Talk:Vocabulary

From Wikisocion

[edit] Source of vocabulary

I just want to explain where most of the material so far has come from. I have been using the book The Semantics of the Information Aspects and picking out characteristic words, then using www.Synonym.com to search for related words. Also, I have been relying on experience and intuition. Even inexperienced readers should be able to feel that each set of words and phrases has a similar "feel" to it and stems from a certain state of mind and way of looking at things.

For the phrases, yesterday I started pulling them out of video interviews with real people whose types are known and unequivocal. Previously, I had drawn them from letters from people I know. (Admin 03:54, 25 June 2007 (CDT))

Feel free to change the order of the words and phrases (Jonathan or machintruc?) to make it more coherent and structured. (Admin 04:15, 25 June 2007 (CDT))

About that, why do we have two separate sections for phrases and words? We could probably merge them without any problem. Unless the "real-life" requirement is supposed to apply to only one of them (though that seems a bit strange to me). (Actually, the more I think about it, that is probably not such a good idea, since the phrases themselves are very specific compared to single words.) Thehotelambush 01:58, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, exactly. The words reflect common themes, while the phrases are meant to be specific examples. (Admin 02:19, 5 July 2007 (CDT))

This makes me wonder as to the nature of the interplaying relationship that would exist between the vocabulary and predominant language of the complementary functions (Fe/Ti, Te/Fi, Ne/Si, Ni/Se) in types. If this perhaps represents a certain aspect of the language of types, then when types seek their dual, then there must be some quality present within the language that the types use that they are aware of and are in fact seeking. Logos 04:28, 10 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] New section for each element

I want to add a new descriptive section to each aspect: stylistic features (or a better name). (Admin 02:22, 5 July 2007 (CDT))

[edit] Questions and concerns

I think I've also heard Gammas talking about "getting to the root of" something." (?) The similarity between Ne and Ni statements here is interesting:

Ne: get to the root of vs. Ni: The thing I still find mysterious is...

Ne: you basically imply that.../ What I really meant was more that... vs. Ni: in the spirit of...

These statements aren't really all that different, are they? --Jonathan 12:54, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, they are very similar, but just with a subtle change of focus. By the way, right now I am adding to these vocabulary lists by going through old letters from friends and contacts and picking out good stuff. I am noticing some interesting things:

1. Many or most statements seem to have a secondary focus in addition to the main information signal - for example Fe along with Ti. This suggests that information elements might work in tandem rather than separately (or at least most of the time). For example, the Ne statements from IEEs show a greater interest in gaining insight in people and helping people than those from ILEs. When ILEs do use ethics, they seem to prefer Fe over Fi. Si information with Te, for example, provides "plainer" information about what a person does and how they experience the things that they are doing. Si with Fe provides more "colorful" information about what a person is experiencing on an emotional level in relation to things that they enjoy or do not enjoy.
2. There is a general tendency among working or corporate people in American culture to give preference to Te information regardless of type. Among artsy people with untraditional (noncorporate and nonacademic) work this is not true at all.
3. A lot of information is conveyed not by specific words, but in the overall topic of sections of text.
4. People's correspondence with each other is sometimes more telling than their verbal interaction. (Admin 02:49, 19 June 2007 (CDT))

Thanks. This list is a great resource. I'm still a little confused only because I identify a lot with the Ne ones, even though I think at least one or more of the Ni ones came from me. :) But I can recognize the intended difference in the lists.

The one that sticks out at me as being possibly out of place is "the amicable nature of the people and the picturesque countryside filled with everygreen trees and yellow-flowered fields." That kind of flowery, imaginative-literary way of talking doesn't sound like SEI to me (?). Actually, it seems that the people who are most likely to write that way are EII (I'm guessing). --Jonathan 20:41, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

That one was said by an ESE, actually. I agree -- I'll remove that as being too ambiguous. (Admin 23:19, 24 June 2007 (CDT))

[edit] Issues with specific statements

[edit] Te

"1+1+1+1+1+1=6" is a rather silly example, and it doesn't really have much to do with Te. More like bad Ti. Thehotelambush 01:47, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Ni

Hurry up, we're running out of time!!! Why is that under Ni and not under Se? --Jonathan 04:24, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Good question, it does seem to have an extroverted feel to it. Thehotelambush 05:11, 25 July 2007 (BST)

I had the same thought when I first saw it. Hurry up ... ! does not sound like something IEI/ILIs routinely say. Let's remove it. --Admin 08:11, 25 July 2007 (BST)

[edit] Ti

"Let's see why it works" - 66.178.22.82, this is mostly Te. Thehotelambush 22:32, 16 August 2007 (BST)

[edit] Se

I removed the following for the time being because they need a context. Some could relate to    :

• deal
• stock
• risk
• labor
• credentials (cred)
• alert
• cleaning up (appearance) --Admin 19:55, 15 September 2007 (BST)

I think you're right about most of them, but aren't "alert" and "cleaning up (appearance)" pretty clearly Se? Alert implies some kind of external threat or danger, and appearance is of course sensing. Thehotelambush 01:03, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Also, if a word relates to multiple elements, it should be included for both. Thehotelambush 01:31, 17 September 2007 (BST)

