ATTENTION: type description contributions to Wikisocion
Perhaps those who are fairly confident in their typing would like to contribute to the wikisocion description of their type. I think it would be a great benefit not only to this community, but also to those who are new to socionics. It would enhance their understanding of the theory and the way each function manifests itself much better than the type descriptions found here and on socionics.com.
you're not the boss of us.
I'm giving you a fucking idea to carry through.
and you still think you could be LSE?Originally Posted by Ezra
DIY. I'm an IEI, I've got my own ideas I'm not carrying through.
socio: INFp - IEI
ennea: 4w5 sp/sx
**********
and I'm saying fuck off... you don't go around making demands shit-for-brains. If you want people to add to the descriptions then you can ask them to, like a human being. You don't command shit around here, stop acting like you do.
You wanna play around motherfucker? I'll eat your soul!
[spoil:153f00b100]JK[/spoil:153f00b100]
anyways... I still stand by this statement. We aren't here for Ezra to try playing his bullshit bully boy tricks on. If you like that sort of thing, whatever... you two can go get a room somewhere in private and slap eachothers asses silly. Whatever gets your wood up.
and I'm saying fuck off... you don't go around making demands shit-for-brains. If you want people to add to the descriptions then you can ask them to, like a human being. You don't command shit around here, stop acting like you do.
No intention to turn this into a dee type thread, but I can't believe dee actually thinks he has a Fe PoLR.
INTp
sx/sp
You did say you think you're INTp...
INTp
sx/sp
kewlmy problem ain't with you anyways...
"I gave you a fucking idea to follow through on"
Re: ATTENTION
Wow, great idea, man!
Never occurred to me before!
Will do the moment I give a fuck!
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Re: ATTENTION
+10Wow, great idea, man!
Never occurred to me before!
Will do the moment I give a fuck!
Re: ATTENTION
I've been meaning to contribute to a few function/type descriptions... I'm just hesitant to do so because it bothers me to see people using the information there are religious text, and I don't want to get caught up on that mess. Damn Ti types!
I'm half joking, but seriously, I'll do it sometime relatively soon.
lol
Re: ATTENTION
Sacred Text of SocionicsI've been meaning to contribute to a few function/type descriptions... I'm just hesitant to do so because it bothers me to see people using the information there are religious text, and I don't want to get caught up on that mess. Damn Ti types!
lol I'm just fucking with Ezra... He's like cartoons or something the way he tries (I mean doesn't try
Re: ATTENTION
Lol....: )
Suomea
Apologies. This is my poor behaviour coming through again. I'll try again.
whatever... not a problem... For my part I was tired yesterday and sort of looking for something to get dramatic about
Bad, bad, baaaad idea. People who are really certain of their types? You know schizophrenics are 100% certain of stuff. So are religious fanatics. Shall we call them to contribute as well? After all, they are absolutely certain...
Simply being certain of one's type may not be enough to equip one for the task of writing type descriptions for reasons I detailed here: http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...=273060#273060
Simply put, in addition to being confident of your type, you'll also need to be confident in your knowledge of Socionics AND the ability to separate your type-related behaviours from your individual personality-related behaviours, to have a feasible chance at writing an impersonal type description. I have the former but not the latter, which is why I wouldn't undertake such a task.
ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
5w4 so/sx
"IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"
Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
Stickam music performances
Yes, we need people who are actually capable of doing such tasks, not merely willing.
well the point of having the wiki is so people who aren't good in one area can write the description then it gets mercilessly edited down by those who are better in another area. People started taking the stuff there as gospel and that made this problem with people feeling awkward over adding to it, which sort of defeated the whole purpose. It's not meant to be Rick and Expats blog, it's meant to be a community effort. Add to it, be open to people changing what you write, and get into the discussions over it all... and above all try not to be a dick about stuff. That's how the place will really take off and grow into something good.
I'm bored so I wrote a bit. Feel free to ignore.
Everyone has their own opinions on all that is socionics... proven by the fact that day in and day out there's people whose types are questioned and never solidified by everyone else here, causing thread after thread of useless banter between those that think a person is one type and those who think they're another. Because of this, anyone who actually think they are type xxxx will be questioned by another person that thinks they're xxxx and then this will blow up into a discussion of how they view the functions vs how the other person views them. Add to the fact that some use temperaments, clubs, quadras, and other different ways to type and you get a person that sees something totally different when looking at the same thing. Then come the arguments because person A knows more what they're talking about than person B and then C comes in and throws in their $.02, then add D and E people to the discussion and surely that'll screw everything all up even more than it was initally.
Until Socionics is taught to people in a formal fashion this will always occur and socionics will always be a broad way to look at people instead of the fine line way that people want to look at it. The day people can stop thinking about every single thing that a person does relating to type and just know that a socionics type is just a generalization of many different things wrapped into one little ball of human (insert other objects that people type here), the easier it'll be for people to constructively type a person with a type that many people can agree on. I don't know socionics and never have pretended to, I don't type people, I don't tell people what quadra they're in, and I couldn't care less who's wrong and who's right. I come here to see people's opinions on others and hang out for times when I have nothing else going on. I don't feel my opinion on anything socionically related is valid so I don't add to those conversations, unless I see a person being out of line and I feel saying something may fix that. I do however know people from a real world standpoint. Until a person is met in real life by another person here there is no way that a person's type can be truly identified unless a person came here and wrote about every single thing in their life whether that be all that is good about their life, mundane about their life, or all the flaws that said person may have. It's good that there have been a few meets about socionics and hopefully they keep happening since that's one of the few ways that people can really get to know other people here well enough to type them.
