http://www.socionics.com/articles/rtst.html

Rationalize The Same Thing, Only Differently
同源异路（输出系统）
08 December 2007
by I/O

“Ethical”, “feeling”, “thinking”, “logical” and “rational” are unfortunate terms that have connotations that are not necessarily a true depiction of what was intended by Socionics or Meyers-Briggs. They seem to imply that if one is not ethical, feeling, thinking, logical or rational then one must be the opposite – not true.

“伦理”、“情感”、“思考”、“逻辑”与“理性”这样的用词，在Socionis理论或MBTI理论中，不幸地被与实际情况割裂开了。他们似乎在暗示，人是非F即T（或者相反）的——但这并非事实。

F (or ethical) and T (or logical) are both rationalization processes that operate on different sets of conditions. The differences in conditions can create significant differences in perspective and activity. T and F will draw divergent conclusions from the same set of circumstances. However, in many other scenarios, F and T may draw the same conclusion, but that conclusion would be based on much different criteria.

F（伦理）与T（逻辑）都是针对不同条件调用的思辨进程。条件变量的不同可导致全局观点与行动间的显著差异。T与F对于同样的情形，会得出相异的结论。然而，在其他情况下，F与T也可能殊途同归。

F is value driven rationalization. It is a logical process that operates on relative values. B values X more than C so X will be allotted to B. Even though X may be more valuable to B, C could have perhaps made better use of X. The decision has a logical premise; however, it may or may not have had the best possible outcome. Because people create “value”, F demonstrates a personalized perspective of self and the external world that shows up in decision-making – that all problems can be solved when everyone recognizes the value in it. This doesn’t imply that T would neglect values – there’s utility in values.

F是价值驱动的思辨方式。从相互关系上来说，这也是个合乎逻辑的进程。对于X来说，与B匹配比之与C匹配更具价值，因此X最终被分配给了B。尽管X可能对B更有价值，但可能将X分配给C可以使X被更好地应用。这样的结论是基于逻辑前提的，但并非一定导向潜在的最优输出。因为是人类来构建“价值”，F展示的是个人化的对于自身及外部世界，进行决断的模式——若是人人皆能意识到自身价值体系所在，所有的问题均可通过这套回路解决。这也并不意味着T忽视价值——效用也是价值的一部分。

T is utility driven rationalization. It is a logical process that operates on application of resources, which include people and self. B can make better use of X than can C, so X will be allotted to B. X may never be employed because B may not value X. Because C places more value on X, X might have actually been employed albeit in a less useful fashion. The decision might have considered the best interests of both B and C but it may or may not have had the best possible outcome. T demonstrates an impersonal perspective of self and the external world that shows up in decision-making – that all problems can be solved when the correct resources are applied to them. This doesn’t imply that F would neglect utility – there’s value in utility.

T是效果驱动的思辨方式。从资源运用（包括人类及自身）上来说，这是个合乎逻辑的过程。对于X来说，分配给B比之分配给C，可以让X被更好地应用，因此X最终被分配给了B。X可能永远也不被调用，因为B不需要X的价值。而C更需要X的价值，这可能导致X实际上被C调用——尽管是以不那么高效的方式。这个决定得同时考虑到B与C的最大利益，但同样也不一定导向最优输出。T展示的是客观的对于自身及外部世界，进行决断的模式——若是资源都能够被正确分配，所有的问题均可通过这套回路解决。这也并不意味着F忽视效用——价值也暗含在效用中。

If N or S is the dominant function, T and F are forced to adapt to the input, which likely comes in free format. However, T and F still rationalize all the data albeit at times, are forced to do it out-of-the-box. If F or T is dominant, input is likely rearranged into a preconceived format – constrained by rationalized filters. All human output except for the most primal are created through rationalization processes. People may exhibit irrational, illogical or insensitive behaviour, or make irrational, illogical or insensitive decisions; however, that’s human nature and can apply to anyone.

