Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: On the Social Dynamics of Socionics

  1. #1
    unefille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    841
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default On the Social Dynamics of Socionics

    This is long. And possibly an Fi dummy spit. And possibly a source of great regret. But also a useful way to procrastinate from writing my thesis: at least I'm writing.

    ON THE DOMINANT DISCOURSE OF SOCIONICS
    Or: Why I Find Forum Typing Abhorrent


    Socionics, like most things, has its own discourse. More importantly, the Socionics discussions on this forum follow a particular discourse. I’m not going to attempt to locate or identify the precise terms of this discourse, but I think it’s pretty clear that Ne-Ti, and particularly Ti in the argumentation of types and the determining of the logic of Socionics as a system, is the dominant discourse. Any dominant discourse operates by essentially determining the rules of the game. Here the rules of the game seem primarily to be Ti. People who offer suggestions of types are asked to explicate their reasoning with reference to the internal and established logic of the Socionics system, as opposed to any externally derived indices of social interaction. If they do the latter, they are shut down for insufficient understanding or ‘study’ of Socionics. I will deal with the privileging of internal logical consistency of a system in a later section.

    The problem (or at least, source) of any dominant discourse is an authoritative body or text. In this case, the authoritative text is located in the writings of the Russian socionists. Why do I point this out? I do so because the Socionics system and its beautiful and interconnecting nodes of knowledge which form coherent loops of logic does not exist ‘out there’ to be discovered and found, perfect as it is. It instead exists ‘in here’, in the minds of everyone who attempts to conceptualise it, grapple with it and apply it to their daily interactions with other people. Every time you rely on the definition of a function or a relation, you are not falling back upon a priori principles, but in fact artifices constructed by human understanding: imagined and invented concepts. That these concepts bear some resemblance (although not perfect, and this is the problem for Socionics) to reality as we perceive it does not mean that it is any less imagined or invented, simply that the imagining was well thought-out. The ‘fixing’ of a concept or idea is not natural, but comes about through mutual consent and agreement: that is, a social act fixes knowledge in place. Since Socionics is about social behaviour, I think it helps to be attuned to the social dynamics at work amongst people talking about Socionics as well.

    What does this have to do with the abhorrence of forum typing? My observations of forum typing indicate that, although some forum users attempt to actually help the person being typed, the majority of users simply post to reinforce the existing dominant discourse. They shut down alternative nodes of understanding or interpretation of the basics of Socionics, sometimes politely, but often rudely and belligerently. I refer specifically to the recent thread on Sean McCosker’s type as an example of this. When this happens, a specific interpretation becomes privileged above any other interpretation. This is particularly unhelpful when the shut down comes in the form of ‘No, you’re an idiot’ (refer to section below on argumentum ad hominem). When one considers what the system of Socionics is, such absolutist certainty is puzzling and bizarre. You are essentially saying: ‘According to this system, you have to be what you DO NOT identify with (what is unsaid is: ‘because I say so’). There are only two plausible explanations for this, frankly. Either you are an adherent to Gramsci's theory of ‘False Consciousness’ (say aye if you're a Marxist...) or you are elevating the internal logic of the system over its applicability in describing social behaviour, interaction and yes, people.

    On another point, and here I borrow from Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, the way people present themselves on a forum requires them to adopt certain means of communication that are valued (or accepted by the dominant discourse) and dispose of means of communication that have less effect, because of the presiding discourse. What I mean to say is that when typing someone on a forum, you’re typing them according to means of communication, whether word, picture or video. There is no direct access (it may be argued that there never is direct access). Socionics is all about modes of communication and trying to slot them into set categories, but when typing we need to take into account that people change the way they present themselves according to the circumstances they find themselves in. Socionically, that means when something in our ego-block is being attacked or unvalued, we resort to using weaker or unvalued functions in order to communicate with our surroundings. If this happens continuously over time, then we may exhibit strength in functions that should, according to our type, be weak. [I am not saying: this is my theory of Socionics. I’m saying that I have observed people who are strong in functions that are clearly not their ego-functions. I’m open to the possibility of the effects of learning. You may or may not be and that takes me to my next point.]


