Type Hype

[Jarno]

From the first day that I arrived at this forum it has surprised me...

Maybe because my initial interest in Socionics came from wanting to know why my relationship went bad.

But most people seem only interested in types and not relationships. If I look at the WikiSocion for example, there has been put very much effort in types descriptions etc, while the relationship descriptions are nothing more then a couple of sentences. You would start to think Socionics has nothing to do with relationships. Even MBTI sites have more lines about relationships!!

And if I look at the different forums, the 'intertype relationships' has the least number of topics.

I think you can learn a lot about what functions really are when you know how they behave in relationships. This Type Hype does no justice to Socionics, there is to little emphasize on relationships IMO.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

From the first day that I arrived at this forum it has surprised me...

Maybe because my initial interest in Socionics came from wanting to know why my relationship went bad.

But most people seem only interested in types and not relationships. If I look at the WikiSocion for example, there has been put very much effort in types descriptions etc, while the relationship descriptions are nothing more then a couple of sentences. You would start to think Socionics has nothing to do with relationships. Even MBTI sites have more lines about relationships!!

And if I look at the different forums, the 'intertype relationships' has the least number of topics.

I think you can learn a lot about what functions really are when you know how they behave in relationships. This Type Hype does no justice to Socionics IMO.

I agree with what you are saying here. A lot of the discussion here is quite theoretical. Something I was reading earlier, on Rick's site, is that on most socionic forums in Russia tend not to go too deeply, that people tend to talk about things on the forums that are related to more so real life things which they discussed when they met up IRL.

I have found myself of late enjoying discussing socionics with people who are living it. People they know in their jobs, girls they find attractive and discussing how the intertype relation plays out. I'd also say that for myself, almost all of the things i've learned has come from living the types. The stuff i've read on the internet-various theoretical stuff, comes second. Although it can of course be a useful supplement.

To talk about intertype relations here on forum is something i'm not sure I feel comfortable with though. I somehow suspect people would look to analyse it too much with that was using 3rd function and stuff, then get into big debate about have you really typed so and so correctly etc. IMO, as much as it is interesting to discuss theories of types etc, and important also, it sort of misses the point in dealing with it all IRL situations, where is counts more I think.

[Angel von Himmel]

The problem with socionics is that it is often not ever described practically by anyone. It gives the impression that people are assigned types out of chance and that people are stuck with a type. This is not true. It is possible to learn the ways of each type and to actually to change types to take precedence in situations. It seems that no one knows how to convey the possibility of this, except for me and my research. Eventually I plan to release material that describes the necessary processes to learn to change socionics types.

[Park]

The problem with socionics is that it is often not ever described practically by anyone. It gives the impression that people are assigned types out of chance and that people are stuck with a type. This is not true. It is possible to learn the ways of each type and to actually to change types to take precedence in situations. It seems that no one knows how to convey the possibility of this, except for me and my research. Eventually I plan to release material that describes the necessary processes to learn to change socionics types.

Does every ILE eventually go mad?

[Angel von Himmel]

Does every ILE eventually go mad?

Does every SLI ask open ended questions to convey their disbelief ... ?

[crazedrat]

You can learn alot about intertype relations by learning about type descriptions and using your imagination.
The real problem is, I think, it's a difficult subject to write specifics on.

[Creepy-]

From the first day that I arrived at this forum it has surprised me...

Maybe because my initial interest in Socionics came from wanting to know why my relationship went bad.

But most people seem only interested in types and not relationships. If I look at the WikiSocion for example, there has been put very much effort in types descriptions etc, while the relationship descriptions are nothing more then a couple of sentences. You would start to think Socionics has nothing to do with relationships. Even MBTI sites have more lines about relationships!!

And if I look at the different forums, the 'intertype relationships' has the least number of topics.

I think you can learn a lot about what functions really are when you know how they behave in relationships. This Type Hype does no justice to Socionics, there is to little emphasize on relationships IMO.

