Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 201

Thread: Lev Kamensky's brainstorming factory

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Lev Kamensky's brainstorming factory

    -I-

    1. Each individual is a combination of all sixteen psychological types (archetypes) in different percentages. If you are 50% INTj and 50% INTp for instance, what it means is that you will act as INTj in 50% of the situations and an INTp in 50 % of the situations.

    2. Pedro asks: If you are 50% INTJ and 50% INTP then your dual would be 50% ESFJ and 50% ESFP. What if in all the situations in which you act as INTJ the dual acts as ESFP and when you act as INTP they act as ESFJ?

    3. Than strictly speaking they are NOT your “Dual”, but your “Conflictor”. Although he may have the same GENERAL appearance as your dual.

    4. If you are a fairly even mixture of different types, your Dual will not simply be someone who ha a complimentary type to yours, but someone who acts in a way complimentary to how you act in every situation.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    99
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    does this throw Model A out the window? and if it doesn't (or using some other psychological TIM model), how does it handle the reception and conversion of information?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    whatever it is, it isn't socionics.
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not until we come up with a better model.
    As a crude example, if you are 50% INTp and 50% INTj, than Ni will act as your program function 50% of the time and your demonstrative function 50% of the time.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    not to be rude, or maybe to be, but i disagree completely with this split type 'thing'. it makes absolutely no sense at all, isn't backed up with evidence, and doesn't have a theory behind it to confirm it. use the scientific method. but brainstorming is good....
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by admin
    whatever it is, it isn't socionics.
    Thank you for your comment.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by admin
    not to be rude, or maybe to be, but i disagree completely with this split type 'thing'. it makes absolutely no sense at all, isn't backed up with evidence, and doesn't have a theory behind it to confirm it. use the scientific method. but brainstorming is good....
    there is no scientific evidence that type is fixed, and that a person has only one inborn type. that is pure theosophy.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    there is also no scientific evidence of libido, introversion, extraversion, the id, the ego, or the superego
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't need to prove to anyone that my opinion is THE truth. I am sure if you research you will find that I am right. But I am quite content to state it as my opinion. But you don't have a right to call it baseless until you show me that your version of Socionics is well substantiated.

    I don't see any point in wasting our time in stupid debates. We should accept and respect one another's points of view.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by admin
    there is also no scientific evidence of libido, introversion, extraversion, the id, the ego, or the superego


    so you ask me for scientific proof? a double standard? it is just a theory based on impirical observations. if it works for you -- use it, if it does not, don't. but don't trash it.

    as i said, i CAN prove everything i say. but i am not trying to.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i am trying to make the theory more realistic, not reality more theoretical, i know that will displease people who wish that there was a quick fix solution to all their problems called duality.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    99
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    1. do you have any other resources that can provide background for this (like the Full Map of Personality Test alluded to in another thread)?

    2. do you consider type/structural psychological differences to be inborn whatsoever?

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    1. Most of them are in Russian. Both of Talanov's tests were translated to English. Ask Dmitri Lytov about them.

    2.a. I think there are several factors in Type. I think Rationalit/Irrationality and Thinking/Feeling preferences are inborn. They form the "Physical" Type that Jung mentioned:

    “One man, who was 36 years old, came to me with a neurosis of the heart. He was a strong extravert, while his wife was overly, pathologically introverted. They got divorced. Than he married an extremely extraverted woman, and his cardio-neurosis vanished. He suddenly turned into a typical feeling introvert—which in fact was his real type. This man was a successful self-made entrepreneur, who made his way up from the very bottom. His natural introversion was suppressed by his unceasing struggle for success, and his iron will. This led to a marriage with an introverted woman, for which he paid with a cardio-neurosis”.

    I think a person's temperament may change gradually throughout his lifetime, usually to the dual temperament.

    Than what remains is pretty much flexible. Of course minor variations in all these preferences are constant. There are elements in type that are like the skeletal system and there are others that can be stretched, grown, or cut like muscles.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Typewatchers type Jung as INFJ (INFp), Socionists type him as INTj. So which one was he? He does seem to have the features of a typical Robespierre, ascetic appearance, dignified pensive look... and his lifetime's work seems like a harmonious system, a complete philosophy of life. His favorite philosopher Emanuel Kant -- a typical Robespiere (an identity partner usually picks up where the other left off) according to Jung himself:

    "Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counter-example of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general."