    ON THE UTILITY AND VALIDITY OF SOCIONICS
    Or: All This Talk and No Communication


    It seems to me that, somewhat brutishly, approaches to Socionics maybe divided into two: the first privileges the internal logic of Socionics (does it fit together as a coherent system?) and the second privileges the external world Socionics supposedly purports to explain or describe. Yes, we should study the system, but we should also be open to the possibility that the system is imperfect or incomplete and requires further consideration or elaboration or even alteration. Slavish devotion to the established canon of thought on Socionics is often self-defeating (to me), especially because a lot of people are attracted to the way in which Socionics can help them explain and better understand how they interact in their interpersonal relationships. It is a difference in emphasis and it alters entirely the way you use the system. Maybe on some level, this could be considered to be Te valuing over Ti valuing, though that may be a reductive description.

    The best of both worlds is a system that is adaptable and valid according to external indicators but also internally consistent, but to achieve this, we need a system that values input from all functions. What stuns me is the unproductive way in which people interact here with other people (is this Fi moralising? If so, I apologise for the hypocrisy that’s going to flow from the next few sentences). You cannot control the way other people act, but you can control how you act and communicate. And since Socionics gives us a roadmap to how different types might respond to us, surely at least in responding to individual people, you can avoid pissing them off. What is the point of knowing someone is Ti-PoLR if you’re just going to PoLR slap them anyway? It makes them slam down their defences and reduces productive engagement in the exercise at hand. Surely Socionics can’t be a guide to: ‘How To Use Your Ego Functions More Overtly and Piss People Off’ but a guide to help us understand where we’re going wrong in our interactions and accommodating other people’s functional preferences so that we can communicate more effectively. Or maybe I’m living in Utopia over here.
    ()
    3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp

  2. #2
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unefille View Post
    ....The best of both worlds is a system that is adaptable and valid according to external indicators but also internally consistent, but to achieve this, we need a system that values input from all functions.
    I don't necessarily think anything is wrong with "socionics" itself, (but that comes from my perspective of seeing socionics as only one tool, and as all tools, it is complete with strengths and limitations)

    ...although I don't have a set definition or cannon or anything like that which I'm using to define "socionics. I think, as you say below, that the real deal is that some people aren't aware of how their interactions with others are getting in the way of things.

    That being said, Socionics was developed by an ENTp to compensate for "Real " (Expat). So perhaps it does put a sort of inherent devaluing on "connecting with people" - but at the same time, we are on an internet forum. Many of us will never meet each other and interact in the same room, so that's a factor.


    What stuns me is the unproductive way in which people interact here with other people (is this Fi moralising? If so, I apologise for the hypocrisy that’s going to flow from the next few sentences). You cannot control the way other people act, but you can control how you act and communicate.
    Mhm

    And since Socionics gives us a roadmap to how different types might respond to us, surely at least in responding to individual people, you can avoid pissing them off. What is the point of knowing someone is Ti-PoLR if you’re just going to PoLR slap them anyway? It makes them slam down their defences and reduces productive engagement in the exercise at hand. Surely Socionics can’t be a guide to: ‘How To Use Your Ego Functions More Overtly and Piss People Off’ but a guide to help us understand where we’re going wrong in our interactions and accommodating other people’s functional preferences so that we can communicate more effectively. Or maybe I’m living in Utopia over here.
    I don't necessarily think people are intentionally using socionics information to harm others. Perhaps they are, but I just see a lack of focus on socionics.

