My problem with how people "change" types here on the forum

[UDP]

Look - you have to realize that no matter how many types you've considered, or how many times you've changed your considerations, that you have been and always will be the same type.

It is completely ludicrous how people keep flipping back and forth - who are you fooling? Are you really just not sure? I mean, in your mind, is what you are doing appearing reasonable? "Oh yeah, I changed my type again...".

I am not sure if I am addressing this with enough lucidity, but, do you understand what I am getting at?


There is a world of difference between every type. You are not "torn" between two types, the misunderstanding is in your own head. You are clearly and fully one type. It is your job (or it ought to be) to figure out what that type is, by being honest with yourself. It isn't about "oh, I relate to parts of what this says, and parts of this too.... so I must be a little of both". No, no, no. It doesn't work that way.

People seem to cling to "well it is perfectly ok if I relate to that, even though it is not in this profile!". Like it has some sort of meaning. You have to stop thinking in terms of whatever regular thought pattern you are using and look at things from a socionics, type-orientated perspective.

(This is also why it is extremely irritating when people say certain things about my type, or comments like "Hey, you seem to be showing weak Se lately - are you sure about your type? Have you considered this?" or, "Hey, you seem to be showing strong Se lately - are you sure about your type?" I mean....... don't you understand how foolish those sorts of comments are?)



Anyways, moving on: another thing -
Deciding between INFp and INFj - that is a world of difference, folks! It is not "just one letter". Those to types are worlds apart. One is victim, one is infantile. Fe Fi. Beta Delta. And so on. The point here is, when you are torn between ANY two types, there is VAST difference between them. If you are going to be torn between two, at least have them be mirrors, I suppose.

Crossing the Fe/Fi line, especially repeatedly, is completely uncalled for. And it is not just Fe/Fi, it is Fe&Ti vs Te&Fi. If you don't know if you are Fe or Fi, that is a huge problem. That is a huge problem and you have to work that out ASAP. That is definitely one of the most evident lines there is in socionics, and if you are not aware of that, then you really need to work it out and look at what is going on in how people are acting around you. Interpersonally it ought to be very clear to you which side of that line you fall on.


Similarly, Se/Si.
That one might be a little more difficult, but once you figure out Fe/Fi, determining which of the two quadras you fall into should become clear. (because each of the remaining quadras values either Se or Si, and not both)


From there you should at least have a solid quadra. And from that quadra you have your temperment and other things. So, just use that plan! You absolutely should not be wandering between the quadras, especially opposing ones. If you find yourself wondering which of the opposing quadras you are in, start over, do something else, that is just foolish.

[FDG]

I'd say in many instances the real problem is outside pressure towards, or against, a given type. If people have correctly identified the fuctions and have correctly identified their behavior and have correctly identified their friends' functions, then they will correctly type themselves. Now, the hardest part is acceptance of this typing by the community.

[cracka]

I'd say in many instances the real problem is outside pressure towards, or against, a given type. If people have correctly identified the fuctions and have correctly identified their behavior and have correctly identified their friends' functions, then they will correctly type themselves. Now, the hardest part is acceptance of this typing by the community.

A valid point. And building on that a bit, there will be times when a person may realize that they are a type that others don't necessarily "want" them to be... and they'll go against an opinion based on what they would rather you be or not be instead of what you most likely are. Or so I feel I've seen here a bit. Kinda like if someone has a best friend of a type and a person here decides that this is their type also, if the person on the forum has a "bad opinion" (for lack of a better word) then they may kinda argue that you are not the same type as their friend is because they have some ill will toward you and not their friend.

[marooned]

Why do they have to figure it out ASAP? What's the rush?

If indeed you can only be, have ever been, and will ever be only one type (the same type), then you can't really be torn or split between types. This is true. I agree.

However, when someone says they're torn between two types, they may just mean they're confused... either about their understanding of the types themselves or about how they fit into that understanding, etc. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Again, why the hurry? There's no need to find one's type immediately.

[consentingadult]

I think typing yourself is not as easy as it seems, for several reasons:

First of all, a lot of people have been 'programmed' to play a role and are not acting according to their true type. Especially the influence of traditional gender roles messes things up. It's like Rick DeLong said in one of his articles: if you have not had the experience of duality when growing up, it will be difficult to find your dual. Perhaps you'll adapt and learn to play a role instead of being yourself.

Second, understanding the functions, and especially how these fit in Model A is not easy to understand. It takes time to understand the nuances of a function depending on its position in Model A. E.g. take a person that would be seen by his environment as a know-it-all. At first sight, what type are we dealing with here? With an ENTj, who does know it all and knows how to put his knowledge to good use (leading Te), or an ENFp who communicates his trivial knowledge as a means of impressing people (HA Te)?

