Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Curious

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Curious

    Well... I've been studying Socionics off and on for a few years, but I don't know if I understand it.

    I've studied the roles functions play, and the differences between the functions. I've only been left with a certainty of one thing... Socionic functions are similar to, but different from MBTI functions. But to be honest, I never understood those particularly well, either.

    The problem I have with typing, is that you can't infer enough from behavior. There are too many explanations for any particular behavior, so one has to look at the overall pattern. But the problem is, how do I know which data goes into the pattern, what's relevant to it and what's not? If I look at the same person from one perspective, they seem like one thing, and from another, they seem like another. How do I find the right one?

    I can usually feel fairly certain of one or two letters of another person's type. However, I don't trust my perception of my own type at all. I'm not really positive of anything.

    So, I'm going to go ahead and ask for opinions about what type I am, since there seem to be people here who get this better than I do.

  2. #2
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    Well, seeing as this is your first post and we don't know you, it'd be hard to type you right off the bat, but I do have an idea if you're willing. I want to test something. Could you look at these 8 statements and talk about which ones are most like you, least like you, what you like in other people, which seem so common and mundane that ANYone should be able to identify, etc. Plus whatever else you want to say about them. Just don't overthink them or try to guess what each is or anything like that. Just honest answers. (:
    Thanks, Diana. I'll do my best to answer these. Wish me luck.
    1) I see what could be, my thoughts run in scattered directions, web-like or branching. Rather than just see what is, I think of what might be. I see the potential in people or objects. Or, I'm more theoretical and intuitive and 'in my head, exploring the alternative trains of ideas and the what-could-bes' as opposed to being grounded in something more physical and tangible and forceful.
    Oh yeah, this is a lot like me. I think my best friends are a lot like this, too. Something about the description seems very comfortable.
    2) I am most aware of the physical world, what is, and observable qualities of a person/object. I don't get lost in what-ifs or could-bes, but see things as they are now. I easily size people up.
    Hmm... I don't relate to this much. It would be much closer to how I am if you reversed those statements, except the last one. I am pretty good at "sizing people up" in the sense of knowing rather quickly whether I'll like or trust them the moment I see them. I'm usually right about this. In most other senses, though, I'm probably not as good at that. People who are like this would probably be a little boring after a while, although I can see how it could be an advantage for someone to be this way in some situations.
    3) I see the direction things are headed, my thoughts run path-like or as vectors, and where something is leading is easy for me to determine, not as tangible physical connections, but in an intangible and intuitive way.
    Eh... somewhat. I'm not always like this, but when I am, I'm often right. It can be hard to trust this because it seems to come from nowhere for me, though I usually regret it if I don't trust it. This can sometimes be exaggerated, but usually in the right direction. I've met people like this, and they seemed strange, yet I felt I could trust them.
    4) I'm most aware of how physical things connect to each other, gears, aesthetics, machines, the human body etc. Cause and effect of tangible processes is easy and natural for me.
    I'd say I find people like this interesting once in a while, but not all the time. I think I can focus on this kind of thing and do okay with it, but it's really not my favorite thing to focus on.

    5) I have a very good feel for the connections between people/things, easily make value judgments or character determinations, and notice the closeness/distance between people.
    I wouldn't say VERY good, but I think I'm about average at doing this. Some people have told me I'm good at this, but I'm not sure if I really am. I do like to discuss these sorts of things on a regular basis, just to make sure I'm paying enough attention to it.
    6) I am very aware of the underlying process, what's going on 'beneath the surface' of an individual or group, and the 'vibes' or atmosphere of a group. The political atmosphere, or general sentiment is easy for me to pick up.
    Eugh. This makes me very uncomfortable. It seems completely unfair that some people think they have a right to judge me on my ability to perceive this, when I'm not even sure it exists. What I do perceive of it is always negative, and rarely correct. Being pressured by people who think like this, even on a forum, has been enough to make me cry, and start doing math problems or studying technical manuals compulsively to clear my head (even though I usually don't like math).
    7) I most notice the concrete processes, as in what's happening and events, the how, what and where something is happening.
    Hmm... well, aside from what's going on in my own mind, this is pretty much true. I seem to be okay at paying attention to this, and don't really find it uncomfortable. This seems to be something people do without thinking about it, so this would filter pretty colorlessly in my interactions with another person... it wouldn't stand out.
    8) I form definitive, categorical connections between people/things, and easily deal with laws, or structure, or mentally organize data
    I think I'm pretty good at this. I definitely find people who are like this to be interesting. It seems like a very convenient process.