OK, but I wasn't even sure of the part of speech. It could have been "I am alert." Also, how do you use "cleaning up" in a sentence? "I am cleaning myself up"? This is why I recommend putting words in lists of similar words, all of the same part of speech. --Admin 06:19, 17 September 2007 (BST)

[edit]    

On the following words: "epic, grandiose, all-encompassing, scope" -- I think all but possibly "all-encompassing" are more     than    , but not clearly enough so to move them to the     category. These words tend to be used to convey a sense of size and magnitude. --Admin 15:16, 11 April 2008 (BST)

True, however, they are used to convey the size of non-physical things, such as stories or feelings, they also do it in a non-specific way, i.e. they're generalizations. Also, I didn't add scope, it was there before, i just moved it over and stuck those in next to it. --AzureWolf 15:42, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Is it a     thing to use analogies and similes a lot? Or more a universal thing? Gulanzon 11:55, 11 January 2009 (GMT)

It might well be. Probably, the more disconnected the subject of the analogy from the topic of discussion, the more likely it's an     sort of analogy. --Admin 14:54, 11 January 2009 (GMT)

[edit] Stuff that doesn't fit

I've noticed that Te/Fi quadra types use "quotation marks" for words they perceive to be jargon or not in the proper register (as opposed to the note about Ti ego types). I think this difference is likely more related to the quadra values than to the elements. This raises a question: for text analysis, are we going to assume that the most prominent elements are necessarily ego elements? I think this is true in general, but identifying the manifestation of the other functions could be interesting. Thehotelambush 01:48, 27 July 2007 (BST)

That's an interesting point, and I think there's "something to it" (haha). --Admin 02:26, 27 July 2007 (BST)

[edit] Some of my views on information elements and language

I've come to discover that language is one of the most important clues as to one's type. The reason for this is that socionics is a social theory, and we socialize primarily through language. I've also become more competent at typing people recently, and while I think that the information in this project is quite accurate, I want to point out some of the features I've noticed that haven't been mentioned regarding language and the functions.

Te: as you might know, Te is logical thought, but I've noticed that Te seems to be primarily focused on practical activities. This can be anything from efficiency to productivity to business to solving everyday problems. It seems to me that Te language is almost always tied to practical activity. It either serves a practical purpose (e.g., instructing someone on how to do something) or it reflects on actions that have served a practical purpose in the past or will serve a practical purpose in the future. For example, my LIE sister-in-law could go on for hours about what to look for in buying houses. Even if you consider the emphasis of Te on facts, you will see that facts are often considered important by Te because they stand for knowledge that is proven and therefore useful.

Si: I've noticed that Si tends to be expressed more through actions than words. Si activities are primarily hands on-activities (e.g., cooking, art, music, mechanics, etc.). However, I have noticed some patterns in the speech of some of the SEIs and SLIs I've talked to. SLIs and SEIs tend to talk a lot about the concrete world. However, for some, especially Fe-egos, the information is often valued because of its intrinsic worth, not necessarily because it has any use in the world. For example, my SEI friend likes to talk about his day at work. There is no real purpose to this. (He'll also go on about what he has eaten and the activities he has participated in.)

An example of Si and Te together would be an event I experienced at the socionics conference in Michigan. At Sam's house, some of his friends were preparing a spit to barbeque a pig. This activity, and all the language it involves, is a classic application of Si and Te. The people involved were talking about the spit (a concrete entity - Si) and how to put it together (a practical problem - Te). It seems to me that only the people who were skilled in Te and Si were able to contribute to the conversation. The rest of us just stood there watching what was going on, not really knowing what to say. At the time, I wasn't competent at typing, so I didn't know the types of Sam's friends, but I've reflected on the activities more recently, and now I'm pretty sure that those were the functions involved.

Se: Se, like Si, is supposed to talk about the concrete world, and it does, but in a different way. Most Se language seems to revolve around the themes of strength, power and status. If we go back to the incident at Sam's house, another friend came to the scene in a rather boisterous manner. Boisterousness can be indicative of Fe, but this guy seemed to have more of an air of strength and self-confidence. That would be an indication of Se. (Bragging and "trash talking", for instance, are classic examples of Se.)

Fe: I like what I've seen on the vocabulary page about Fe, but there are some other things I've noticed. A lot of Fe types tend to be very outgoing, upbeat, and enthusiastic. They don't just use illustative words; there is also a certain degree of elation to their speech. In other words, they can intonate their voice in order to convey a certain feeling - usually one of enthusiasm.

Ti: For some time, I was uncertain about Ti, but my new view is that Ti revolves around understanding logical connections and relationships. For example, mathematics is a Ti-loaded subject, not because it revolves around numbers and formulae or because it is theoretical, but because in following mathematical logic, one has to understand the connections and relationships amongst the statements that have been presented.

In this sense, I think that the comments about Ti speech on this page are very accurate. Conjunctions and prepositional phrases, for example, indicate the logical relationships amongst the words of speech.

Also, from experience, I've noticed that some Ti types tend to be more concise in their speech (while others are more long-winded - with few in between).

Anyway, those are just my observations. The other functions are a work in progress.

(jason_m 05:39, 20 February 2009 (CDT))

Good stuff. Especially about SEIs and presenting information just because it is fun and might generate a reaction as opposed to telling the other person something they need to know or might find relevant. --Admin 18:22, 20 February 2009 (GMT)