若N/S为主导功能，T/F则必须与这套输入系统相适应，这种情况下输入系统提供的信息流是自由的。然而，T/F依旧在对数据进行思辨（重组）处理，虽说有时是采用了即入即判（未经深入检视）的模式。如果T/F为主导功能，输入系统提供的信息可能会被按其需求（预想方式）重组——为思辨系统所过滤。人类的输出配置（由思辨系统——T/F介导）均期望达到最大输出功率。人可能会一时展现无理、不合逻辑、麻木迟钝的行为或做出这样的决定，然而，这（期望达到最大输出功率）毕竟是人类的本性，可适用于任何人。

觉得这串山楂不难吃？那就试试我家的 山楂酱 或 特调糖葫芦 吧。爱吃不吃，吃得开心才是最重要的！
友情提醒：因为糖葫芦太酸，所以要注意进食方式哦。（要知道这是 Google Reader 或其他非中文RSS订阅服务站的特供食品，嘘…… ）

http://www.socionics.com/articles/tfot.html
（凑合看！不懂就看原文！这篇也是探讨认知功能的，太N了，弄得好勉强~~）

The Functioning of Type
类型功能（Socionics）
15 February 2010
by I/O

Both Meyers-Briggs and Socionics seem to classify preferences not functions; function should refer to operating processes – movement of data. They poorly allude to root functioning in labelling of preferences as extroverted or introverted, and by identifying a ‘lead’ preference. However, neither seem to address nor test for fundamental system processes. This article discusses the possible system structure beneath ‘Type’.

不管是MBTI还是Socionics似乎都是由偏好而非功能来分类，功能是涉及到认知过程——数据流的。他们仅仅是通过贴上外倾/内倾，主要偏好这样的标签来暗中涉及到了功能。然而并没有真正处理整个系统进程，也未此以来进行测试。此文将讨论在“类型”标签之下，可能的功能系统结构。

The brain needs to have input and output capabilities for both our memory and the environment; one has to be able to create, access and refine one’s own memory and experience, as well as acquire information from and operate in the external world. Human intelligence comprises a single input/output system; and since there is only one processing unit, the brain, introverted and extroverted input and output must be integrated in some way – operations without coordination would confuse the psyche. Initially, these processes would only have rudimentary functioning, basic data flow that would start to adapt to environmental conditions, and refine themselves gradually through experience; type preferences would eventually solidify – thus, personality develops.

大脑需要有针对记忆与环境的输入输出能力，一个人必须得有构建、存取、提炼自身记忆与经验的能力，同样也得有能力去认识与改造外部世界。人的理解力仅能驾驭一套输入/输出系统，且仅有一个处理单元——大脑，内部与外部、输入与输出势必得以某种方式统合，运作系统未经调和，会给心智带来混乱。最初，认知功能的运作并未成熟，简单的数据流与环境条件逐渐适应，在经验中渐渐提纯，类型偏好逐步稳定——由是，人格开始发展。

Personality is nothing more than the way in which someone responds to and deals with the world, which stems from the way input and output has been structured and coloured up to that particular point in time. Colour is how I visualize sensing (S), intuitive (N), thinking (T, logical) and feeling (F, ethical) preferences within the input/output system. These preferences refer to the interpretation and treatment of specific types of data in specific ways; their labels can be somewhat misleading, but they do serve to classify some perspectives that drive the development of personality. I view them as providing colour to the brain’s root processing (or temperament), which underpins an operating structure that contributes its own characteristics to Type.

所谓人格，即某人对世界响应和处理的方式，源于在特定时间已被建构和着色的输入/输出途径。“着色”是我对输入/输入系统中，在感觉（S）与直觉（N）、思考（T，逻辑）与情感（F，伦理）上的偏好的形象化说明。这些偏好致使不同类型在解析与处理数据时采用的路径也不同，这些标签可能会有误导之嫌，但它们确实对于区分人格发展中的驱动力有用。我将它们视为在大脑底层处理系统（或者说气质类型）上发生的着色过程，这为不同类型的处理结构提供了支持。

Every individual normally utilizes five senses. However, the word ‘sensing’ in Type descriptions refers to raw (non-interpretive) data from the senses, the history of which resides in memory – S is detail, fact and specificity. ‘Intuitive’ refers to relational information obtained from the same senses; N comprises the intangible, impressionistic and relativistic. The N focus is the composite picture while for S, it’s the details within the picture. N is the impression, the overall and the whole while S is the hard fact, constituent parts and procedures. The division between the two preferences is by definition only because in reality, they are impossible to separate. Both perceptions exist in everyone; however most prefer one colour (type, preference) of perception over another – similar to how one’s hands are used.