    On the other hand the only type description where he mentions subtypes is the Introverted Intuitive:

    "The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition. As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and -- in the case of a productive artist-the shaping of perception. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle. [p. 509]
    If an artist, he reveals extraordinary, remote things in his art, which in iridescent profusion embrace both the significant and the banal, the lovely and the grotesque, the whimsical and the sublime. If not an artist, he is frequently an unappreciated genius, a great man 'gone wrong', a sort of wise simpleton, a figure for 'psychological' novels.
    Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the purely ćsthetic into the moral sphere. A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its ćsthetic form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive."


    The type we are usually most interested in, and know best is our own. I can identify four subtypes in my own type (also INFp).

    Something else typical for an INFp, he writes: “The teacher pretended that Algebra was a perfectly natural affair, to be taken for granted, whereas I didn’t even know what numbers were. Mathematics classes became sheer torture and terror for me. I was so intimidated by my incomprehension, that I didn’t dare to ask any questions”

    I failed Algebra in middle school. My mother, an INTj finished school with a gold medal, which means she had As in all the subjects.

    Was Jung an INTj or an INFp? Undoubtably he had both INTj and INFp traits. He probably was like 35% INTj and 25% INFp. He was Jung.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    99
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    what i'm taking out of this is that there is a skeletal, persistant psychological type.. and there are learned types, being manifestations of how a person believes he should think and act in a situation, based on ten zillion factors that i don't have the intelligence to process.

    i guess typology is merely a system of classification, and making subclassifications based on what a person has "become" helps explain inconsistencies in the generalizations, but i'm more interested in how and why they learn things (using psychological models as the fundamental basis) than displaying what they learned. gotta have that before i can conscientiously accept a one-size-fits-all theory as practical.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quoting from “Introducing Psychology: “Although we often use the word “prove” in everyday life, strictly speaking NOTHING CAN BE PROVED. This is simply because NO amount of evidence is sufficient – there is always a possibility of new, conflicting evidence.

    A cartoon follows: Once there was a Theory that all swans were white…But then Black Swans were discovered…No-one yet found a Spotted Swan…

    So, just collecting lots of data to SUPPORT a Theory is of limited use: a good Scientist looks for evidence to DISPROVE a Theory.

    Science is a bit like Law: even in court, it’s not possible to PROVE someone is guilty – only that they are, “beyond reasonable doubt”. There have been many convictions where later evidence has led to a reversal!

    In “Science”, we can also never be certain that a Theory is “correct” or “true” – we therefore prefer to think of a Theory as being USEFUL, until a better one comes along. Newton’s Theory of Gravity (attraction of objects) was replaced by Einstein’s Theory of Gravity (distortions in space).”

    I prefer to think of Jung’s methodology or Socionics as useful (living symbols), rather than absolute truth:

    “An expression, which stands for a known thing, is a sign, and never a symbol. A symbol is alive only so long as it is “pregnant” with meaning. Once the meaning has been born out of it - the expression is found which formulates the thing sought, expected, or divined even better then the symbol - it becomes a conventional sign for associations that are more completely or better known elsewhere. (Or it retains only a historical significance)

    Any psychic product, if it is the best possible expression at the moment for a fact as yet unknown or only relatively known, may be regarded as a symbol, provided that we accept it as the expression for something that is only divined, and not yet clearly conscious.

    Since every scientific theory contains a hypothesis, and is therefore an anticipatory description of something still essentially unknown, it is a symbol.”
    “A symbol really lives only when it is the best and highest expression of something divined but not yet known to the observer. It then compels his unconscious participation and has a life-giving and life-enhancing effect.” ((Jung))

    So what I am saying is let's not get fanatical about theories. They may not make sense -- but symbols never do:

    "Such products are so constituted that they would lack any kind of meaning were not a symbolic one conceded to them.

    Taken as a bare fact, a triangle with an eye enclosed in it is so meaningless that it is impossible for the observer to regard it as a mere accidental piece of foolery. Such a figure immediately conjures up a symbolic interpretation." ((Jung))

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    99
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    and what is different between "typewatchers" and socionists anyhow?