I'm intimidated by the whole Wiki thing. It looks very official. Also, I tend to discuss things through examples, and that doesn't seem to be how this whole wiki thing works.
I do read it though.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
actually Rick is probably going to make it login required to edit now after Ezra edited out all social roles from the type descriptions while we were just beginning to have a discussion on it. Major deletions like that need to be discussed first. Still, everyone should feel free to register and start editing though, just read the policies page first so that you know what not to do (which really isn't that much)
@Slacker Mom... we want those other opinions and ways of looking at/going about things. Don't feel at all intimidated by what it may currently look like. We'd like for it to be accessable and to reflect all those different viewpoints. If you don't feel comfortable with editing the articles themselves you could at least get it on the discussion pages like I generally do. Like I said, it's not supposed to be Rick or Expats or anyone elses blog and view of socionics, it's just that they're the ones who have put in the most effort so far (well Ambush has done a hell of lot with the template coding, and Niffweed has put in a fair amount as well). The point is we need others to help with filling in the spaces otherwise it's going to take forever to never because people will get burned out on the whole thing.
Ezra edited the descriptions? WTF? Shouldn't a person be completely and absolutely sure of being perfectly right before he/she edits something so important?
Personally I don't write anything because I know that the system I have in my head works perfectly for me, but I have no reason to think that it can work for other people. Plus I subscribe completely to "smilexian socionics" which, in that wiki, is considered just an hypothesis (whereas instead it's the only possible objective reality to my eyes) and thus I'm not ideologically aligned.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
not at all, my suggestions get worked in often (when I make them) and I'm far from the socionics master of the bunch. Also it's a wiki... so there's no need for hourly backups since everything is already saved in the edit histories.
but you still know enough about other stuff to be a valued contributer I think. I mean, if you screw up and insert some "smilexian socionics" it's no big deal since somebody is going to read it and figure that out. Then those bits get edited out. It's not a problem, and I can't see you crying over it
first of all, no. you should absolutely NOT be confined to being perfectly certain of something before editing. otherwise nothing will get done, ever.
the wiki is not, despite what bionic might say, some sacred holy text of socionics. it is a collaborative effort to record that knowledge which we do have.
secondly, what ezra did specifically should be clarified: he edited the social roles out of the description. personally, i think this was a very appropriate thing to do, but others still disagree. he didn't touch the actual functional content of the descriptions.
I don't think so. Most of my views are radically different from Rick's for example, and they can't be both true.but you still know enough about other stuff to be a valued contributer I think. I mean, if you screw up and insert some "smilexian socionics" it's no big deal since somebody is going to read it and figure that out. Then those bits get edited out. It's not a problem, and I can't see you crying over it
That's why I said that, given that certainty over socionics is impossible, it is also very hard for me to write anything. Either we relate to it in a similar fashion as economics, meaning that different theories with a similar basis are used to describe the same phenomena, or we treat it as hard science, in which case there is only one possible version of how things are.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Or it's left up as a mystery and we all bitch and whine and fuck and moan with each other until the end of eternity about the types, because in the end- it doesn't matter what you fight for, just that you fought in the first place.
And just because it's a hard science... I dunno, people go against hard science constantly, and depending on other factors they're not always shunned for it, sometimes they're embraced. So "science" isn't much help....
Science doesn't love me like Jesus loves me. You're all fired.
You can still post in the Talk sessions, if you prefer, with your comments, whenever you think that something isn't right, or could be improved, or with any suggestion.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
I wouldn't call it "ideologically". I see it was more of a difference in languages than ideologies. The people who contribute the most to the wiki seem to share a basic understanding of what a type is, the functions, etc. The same goes for the people who have met in London and New York. So we agree we are talking about the same things, that is, that we are speaking the same language.
If you say that your own version of socionics, based on smilexian socionics, works for you, then it's fine. But the thing is then that we are talking in different languages. A "type", as understood by me and the above mentioned people, is something that doesn't change in the longer term - I don't mean "blips" of behaving like other types, I mean more stable and longer-term change, which is what smilexian socionics implies.
I think that anyone who thinks that the true type can change in that fashion is talking about very superficial and circumstancial changes in priorities and behavior, not about the true, deeper socionics type that determines longer-term personal relationships. However, those very superficial and circumstancial changes in priorities and behavior may also be worthy of study, and perhaps smilexian socionics is a good model to do that. I don't know. I also thinks that those who'd deny the existence of the deeper and stable socionics type still have a great deal to learn, about themselves and others, which is not to say they ever will.
However, if, as you said, your own version of socionics, which works for you, does work - and yet it is different from the one we describe in the wiki - then, it's perfectly fine. But we are, then, speaking in different languages. Probably what you call a "type" is not what I call a "type", the same going for the everything else.
Yes, I realised it was a mistake after I did it. Although the "common social roles" fuel stereotypes, they're actually quite a good way of understanding what the type may look like in real life.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote