Is socionics complete without that one?
Is socionics complete without that one?
I'm not sure there is a male\female dichotomy, is there? (at least not judging from my town's high street on a Friday night).
the m/f dichotomy is probably my favorite out of all of them.
Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.
This thread belongs in anything goes.
If it didn't to begin with, it certainly does now.
The idea that Socionics could or should have a dichotomy related to gender offends me. Seriously.
I am sensing that there is a sarcastic inside joke hidden in between the words this thread.
To answer this question, this dichotomy shows how in many case, but not all, positive relations will become stronger in relations between the two types of this dichotomy than if they were the same type. But for some other people, stronger relations will develop between two people of the same types. However, for a good majority of people, people consistently develop positive relationships into stronger ones with either same type or opposite type. However, in some cases, this may not even hold to be true. (Find the error. :wink: )
I suggest we integrate this and try to find out how these dichotomies correspond to each socio-type immediately!
Regular Double-shot Espresso Subtype
Just because I'm a thinking type doesn't mean I'm not an idiot.
why? Men and women are genetically different.Originally Posted by Joy
Why? Aren't you proud to be a Woman? :wink:Originally Posted by Joy
You have just offended Feminist Socionics. Do you not believe that societal expectations of gender roles plays a part in type perceptions and type identification?Originally Posted by Joy
This would just go to show that type isn't genetic, but 'learned behaviour'.Originally Posted by Logos
"When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."
In which case, such a dichotomy could very well still exist as part of the societal constructed patterns of learned behavior. Just because it may not be genetically female/male dichotomy, does not mean that a potential concept of a societal gender dichotomy does not exist.Originally Posted by KSpin
Yes it is!Originally Posted by labcoat
However I do believe that descriptions should account for gender because society is gender biased and a lot of people are taught to behave a certain, gender specific way. This might go against functional tendencies but still some persons will still choose to behave a certain way, to present a certain "persona" that might be different from their true "nature".
"What is love?"
"The total absence of fear," said the Master.
"What is it we fear?"
"Love," said the Master.
I chose Love
Sure, a male of a particular type's function may be expressed differently than a female of the same type if they live in a society that had far different expectations of them. If you want to call that a dichotomy, however, there would have to be a separate male/female dichotomy for each culture, sub culture, religion, and society... for all 16 types (since the outcome would be different in each of these situations). We'd also have to have a dichotomy for each sexual preference, age group, economic class, level of intelligence, level of education, race, religion, and level of attractiveness... for all 16 types (since the outcome would be different in each of these situations as well).Originally Posted by Logos
How many new dichotomies is that now?
Actually, even if it's not a socionic thing, it can be useful to differentiate men and women, because they are basically not the same.Originally Posted by Joy
For example, it has been proved that women had a lower IQ than men : women have an average IQ of 98, men have an average IQ of 102. This is NOT a chauvinistic thing.
Men and women are not alike. If someone says that they are, it doesn't change anything. Being different doesn't mean that one is better than the other, it means that they are different.Originally Posted by Logos
Being different is good. Like in duality, both have their roles, and strengths that complement the other's.
Not until they proove that those statistics aren't in any way affected by gender roles and associated job choices, both of which undoubtedly reflect in the amount of 'training' a person enjoys in related intellectual tasks.
Define "IQ". And also... wth are you talking about?Originally Posted by machintruc
I'm not a feminist. I just don't see man and women as being different, except biologically, and I think individual differences among people are significant enough to make a lot of typical male/female "characteristics" that have been attributed to biology pretty useless.
Thank you, that's pretty much my point. I don't define intelligence as someone's ability to score well on a test.Originally Posted by labcoat
Individuals are not alike.Originally Posted by jas05
And what exactly is a man's "role" and a woman's "role"?Being different is good. Like in duality, both have their roles, and strengths that complement the other's.
Well, biologically, they are obvious.Originally Posted by Joy
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Some trivia about creating the IQ test. The psychologists had to work really hard to redesign the entire IQ test, because women kept "winning" big time. Finally they had a test with the kind of questions that men started getting decent scores. I guess they overdid it and made the IQ test too masculine.Originally Posted by machintruc
I personally think that it would be ridiculously stupid to ignore the differences between men and women. Men and women are not the same. Mhh, I think it should be a dichotomy masculinity-femininity, not men-women. I know one girl who looks, walks, talks and laughs like a man and I know men who are sweet, gentle, caring, etc.
Sure, I have no problem excepting that women can't get pregnant without sperm and that men can't carry a fetus or breast feed.Originally Posted by Expat
That's about as far as it goes though, at least in our era. (Sure, men have bodies that are strong because they're built for work, but that's rather irrelevant at this point, unless someone is a laborer.)
That makes far more sense.Originally Posted by Kristiina
Each individual has a socionics type, and people of each type can be male or female. So, obviously, the gender of a person is irrelevant for determining their type - you don't say someone is 20% more likely to be an INTj because they are male rather than female (even if it's true). Typings are based on the personality of the individual, and not their gender. I think it is important to take into account social stereotypes + expected behaviours when typing people, but there isn't a set in stone dichotomy of male and female stereotypes either.
Okay. What's your point?Originally Posted by jas05
Which is essentially what I said earlier.Originally Posted by Joy
But how did they do that?...Originally Posted by Kristiina
BS. There are plenty of other significant differences.Originally Posted by Joy
This is an interesting debate on the subject:
The joke is in the word "complete"... at least I hope it is.Originally Posted by labcoat
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
There is a network, the corpus callosum, which joins both sides of the brain. It is well known that it is more developed in women than in men, so women are capable of using more areas of the brain while men are able to use them more intensely. Women are thus generalists in nature while men are specialists.
Intelligence, in my opinion, is far from the ability to pick the right answer in an IQ test. For those of you who are not aware of it, IQ tests can be solved by computers; and computers are not considered to be intelligent, at all. Go here if you want to check it out.
Intelligence is thus more like the ability to pick up the proper method to solve a problem rather the ability to use the method itself. Using an incorrect method (say, a function in socionics term) will always result in an incorrect conclusion. So a woman who is not Te dominant but whose brain is more likely to use Te to solve Te problems (just by being better connected) can be said to be more intelligent, on the whole, than a man who is more likely to try to solve all problems through the dominant functions.
I'm not sure, however, if this really has to do with gender. Sorry for striking logicals again, but I can't but to notice how absurd things can become when only one side of things is taken into account. For example, most studies just report the average results for men and women, which are completely useless in my opinion. There is really no way to know if every woman is like the average woman, and, since I know about socionics, I tend to believe they are not. This Ti tendency to oversimplify and generalize is destructive.
Sorry I don't want to pick on you, but yo do notice that the last paragraph you have written contradicts the hypothesis you explain in your first paragraph? If you cannot know whether each woman and men is average, and thus you cannot confide in the IQ test results - I agree with it - then you cannot prove that the corpus callosum is more developed in all women in comparison to all men, because you would have to sample the entire humanity; shortly, either you reject both hypothesis, or you accept them both.Originally Posted by mikemex
Moreover, the fact that IQ tests can be solved by computer proves nothing: indeed the computer had to be instructed by an human on how to solve the IQ tests, which is a different situation than the one in which an human tries to solve problems he has never handled before.
fatti non foste a viver come bruti ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza
Nobody has said that women have vagina and men have penis, anyway, so I will reassure you all that this is the main difference.
fatti non foste a viver come bruti ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza
Both are instructed by an human, if you think about it. IQ tests do contain instructions on what the subject is expected to do. In fact, I don't remember seeing a single test which doesn't provide a set of instructions for the user. That a person receives instructions through words instead of CPU code doesn't change the action of being instructed.Originally Posted by FDG
Well, yes and no. Instead of a contradiction I would rather say that it is simply a conditional statement. The validity of the hypothesis requires further information, but for now, it's true, because there are studies which say that corpus callosum in women is more developed than in men.Originally Posted by FDG
That is in fact a pretty good example of Fi and Ti approaches to logic. Fi statements are relative in nature, while Ti statements are absolute. If something is true today but not true tomorrow, it falls into a contradiction from Ti perspective, but not from Fi one. This is because Fi introduces the concept of context, which is a concept more widely known as subjectivity.
From Fi perspective, the validity of the statement is linked to the context it exists in. This way the same statement can be true and false at the same time. And, between you and me, socionics is a model that is better explained through Fi than through Ti. Let me join two discussions to explain this:
It is not so simple.Originally Posted by FDG: how to argue with an ISFj?
Some functions are narrowing: Ti Te Si Se
Some functions are widening: Fi Fe Ni Ne
By widening or narrowing I mean the level of tolerance of each function to incomplete information. Ti, for example, will reject a whole statement if an element is missing, even if the rest are valid. Ni, on the other hand, is more likely to accept a whole statement just based on a single element, even if all the rest are missing or wrong. This is why Ti types are more likely to be atheist or at least agnostic and Ni types are almost always religious or at least mystical.
Functions, however, work in loops (pairs). Any of them can form four different loops and it works differently on each one. This is because a widening function can not only be combined with the widening functions, but also with the narrowing ones. So we end up with loops that pull toward opposite directions, for example:
Se - Fi (Neutral - Low: Fi (widening) serves Se (narrowing))
Fi - Se (Neutral - High: Se (narrowing) serves Fi (widening))
Fi - Ne (Widening - Low: Ne (widening) serves Fi (widening))
Ne - Fi (Widening - High: Fi (widening) serves Ne (widening))
This causes inconsistencies, however. For example, it is not true that the average ESFp is more narrow minded than the average ISFj. So we have a contradiction here: Se is narrowing in some types but widening in others. The problem is that such contradiction doesn't really exist: Se is, in fact, a bivalent element of the psyche. Statements such as: Se is widening, Se is narrowing and narrowing is the opposite thing to widening are all true at the same time. How can this be possible?
You can rearrange functions any way you wish, give them properties and, at the end, you'll end up with the very same contradictions. This is because types (or better, persons) are contexts. And what is valid in a context may not be in other. The problem is trying to derive a general rule from an specific one. It can't be done, period. That's why Fi logic does not produce a single conclusion from multiple input, but rather just assigns a "validity index" to each input element. So we have 0.5 narrowing and 0.5 widening for Se. 0.5 narrowing and 0.5 widening for Fi. Or maybe other number, just making a point here.
And, if you want to know which conclusion I've come with all of this: this is the basis of PoLR. Staments valid for Fi are not valid for Ti and vice versa. The logic itself can't be translated between them. An absolute statement is not valid in different contexts and an statement valid in a context, but not in other, can't work as an absolute one. And since we both can understand Fi and Ti, the mistakes of one will always be clear for the other, but we are unable to fix them, because, at the end, both systems are correct.
That's the whole point behind preference of functions: they are mutually exclusive.