And finally, descriptions of the functions, which sometimes are written in such a way that they are not falsifiable. E.g. according to wikisocion:

1. An ENFps creative function is Fi. The ENFp uses that function to connect to other people, or to distance themselves in case a threat is perceived:

IEEs are naturally sensitive to mood, atmosphere, and feelings. They rarely say or do anything that would worsen people's feelings, preferring instead to distance themselves from people and social situations that produce negative feelings. IEEs are naturally skilled at regulating the degree of emotional intimacy between people, which can mean being businesslike (yet polite) as well as warm and inviting.

2. An ISFp has Fe a creative function, which again is used to regulate the emotional distance to other people:

A positive emotional atmosphere is essential to their sense of well being and inner peace, and they either try to create that atmosphere by directly influencing their surrounding, or by simply removing themselves from the situation or people that in their view is the cause of a negative emotional environment.

3. An ENTp POLR is Fi:

Hide their personal sentiments whenever possible to avoid public examination of their feelings.

Now what I think, is that basically the exact same outward behavior is explained by three different manifestations in Model A. So if I'm warm and welcoming, am I Fi, Fe or Ti? All three are possible with these descritions that fall short. This creates a sort of Forer-effect in the Socionic description. This is what makes it difficult for people to decide on their type. More accurate and falsifiable descriptions are needed, and I think that is possible: a lot of stuff needs to be removed from function descriptions, and new stuff needs to be added in order to make it falsifiable. I already said Socionics is a complex theory, and the contradictions in what has been written about it actually makes matters even more complex. No wonder people have trouble finding their type.

[UDP]

I don't think the descriptions make that much of a difference. Or even profiles for that matter - even though I used them extensively in the past.

First, this is an online forum, this is not a professional university. There are no standards here. It is all rather loose. Granted that, your best bet is to really work with things and figure out what is, for example, in your own life, in reality. Not some bunch of words on the forum. So in that way I disagree about the "vagueness" of profiles or descriptions. It is not about profiles or descriptions.

As a matter of fact, I would almost say they get in the way just as much as they help

The famous zen koan about the finger and the moon comes to mind - the finger is not the moon, and you don't need the finger to see the moon. The moon is the moon.

[xyz]

Why do they have to figure it out ASAP? What's the rush?

If indeed you can only be, have ever been, and will ever be only one type (the same type), then you can't really be torn or split between types. This is true. I agree.

However, when someone says they're torn between two types, they may just mean they're confused... either about their understanding of the types themselves or about how they fit into that understanding, etc. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Again, why the hurry? There's no need to find one's type immediately.

People are complex, obviously... Yeah, people get confused about their types especially around how some descriptions are written. Like consentingadult, there are no easy lines and some statements aren't easily falsifiable. Take your time, there's no real rush to figure your type out (unless you have some Te, like me "crap i need to figure out what im good at", "if i don't figure it out I could waste time doing something i don't know i hate yet" ... etc)

[consentingadult]

It is not about profiles or descriptions.

If it's not, then what is it about? Somehow we've got to agree on what the nature of each specific function is. Or do you propose that everyone make them up themselves? That's what it sound to me you're suggesting.

[Animal]

There is a world of difference between every type.

There is a world of difference between theoretical types, yes. But between actual people? Not so much. We are all more alike than we are different. The dichotomies you point to - Fe v. Fi, Victim v. Infantile, etc. - these are all just (vague and most often ill-defined) concepts that can be difficult to apply to real life circumstances. The vast expanse of debate - not only on this forum, but among Socionists themselves - trying to differentiate between these allegedly "obvious" variations of temperament and attitude, should be proof enough of that.

All that said, I think people rush too fast into pidgeonholing themselves into a type, before they really know enough of: 1.) the structure of the theory itself, 2.) it's lexicon, and 3.) real-life correlates with the terminology of that lexicon. I'd much rather see people remain "typeless" for a while before picking out a type prematurely.

[UDP]

@consentingadult

No, you're missing my point.

"Or do you propose that everyone make them up themselves? " Of course not.

Unless you really know what is, yourself, then throwing around descriptions and profiles is irrelevant. That is the point. The profiles can help you, but what they are really talking about is not something you can grasp from just words. You have to be able to actually recognize what it is in real life.

