Talk:Vocabulary

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))

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))

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))

Issues with specific statements

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)

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)

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)