*on quadras* and all that derives from it. To me, sometimes it makes sense and seems like an interesting framework to understand people (when the focus is only on shared functions). Sometimes it seems completely irrelevant, twisted and useless. When not on pms, I'm a dreamy goofy accepting being filled with sense of wonder and no feet on the ground... Not even my persona fits gamma's stereotypes.. maybe because of the stretch I mentioned. So what. #justwondering #andsharing
it seems to me that the error of all theories that involved Jungian types and that went wrong was in trying to make a stretch when there's way less than that to it... because humanity has been struggling a lot wth dealing with the mystery of the unknown (and looks desperatly for patterns even where there barely isn't any). I believe the key for a good typology system is respecting and seeing the limits of the theory instead of filling gaps with derivations that go way too far from what really is (now i sounded gamma). It suddenly reminds me of Keirsey's temperament theory, that is a huge allucination imo.
sorry for the gamma rambling. Continue the animal game. It's funny and there's an enjoyable dimension. I'll probably post some animals later on
Last Edit: Jul 18, 2013 0:09:20 GMT -5 by morsecode
Post by peppergirl on Jul 18, 2013 16:08:10 GMT -5
Here's my interpretation with the four elements. Not to be taken seriously.
Alphas are definitely in affinity with air for me. Betas, hmm... I think they could fit both water or fire, but due to the nature of Fe, I think fire would suit best because of its... outer expressiveness. Then, I think Gammas could as well be water and earth (but then fire too.. Oh well), ditto for Delta. Fi is probably better represented by water because of its inner nuanced movements, the outer "expression" of water (think of waves) is caused by something deep underneath which has its own "life". Se reminds of earth because of its sheer sensuality and "concreteness". However the earth is more consistant than water (Se/Ni gives an impression of more presence or solidity for me) so Gamma => earth. Delta => water
Post by The Doctor on Jul 18, 2013 18:00:43 GMT -5
I really like the idea of elements, since they're much less anthropomorphic, but as metaphysical concepts have their own 'personalities'.
However, metaphysically, Fire and Air are opposites, as are Water and Earth - which seems counter-intuitive to those who see Fire and Water as opposites. Both Water and Earth can snuff Fire, but Fire can melt Earth and evaporate Water. Air bypasses both Water and Earth, but can get trapped within them. This explains why the elements are paired as such. Air and Fire are 'intangible forces' - one energy, the other 'inert'. Water and Earth have mass - one fluid, the other immutable.
Air is definitely FeNeSiTi. This makes its opposite FiNiSeTe Fire, which is honestly more appropriate for SFPs and NTJs in my opinion. Of the two, FeNiSeTi is more adaptive in both groups (NFJ and STP), making it Water. The opposite FiNeSiTe is therefore Earth, which makes a fair degree of sense, since STJs are notoriously inflexible and a lot of NFPs are 'Green' with respect to environmental and nature causes.
Therefore I'd group as such...
Alpha = Air (Adaptive) Beta = Water (Reactive) Delta = Earth (Insistent) Gamma = Fire (Assertive)
This would also be consistent with the esoteric symbols theme you guys have going on with this system, since 'The Elements' have their own symbols.
Last Edit: Jul 18, 2013 18:24:39 GMT -5 by The Doctor
Disclaimer: Everything I say here is my OPINION. Please keep that in mind.
Post by ayoungspirit on Jul 18, 2013 21:40:38 GMT -5
Another playful take on it : Alpha => Ti+Si => cold and "concrete" => Earth core Beta => Ti+Ni => cold and "asbtract" => Water core Gamma => Fi+Ni => hot and "abstract" => Air core Delta => Fi+Si => hot and "concrete" => Fire core
@morsecode : improved version : Alpha => Fe+Ne => hot and "abstract" => Earth core, Words of Air Beta => Fe+Se => hot and "concrete" => Water core, Words of Fire Gamma => Te+Se => cold and "concrete" => Air core, Words of Earth Delta => Te+Ne => cold and "abstract" => Fire core, Words of Water
Post by 999greeneyes on Jul 19, 2013 6:43:19 GMT -5
Plaese no air, water,earth and fire for the quadras. It should be grounded at least in todays language, other ways it can put people off, and make the misconceptions of previous theories as such. It would be advisble to use name for the quadres according to there common denominator. In other words (Ti) approach, as this will give a name to a concept in which they belong to without distorting there character, and avoiding misconceptions and ambiguity.
The name should also serve as an anchor point in which to remember what each quadras is, as this will serve to make it easier for people to remember the concepts.
The name should also not imply hierarchy such as 1,2,3,and 4. As this will create for misconceptions.
Can some please tell me what the different quadras have in common and why they are grouped as such, does it have coorelates with the temperant ? Or with socionics ?
999greeneyes quadras are groups of types who share the same functions, so the same thing as socionics i think CT has something similar to temperaments, but the meaning is slightly different, here it is What we are doing is pure brainstorming, sooner or later we will reach something more serious
And I'm not sure it'd be so bad, names a bit on the sillier side. The way I see it, a lot of concepts in science have somewhat fantastical names (strange and charm quarks, anyone? The Hippocampus being named for a seahorse?) I actually really like the celtic knots, and wouldn't mind something similarly evocative for the quadra names. I don't think it does any harm, so long as everyone keeps the concepts straight, and might even help people remember. I'm absolutely fine with scientific names as well, just saying that these sorts of connections are fun and may even help clarify what it is we mean as we look at it from a few different angles. I don't know if the four elements is right for that, as they already have too many connotations, but I wouldn't turn down a term off-hand just because it didn't sound entirely cut and dry. But that's just my personal take on the matter, as I like fun names.
Post by ayoungspirit on Jul 19, 2013 10:45:17 GMT -5
A : I believe the situation is a bit different here though, because traditional sciences (math, physics, etc) are supporting a general reputation of rigor and hide their silly side pretty well to the public, the stereotype being a lab-coat stick only responding to logic and not crazy pants uncle Newton.
On the other hand, the personality type domain is already tainted with a much more esoteric reputation, prejudicial to its rigorous qualities. Choosing silly names instead of descriptive ones as official would put the theory as risk of being undermine by external viewers.