And yes, how to do that here, if you are just learning online yourself, is difficult. But it is a requirement none the less. And yes, there will be instances, like one I experienced, where you may actually misinterpret what functions are in terms of how they relate to you, and thus influencing your typings.

[FDG]

Actually many types are very similar between each other, otherwise socionics would not make any sense. This is especially true in the temperament rings, and makes two adjacent types sharing the same accepting (in the case of introverts) or creative (in the case of extraverts) functions very similar.

About what consentingadult said in regard to the possible similarity between hidden agenda and base function: it is something that has been analyzed extensively on the forum. I came to the conclusion that the strongest function is most easily seen in action when the person is dealing with new material in an unknown environment (this is actually a widespread method in psychology).

[consentingadult]

@consentingadult

No, you're missing my point.

"Or do you propose that everyone make them up themselves? " Of course not.

Unless you really know what is, yourself, then throwing around descriptions and profiles is irrelevant. That is the point. The profiles can help you, but what they are really talking about is not something you can grasp from just words. You have to be able to actually recognize what it is in real life.

And yes, how to do that here, if you are just learning online yourself, is difficult. But it is a requirement none the less. And yes, there will be instances, like one I experienced, where you may actually misinterpret what functions are in terms of how they relate to you, and thus influencing your typings.

I simply don't agree, because I think it is possible to come up with good descriptions of how functions manifest themselves in Model A. Better descriptions will make it easier for people to type themselves and others.

And of course, one needs to take things to reality in order to find about the real stuff, and take the observations to the lab and test and research it etc etc. But one is not going to learn Socionics without the theory that has been prepared by other people. You yourself have gone through the stages of changing your type. Please allow others to do the same thing and make the same errors.

[UDP]

There is a world of difference between theoretical types, yes. But between actual people? Not so much. We are all more alike than we are different. The dichotomies you point to - Fe v. Fi, Victim v. Infantile, etc. - these are all just (vague and most often ill-defined) concepts that can be difficult to apply to real life circumstances. The vast expanse of debate - not only on this forum, but among Socionists themselves - trying to differentiate between these allegedly "obvious" variations of temperament and attitude, should be proof enough of that.

Yes, but that's not my point. The dichotomies are real, inside of socionics theory. It doesn't matter how ill defined they are. Forget their names, "infantile" or "victim", and just look at what they mean. You either are Si or Ni, and not both. There is no vagueness in that reality. You are not partially Si in ego and partially ni, no. You are not somewhat Fi and somewhat Fe valuing - it just doesn't work that way. And I wonder if people get that about socionics.

All that said, I think people rush too fast into pidgeonholing themselves into a type, before they really know enough of: 1.) the structure of the theory itself, 2.) it's lexicon, and 3.) real-life correlates with the terminology of that lexicon. I'd much rather see people remain "typeless" for a while before picking out a type prematurely.

Sounds good to me. I'm all for that.

[consentingadult]

I came to the conclusion that the strongest function is most easily seen in action when the person is dealing with new material in an unknown environment.

Interesting idea. I think I agree.

[UDP]

UDP are you talking about yourself?

No, I am commenting on what I see taking place on the forum.

Socionics is not a professional study, at least not within a professional university.

I don't think you're particularly good at figuring out your own life and reality and that has certainly affected your understanding of socionics.

..... ? And you have very little to draw from when you say that. But sure, thanks for sharing your thoughts about "me".

At the very least, I have a different view of reality then you do that that influences the differences in my understanding of socionics versus yours.

How can you say that? You don't know my view of reality, and I sure don't know yours*. You can be commenting on this and other forum posts, but they are not what defines "my view of reality".

* that is to say, I certainly do not feel I could honestly say I understand your view of reality at this time, because I don't know you at all. So I am wondering why you feel you can say that.

[marooned]

...You either are Si or Ni, and not both. There is no vagueness in that reality. You are not partially Si in ego and partially Ni, no. You are not somewhat Fi and somewhat Fe valuing - it just doesn't work that way. And I wonder if people get that about socionics.

I think most people do get that. If you're going to apply yourself to the theory then it's either one or the other... there is no in between. I think the vagueness comes into play because individual people are more complex than the theory. Why do you think people do not understand this?

[UDP]

You yourself have gone through the stages of changing your type. Please allow others to do the same thing and make the same errors.

That is not what this discussion is about. I "am" allowing people to make the same errors - I'm not saying they are not going to do that. That's not the point.

This is not about me saying "everyone should figure out your type right now! If you don't you are stupid!", no. I'm criticizing the method, the process, by which that is taking place. That was the point of this thread, to address the process, and generate discussion about it. Or at least me voicing the problems I see in it.