    I see a focus on "winning" and "being right" and "promoting one's own thoughts" on things. I also see factional typing, some cases of group think, and other things that are more based on people's relationships. People defending friends, people carrying on old rivalries, people thinking it's proper to show disrespect or hate - more so when this is attributed to a certain function or type (note that I'm not promoting some buddy buddy place were we all get along and no one ever tells someone to go fuck someone else). It's really easy, as I have done, to rag on people of types that you don't like, and it's easy to get carried away in some sort of socionics-assisted rant. But one major thing I'm seeing is that people who aren't aware of their own personal biases and personal stakes and personal ego battles .... it affects their perception and utilization of socionics.

    I also see many who are legitimately working on trying to be objective and do things as best as possible, and they should be applauded for their efforts.

    I've actually gone back and forth many times about whether or not to stop or continue to instigate antagonizing behavior on my part. Sometimes it happens without thinking, a subconscious "Yeah, I'm going to put that sumbitch in his place", or just getting pissed off at someone or some thing. Sometimes I'm much more conscious of what is going on. As it stands right now, I see the problem, and I see in myself what is going on, so I'm trying to choose things that will be more productive. Some of it is about awareness, and then once you have that awareness, it's about the choice. Then, perhaps, it's about whether or not you want to accept your responsibility of how you are affecting everything else. If you don't really care, don't feel respected, don't see much incentive, then it's hard to accept that responsibility. Or, alternately, you could just be interested in promoting socionics understanding itself.
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  3. #3
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    I sincerely apologize that your Ti PoLR got hit. What would you have the INTjs do though? Begin typing by impressions and feelings rather than substantiate their ideas with TiNe arguments as they are naturally so inclined to do, given that socionics itself is based on Ne and Ti constructs?

    Naturally, we all look to real-life to observe intertype relations. It's in real-life where we observe that certain behavioural characteristics such as "leaning" are not exclusive to ISTps alone and we attempt to type said individuals by their motivations rather than on superficial appearances based on a few minutes of video footage.
    I'm not sure if this is Ti and hence Ti PoLR taking place, but however.
    Last edited by Cyclops; 08-16-2008 at 10:30 AM.

  4. #4
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unefille View Post
    Socionics, like most things, has its own discourse. More importantly, the Socionics discussions on this forum follow a particular discourse. I’m not going to attempt to locate or identify the precise terms of this discourse, but I think it’s pretty clear that Ne-Ti, and particularly Ti in the argumentation of types and the determining of the logic of Socionics as a system, is the dominant discourse. Any dominant discourse operates by essentially determining the rules of the game. Here the rules of the game seem primarily to be Ti. People who offer suggestions of types are asked to explicate their reasoning with reference to the internal and established logic of the Socionics system, as opposed to any externally derived indices of social interaction. If they do the latter, they are shut down for insufficient understanding or ‘study’ of Socionics. I will deal with the privileging of internal logical consistency of a system in a later section.
    When people ask you to prove something, I admit, it is difficult to distinguish those who actually want you to prove it (which I attribute to Te valuing types) and those who merely want to provoke you so that they can prove your ideas are wrong and theirs are right (Ti valuing types are prone to this conduct). As you've explained, Ti valuers start out with a world view, and regardless of how open-minded their comments sound, will always stick to their guns. Their aim is to convince you. In the case of Te types, it is about accumulating and handing out factual information. Te types are less concerned with convincing people, and more concerned with "letting others have it" (in this case, the information), and letting them make of it as they will. In this way, types such as Delta NFs and Gamma SFs feel no forceful indoctrination from the Te type; rather, they see someone who accommodates their needs (in this case, fact giving).