    So, did this help at all?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hostage_Child View Post
    Unfortunately, with what little we know (if we know anything, really) about you, you can trust that there is very little guarantee that anyone here can give something close to your 'actual type.'
    I was afraid of that.
    I go by a simplistic method for typing and for those I know or by what I come across the web, I go by educated hunches and impressions. I usually can spot an IP or whatever temperament quickly, can differentiate between sensor and intuitive, judging and perceiving many times. I can have problems between logic and ethic types and that is one of the reasons why I have not settled on a type nor do I anymore care to except to satisfy curiosity.
    Oh, yeah... logical/ethical can be a real pain to figure out. You seem to have ended up in the same boat here as I did with another psychological theory. Just decided to regard it a conceptual toy rather than useful or having a definitive answer.
    I don't know what suggestions I can give, but I think you are taking the wrong approach. You're better off typing other people and gaining an understanding by seeing the IMs play out in reality versus relying on overly abstract, uber theoretical BS, IMO.
    That feels a little negative, honestly. For one thing, the IMs (as you call them) don't exist in reality, but are theoretical structures that are imposed upon it in order to categorize it. For another, if you aren't sure you're using the theory correctly in the first place, how can you know that what you're seeing in "reality" is even related to the IMs, rather than, say, imprinting? I mean, how do you even know that you understand what the IMs are, rather than that you've been confusing one for another, or that most people who type themselves have been? No... you have to start off with defining the theory as carefully as possible, and then sort reality into it as best you can. I'm sorry if I seem judgmental, but that's how I think these things should work.
    Socionics.us is a good site that explains the differences between I/E, N/S, etc, I think. The IMs individually in most resources are explained poorly. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense that the IMs are what they imply. For instance, I see Ti, or introverted logic as the picking apart of the logical structure of any idea, system, policy, machine, or any physical or abstract construct. Extroverted thinking, on the other hand, may have more to do with how logic is applied to the external world or where the external world is viewed as a pool to derive logical benefit such as for possibilites of profit, to derive information, and use 'common sense' in given affairs.
    I have read that site over a few times... it seems to have given me ideas, but nothing that feels like I'm positive of it. It seems like you have the gist of it, but it almost seems too simple to work that way. I mean, there are a number of perspectives you could look at any action from, and you could interpret that action as being potentially from several, if not all, IMs. Perhaps I just lack something you have that allows you to know which perspective is most likely.
    Perhaps this is easy for me to say because I am an introverted intuitive and thus I utilize my imagination to 'see' how these things might actually manifest themselves in certain situations which allows me to create imaginary models which I can measure against reality if I feel so inclined.
    Interesting. If that's the case, and it works for you, I guess you have something then. I'm not entirely sure people can share their interpretations of type theory. Perhaps it's different for each person who comes to understand it, and yet it works, in its own way, for each of them. That's the best I can come up with, anyway.

  5. #5
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    In my opinion, it did help. What you described as a lot like you was Ne (1). And you also said you can be good at Ni, but you don't have as much confidence in it (3). So, so far you're looking like a possible Ne ego type. You described yourself as not being good at Se at all and finding it boring (2) with the only part not fitting was your ability to 'size people up' but the way you talked about what you meant with 'sizing people up' here sounded like Fi to me, rather than Se.

    You said that you sometimes find people with Si interesting(4), but not all the time, and you're okay at it, but it's not your favorite. Your response to Fi (5) was interesting because I was leaning towards Fi for you after your response to 2. Other people think you're good at it, but you think you're just average, but you discuss it a lot to make sure you're paying enough attention to it. . . I'm not sure what to make of this, especially with what you said about Fe (6) You describe Te as rather nothing special or stand-outish, and Ti as something you like and are pretty good at.

    I'm going to make a tentative guess of INTj for you. Ti leading, Ne creative and Fi role could all make sense with what you said. Maybe someone else can come in with some other suggestions that would explain Si and Fe though. Actually other people will probably want to ask you a bunch of different questions, but I wanted to see how well this would work for trying to type an unknown person. Hope you didn't mind being a guinea pig!
    Thanks for asking me the questions, this is all very interesting how it's coming together. I appreciate the opportunity to be a guinea pig, actually. I mean, this is a theory, not an established process.

    So, if anyone has more questions or ideas... go ahead.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    176
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This may be somewhat rash but it seems safe to assume that you're Ne ego. I'm not sure if it is your first or second function but based on the answers you gave, INTj is definitely a possibility. The question is what do you think of that possibility? Read the information on wikisocion, it could help you come up with a clearer picture of the functions and how well they describe you.

    I have some questions that may also help:
    What do you think about a theory such as socionics that attempts to put people under categories? Do you think that people's personalities can be categorized and summed up like that?
    Does it brighten up your day to have someone greet you with a big smile and a big hug in an obviously emotional way? Do you find that obvious external expression of emotions from people around you has a stimulating affect on you? Do you like being in an environment of people laughing loudly, exchanging playful jokes and are in sink as far as the external expression of emotions?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesy View Post
    This may be somewhat rash but it seems safe to assume that you're Ne ego. I'm not sure if it is your first or second function but based on the answers you gave, INTj is definitely a possibility. The question is what do you think of that possibility? Read the information on wikisocion, it could help you come up with a clearer picture of the functions and how well they describe you.
    I'll make sure to go back over that, but I've looked there before. I didn't really feel any clearer on it after that, but going back over it may give me the chance to clarify what my thoughts were specifically in relation to that info.

    Hmm... Well, after reading that, I think I could possibly recognize the processes in other people, but not myself.

    What do you think about a theory such as socionics that attempts to put people under categories? Do you think that people's personalities can be categorized and summed up like that?
    I like the theory and the potential it has to explain human personality on a basic level. I do doubt that people's personalities can be completely categorized and summed up (people are complex and multifaceted beings), but I think we can still make use of such a system for the general level.
    Does it brighten up your day to have someone greet you with a big smile and a big hug in an obviously emotional way?
    Sometimes. Especially someone I haven't seen in a while, or someone I'm very comfortable with. I suppose there are even a few times I might like it suddenly. But if I weren't in the right mood that I could be affected positively by it, it might be annoying.

    Do you find that obvious external expression of emotions from people around you has a stimulating affect on you?
    Well, it depends on how comfortable I am with the kind of emotions they're expressing. If they're expressing emotions that agree with how I feel, then I find it invigorating. If they're expressing emotions opposed to how I feel, I find it draining and irritating.
    Do you like being in an environment of people laughing loudly, exchanging playful jokes and are in sync as far as the external expression of emotions?
    Wow, not at all. Listen to this quote from an essay about how I felt on my first day of school. "The environment itself seemed an ordeal, with all of the raucous laughter, erratic movements, and general chaos abound."

    I mean, I guess I would be more comfortable with something like this one-on-one, but not in a group.
    Last edited by athenian200; 10-03-2008 at 09:11 PM.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have more information I can give if it would help people figure this out. I mean, I've got school essays, poems, IM sessions, and personality test results. I can identify several aspects of how I think I would react in a theoretical situation... I just need something to draw them forth so I know what you might be looking for.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    176
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Honestly, from what you wrote all I can say is that you don't seem beta. You seem sort of neutral towards Fe but I think it has to do with the examples I gave of Fe, I'm not sure if they were accurate representations. I think that the types that I would consider for you are from the alpha and delta quadra but I don't want to rule out gamma. Have you read about quadra values because it could help you fit yourself into one of the quadras. I do understand that it's difficult for you to type yourself because I'm also like that.
    Maybe you could give a general description of your life up until now or examples of your relationships with people you've typed. In general, finding your type is sometimes a long process that takes time and understanding, it's mostly something that you'll figure out yourself eventually. Stick around and maybe you'll discover where you fit.

