you by telling you how to organize the funds, they are doing so by calculating object relations in their head. Even though nothing happened in 3D space except a conversation, with abstract symbols (numbers, mental objects), the financial manager was using Je (lets call it Te in this case) to compute the matter.

    The bolder part above is what I'd like to dedicate more attention to in this thread, beginning with the next post.

    #19567
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    The argument that I'm making is that this definition:
    "L is the objective relationship between two objects (...) - the ratio of objects or the measurement of an object by an object"
    ...is metabolically equivalent to the sort of logistical outcomes that emerge and which become behaviors such as financial savyness, engineering, law, and so forth (Je/Te)-- even though it's an activity done in the mind. We can begin with the  following example:

    Te/Je:

    If Mary Sue is at work until 5pm,
    and her kids need to be picked up at 4pm,
    then Mary Sue won't be able to pick up her kids.
    ^ Vectors and Positions
    [object A: mary sue] [is at [work: position]],
    [object B: child] [is at [school: position]]
    therefore object A and B are not able to interact.
    As you can see, the above is an object-to-objects relationship deduction. It is also the premise+premise+premise=conclusion type of logic that I agreed as being more Je, in this thread with Jelle. This is metabolically equivalent to:
    [Account A is low]
    [Account B has money, but it's using that for project C]
    [Therefore, if Account A takes from Account B, project C cannot be done]
    ^ Once again we are calculating object relations and vectors. If money "moves" from A to B, then money cannot be in the same position as C. Y'see how this goes together? This is how economists think. This is metabolically the same activity as doing mathematics or finances.
    Now, to show a counterexample, we have:

    Ti/Ji:

    [what's the nature of Mary Sue's [work]?]
    [is she a school staff member?]
    [Does Mary Sue work as a teacher at the same school as her kid?]
    [if so] ...[pass this to Je]
    ///

    Je:

    [Mary Sue works at the school]
    [Her kids need to be picked up at 4pm from the same school]
    [therefore Mary Sue can pick up her kids]
    ^ Notice how the deductive pathway of Je changed by a deeper investigation of the properties of the premises. "What is Work?" This is the Ji question-- the definition of the objects. And the causality across objects is Je.
    A different mental process is used for object-to-object relations (vectors/positions), than for quantizing of the properties of objects. The CT hypothesis is that Ji handles static object definitions, and Je handles dynamic object relations. Both of them are involved in "Logic", as it takes both to have coherent deductive pathways.

    #19568
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    But, how do we know this is the true place to draw the definition?

    We have to remember that in CT we're following a vultological signal clustering first. And that grouping of signal clusters, if naturally emergent, would be its own reality. However, to add cognitive "meanings" to those categories we have to investigate further. So the question should be posited like this:

    • - Do we see the above-mentioned "Je" metabolism more highly represented in exact moments that display Je vultology? And do we see Je metabolism more generally in people who are visually Je-lead or Je-heavy?
    • - Do we see the above-mentioned "Ji" metabolism more highly represented in exact moments that display Ji vultology? And do we see Ji metabolism more generally in people who are visually Ji-lead or Ji-heavy?

    A long-form way of asking this is to say:
    When a person does the following:

    • - Disengages Eyes Downward
    • - Momentum Halts
    • - Exerted Pushes
    • - Receding Energy
    • - Meticulous Hands

    ..Does the nature of their thoughts turn away from object-to-object effects, and towards the definitional properties of premises?
    And:
    When a person does the following:

    • - Head Nods/Pushes
    • - Head Shakes
    • - Shoulder Shrugs
    • - Pointed Emphasis
    • - Projecting Hands

    ..Does the nature of their thoughts turn away from definitional properties, and towards dynamic object-to-object effects... including objects-based deductive sequences? And when we see both signal sets together (Ji+Je conscious), do we see a combination of both happening?

    Evidence:

    The answer, as to whether Ausra's definition or CT's is correct, can only be checked via raw data.
    If CT's definitions are correct, then we would expect that people who display a constant stream of deductive logical thought, involving object-to-object calculations, would also display the other externalized Je behaviorisms such as executive abilities, engineering, finances, political inclinations, and so on.
    We can test this more meticulously by sampling non-celebrities and testing their cognition. But even as a more general analysis, we see evidence of this in the fact that an abundance of high profile intellectuals with notable object-relations deductive abilities (TeSi Richard Dawkins, TeNi Richard Feyman, TeNi Ben Shapiro, FeNi Jordan Peterson, FeNi Carl Sagan, FeSi Yuval Harari, FeSi Alain De Botton, FeNi Niel DeGrasse Tyson, FeNi Julian Assange, etc-- check the database) show Je-lead vultology. These and others like them also show great entrepreneurial, logistical and pragmatic abilities. Therefore the correlation between Je vultology and object-to-object relations/calculations... AND also to logistical/pragmatic abilities is properly supported.
    And we can see just how it is that the metabolic object-to-object calculation immediately translates over into logistics, once you get the motor system to simply execute on it. And this is a tangential detail, as computational models like CT focus on information processing.
    Oppositely:
    If the above definitional boundaries between Ji and Je are right, we would also see that Ji, by itself (and by "by itself" I mean when we don't see accompaniment with conscious Je signals)... would not display any notable objects-relations deductive abilities, nor any big intellectual "chops" in the conventional sense of the word. Instead we would expect to find people who are obsessive over laying proper definitional boundaries on things/topics that matter to them (or universally), but without stitching these objects necessarily into object-relational logical deductive sequences.
    And that is exactly what we see in the database. In vultological Ji types, a lot of obsessive attention is placed on being "right"/"correct" about what something "is" [such as self, identity, life, beauty, truth, is-ness, (it can be anything)] but there is very little operationalization of that understanding in logical sequences of "if--then." It's often not even phrased in terms of cogent and objectively traceable conclusions, but is an activity of self-discovering and self-defining the properties of things, perhaps swerving more into an aesthetic direction at times, though not always.
    Therefore we see Ji-leads statistically more highly represented in aesthetic endeavors (for instance) and less so in academic structures because academic or scholarly structures are themselves demanding us to be beholden to a certain objective metric (logical deductive sequences is an agreed upon metric) that exists independent of how the Ji user might have formed their object boundaries themselves more essentially and, to them, more correctly. And here we see the definition of "subject-oriented" (I) come in. The idea of Ji "proving" its object boundaries to the world is an exercise in making it palatable to a collective, and therefore external, sense-making consensus. It can try to do this, and may even succeed, but because Ji's processing is not focused on the relationships between object-vectors/positions, its contributions to society will tend to be in the form of tautological clarity-- which others operationalize, but not them. Importantly, we don't see such individuals (with Ji vultology) highly correlated with logistical/pragmatic abilities.

    Conclusion:

    Thus, the natural division between Je-types and Ji-types (as visually defined) supports the hypothesis that:

    • "Je metabolism" involves both objects-to-objects relations that can be exemplified in conceptual "Laws" and object causalities, as well as the actualization of said laws in the world (which is the definition of logistics). There appears to be no division in people who have abundance of one but not the other, as both are the same thing-- cognitively.
    • "Ji metabolism" lacks the sort of a rigid laws/frameworks that are conducive to object-relations operationalization, and instead focuses on case-specific definitional properties and clarifications, in a non-linear (non-causal) format. And therefore the non-sequential nature of this rational style does not lead to strong logistical effects.. but also.. doesn't lead, by itself, to any exceptional behavioral representation in the area of consensual, logically supported deductions (which uses external metrics).
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
A forum exploring the connection between Jungian typology and body mannerisms.

Social Media

© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelopegraduation-hatbookearth linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram