Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: what everybody interested in socionics must read

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default what everybody interested in socionics must read

    taken from rick's blog:

    Socionics is an unwieldy field with a huge number of categories, hypotheses, and stereotypes, as well as competing descriptions that either describe the same thing from different angles or simply contradict each other.

    What are the most basic building blocks of socionics?

    1. A couple general ideas which are basically self-evident to observant thinking people, but need to be assimilated all the same:

    a) the "differentiation of the psyche" (see article at socionics.us) and the concept of aspects of information ("facets of reality")
    b) the fact that there are factors that determine the nature of our psychological interaction with other people outside of our will

    2. A couple complex logical systems and their correct formulations:

    a) what each element of information metabolism means
    - which aspects of reality each element perceives and processes
    - behaviors and states of mind associated with each element
    b) the socionic model of the psyche (i.e. Model A)
    - attitudes and qualities associated with the IM elements in each position (function) of Model A
    - how the element in each position responds to stimuli from other people in society
    - relationships between different functions of Model A

    Basically, all the rest of socionics can be derived from the systems in point 2, include type descriptions, intertype relations, dichotomies, quadras, clubs, etc.


    ...
    the remainder of the blog entry is essentially an advertisement for wikisocion, if anyone cares


    essentially, this is the point that i have been trying to drive across for the last several months with extremely minimal success. model A supersedes EVERYTHING, be it reinin or MBTI dichotomies, ridiculous shit like dual-type theory, intertype relations, etc. without an accurate understanding of the IM elements and what they do, understanding socionics is impossible.

  2. #2
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For typing purposes, I agree with what you say.

    However, you can't understand model A, or the functions, without understanding intertype relations. You yourself can't really understand and if you don't see it in what you crave most from others, nor and in what you most loathe in others.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    However, you can't understand model A, or the functions, without understanding intertype relations.
    What if we modified this to "you can't test the validity of and model A or the functions, or fully appreciate their traditional application in Socionics, without understanding intertype relations"?

    It seems reasonable to want to build an understanding linearly...i.e., here are the IM elements and their definitions; they function for an individual according to Model A; the result is the intertype relations. If we were to make the definitions reliant on the intertype relations (I know you weren't saying that exactly, but it might sound like it), then there would be a certain circularity that could lead to infinite regress.

    What this means in practice is that it's probably best to learn how identify the IM elements without appealing to the intertype relations. For example, in NYC, Rick never relied on intertype relations in explaining what to look for when identifying behaviors related to IM elements. In contrast, sometimes people on this forum try to use intertype relations as a primary tool to type people, which leads to mass confusion as they probably didn't type the other people in those relations properly anyway.

    Also, would you agree that "loathe" is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration regarding one's super-ego block? In practice, people often have a healthy respect for their super-ego type, rather than an instant loathing.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As to Niffweed's point: actually, except for Phaedrus's rather interesting view that one should proceed based on understanding the types (because any functional definitions are presumably aimed at having things "come out" so that certain groups of people one observes will end up in certain type categories), most people on the forum seem to agree that understanding the IM elements is an essential starting point.

    But where people here don't agree is:
    1) what constitutes understanding...i.e., how rigorous or extensive that understanding is
    2) the definitions themselves
    3) functional definitions in Model A, such as viewing the 1st two functions as playing very different roles vs. seeing them as roughly the same (the latter being a typical view on this forum, though I see it as non-standard and basically incorrect).

    In NYC, Rick gave a rather clear presentation of the way the IM elements are manifested in terms of what roles people play. I tend to consider Rick's view as probably indicative of how Socionics is supposed to work as it's understood in Eastern Europe, and it seems to be a clear way of recognizing people's types.

    But in this forum, many people's understanding of the IM elements comes from various writings by Gulenko and others. I don't know if Gulenko has a different understanding of the IM elements from other Socionists, or if his writings are just prone to misinterpretation. But in any case, the result is conflicting views.

    Although Rick never described it in exactly this way, I see the way he presented the IM elements as recognizing each in its relation to temperament. That is, when he said something like that imagination of a potential/opportunity that one could and might intend to act on is Ne, but a similar imagination that contemplates something that would be inherently impossible, and that one is imagining just as a thought experiment or for fantasy's sake, is more indicative of Ni, that statement seemed to be recognizing that Ne is a form of Pe (active, extraverted) and Ni is a form of Pi (reflective, introverted). Viewed this way, both forms of N are creative, idea-oriented, etc.

    But based on various writings, many people on the forum seem to believe that creativity, innovation, inventiveness, ideation, insight, essence-understanding, etc. are Ne by definition. Ni is thus considered to be something quite unrelated...perhaps a specialized skill aimed at estimating how long various endeavors will take, and envisioning what might go wrong so as to prevent any failures and ensure that everything happens on schedule. The idea that Ne=creativity, openmindedness, idea orientation etc., seems to be a central part of many quadra descriptions. (Now, I suppose one might consider the possibility that when an acc-Ni person is being inventive, that's use of Ni as a 7th function or something.)

    Anyhow, that's just one example of where there are differences of opinion (or misunderstandings) on the forum regarding IM element definitions. I could go through similar examples for each and every IM element.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As to the various unusual theories that exist..dual type theory, Hitta's "functional revise" thing, etc. ....I think these are really attempts by their originators to resolve various apparent contradictions, or to simultaneously embrace multiple views regarding primary definitions. However, their authors don't seem entirely able or willing to articulate fully what problems they were trying to solve that led to these theories.

  6. #6
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    If we were to make the definitions reliant on the intertype relations (I know you weren't saying that exactly, but it might sound like it), then there would be a certain circularity that could lead to infinite regress.

    What this means in practice is that it's probably best to learn how identify the IM elements without appealing to the intertype relations. For example, in NYC, Rick never relied on intertype relations in explaining what to look for when identifying behaviors related to IM elements. In contrast, sometimes people on this forum try to use intertype relations as a primary tool to type people, which leads to mass confusion as they probably didn't type the other people in those relations properly anyway.
    As you said, I wasn't saying that. It is possible of course to identify and explain the IM elements without appealing to intertype relations. However, the way to truly understand (say) is as something whose use in communication attracts the ISFj and INFj and repels the INFp and ISFp. If you already understand it - as I think Rick does - you don't need to refer to relationships directly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Also, would you agree that "loathe" is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration regarding one's super-ego block? In practice, people often have a healthy respect for their super-ego type, rather than an instant loathing.
    Perhaps it is exaggerated then.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    As to Niffweed's point: actually, except for Phaedrus's rather interesting view that one should proceed based on understanding the types (because any functional definitions are presumably aimed at having things "come out" so that certain groups of people one observes will end up in certain type categories), most people on the forum seem to agree that understanding the IM elements is an essential starting point.
    The problem with his view is that if you analyse people through IM elements, his personal typology collapses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Although Rick never described it in exactly this way, I see the way he presented the IM elements as recognizing each in its relation to temperament. That is, when he said something like that imagination of a potential/opportunity that one could and might intend to act on is Ne, but a similar imagination that contemplates something that would be inherently impossible, and that one is imagining just as a thought experiment or for fantasy's sake, is more indicative of Ni, that statement seemed to be recognizing that Ne is a form of Pe (active, extraverted) and Ni is a form of Pi (reflective, introverted). Viewed this way, both forms of N are creative, idea-oriented, etc.
    I'm not sure if we agree on the details but, basically, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    But based on various writings, many people on the forum seem to believe that creativity, innovation, inventiveness, ideation, insight, essence-understanding, etc. are Ne by definition. Ni is thus considered to be something quite unrelated...perhaps a specialized skill aimed at estimating how long various endeavors will take, and envisioning what might go wrong so as to prevent any failures and ensure that everything happens on schedule. The idea that Ne=creativity, openmindedness, idea orientation etc., seems to be a central part of many quadra descriptions. (Now, I suppose one might consider the possibility that when an acc-Ni person is being inventive, that's use of Ni as a 7th function or something.)
    You answered your own question. You have the inclination to follow the logic "if a person focuses on something, that something must be part of their ego block". So, as you said, someone with Ne in the ego will also use Ni fairly well and vice-versa. To see the difference, it is useful to see how ESFjs and ESTjs use Ne but not Ni very well, the same for ISTjs and ISFJs the other way around.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  7. #7
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    As to the various unusual theories that exist..dual type theory, Hitta's "functional revise" thing, etc. ....I think these are really attempts by their originators to resolve various apparent contradictions, or to simultaneously embrace multiple views regarding primary definitions. However, their authors don't seem entirely able or willing to articulate fully what problems they were trying to solve that led to these theories.
    You're too generous. Hitta's "functional revise" is essentially a revamping of the old plus-and-minus model A and declaring, "this is the true model A" and deriving all of his conclusions from that one thought.

    Dual-type theory seems to me sort of redundant, due to a lack of understanding of the role of the super-id, but since I never bothered with it I can't really comment much.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  8. #8
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's your personal take on it, niffweed, because you don't have enough real-life experience with people to actually see the renin dichotomies playing out. I find it far easier to type by them.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    However, you can't understand model A, or the functions, without understanding intertype relations. You yourself can't really understand and if you don't see it in what you crave most from others, nor and in what you most loathe in others.
    disagree. though i would agree that intertype relations are of fundamental importance (as opposed to, say, reinin) the formal system of relations as a whole, is far less critical than what rick wrote in his blog entry emphasizing the importance between "relationships between different functions of Model A." it is more important, for example, that a gamma NT doesnt get along with a gamma SF than to say that "they are superegos and thus their relationships are characterized by X and Y."

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    That's your personal take on it, niffweed, because you don't have enough real-life experience with people to actually see the renin dichotomies playing out. I find it far easier to type by them.
    maybe.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    That's your personal take on it, niffweed, because you don't have enough real-life experience with people to actually see the renin dichotomies playing out. I find it far easier to type by them.
    maybe.
    this interaction went really smoothly.

  12. #12
    misutii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,234
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    That's your personal take on it, niffweed, because you don't have enough real-life experience with people to actually see the renin dichotomies playing out. I find it far easier to type by them.
    i also find that typing ppl in real life is much more valuable then proving you understand a model. this forum is difficult because we can't actually see each other so people are always doubting other people's types. Discussing socionics in real life with others is way more advantageous towards gaining an actual understanding of the system. It's difficult at first but after you figure it out and agree with others on certain things everything starts falling into place. The best way to learn I've found has been to discuss it with my friends that value Te (my polr) as we debate a lot but it's a mutually pleasurable experience once you can get Te and Ti oriented people to agree.

    I find most arguments here are merely Te-Ti misunderstandings, predicted by the system btw.
    INFp-Ni

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is a bit of a thread hijack, but since the title seemed quite appropriate.

    Ni versus Si

    I found the article exceptionally illuminating.
    Hence also Ni PoLR is easily defined as resistance to things involving one's "place within the celestial whole."
    Direct web page link apparently impossible.
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •