Suckionics

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Here's my thoughts on socionics so far:

-I think sub-types are stupid.
-There's too many contradictions in all the theories. Jesus wept.
-Too many people debate for the sake of debating, their arguements are crappy they just debate cause it's fun.
-Mental masturbation posts rarely ever make sense or explain things in a good way. Tcauldilllg's posts = fail.
-Objectivity is overrated.
-Everything has a beautiful complexity, but a lot of things are really more simple than people make them out to be.

-Gilly, Dolphin, Slacker Mom, Allie, Expat and Ashton are the only ones that actually explain the concepts sanely. My personal like/dislike of those posters of course varies.
-Trying hard to sound smart but really just pulling stuff out of your ass and it being completely full of shit is something that goes around here too much.
-Behavior and thinking connect more than people realize... so basic creative writing and stories would be helpful. At least for IEIs to understand things.

[Ezra]

I haven't been around for a few days, and this thread is the first I encounter.

lol @ this thread

I agree with many of your points, B&D.

My personal opinion is that if people stuck with discussing classical socionics - that is, socionics as Augusta meant it to be - it would be less of a hotbed for hostility and vendettas against one another. Each quadra could flourish. At the moment, probably due to the environment, there is a major shortage of Deltas.

Another point is that if people actually read socionics material instead of devising their own irrelevant ideas all the time (because once every now and then is fine, and if it's relevant, more often), there would be a whole lot less misunderstanding and confusion.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Another point is that if people actually read socionics material instead of devising their own irrelevant ideas all the time (because once every now and then is fine, and if it's relevant, more often), there would be a whole lot less misunderstanding and confusion.

Oh yeah I so agree. I find the text book stuff to be true and make sense, any example you give is fun but bound to have your own biases-- but the general behavior seems to be true and there's not much point in debating that. Though I think the descriptions on socioncs.com definitely try too hard and are full of shit as much as they are full of light.

Basically I'd like to read more threads on how the functions interact. I wonder if a function is ever truly in its 'raw form.'

[Ezra]

Basically I'd like to read more threads on how the functions interact. I wonder if a function is ever truly in its 'raw form.'

In Model A, this is impossible. Quite simply because functions in their "raw form" are IM Elements, and they don't make up a personality; functions are combined with other functions to create blocks. And since we are all personalities, we won't find IM Elements in ourselves. Basically, a person never uses the IM Element Se; what they use is the function Se blocked with the function Ti. They are called "functions" because they function; they help the human psyche to function; they are a function of the psyche. And functions never function on their own.

[tcaudilllg]

Here's my thoughts on socionics so far:

-I think sub-types are stupid.
-There's too many contradictions in all the theories. Jesus wept.
-Too many people debate for the sake of debating, their arguements are crappy they just debate cause it's fun.
-Mental masturbation posts rarely ever make sense or explain things in a good way. Tcauldilllg's posts = fail.
-Objectivity is overrated.
-Everything has a beautiful complexity, but a lot of things are really more simple than people make them out to be.

-Gilly, Dolphin, Slacker Mom, Allie, Expat and Ashton are the only ones that actually explain the concepts sanely. My personal like/dislike of those posters of course varies.
-Trying hard to sound smart but really just pulling stuff out of your ass and it being completely full of shit is something that goes around here too much.
-Behavior and thinking connect more than people realize... so basic creative writing and stories would be helpful. At least for IEIs to understand things.

I'm seeing a definite bias towards the life axis here....

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

In Model A, this is impossible. Quite simply because functions in their "raw form" are IM Elements, and they don't make up a personality; functions are combined with other functions to create blocks. And since we are all personalities, we won't find IM Elements in ourselves. Basically, a person never uses the IM Element Se; what they use is the function Se blocked with the function Ti. They are called "functions" because they function; they help the human psyche to function; they are a function of the psyche. And functions never function on their own.

Thanks. I get this. Makes complete sense.

[tcaudilllg]

****** -> "death axis"?

Yes, actually...

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...Angel%27s_Garb

[Not A Communist Shill]

Yes, actually...

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...Angel%27s_Garb

Why in your opinion is ****** associated with the death axis?

[tcaudilllg]

Why in your opinion is ****** associated with the death axis?

It's been an intuitive notion since before WWI. There was a cartoon out in the 30s (a British cartoon) which characterized ****** as a skeleton wearing a mask. In the cartoon, the skeleton seems to be watching over.

Death = maladaptation. The relational dynamic ****** invoked demanded social concession with the aim of satiating his own rage against the social injustice he provoked against himself from the Jews. (dating all the way back to Vienna) The circumstances of ******'s rise are rarely discussed: they involved a running street battle between ******'s Stormtroopers and communists. Some of ******'s surrogates were highly unscrupulous, and they did their part to aggrivate the existing situation. ****** admittedly had nothing to do with those events, but he knew the nature of these men regardless and didn't care how the people would be corralled to his will, only that they were. I think it was the problem of his id aggrivated by the social situation to such an extent that his rage was uncontrollable, coupled with a natural tendency to genocide common to ENFJ radicals. At root, the Holocaust was euthenasia aimed at an ethnic group. ****** looked on ethnic groups within other ethnic groups as sabotaging the purity of the larger's cultural process. He saw either as having a definite state of mind, and if those states of mind were disaligned then cultural disharmony would develop. It seemed obvious to him to defend his own cultural mind state by destroying all the others. Key to his ideas of racism is that each race has a specific state of mind. The Austrians were in a state of social miscarriage during his youth, which he felt the brunt of. He naturally chose the German mindset of the times as the better option, given his understanding of the German language, and so was ensnared by Chamberlain. Everything afterward became a threat directly to his own mind, because it was progress which was changing the social landscape of Germany. Everything he tried to do was tied to keeping that state of mind in place and shared amongst as many people as possible; if they wouldn't share it, they were to be obliterated, and because in his view race influenced one's state of mind, he could "tell" whether or not someone would be persuaded by his views by virtue of their ethnicity.

[Not A Communist Shill]

It's been an intuitive notion since before WWI. There was a cartoon out in the 30s (a British cartoon) which characterized ****** as a skeleton wearing a mask. In the cartoon, the skeleton seems to be watching over.

Death = maladaptation. The relational dynamic ****** invoked demanded social concession with the aim of satiating his own rage against the social injustice he provoked against himself from the Jews. (dating all the way back to Vienna) The circumstances of ******'s rise are rarely discussed: they involved a running street battle between ******'s Stormtroopers and communists. Some of ******'s surrogates were highly unscrupulous, and they did their part to aggrivate the existing situation. ****** admittedly had nothing to do with those events, but he knew the nature of these men regardless and didn't care how the people would be corralled to his will, only that they were. I think it was the problem of his id aggrivated by the social situation to such an extent that his rage was uncontrollable, coupled with a natural tendency to genocide common to ENFJ radicals. At root, the Holocaust was euthenasia aimed at an ethnic group. ****** looked on ethnic groups within other ethnic groups as sabotaging the purity of the larger's cultural process. He saw either as having a definite state of mind, and if those states of mind were disaligned then cultural disharmony would develop. It seemed obvious to him to defend his own cultural mind state by destroying all the others. Key to his ideas of racism is that each race has a specific state of mind. The Austrians were in a state of social miscarriage during his youth, which he felt the brunt of. He naturally chose the German mindset of the times as the better option, given his understanding of the German language, and so was ensnared by Chamberlain. Everything afterward became a threat directly to his own mind, because it was progress which was changing the social landscape of Germany. Everything he tried to do was tied to keeping that state of mind in place and shared amongst as many people as possible; if they wouldn't share it, they were to be obliterated, and because in his view race influenced one's state of mind, he could "tell" whether or not someone would be persuaded by his views by virtue of their ethnicity.

Nope, sorry, I can't see it. You may well have a point though.

[tcaudilllg]

You've got to take it in context. People pushing back against someone who wants to exterminate them = death engine.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Okay so I'm part of the Life axis. I work for the white hat team. LOL. I don't things are that simple, but enlighten me now on what a life axis is.

I don't want to fight the ******s of the world so much as fight the ****** within. ****** only played upon what was already inside all of us anyway. And besides, Ezra was right, ****** actually had many redeeming qualities besides that whole kill those pesky jews thing. Self-loathing stereotypical media joos just want us to be passively watching sitcoms and tv all day and live in really boring suburban houses. I have respect for people that are respectable. I don't agree with every liberal/left-leaner that's for sure.

[Not A Communist Shill]

You've got to take it in context. People pushing back against someone who wants to exterminate them = death engine.

I think it's pushing it to say that ****** was part of the death axis tbh.

[Jarno]

-I think sub-types are stupid.
-Everything has a beautiful complexity, but a lot of things are really more simple than people make them out to be.

Subtypes are not stupid, they exist. Although the original 16 types are most important for relationship explanation.

Indeed many things are really more simple than some people make them out to be. Those people usually are on the wrong track. They are confused.

[tcaudilllg]

Being on the life axis basically means, you're a moderate.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Moderate? In what sense? What two extremes am I exactly moderate in? Life and death? You don't make any sense to me sometimes.

Subtypes are not stupid, they exist.

I don't personally see them or at least they're not visible enough for me to really care.

[tcaudilllg]

******'s first instinct was to play the saint. His rallies and such were oriented around that image. Remember Jesus' spell in the moneychangers' room: it looked out of control and made him seem like a threat to the Roman authorities. That was just one of his radical approaches which he himself observed to have quite the opposite effect as was intended. His role as a saint was his "atonement" if you will, for those missteps. The radical tries to be a saint, but is too accomodating and thus, puts themselves in such position as they believe requires an extreme response. However it is because their system is built around their extremism that they feel they must be accomodating in the first place, and thus are not to be pardoned for their wrath.

But ****** was complicated regardless because he knew how to put on a show.

[tcaudilllg]

Moderate? In what sense? What two extremes am I exactly moderate in? Life and death? You don't make any sense to me sometimes.



I don't personally see them or at least they're not visible enough for me to really care.

As in, politically moderate. Put it this way: you're more concerned about your own advancement then society's. If society can get along better, that's great, but if they can't then you're not going to lose any sleep over it. You and your family are your priority.

Social progressives feel compelled to justify pretty much everything they own, to themselves and to others. That said, your focus on your gay nature suggests that your alter ego is liberal rather than progressive. That would manifest as you being more concerned with your rights, than those of other people.

You generally believe that the aims of consciousness are inferior to the aims of life. You care less about what something means as much as what it does. (at least, you would not feel confident assessing this for yourself)

I've written an extensive article about this on wikisocion, "Psychic Domain Theory".

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Social progressives feel compelled to justify pretty much everything they own, to themselves and to others. That said, your focus on your gay nature suggests that your alter ego is liberal rather than progressive. That would manifest as you being more concerned with your rights, than those of other people.

I can't argue with this. But I'd say the reason why I focus more on my rights than other people's has to do with me simply being a natural introvert and gaining energy from myself. It makes me feel empowered, though yes I do understand it's selfish but I don't view that as bad or good.

You generally believe that the aims of consciousness are inferior to the aims of life. You care less about what something means as much as what it does. (at least, you would not feel confident assessing this for yourself)

Eh, kinda/sorta. Not really. I very much enjoy higher stats of consciousness. But something is always there to snap me back into things. I'm not a big aim of life person. Well uh not totally true. I mean, I'm kind of like a buddhist monk in the sense that I'm a homebody that likes to read books about meaning. But in a way they just depress me.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Truth is I've always been afraid of partying cause once I start I'm afraid I'll never stop. I always have a lot to release and get off my chest.

[tcaudilllg]

Stay tuned. I'm still exploring this aspect of personality.