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "but i'm more interested in how and why they learn things (using psychological models as the fundamental basis) than displaying what they learned."

    i don't quite understand what you mean.

    "gotta have that before i can conscientiously accept a one-size-fits-all theory as practical."

    How practical it is depends on how practical and realistic you are. It is just a tool -- you are the artist.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trey
    and what is different between "typewatchers" and socionists anyhow?
    Typewatching = MBTI

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default the difference...

    Socionists had better type descriptions. (Ti)
    MBTI was more effective at type diagnosis. (Te)

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "what i'm taking out of this is that there is a skeletal, persistant psychological type.. and there are learned types, being manifestations of how a person believes he should think and act in a situation"

    that seems logical. not a whole four letter type may be skeletal but some of the preferences.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    OK, but the learned types effect type relations just as the skeletal one does.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    since what is ultimately relevant to relationships is how a person acts.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    this learned type theory is not only not socionics, it is not mbti or jung compatible. the 'subtypes' someone mentioned from Jung were originally of the 8 types (ie introverted thinker), which he later found the auxillary function and there were 16 types.

    your theory sounds like it comes from someone who knows a little bit about mbti in america(which is quite a few people), people who say they are two types in one etc. they misunderstand the artificial dichotomies of i/e and j/p(or irr/rat if you prefer). socionics's model(of which your theory is not compatible) is built on compatible with jung's model and that information metabolism model, yet your 'theory' or whatever uses the MBTI four letter acronyms in percentages. a common mbti person's mistake is associating the mbti acronym with the personality traits of the ego functions(due to mbti's descriptions), while socionics model shows all of the traits in different functions and metrics for decision making.
    According to Jung and to Socionics and Information Metabolism, types/information metabolisms/whatever DO NOT CHANGE EVER, it is their development which tends change based on age. typically the first function of the information metabolism is developed first, followed by the secondary in the teenage years, the third and fourth being developed later on (being 5th and 6th in socionics model, well close, you get my point). Nobody seems to use age as a reference point for their type analysises of dead people, pulling quotes or behavior from all areas of a person's life and making up a type based on that. it's nearly impossible to determine a dead person's type(and impossible to verify it), I don't understand why people type dead persons.

    Basically your theory doesn't have the foundation of socionics, which has the foundations of jung and information metabolism). you are starting with scratch with your new theory, however valid it may be. but you make yourself sound silly using socionics types in MBTI four letter acronym nomenclature. develop your own nomenclature, or use jung's, but don't use his theory, because its not compatible with yours as I can see it.

    and please, log in or something who knows who guest is anyways
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ”your theory sounds like it comes from someone who knows a little bit about mbti in america”

    You are out of your mind. I already told you that the mixed type theory comes from Russia. Yes there are many ways of looking at things, and an educated open minded person knows how to shift perspectives. No one perspective has a monopoly on truth. Jung’s own theory was a synthesis of Freud’s and Adler’s perspective. (I’ve read hundreds of Socionics articles; tens of Socionics books; tens of MBTI/Kiersey/Type watching books; tens of other books on psychological type, unrelated to MBTI/Socionics; tens of Jung’s works; tens of books and articles on analytical (Jungian) psychology; books by Von Franz; books on Neurophysiology, behaviorism, and tens of thousands of articles on human behavior. And I found that they are all related, like islands that are all really peaks of a single underwater mountain range.)

    “(which is quite a few people), people who say they are two types in one etc.”

    That is just a crude example, each individual is a combination of all the 16 types (archetypes) in different percentages. I wasn’t talking about split types that are mentioned by some students of Type Watching.

    “they misunderstand the artificial dichotomies of i/e and j/p(or irr/rat if you prefer).”

    Artificial dichotomies? they are the major dichotomies. Read Jung. Everything you are saying is directly in opposition to everything he wrote, which is why I get a feeling you never read what he wrote.

    “According to Jung and to Socionics and Information Metabolism, types/information metabolisms/whatever DO NOT CHANGE EVER”

    Prove that Jung said that. I’ve just quoted where he said that it can change. Jung never spoke of information metabolism buddy. I don’t think you read Jung. Most people in the U.S. lack the reading comprehension skills to understand what he wrote, so they only know “Jung” from poor secondary sources (pop psychology).