每个人都会运用五感，然而，在类型学中“感觉”一词指的则是原始（未编译过）的感觉数据，其历史驻留在记忆中——S是指细节、事实与特质。“直觉”则是指与感觉数据相关的信息；N囊括指无形的、意象的与相对的内容。N关注关联的图景，而S关注的是图景上的细节。N是印象，整体与全景；S是确凿的事实，明确的组成成分与规程。在两者之间的分隔只是定义上的，因为事实上，它们不可能被彻底分开。两种认知功能人人具足，尽管会有某种颜色（类型，倾向）更被偏爱——类似人对某只手的偏好。

As well, all individuals rationalize information acquired from the senses. ‘Thinking’ or ‘logical’ refers to a preference to use resource-based rationalization to produce output (behaviour and information); T rationalizes in absolute, ‘black-and-white’ terms. ‘Feeling’ or ‘ethical’ refers to a preference to use relative or value-based rationalization; F is attributed to intangible, impressionistic or relativistic output derived from the same input sources as T. Again, this is a theoretical division for classification purposes. The focus of F is how people and or things relate, or one’s impression whereas with T, it’s the characteristics, activities and employment of people (self included) and things. If T is black-and-white, then F should be viewed as shades-of-grey. Similar to the division between S and N, a certain colour of rationalization would eventually pervade behaviour.

此外，所有人均会对来自五感信息来进行思辨。“思考”或“逻辑”倾向于基于原始材料本身来思辨以产生输出（行为和信息），T的思辨模式是绝对化的，“非黑即白”的。“情感”或“伦理”倾向于相互关系或价值衡量，F的材料来源与T相同，而其输出是无形的、意象的与相对的。同样的，在两者间的分隔只是为了理论上的区分。F关注人以及事物间的联系，或者个人印象；T则关注人（包括自身）与事物的特质、行为及用途（职业）。如果说T是黑白，那么F就是灰色地带。与S/N间的区分类似，在T/F（思辨方式）这一维度上的着色也终将影响到所有的行为。

There are only two ways in which input and output processes can operate in a stable structure. The first is a closed-loop method where either input or output leads the loop process forcing the other to lag in its operation. A closed loop is employed when data already in memory is used as the basis for comparison; it is essentially a reference driven configuration. The only other possible configuration is having input and output running independently (open loop) but this set-up has to be stabilized through a ‘daisy-chain’ or interrupt method, where each process takes turns operating but one has to be the master having higher priority. An open loop has to be employed when there is no reference or comparison base, such as with external data. However, these two processes are both necessary and share operation by employing an interrupt methodology where either open- or closed-loop is higher priority or the preferred process.

欲使输入输出系统维持稳定结构，方法仅有两种。其一为闭环法，此时由输入（N/S）或输出（T/F）之一来驱动整个系统运作，而另一方则紧随其后。闭环法在对记忆中的数据进行比较时发挥作用，本质上来讲它是一套参考驱动装置。其二则是输入与输出各自独立运作（开环法），这种结构必须通过“菊花链”或中断系统来维持稳定，此时各种功能轮流运作，但始终有一种为主导（具有较高的优先级）。开环法在没有参考比较对象，比如说直接处理外部数据时发挥作用。然而，这种种进程均是必要的，共用一套中断方式，此方式不论是在开环还是闭环系统中总为主导（较高的优先级）。

Closed-loop operation is much different than open-loop, so the preference to use one over the other must develop at a very early age, thus, facilitating further development. Becoming input or output dominant (p or j) may occur later but it still has to happen in early years. However, colourisation is a developmental process that can take more than twenty years to be fully realized, and to a certain degree, may be an ongoing refinement of Type throughout life.