    Just for a general guidance you can answer this short test http://www.socionics.us/tests/1/0.htm, maybe it will give us a general indication of your type.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Honestly, from what you wrote all I can say is that you don't seem beta. You seem sort of neutral towards Fe but I think it has to do with the examples I gave of Fe, I'm not sure if they were accurate representations. I think that the types that I would consider for you are from the alpha and delta quadra but I don't want to rule out gamma. Have you read about quadra values because it could help you fit yourself into one of the quadras. I do understand that it's difficult for you to type yourself because I'm also like that.
    I have looked at quadras... I agree that I'm not Beta. That's the only thing I'm sure of, either. I share your suspicion that Alpha and Delta are the ones I seem most likely to fit in.

    I'm not sure how I feel about Fe compared to Fi, honestly... I think I dislike whichever one it is that makes people arrogant that their feelings are right, and that they have a right to tell me to live according to their feelings, which are not obvious to me, as if they were the basis of reality. I know I've met people on message boards in the past that were like that, although they hadn't been typed on Socionics.
    Maybe you could give a general description of your life up until now or examples of your relationships with people you've typed. In general, finding your type is sometimes a long process that takes time and understanding, it's mostly something that you'll figure out yourself eventually. Stick around and maybe you'll discover where you fit.
    Process, huh? Well, I don't do too well at those, but I'll try.


    All I can think of right off to say is... I've spent a lot of time indoors reading books, watching television, and messing with computers, just about all my life. I think I only have one or two friends in real life. I was homeschooled until about high school or so, and didn't really get out at all. I didn't get involved in many things in high school, and didn't do anything extracurricular, nor did I take AP classes. I didn't even bother to show up to my own graduation (because I was nervous about being in front of all those people, and didn't really feel I deserved to be there as much as the other people because I hadn't worked as hard as most of my peers, taking only easy classes and doing the bare minimum to graduate), and gave my tickets to someone who wanted to bring their whole family... just went ahead and took my diploma from the office. I went to community college for a while after that... not really doing anything right now, and am thinking about finding a job and whether to go next semester.

    I've taken that test before... and I got this:
    LII - Logical Intuitive Introtim
    "Analyst"
    Strong functions: introverted logic, extraverted intuition

    Primary type message:
    Structuring reality and creating correct systems of thought.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    176
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    From what you wrote it could be that you have a certain disdain from gamma Fi, but I could be wrong. What you wrote about yourself goes well with LII.
    At this point, if the test says LII and we think that you're most likely to be alpha or delta then we're on the right track. I'm inclined to go with INTj, not sure about subtype but you could be the Ne subtype. The second option is ENTp but based on what you wrote and the test, INTj is a safe bet. I can see you having Se PoLR. You basically need to research LII and see if it's your type, meanwhile it seems to be going in that direction.

    Just for the fun of it, read these descriptions and see if one of them could fit you:

    "The intuitive subtype appears a bit uncertain, and even soft, in dialogue. Not always absolute in statements, but obstinate and uncompromising in their actions. May keep silent, refrain from discussion, but their opinion will not change. Their latent emotions become visible during moments of extreme nervous pressure within intonations of their voice and impulsive gestures. In conversation are constrained, pay close attention to the interlocutor in order to give advice and to impress with their knowledge and conclusions; in such cases their serious demeanor is softened and goodwill penetrates their voice. Gait is quiet, synchronous, movements, on the contrary, are a little slow and nervous.. Pose appears restrained, gestures are avaricious and constrained, occasionally are unconsciously impulsive and badly coordinated."
    Or
    The logical subtype is usually quiet, serious and constrained, are often uncompromising, even categorical, in their judgments. When they are not interested by the theme of a conversation they remain silent and severe, however, this cold demeanor is difficult to sustain. If the interlocutor behaves disdainfully they can be put in their place. Able to clearly and laconically, without superfluous emotions, express their ideas; does not enjoy long discussions. Spend lots of time in reflection: analyzing and comparing various phenomena, figures and facts. Give the impression of a strong-willed person. Lips are densely compressed, speech precise, abrupt, but their voices are not deep with varying intonations. Facial expression makes them seem as if they’ve recently awoke from sleep; internal emotions are reflected in unexpected and impulsive movements of muscles."