[consentingadult]

That was the point of this thread, to address the process, and generate discussion about it.

The title of this thread is "My problem with....". Why is it a problem to you, if your goal is just to address the process and generate discussion?

[Animal]

I think the quickest way to choose between two types is compare duals. BUT, you can't actually pick between duals unless you've interacted with enough people to recognize what duality actually "feels" like, what your dual's personality is like as compared with other types (esp. sort of similar relations like semi-duality and illusionary). It's not enough just to imagine what your perfect relationship would be like because most of the time what we think we want is different from what we will actually tune into.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[xyz]

I think most people do get that. If you're going to apply yourself to the theory then it's either one or the other... there is no in between. I think the vagueness comes into play because individual people are more complex than the theory. Why do you think people do not understand this?

Because people love categories and can't accept the fact that the world doens't strictly conform to their little lists.

[UDP]

You don't even need to answer these questions in a post. My point is, I think you're taking for granted a whole lot of things when those assumptions simply can't be counted on.

Then why bother with the theory at all?


What I'm getting at is, for practical purposes - as in, actually using the theory - there are the differentiation of the functions. There are extrapolations and theories based off the order of the functions. The theory has 16 types and 8 functions. That's just how it is. You can question the functions all you want, but as far as actually using it goes, you have to accept that they are differences.

Yeah, everyone values all the functions. Yeah, people are very similar - but that is not the point. It's like you are looking at the theory, outside, from the perspective is reality. There is nothing wrong with that of course. What I am stressing in this thread is that you have to look at reality from the perspective of the theory, too. In other words, you actually have to "get inside the head of the theory", and understand what it is like to view things via the lens of socionics.

I hope that makes sense.

The title of this thread is "My problem with....". Why is it a problem to you, if your goal is just to address the process and generate discussion?

Because I'm a negativist
Seriously, I wanted to take an opportunity to express my "grievances" with some things I am seeing, and see what people have to say in response - thus "my problem with...". Don't worry about it too much. And maybe we're going on a tangent, I really don't know.

[xyz]

I think the quickest way to choose between two types is compare duals. BUT, you can't actually pick between duals unless you've interacted with enough people to recognize what duality actually "feels" like, what your dual's personality is like as compared with other types (esp. sort of similar relations like semi-duality and illusionary). It's not enough just to imagine what your perfect relationship would be like because most of the time what we think we want is different from what we will actually tune into.

Hey Baby, if it doesn't derail this thread too much, just how does this duality 'feel' like anywho?

[FDG]

UDP, you're dead wrong. There is such a thing as an EJ-Te that has no strong preference for Ni or Si (again, at every moment in time there is always a preference for one or the other, but I think that types are analyzed over a continuum).

I think you haven't gone sufficiently in-depth in your knowledge of socionics, this is why you think types are such clear-cut entities.

Baby: the dual-comparison works perfectly when deciding between quasi-identicals for example (and also searching for the renin dichotomies uncommon between the two quasis), but it doesn't work that well when dealing with look-a-likes of adjacent subtypes.

[Ms. Kensington]

It's not enough just to imagine what your perfect relationship would be like because most of the time what we think we want is different from what we will actually tune into.

assuming what you tune into most is your perfect relationship

/end nitpicking

[UDP]

UDP, you're dead wrong. There is such a thing as an EJ-Te that has no strong preference for Ni or Si (again, at every moment in time there is always a preference for one or the other, but I think that types are analyzed over a continuum).

Really?
Then what is it?
What type is it?
It doesn't have a quadra, or not quadra values.
You make it sound like there is just pure Te, when functions are always blocked and paired - Te with Si, or Te with Ni. And so on and so forth.

- Yes, I understand what you are getting at, in relation to what you say below. But do you understand why I am stressing that entities are "clear cut" ?

I think you haven't gone sufficiently in-depth in your knowledge of socionics, this is why you think types are such clear-cut entities.

I think you are not understanding why I am bringing these things up.
Do you understand why I am saying what I am saying?



PS: Eh, I'm not sure this is really going to lead anywheres. I'll come back later to see if I can sort things out, but, we'll see.

[FDG]

As I said, functions are always blocked. Yet, if a person over a period of 1 month shows equal usage of Te blocked with Si and Te blocked with Ni, we can call him a Te-EJ.

[marooned]

I think that if conformed to classical socionics, a Te-EJ type is either an ENTj or and ESTj (not in between). However, what the type shows strong preference for is Te, and the preference for Si or Ni is then not as pronounced. The Te-ENTj and the Te-ESTj may appear to be very similar due to the strong preference for Te.