闭环系统与开环系统不同，因此对某种功能的偏好必然是在早年发展出的，偏好功能也更易被发展。输入或输出成为主导（P/J）则发生时间稍迟，但同样是在早年发生。然而，着色渲染是个渐进的过程，可能需要长达二十年的时间来完成，从某种程度来讲，可能是延续人格类型一生的过程。

In conclusion, there are two input/output configurations. Preferences could be viewed as colourisations of the processes in each configuration; they are not functions onto themselves. All output configurations have shades of both F and T, one overshadowing the other to varying degrees – the same holds true for input’s S and N. Hence, there are characteristics of Type that can be associated with preferences but there are many that should be associated with system function, process and structure. One needs to take a systems approach to Type determination, which may eliminate the need to define various subclasses, hidden agendas, etc. in order to explain behaviour.

总而言之，有两套输入/输出配置方式。功能偏好可被视为在不同的配置方式中的渲染模型，它们并不指涉自身（不是脱离信息源而独立作用的）。所有的输出配置均存在不同程度的遮蔽现象，F/T之一会遮蔽另一项——同样的情况也发生在S/N输入配置中。因此，类型特质是通过偏好来组织的，但同样需要通过系统功能、进程与结构来组织。推导整个系统最终决定类型，这可能使得具体（从头）定义各子类与隐藏进程等，在解释行为中变得不是那么必要。

http://www.socionics.com/articles/jpproblem.htm

J/P = problem
J/P——问题的所在
18 February 2007
by Sergei Ganin

Firstly, let’s be clear about the very definition of J and P. As you already know J stands for Judgement, P stands for Perception. Jung in his works on psychological types has clearly described types, which dominant function was Thinking or Feeling as Judging or Rational types and the types, which dominant function was Sensing or Intuition as Perceiving or Irrational types. This is exactly how J and P types are defined in Socionics.

首先，让我们来澄清J/P的精确定义。正如你已知的，J意味着判断（Judgement），P意味着感知（Perception）。荣格在他关于心理类型学的作品里已经清楚地定义了，主导功能是思考/情感的类型是判断/理性型，而主导功能是感觉/直觉的类型是感知/非理性型。这也正是J/P在Socionics理论中的定义。

MBTI® theory on the other hand has slightly different definition of J and P. Judgement or Perception in MBTI theory is something else and is nothing to do with Jung definition. J or P in MBTI theory show which function of the two main functions (dominant and auxiliary) is extraverted. For example MBTI INTP is Judging type. Although it has got P at the end, it has introverted Thinking (Ti) as a dominant function, therefore it is Judging type according to Jung. At the same time MBTI INTP has auxiliary function, which is Intuition and which is extraverted (Ne), therefore according to MBTI theory it is also Perceiving type, since Intuition is a Perceiving function. Hence the letter P at the end of the acronym.

与之相比，MBTI理论对J/P的定义则稍有不同。J/P在MBTI理论里，是跟荣格的定义完全没关系的另一码事儿。J/P在MBTI理论里表明的是两个主要的功能（主导与辅助）中外倾的那个。比如说，INTP（MBTI理论所定义的）实际上是判断型——尽管这一类型最后的字母是P，但其主导功能为内倾思考（Ti），因此实际上是荣格理论中的判断型。与此同时，INTP的辅助功能是外倾直觉（Ne），这样在MBTI理论里这一类型就成了感知型，因为直觉是感知功能，因此在MBTI中这一类型最后一位字母是P。

MBTI ENTP on the other hand has got extraverted Intuition as a dominant function, so it also has P at the end, but not because it has a Perceiving dominant function, but because the Perceiving dominant function is happened to be extraverted. It is just a coincidence that according to Jung, MBTI ENTP is also Perceiving type. In fact, all MBTI extrovert types have the last letter coinciding with Jung definition, and all MBTI introvert types have not. This has nothing to do with Socionics. In Socionics the letter at the end shows the Jungian definition of J/P.