    The problem (or at least, source) of any dominant discourse is an authoritative body or text. In this case, the authoritative text is located in the writings of the Russian socionists. Why do I point this out? I do so because the Socionics system and its beautiful and interconnecting nodes of knowledge which form coherent loops of logic does not exist ‘out there’ to be discovered and found, perfect as it is. It instead exists ‘in here’, in the minds of everyone who attempts to conceptualise it, grapple with it and apply it to their daily interactions with other people. Every time you rely on the definition of a function or a relation, you are not falling back upon a priori principles, but in fact artifices constructed by human understanding: imagined and invented concepts. That these concepts bear some resemblance (although not perfect, and this is the problem for Socionics) to reality as we perceive it does not mean that it is any less imagined or invented, simply that the imagining was well thought-out. The ‘fixing’ of a concept or idea is not natural, but comes about through mutual consent and agreement: that is, a social act fixes knowledge in place. Since Socionics is about social behaviour, I think it helps to be attuned to the social dynamics at work amongst people talking about Socionics as well.
    This is a good point, although I'm not sure about socionics' not being a priori. I would've said that socionics is a perfect example of an a priori system; it certainly isn't related wholly to empirical experience (although to suggest that there are no empirical implications of socionics whatsoever would be ridiculous). What socionics is is a system rationalised by a single individual; an ILE, to be precise. Now, different types derive different things from said system. Take Rick, an IEE; pretty much our only decent link between the Russian socionics literature and the English-speaking socionics enthusiasts. Does he take his time perfecting the system with his Ti PoLR? Of course not. What Rick does is concentrate on the practical benefits of socionics, and the focus on relationships between people. An SLE would not use socionics in the same way. They would more likely use it to help explain what they themselves cannot, which is why certain people get along with some people and others do not.

    What does this have to do with the abhorrence of forum typing? My observations of forum typing indicate that, although some forum users attempt to actually help the person being typed, the majority of users simply post to reinforce the existing dominant discourse. They shut down alternative nodes of understanding or interpretation of the basics of Socionics, sometimes politely, but often rudely and belligerently. I refer specifically to the recent thread on Sean McCosker’s type as an example of this. When this happens, a specific interpretation becomes privileged above any other interpretation. This is particularly unhelpful when the shut down comes in the form of ‘No, you’re an idiot’ (refer to section below on argumentum ad hominem). When one considers what the system of Socionics is, such absolutist certainty is puzzling and bizarre. You are essentially saying: ‘According to this system, you have to be what you DO NOT identify with (what is unsaid is: ‘because I say so’). There are only two plausible explanations for this, frankly. Either you are an adherent to Gramsci's theory of ‘False Consciousness’ (say aye if you're a Marxist...) or you are elevating the internal logic of the system over its applicability in describing social behaviour, interaction and yes, people.
    You've basically just explained on some level your position on what I was talking about above. As an IEE (if indeed you are an IEE), you are far more interested in the practical applications of socionics and the knowledge of relationships that it brings than perfecting this vast system of understanding. What this tells me is that you are not valuing of Ti. In fact, unefille, I think you have a very good understanding of the essence of Ti, and have been able to explain skilfully why you have a problem with it. For this, I commend you. You stand out far beyond most other people here.

    On another point, and here I borrow from Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, the way people present themselves on a forum requires them to adopt certain means of communication that are valued (or accepted by the dominant discourse) and dispose of means of communication that have less effect, because of the presiding discourse. What I mean to say is that when typing someone on a forum, you’re typing them according to means of communication, whether word, picture or video. There is no direct access (it may be argued that there never is direct access). Socionics is all about modes of communication and trying to slot them into set categories, but when typing we need to take into account that people change the way they present themselves according to the circumstances they find themselves in. Socionically, that means when something in our ego-block is being attacked or unvalued, we resort to using weaker or unvalued functions in order to communicate with our surroundings. If this happens continuously over time, then we may exhibit strength in functions that should, according to our type, be weak. [I am not saying: this is my theory of Socionics. I’m saying that I have observed people who are strong in functions that are clearly not their ego-functions. I’m open to the possibility of the effects of learning. You may or may not be and that takes me to my next point.]
    Good point.

  5. #5
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Part 2

    It seems to me that, somewhat brutishly, approaches to Socionics maybe divided into two: the first privileges the internal logic of Socionics (does it fit together as a coherent system?) and the second privileges the external world Socionics supposedly purports to explain or describe. Yes, we should study the system, but we should also be open to the possibility that the system is imperfect or incomplete and requires further consideration or elaboration or even alteration. Slavish devotion to the established canon of thought on Socionics is often self-defeating (to me), especially because a lot of people are attracted to the way in which Socionics can help them explain and better understand how they interact in their interpersonal relationships. It is a difference in emphasis and it alters entirely the way you use the system. Maybe on some level, this could be considered to be Te valuing over Ti valuing, though that may be a reductive description.
    I want to point out that although this is perfectly valid point, an ILE (and thus Ti creative) such as JRiddy is also interested in this kind of thinking, which might point you to thinking about what exactly it is that makes people want to "improve" or "take a different approach to" socionics, if it is not related to Te or Ti.

    The best of both worlds is a system that is adaptable and valid according to external indicators but also internally consistent, but to achieve this, we need a system that values input from all functions. What stuns me is the unproductive way in which people interact here with other people (is this Fi moralising? If so, I apologise for the hypocrisy that’s going to flow from the next few sentences). You cannot control the way other people act, but you can control how you act and communicate. And since Socionics gives us a roadmap to how different types might respond to us, surely at least in responding to individual people, you can avoid pissing them off. What is the point of knowing someone is Ti-PoLR if you’re just going to PoLR slap them anyway? It makes them slam down their defences and reduces productive engagement in the exercise at hand. Surely Socionics can’t be a guide to: ‘How To Use Your Ego Functions More Overtly and Piss People Off’ but a guide to help us understand where we’re going wrong in our interactions and accommodating other people’s functional preferences so that we can communicate more effectively. Or maybe I’m living in Utopia over here.
    This is probably the best thing I've read since I arrived here last May. It makes a whole lot of sense, and it's completely worldly and down-to-earth. Besides your fluid, compelling style of writing, you also have a wisdom about you which is rarely seen in or demonstrated by others, and you know exactly how to provoke in others the kind of questions that need to be asked. I now have bundles of respect for you, unefille. (Man, I'm starting to think I'm Ne valuing. )

  6. #6
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ezra is delta, Ezra is delta. Ha haha haha ha.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  7. #7
    unefille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    841
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    I sincerely apologize that your Ti PoLR got hit. What would you have the INTjs do though? Begin typing by impressions and feelings rather than substantiate their ideas with TiNe arguments as they are naturally so inclined to do, given that socionics itself is based on Ne and Ti constructs?

    Naturally, we all look to real-life to observe intertype relations. It's in real-life where we observe that certain behavioural characteristics such as "leaning" are not exclusive to ISTps alone and we attempt to type said individuals by their motivations rather than on superficial appearances based on a few minutes of video footage.
    I personally don't mind being PoLR-slapped that much - I study law after all, I deal with Ti on a daily basis (although the common law is hardly pure logic... but that's another topic). I am advocating a personal position, which is that Ti is a valid system of thought, but that Ti opinions can be expressed in a more civil manner. It is much less 'don't use Ti' (because I would never argue that), but rather to explain the basis of your disagreement. Your original rejection of what I wrote I found a bit blunt, but I'm a big girl and can (and should be able to) handle it - but your explanation of the basis of that rejection here was a far less confronting way of saying the same thing. That goes for all functions - I picked Ti not simply because I have Ti PoLR or am still chaffing, but because Ti is much more relevant in argumentation than say, Si or Ni.
    ()
    3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp

  8. #8
    unefille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    841
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Part 2
    This is probably the best thing I've read since I arrived here last May. It makes a whole lot of sense, and it's completely worldly and down-to-earth. Besides your fluid, compelling style of writing, you also have a wisdom about you which is rarely seen in or demonstrated by others, and you know exactly how to provoke in others the kind of questions that need to be asked. I now have bundles of respect for you, unefille. (Man, I'm starting to think I'm Ne valuing. )
    I'm going to have a little Fe moment (I kid) and use emoticons: (and now, failing at even fake Fe - how do I make a blushing face?!)
    ()
    3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp

  9. #9
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here's one I found from the net:


  10. #10
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    I'm not sure if you recognize any of the information elements and the associated functional orderings present in individuals. This is the reason why I don't take you very seriously when you ask me to explain myself.

    Let me get this clear once and for all, Cyclops. I don't find your drivel form of comment to be intellectually stimulating. I'm at a complete loss as to why you continually hound me around the board when this ought to be clear to you. For the last time, I'm telling you to go and annoy someone else. I am placing you permanently on ignore.
    You're the individual who thinks that Ne is a function which has the description of "lengthy and vague." So perhaps you should first and foremost examine your own take on functions-before irrationally commenting on others (ie where is your proof to back up what you say?)

    You're inability to hold a socionic discussion is an issue resting with you, not with others.

    And why would you have the need to tell me I am going on ignore, if you were so unconcerned, you would just do it. The only person who can make you "annoyed" as you put it is yourself. Chill out and stop taking the defensive- it's a forum for discussion.

  11. #11
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @unefille: yes i hear you. i guess it would be hard to be a Ti polr type here. couple things though. we Ti ego types go through life not perceiving things related to relationships very well. as i'm sure you know very well, relationships are everything. socionics is a way to help us Ti types to understand relationships better. but you know what? it's hard to be any type here, not just an Fi type. the world's a rough place, and each type thinks it knows the answer to how things should really be.

    there are tons of Fi ego types at this forum. and they regularly Fi slap the Ti ego types. you just don't perceive it that way, since Fi is in your ego and you see it as friendly. we really don't see it as friendly to tell you the truth. take a look at one of diana's posts where she lambastes a Ti ego type. talk about a walk of shame! hahaha but you know well we've gotta be able to take it. it's just feedback, nothing else. i mean it's easy to get defensive and all, but really the forum is just an explicit microcosm of the world out there. and despite the fact that we may mix it up a little bit with y'all, it's all good.

    the point is that this theory is to help us with what comes quite naturally to you. and this theory can kind of help you to understand that other people's values may be different from your own. in fact, this is the chief way that i think ethical types can benefit from socionics; realizing how logical types think. the main benefit to logical types is realizing how relationships work and what's important to ethicals. bottom line is, if you really buy into this theory, then you know that people really can't much help their egos, can't really help being themselves all that much. i mean you can stretch and you can pull into your id functions, but bottom line is that you're never going to make a logical type ethical or an ethical type logical. not gonna happen.

    but we balance each other out. where would we be without a full socionics complement in the world? sometimes we ascribe more than we need to socionics interpretation and sometimes people are just plain rude and that might not have anything to do with socionics. but actually a lot of interaction here is completely appropriate to socionics interpretation.

    to be quite honest, i see your original post as being Fi valuing. which is fine. and you make great points. i don't see anything wrong with what you said. but your expectation that this forum should be easy might be seen as naive or unrealistic. how could the forum possibly be that easy, with all the members of the socion here, discussing issues, values and differences that are incendiary and loaded?

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unefille View Post
    Why do I point this out? I do so because the Socionics system and its beautiful and interconnecting nodes of knowledge which form coherent loops of logic does not exist ‘out there’ to be discovered and found, perfect as it is. It instead exists ‘in here’, in the minds of everyone who attempts to conceptualise it, grapple with it and apply it to their daily interactions with other people. Every time you rely on the definition of a function or a relation, you are not falling back upon a priori principles, but in fact artifices constructed by human understanding: imagined and invented concepts. That these concepts bear some resemblance (although not perfect, and this is the problem for Socionics) to reality as we perceive it does not mean that it is any less imagined or invented, simply that the imagining was well thought-out.
    Exactly, and I think this is forgotten all too often

  13. #13
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    The truth is that I don't know either whether smccosker is an ESTp or an ISTp or something else entirely.
    A few minutes? There was over twenty minutes of video footage. We type celebrities quite easily on two-minute interviews.

  14. #14
    misutii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,234
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Nice post unefille. "All this talk and no communication", very true. I think the main contributor to useless conflict over types on the forums is the limited means by which we can communicate our ideas - i.e. written words, pictures etc. but not actual human to human communication. Hence body language is unavailable and we become overly reliant on providing logical written proofs. It's especially difficult to communicate one's intuition about something or to establish a collective agreement on what behaviour is peculiar to a certain type because each time we try we end up creating a new sentence that communicates something that's been communicated before but that is written in a different way. Because it's written in a different way it's understood differently and prone to be misunderstood for what it's not. In RL this can be avoided, i.e. when I talk about socionics types to my friends we can spot a behaviour and be like "hey she reacts to [whatever the stimulus is] just like other people we've typed as having ego." Being able to communicate like this makes things so much easier because it's like an instant shortcut and doesn't involve regurgitating things once they've been established.

    I don't know if that made any sense but yah
    INFp-Ni

  15. #15
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Unefille, I really enjoyed reading that post and I like your writing style.

    Quote Originally Posted by unefille
    Socionics is all about modes of communication and trying to slot them into set categories, but when typing we need to take into account that people change the way they present themselves according to the circumstances they find themselves in.
    I am of the belief that regardless of how someone alters their behavior for a given setting, their true type still comes through. Someone with knowledge of how functions actually manifest will not be fooled by surface behavioral acts. And isn't that the point of socionics - to understand the cognitive patterns underlying behavior, rather than the behaviors themselves?

    So, if smccosker changed his behavior (which I firmly believe he did in each and every video, whether sub-consciously or not - he was trying to appear like an introvert, caregiver, etc...ugh), the people here who supposedly understand the principles of socionics accurately should have been typing him on what they saw to be underlying motivations and not just the fact that he was a dick.

    Just saying...
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  16. #16
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Allie
    lol nick. you thought i was my conflicting type even after talking to me for several months. obviously my true type didnt immediately come through.
    That doesn't detract from the point either way. Stop trying to garner attention.

    And you don't seem certain of your type, either
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  17. #17
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No one is claiming freedom from bias and preconception. And if you're dealing with a person who exhibits fluctuating behaviors, yet seems to know their type, you won't readily notice the differences as well, especially if you're not consciously trying to.

    I think we've learned from that example, so I don't know why it was brought up, given it's highly specific nature.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  18. #18
    Your DNA is mine. Mediator Kam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,481
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Allie View Post
    lol nick. you thought i was my conflicting type even after talking to me for several months. obviously my true type didnt immediately come through.
    Which I think is incredible. Everyone thought you were unique.
    D-SEI 9w1

    This is me and my dual being scientific together

  19. #19
    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 Ezra View Post
    When people ask you to prove something, I admit, it is difficult to distinguish those who actually want you to prove it (which I attribute to Te valuing types) and those who merely want to provoke you so that they can prove your ideas are wrong and theirs are right (Ti valuing types are prone to this conduct). As you've explained, Ti valuers start out with a world view, and regardless of how open-minded their comments sound, will always stick to their guns. Their aim is to convince you. In the case of Te types, it is about accumulating and handing out factual information. Te types are less concerned with convincing people, and more concerned with "letting others have it" (in this case, the information), and letting them make of it as they will. In this way, types such as Delta NFs and Gamma SFs feel no forceful indoctrination from the Te type; rather, they see someone who accommodates their needs (in this case, fact giving).
    That is good. I would just argue that it is more Beta types rather than Alpha who have an underlying aim of convincing others; I think that Alpha Ti types often compare their own ideas with someone else's for analysis's sake, or they dissect other people's ideas to show how they are wrong, but are not that concerned with persuading others.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

Posting Permissions

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