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesy View Post
    From what you wrote it could be that you have a certain disdain from gamma Fi, but I could be wrong. What you wrote about yourself goes well with LII.
    At this point, if the test says LII and we think that you're most likely to be alpha or delta then we're on the right track. I'm inclined to go with INTj, not sure about subtype but you could be the Ne subtype. The second option is ENTp but based on what you wrote and the test, INTj is a safe bet. I can see you having Se PoLR. You basically need to research LII and see if it's your type, meanwhile it seems to be going in that direction.
    I'll try... LII seems to fit well enough based on past test results and my own research, but there are a few things keeping me from it (although they probably don't make much sense):

    1. I'm concerned that being Logical type means I don't really care or feel as deeply as an Ethical type... I've heard some people imply that. And... well, if that's true, I think it would bother me if I turned out to be Logical type. I mean, sure I like to analyze things, but... if you actually asked me to choose whether I was going to give up my ability to feel, or my ability to reason, I would keep my feelings. What does that mean?

    2. They have the same functional order (Ti+Ne) as INTPs in MBTI... and I find them to be somewhat different from me. Somewhat crass, arrogant, complaining about things they can't fix that have already happened, and fussing over the past rather than looking at and accepting their current options. They're known for pride in being apathetic. I mean, some of them are okay, but... I would like to think I'm more civilized and concerned about how I impact other people (especially the ones I care about) than they are in general. I know the functions aren't the same, but I'm wondering if having the same function names would make some people expect that kind of behavior from me? I certainly hope not.

    3. Several friends who know MBTI well are positive that I'm an INFJ who is stuck in an Ni-Ti loop. Once again... I know that it doesn't apply to Socionics, but I am still concerned as to whether it should translate better than it does.

    Other than those three points, I'd probably be comfortable with the LII description. So, if you can help me reconcile those three concerns...

    Just for the fun of it, read these descriptions and see if one of them could fit you:

    "The intuitive subtype appears a bit uncertain, and even soft, in dialogue. Not always absolute in statements, but obstinate and uncompromising in their actions. May keep silent, refrain from discussion, but their opinion will not change. Their latent emotions become visible during moments of extreme nervous pressure within intonations of their voice and impulsive gestures. In conversation are constrained, pay close attention to the interlocutor in order to give advice and to impress with their knowledge and conclusions; in such cases their serious demeanor is softened and goodwill penetrates their voice. Gait is quiet, synchronous, movements, on the contrary, are a little slow and nervous.. Pose appears restrained, gestures are avaricious and constrained, occasionally are unconsciously impulsive and badly coordinated."
    Or
    The logical subtype is usually quiet, serious and constrained, are often uncompromising, even categorical, in their judgments. When they are not interested by the theme of a conversation they remain silent and severe, however, this cold demeanor is difficult to sustain. If the interlocutor behaves disdainfully they can be put in their place. Able to clearly and laconically, without superfluous emotions, express their ideas; does not enjoy long discussions. Spend lots of time in reflection: analyzing and comparing various phenomena, figures and facts. Give the impression of a strong-willed person. Lips are densely compressed, speech precise, abrupt, but their voices are not deep with varying intonations. Facial expression makes them seem as if they’ve recently awoke from sleep; internal emotions are reflected in unexpected and impulsive movements of muscles."
    I'm pretty sure I seem more like the Intuitive subtype... most of the time.

  14. #14
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    If you're a Ne subtype of either INFj or INTj you could look a little like both. INTj's aren't known for their harshness or being critical at all! So, that wouldn't be expected of you as an INTj, but your comment about rather giving up your ability to reason than feel, makes me think my first instinct of you being ethical was probably right after all. Not that logical types don't feel or care, because they do. My comments are all just impressions and guesses here, so don't put too much weight on them, but if you haven't already, you'll probably want to look into INFj also. And there's always the chance we're missing something, I know I tend to do that when I get one idea into my head. Btw, welcome to the forum!
    I do get that comment a lot... that I don't seem very T or F. I have looked at EII (INFj) and LII (INTj), and I can see traits in both of them that fit. It seems like the traits that don't quite fit LII are there in EII, and vice-versa. Perhaps the stronger Intuitive subtypes are less clearly T and F. I know that it seems like the more strongly Intuitive INJs (of either type) I've known had a lot of both. So, right now I'd probably say that I'm likely one of those two.

    Oh, and thanks for the welcome. Nice to be here.

Posting Permissions

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