    “it is their development which tends change based on age. typically the first function of the information metabolism is developed first, followed by the secondary in the teenage years, the third and fourth being developed later on (being 5th and 6th in socionics model, well close, you get my point). Nobody seems to use age as a reference point for their type analysises of dead people, pulling quotes or behavior from all areas of a person's life and making up a type based on that. it's nearly impossible to determine a dead person's type(and impossible to verify it), I don't understand why people type dead persons.”

    Well, than according to your own one-track, black and white, either or kind of reasoning you have no business in Socionics, because the very acronyms of types are based on the typing of dead people.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Pedro-The-Lion, you don't understand the concept of shared resources. Energy available to the brain is a limited resource. If it is spent on the development of one function, than there isn't enough to feed another function. That's why if the Amygdala say gets developed, the Neocortex must be suppressed or visa versa.

  27. #27
    Creepy-Waddles W.

    Default

    It was always my understanding that this forum was for people to discuss socionics, perhaps gaining a better understanding and sharing knowledge. A sort of, say, informational exchange.

    how does making a person feel like their opinions are worthless help anyone?

    no one will like your theory if you insult them.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another factor is that by its very nature the Feeling function is opposed to Thinking and Intuition to Sensation. You can't sit down and stand up at the same time, just as you can't look at details and the overall picture at the same time or respond emotionally without interrupting a chain of thought.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jesus christ, I was trying to provide constructive criticism for you but you mistook it as a personal insult. Let me clarify and return the favor.

    Quote Originally Posted by LK
    ”your theory sounds like it comes from someone who knows a little bit about mbti in america”
    That was a suggestion about how your theory sounds on our forums, from an American perspective. I know you are intellegent and well read, I am telling you how it sounds, and why you are being critiked(sp). Let me say it again. I understand your theory is not what it sounds like. I am telling you how it sounds from my perspective as an American with most people I talk to knowing MBTI and reading lots of MBTI forums and the confusion around MBTI. I was giving you a new perspective that you did not have before. It was constructive criticism. Sorry if it didn't seem that way.


    Quote Originally Posted by LK
    You are out of your mind. I already told you that the mixed type theory comes from Russia. Yes there are many ways of looking at things, and an educated open minded person knows how to shift perspectives. No one perspective has a monopoly on truth. Jung’s own theory was a synthesis of Freud’s and Adler’s perspective. (I’ve read hundreds of Socionics articles; tens of Socionics books; tens of MBTI/Kiersey/Type watching books; tens of other books on psychological type, unrelated to MBTI/Socionics; tens of Jung’s works; tens of books and articles on analytical (Jungian) psychology; books by Von Franz; books on Neurophysiology, behaviorism, and tens of thousands of articles on human behavior. And I found that they are all related, like islands that are all really peaks of a single underwater mountain range.)
    Yes, I've read Jung's works, I'm not a complete dumbass. Thanks for the personal insult. Jung's typology came from his curiosity from knowing Adler, Freud, and seeing different approaches from each. That's in his books. It sounds like you are well read. Much more well read than I. You may have perspectives that we do not, and do not have access to(Socionics books).


    Quote Originally Posted by LK
    “(which is quite a few people), people who say they are two types in one etc.”

    That is just a crude example, each individual is a combination of all the 16 types (archetypes) in different percentages. I wasn’t talking about split types that are mentioned by some students of Type Watching.
    I was completing my comment about how your theory sounds from American dumbass typewatchers like myself. I do find it interesting the archetype bit, they aren't discussed here. It does seem logical that we would have archetypes for each of the 16 types, named or not. "Control freak", "Hippie", etc. I now know you weren't talking about split types and I'm glad you weren't, as I would be more apt to listen to your growing idea/theory. But I wanted to mention nomenclature is very important.


    Quote Originally Posted by LK
    “they misunderstand the artificial dichotomies of i/e and j/p(or irr/rat if you prefer).”