在另一方面，MBTI理论中的ENTP，是以Ne为主导功能，所以这一类型同样以P为最后一位字母，但不是因为其主导功能是感知功能，而是因为其外倾功能是感知功能。由此一来，ENTP在MBTI类型中，与在荣格类型中则恰好同属于感知型。事实上，所有MBTI中的外倾类型，其最后一位（J/P）的定义都与荣格的定义相容，而内倾类型则并非如此。这个问题在Socionics理论中并不存在，Socoinics理论的末位字母始终与荣格理论关于J/P的定义相容。

Why would anyone want to complicate already complex definition such as J/P? Look at this: “INTP is Perceiving type but it is Judging type”. It would have been ok if at least the same J/P flip was true for the extravert types as well, but it is not. So this makes a very big mess out of J/P. Socionics on the other hand has a consistency about J/P. So don’t think it is Socionics that brings chaos into the type theory, it was there all the way.

为何会有人想让本来已如此复杂的J/P定义变得更为复杂呢？来看这句：“INTP是感知型，但实际上是判断型。（！）”如果对于外倾型人来说，这样的J/P反转也成立的话，本来问题还没那么糟，但问题是并非如此。这就在J/P定义问题上导致了巨大的混乱。与之相比，Socionics理论则在J/P维度上保持了一致。是以，别误以为是Socionics理论将混乱引入了类型理论，混乱始终存在。

Secondly, there are only 4 functions – S, N, T and F. Neither E and I nor J and P are functions. E/I shows whether the dominant function is introverted or extraverted. This one is at least consistent with MBTI theory, Jung and Socionics. In order to identify E/I you need to identify the preferred direction in which the dominant function works. This is not how MBTI test or Socionics Type Assistant or Keirsey or similar tests work. None of them test the dominant function directly, only indirectly. Indirect testing is fallible, and no surprise here that many people struggle to define whether they are E or I. You have to remember that the main objective is to identify whether the dominant function is introverted or extraverted and not whether the person is Introvert or Extravert. The Extraversion/Introversion is the result of the “vertness” of the dominant function and not the other way round.

其次，其实只有4种功能——S/N与T/F。E/I与J/P其实并非功能。E/I意在界定主导功能为内倾或是外倾，这在MBTI理论，荣格心理类型学与Socionics理论中仍是一致的。为了辨别出E/I倾向，你要做的是辨别出主导功能更倾向于使用的方向。而这并不是MBTI测试、Socionics测试、凯尔西测试或其他林林总总的测试所做的，所有这些测试都不会直接测出你的主导功能，只能间接测出。而间接测试总是不那么靠谱儿的，如此一来很多人在E/I的定义上有争执也就不值得奇怪。你要记住，主要目的是确定主导功能是内倾还是外倾，而不是说某人本身是内向还是外向。外倾/内倾是主导功能的驱动结果（”vertness”？），而非相反。

The same thing happens with J/P. J and P are not functions. In fact J/P is pure artificially manufactured scale. You do not really need it. It was manufactured to presumably identify whether the Jungian dominant function is Judging or Perceiving. But the actual scale apparently tests something else as well as what it is designed to test. This is the cause for so called “Introverted Complexity No.47″. One “Introverted Intuitive with Thinking” takes MBTI and comes out an INTP, another “Introverted Intuitive with Thinking” comes out an INTJ. This introverted complexity is not limited to these two types. All other introvert types too are affected by it. But what interesting is that extrovert types are affected by it as well, but not as badly as introvert types.

同样的情况也在J/P上发生。J/P本身并非功能。事实上J/P纯粹是人为定义的，你并不真的需要它。它被定义出来，大概只是为了区分荣格理论中的主导功能究竟是感知还是判断。但实际测试中显然在测试除此之外某些别的东西。这也正是所谓“（？）”的由来。一个“内倾直觉思考型”的家伙去做MBTI测试，得出的结果是INTP，而另一个同样是“内倾直觉思考型”的家伙得到的结果是INTJ。对于内倾型，这种麻烦事儿可不仅限于这两种类型，所有其他内倾类型也会受到影响。有趣（!）的是，尽管不像内倾型那么严重，外倾类型一样会受到影响。

So the problem remains: If you took the MBTI test or any other similar instruments and came out INTP for example, what is your dominant function?

所以，问题依旧是：如果你做了MBTI或其他类似的测试，得到了INTP（举例来说）这个结果，你的主导功能究竟是什么？