I do think that subtypes are helpful.

Which is closer?

ESTj-Si
ESTj-Te

ENTj-Ni
ENTj-Te

What's very clear about the Te-EJ is that it is Te leading, and is then either Gamma or Delta.

The ENTj-Ni may appear more distinctly Gamma... and could possibly be confused with the INTp (but is at least restricted to a single quadra). In the same way the ESTj-Si may appear more distinctly Delta.

It's not that the Te-EJ type is somehow between quadras. Just that it's more difficult to type it by quadras due to the strong Te preference.

Perhaps the idea of subtypes remedies the problem with dividing everyone into 16 distinct types.

In any case, I don't think following a process like that below is always the best way to find ones type.

[UDP]

As I said, functions are always blocked. Yet, if a person over a period of 1 month shows equal usage of Te blocked with Si and Te blocked with Ni, we can call him a Te-EJ.

But he really isn't, is he?
He really is either LSE or LIE, right?

I mean, in terms of regular classical socionics, without subtypes or whatever types. I mean, I have never met anyone who really shows no preference, so I cannot say. The people who come closest are generally unhealthy.

And I mean, carrying that out.....
The person would also have to show no preference for Se or Si. He would equally have to be a victim and caregiver. He would equally have to have both delta and gamma values. And so on and so forth. It is not just Te blocked with Si; the entire functional ordering of someone influences how they act.

So when you change one function, you are not changing "just one function", you are changing the entire order, and thus the entire type. Every time.

That is one problem I wanted to talk about, so it's good that it comes up here. You can say I am a novice in my understanding if you like, but this is still an issue I see - how people can just "think" they are changing one function. Yet they are not. It is not even just a switch between two functions, it is the whole type, and everything that is related to that.

[FDG]

You're just using one set of definition, caregiver-victim which is based on Si-Ni. We could equally make a new category based on Te-Fe and call it "orderer" and "emoter", for instance.

[consentingadult]

Because I'm a negativist
Seriously, I wanted to take an opportunity to express my "grievances" with some things I am seeing, and see what people have to say in response - thus "my problem with...". Don't worry about it too much. And maybe we're going on a tangent, I really don't know.

Got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, perhaps??

[XoX]

UDP, seriously...wtf? Do I have to remind you of your writings when you thought you were INTj for a quite a long time. Glorifying ESFjs and quoting parts of INTj descriptions in your sig. Or those times when you were wondering if you are ISTj instead. Now you are ESTj? If someone can be so sure of being INTj, wondering about being ISTj and finally switching to ESTj then I can't see how that person can complain about "how people change types". Get real will you? People live and learn and eventually settle at something. I totally CAN'T see where you are coming from. If you ever end up changing your type AGAIN I will keep quoting this crap for you.

[UDP]

[XoX]

Am I missing something here..? I basically only read the first post...did I misinterpret it or something???

[UDP]

Yes.

But don't worry, hkkmr thinks I have low self esteem, so you're not alone in being off the mark.

You're insecure, you project, and you really do not know yourself very well. You have a neurosis about your type.
These are all my subjective opinions so learn to live with it.

I'm sure you'll say something about how you don't care about what other people think, but I think you really really do. And that's probably really affecting your self-esteem right at this moment

I suppose that deserves a too.

[Ms. Kensington]

sounds right to me but it's still funny.

[marooned]

I don't know UDP, I admit. But, um, I think people may be misinterpretting him at least slightly. I think "you all" (yes, all of you) just like to pick on him because he's so *serious*. Frankly I have no problem seeing him as LSE atm. And no problem with how many type threads he's had. And I think the possibility of UDP being EII is ridiculous. (I know you were *all* thinking he was EII). I also believe that every one of you (that means "you all") will misinterpret my post, especially UDP (because he will take it very seriously). I really feel that the brain on socionics picture is fitting though (I mean in general, as regards all of us).

[UDP]

@ hkkmrs quote of me

What, I'm not allowed to point out when people act like morons? Everyone else does.


As for your claims here, look, you've said before that you actually dislike me. Why should your actions have any value to me? And for someone who is supposedly aware of esteem issues, how you are going about it sure indicates that you are just saying things to get your jollies out of a situation. You're not being serious, you're just trying to be damaging.

It's really working too, mhm.

[marooned]

I don't think UDP is EII.

But I was addressing the collective "you all." How dare you identify yourself as a seperate individual apart from the collective!

[munenori2]

Loki, you are a very kind person. I'm glad you're here.