    Artificial dichotomies? they are the major dichotomies. Read Jung. Everything you are saying is directly in opposition to everything he wrote, which is why I get a feeling you never read what he wrote.
    This site wouldn't exist if I had never read Jung. In fact, I personally feel that Freud and Jung had serious (classic socionics) quasi-identical types, from reading the last letters between Jung and Freud.
    They was referring to who we are calling the "Type Watchers" of (mostly) America, and I was referring to the MBTI four letter acronym(ISTP for example) feeds into the mind of the typical "Type Watcher" that J/P is a major dichotomy, (thought by some "Type Watchers") that it is changable and they think they are "INTX" or something of the sort.
    My feelings on I/E and J/P are that J/P are artificial dichotomies in the testing sense. I think you may agree with me that a test that tried to determine if a person was I/E, then S/N, then T/F, then J/P (like the MBTI) would have a horrible time getting correct answers for the J/P question. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel testing just if a person is Judging(Rational) or Percieving(Irrational) is a horrible way to do it, and MBTI should be shot out the door in favor of a more intellegent morphing test which tests for socionics types (or Jung types) instead of testing for artificial dichotomies. Now I/E, the first and most famous(and probably the most recognizable) dichotomy is much easier to test for, but then again, although it's the most apparent and accepted personality dichotomy, in the "Jung type" sense, ie Introverted Sensing, Extraverted Thinking, it is an artificial dichotomy. A dichotomy, valid and visible, but artificial in the Jung type(final type theory) sense. I may be wrong, because I think I just convinced myself otherwise
    Quote Originally Posted by LK
    “According to Jung and to Socionics and Information Metabolism, types/information metabolisms/whatever DO NOT CHANGE EVER”

    Prove that Jung said that. I’ve just quoted where he said that it can change. Jung never spoke of information metabolism buddy. I don’t think you read Jung. Most people in the U.S. lack the reading comprehension skills to understand what he wrote, so they only know “Jung” from poor secondary sources (pop psychology).
    Yes, perhaps I was wrong. Jung definately never spoke of information metabolism, but Ausha coincided the information metabolism work with Jung's types and is part of the basis for Socionics.
    Perhaps I pissed you off, but this seems unfair(and remember alot of our visitors are dumb Americans):
    Most people in the U.S. lack the reading comprehension skills to understand what he wrote, so they only know “Jung” from poor secondary sources (pop psychology).
    This is probably true, but also probably true anywhere else. Not true for me though, I have a Jung book 4 feet away.


    Quote Originally Posted by LK
    “it is their development which tends change based on age. typically the first function of the information metabolism is developed first, followed by the secondary in the teenage years, the third and fourth being developed later on (being 5th and 6th in socionics model, well close, you get my point). Nobody seems to use age as a reference point for their type analysises of dead people, pulling quotes or behavior from all areas of a person's life and making up a type based on that. it's nearly impossible to determine a dead person's type(and impossible to verify it), I don't understand why people type dead persons.”

    Well, than according to your own one-track, black and white, either or kind of reasoning you have no business in Socionics, because the very acronyms of types are based on the typing of dead people.
    You seemed to have sized me up exactly! Thanks for not letting your personal anger towards my constructive criticism get in the way of your analysis, and I'm officially changing what I believe my type to be from INTJ to "one-track, black and white, either or kind of reasoning" type. Thanks.


    BTW On the topic of dead people, and Socionic's Eastern though based "archetype famous dead person" names for their types, unless I've misunderstood the translated material in the Socionics gazetta, isn't that practice gone because of a convincing article in the Socionics Gazetta where they concluded their "archetype" information metabolism type was in fact a different type completely? Was it Caesar? Or Napolean?? Please help me out here I can't retranslate all that stuff again to find out.
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddles W.
    It was always my understanding that this forum was for people to discuss socionics, perhaps gaining a better understanding and sharing knowledge. A sort of, say, informational exchange.

    how does making a person feel like their opinions are worthless help anyone?

    no one will like your theory if you insult them.
    Waddles, I am not here to please anyone. You mess with the bull you get the horn. Go on, check who started the verbal mudslinging.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    Quote Originally Posted by Waddles W.
    It was always my understanding that this forum was for people to discuss socionics, perhaps gaining a better understanding and sharing knowledge. A sort of, say, informational exchange.

    how does making a person feel like their opinions are worthless help anyone?

    no one will like your theory if you insult them.
    Waddles, I am not here to please anyone. You mess with the bull you get the horn. Go on, check who started the verbal mudslinging.
    Maybe this was just a miscommunication(hey, this is Socionics, we're supposed to understand that sort of thing, right?). We'll see.
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, some things you wrote appear pretty bizarre to me too. Nevertheless I refrained from calling it nonsense, because I usually investigate something before judging it, and at any rate I respect you enough to give you the benefit of the doubt for holding the opinions that you do.

    Can you imagine how much time we would waste if we had to prove every single word we say with complete quotes and references, and debate over every single idea? Personally if I am going to prove something, I rather do it in an article or a book, so I can get paid for my time and effort. That's why I think we should just informally share opinions rather than trying to change one another's opinion.

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Actually J/P (Rationality/Irrationality) is a much more significant dichotomy than Introversion-Extraversion.

    Introversion-Extraversion is related to temperament.

    Rationality-Irrationality is related to the physical type, i.e. brain centers.

    You can change your version, but not your ality.

    Even your dual type has the same ality (life rhythm) as you.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For me feeling the oats does not stop at 23 or 33. Because I am the type that feels the oats for the sake of feeling the oats (to you psych majors, I am an irrational type). I am the type that is looking to enjoy the cubic content of the oats, rather than just satiate my hunger with them. While for rational types the “perceiving” centers of the brain are merely responsible for separating the useful information from the useless, in irrational types they take on the function of playing with “glass beads”, playing with the information for fun. Information gathering becomes not merely a means but an autonomous need. (This can be a weakness when an irrational, particularly an irrational introvert has to solve practical problems. He tends to habitually absorb too much information, and the bottom line – that which is the most important consideration, gets lost in the plethora of knowledge. Meanwhile, for introverted rationals, once the experience is gained and a useful lesson is learned, more similar experiences are no longer necessary.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    And the second biggest devision according to the results of Talanov's research group is between Feeling and Thinking. Even Intuition and Sensation are either Feeling (Humanitarian) Intuition or Thinking (Scientific) Intuition; and Feeling (Social-Hedonistic) Sensation or Thinking (Technological-Pragmatic) Sensation.

    That's the reason for function distances:
    Humanitarian Intuition is N -, Scientific is N +
    Hedonistic Sensation is S +, Pragmatic is S -

    Being a Feeler, I tend to start with the most complex solution possible (unlike the thinker who starts with the simplest possible solution to the problem, and progress to the more complex only if necessary). I am not only looking to solve the problem itself, but to necessarily find an elegant solution.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    These two dichtonomies have a MAJOR impact on a person's life. They define his life rhythm.

    The next biggest thing is probably Staticism-Dynamicism. What it is basically is how sensetive or thick skinned you are. Static types seek arousal because they are underaroused. They are also more calm under pressure than dynamic types. Dynamic types are more sensitive to nuances, Static types tend to not "get stuck on trivia" (subtypes dilema).

    The next in the ladder of importance is probably Sensation-Intuition.

    The last is probably Introversion/Extraversion. It flactuates constantly. Depressed people are more introverted. Introversion can be described as passivity, and Extraversion as aggression. The same person may be passive in certain situations and aggressive in others. Both of these processes coexist.

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So I speculate Extraversion-Introversion is the most superfecial dichtonomy and Rationality-Irrationality -- the most skeletal.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not to be confused with observability. Introversion - Extraversion is much more observable than Rat-Irrat

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "I was completing my comment about how your theory sounds from American dumbass typewatchers like myself. I do find it interesting the archetype bit, they aren't discussed here. It does seem logical that we would have archetypes for each of the 16 types, named or not. "Control freak", "Hippie", etc. I now know you weren't talking about split types and I'm glad you weren't, as I would be more apt to listen to your growing idea/theory. But I wanted to mention nomenclature is very important."

    OK... just think of it as a 16 dimensional space. Each individual has a unique location in this space.

    The nomenclature is fine because you can see each TIM as a sum of its parts or as a whole (archetype).

  40. #40
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Where can more information on function distances be found?

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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