I have noticed this too and wondered about it. I assumed people here were doing what I am doing in discussing/learning to identify different types, which has everything to do with intertype relations [which, in my opinion, is the whole point of learning about socionics]. It is interesting - unfortunate? - that there is relatively little discussion of intertype relations, though....

[Angel von Himmel]

You can learn alot about intertype relations by learning about type descriptions and using your imagination.
The real problem is, I think, it's a difficult subject to write specifics on.

See, the problem with socionics is that everyone explains the theory at it has resulted, but no one ever explains the underlying rules that were used to derive socionics. If you know the underlying rules that were used to derive socionics, then you have an inner voice in the application of socionics. You can cause yourself to be a type as opposed to just being a random type.

The difficulty here is that the underlying rules to derive socionics comes from esoteric material and the occult, and requires one to release prejudice of such things before learning how this is possible.

[Angel von Himmel]

You can't change types. I cannot suddenly decide that I'm going to be an ESTp today, rmcnew. That's ridiculous.

I agree with you. I think you currently can not. However, there is a way that you can and I totally expect people to object that there is a way that you can.

[Creepy-]

I agree with you. I think you currently can not. However, there is a way that you can and I totally expect people to object that there is a way that you can.

You're saying a person can become - not act like, but become - another type? Further, you're saying a person can become a type whose base function is that person's PoLR?


You do sound like you're getting ready to peddle a grand secret....

[Angel von Himmel]

And for only one thousand pounds will you teach me this grand secret?

In all honestly, I think I can. I am serious, too.

But only if you are also serious in giving me a thousand pounds.

[Angel von Himmel]

You're saying a person can become - not act like, but become - another type? Further, you're saying a person can become a type whose base function is that person's PoLR?

Yes, I am saying that it is possible for a person to literally become another type.

It is also possible for people to move PoLRs based upon their knowledge of manipulating functions. However, most people unknowingly fix themselves to a type and this inflexibility makes them vulnerable.

[Creepy-]

Yes, I am saying that it is possible for a person to literally become another type.

It is also possible for people to move PoLRs based upon their knowledge of manipulating functions. However, most people unknowingly fix themselves to a type and this inflexibility makes them vulnerable.

I don't know about this... I would make a pretty lousy ESFj or ENFj [my initial confusion when I arrived here aside].

Why would anyone want to do that anyway?

[Angel von Himmel]

I don't know about this... I would make a pretty lousy ESFj or ENFj [my initial confusion when I arrived here aside].

Why would anyone want to do that anyway?

You can become ESFj or ENFj ... You would simply need to develop those functions that make an ESFj or ENFj, and use them. The problem is that most people are unaware as to how to develop the functions that conflict with the ones they have always tended to use.

Why would anyone want to do that anyway?

It is a thing called "invincibility" ... and by that I mean that you can ultimately assert your will, adapt to the types of others and be ultimately be indestructible to the efforts of others to assert their will over you. Your type, by definition, is your way of asserting your will afterall. This much makes sense to about anyone.

[Angel von Himmel]

Some types might consider inflexibility a strength.

The type of inflexibility I am talking about has nothing to do with "types considering inflexibility a strength." I am talking about forms and formations. The very fact that something has taken physical shape implies that there is a structural weakness. Think of a PoLR as a types structural weakness. Each type is a form. And in taking another form in accordance to what type would be the strongest or most efficient in a situation, you change the weakness as well. Few people know how to do this, but I think it is something that can be taught.

[Angel von Himmel]

No wonder you believe that you can change types on a whim, rmcnew. You refuse to even try to look at this from a scientific angle.

If the military was not aware of the same phenomenon it would not create so many different types of planes, jets, helicopters, tanks, ships, boats, submarines, guns, ammunition, and rockets. Having socionics types is no different than this.

[Angel von Himmel]

And the structure of one's brain ... the very thing that embeds any notion of "type" within us ... does not just change on a whim.

I recall seeing no scientific evidence that a socionics type is ever imprinted and fixed on account of ones brain ... ? Where did you come across this information?

[Creepy-]

You can become ESFj or ENFj ... You would simply need to develop those functions that make an ESFj or ENFj, and use them. The problem is that most people are unaware as to how to develop the functions that conflict with the ones they have always tended to use.

That sounds like acting like, rather than being, a different type. To truly change type, I [anyone] would have to change everything from functional proficiency and usage, to preferences for friends/companions/etc. You're saying intertype relations would flip? And imo such drastic changes in preferences for companions are even less likely to happen than the development of weak functions to the point where a person enjoys and is good at using them.

It is a thing called "invincibility" ... and by that I mean that you can ultimately assert your will, adapt to the types of others and be ultimately be indestructible to the efforts of others to assert their will over you. Your type, by definition, is your way of asserting your will afterall. This much makes sense to about anyone.

Invincibility? That seems like a bit of a lofty goal... in any event I think it's probably more likely to be achieved by developing natural strengths and improving and/or coming to terms with perceived weaknesses.

[Angel von Himmel]

Transformers ... more than meets the eye. I like stories. Beyond this, I fail to see how your analogy holds.

I fail to see how you have any idea of what it is you are objecting against.

[crazedrat]

See, the problem with socionics is that everyone explains the theory at it has resulted, but no one ever explains the underlying rules that were used to derive socionics. If you know the underlying rules that were used to derive socionics, then you have an inner voice in the application of socionics. You can cause yourself to be a type as opposed to just being a random type.

The difficulty here is that the underlying rules to derive socionics comes from esoteric material and the occult, and requires one to release prejudice of such things before learning how this is possible.

The underlying rules which 'derive' socionics...
No, there isn't a magical story land where socionics was born and then it floated down to us petty humans and gave us its wisdom.
Socionics is really just a disguised word for 'metaphysics of thought'
You can pull a Carl Jung, and try to draw some mysterious parallels between metaphysics and the occult; and go off on long rants on how everything seems to come together in fairy land, but all this will do for you is make you into a really good story teller, dream interpreter, or persuasive writer.
The occult may very well have everything to do with metaphysics (I wouldn't know), but metaphysics doesn't have everything to do with the occult.. Get it?

..On this issue of changing your type. This argument is basically discussing the difference between I.M. type and exertion type.
I.M. type has to do with the organization of your consciousness. Exertion type has to do with how your consciousness unfolds in light of other systems at hand.
If you want to learn more about this distinction between self and world, then talk to tcaud. He's written alot on it.

[Angel von Himmel]

That sounds like acting like, rather than being, a different type. To truly change type, I [anyone] would have to change everything from their functional proficiency and usage, to their preferences for friends/companions/etc. And imo that is even less likely to happen than is the development weak functions to the point where a person enjoys and is good at using them.

You would first begin by stopping yourself from using the Super-Id functions to compensate for weakness, and to begin to develop you ROLE and PoLR functions with the help of someone proficient in those functions. This is difficult, because you realize that this means temporarily loseing your ability to assert your will over your surroundings. You become like a student, and are perceived to be functionally a child by the teacher of the function. However, this is how you learn to use conflicting functions. The only way that I know how to do it, anyways.

Invincibility? That seems like a bit of a lofty goal... in any event I think it's probably more likely to be achieved by developing natural strengths and improving and/or coming to terms with perceived weaknesses.

If you mean developing your perceived fixed type with your ego further and compensating for weakness through the Super-Id, you will just become more proficent with the type you have been fixed to and delay learning other functions. However, for some people I suppose it is their life mission to just use certain functions all their life. That is not for me.

[crazedrat]

What you're describing isn't changing yourself, it's changing your interpretation of the world. I've also noticed this happening as I become more proficient in socionics. But I am only looking at the world differently, and once I come onto a new circumstance I again revert to my base mode of processing with which I viewed the world differently to begin with

[Angel von Himmel]

The occult may very well have everything to do with metaphysics (I wouldn't know), but metaphysics doesn't have everything to do with the occult.. Get it?

Yes, just like "theology" mixed with "metaphysics of the mind" does not exactly equal each other either. However, "metaphysics of the mind" has not always been known to be an entirely open art accessible to just anyone. Some key information always gets held back for whatever reason. I think this "key information" is being held back in the case of socionics as well.

[Creepy-]

You would first begin by stopping yourself from using the Super-Id functions to compensate for weakness, and to begin to develop you ROLE and PoLR functions with the help of someone proficient in those functions. This is difficult, because you realize that this means temporarily loseing your ability to assert your will over your surroundings. You become like a student, and are perceived to be functionally a child by the teacher of the function. However, this is how you learn to use conflicting functions. The only way that I know how to do it, anyways.

If you mean developing your perceived fixed type with your ego further and compensating for weakness through the Super-Id, you will just become more proficent with the type you have been fixed to and delay learning other functions. However, for some people I suppose it is their life mission to just use certain functions all their life. That is not for me.

That is just not appetizing to me at all.

You seem to be implying that in developing what are originally your weak functions, you are not also losing proficiency in what are originally your strong functions. If this is the case, it still seems like you are not actually changing types... you're just becoming, in theory, a hyper-evolved SUPER type.

[Creepy-]

This is interesting because a long time ago I asked a question here about whether someone who was well-rounded/had worked a lot on self-development would be harder to type, and that topic was recently brought up again. This seems to be along those same lines....

I think you may have a point about learning to use - or at least become more comfortable with - weak functions, but I am very skeptical of the possibility that a person can switch types altogether.

[crazedrat]

Yes, just like "theology" mixed with "metaphysics of the mind" does not exactly equal each other either. However, "metaphysics of the mind" has not always been known to be an entirely open art accessible to just anyone. Some key information always gets held back for whatever reason. I think this "key information" is being held back in the case of socionics as well.

What you're saying is the metaphysics of socionics is incomplete. Yes, you're right. But that's really a very simple thing to say.

[Angel von Himmel]

What you're describing isn't changing yourself, it's changing your interpretation of the world.

It could mean changing the interpretation of your surrounding, but often times changing the interpretation of your surroundings is the essential ingredient in taking the right course of action.

[Angel von Himmel]

What you're saying is the metaphysics of socionics is incomplete. Yes, you're right. But that's really a very simple thing to say.

And that goes back to your original point, it is difficult to talk about. What I am saying is that I think I have found the key, and I am going to bring it to light.

[crazedrat]

It could mean changing the interpretation of your surrounding, but often times changing the interpretation of your surroundings is the essential ingredient in taking the right course of action.

And in many ways socionics can make people more effective in dealing with the world, I agree.

If you have any new ideas on socionics I'll be sure to check them out once you publish them.

[Angel von Himmel]

i haven't ruled out type change as a curious remote possibility and have argued at length against presuming otherwise too soon. but the irony is, you are discussing (and marketing) "invincibility" through type change, while glossing over how impractical it may be given limited time, energy, and relationship possibilities.

When you can master all the functions. And I mean every single function. When you can master all the types. And I mean every single type. This would equal invincibility. No one could have anything on you. You can fit in anywhere. You can be friends with anyone. You can dominate any situation. And, I think this is the exact and only real reason why people study personality types. If not consciously, unconsciously. To achieve a state of invincibility is something all things that have ever have taken shape have desired.

And I think that what I am proposing is something more like an " inner locus of control" gained by a knowledge of socionics and adaptation to social circumstances.

Something like what I have here:

[crazedrat]

It isn't type change, it's world view change. And it isn't practical because it is abandoning your self needs for the preservation of otherly needs; and it assumes through fulfilling these otherly needs, you invariably are fulfilling the selfs needs. But this is a false assumption. The illusion is you're rounding out your weaknesses by turning them into strengths; but these 'structural weaknesses' in a type (as rmcnew is calling them) don't exist due to a types failures; they exist in response to its strength. They do not go away as you develop your understanding of socionics, but only become masked. If you follow this chameleon philosophy, what will happen is you will entrench yourself in a way of living which only feigns fulfillment; but actually renders true fulfillment impossible.
The use I can see in this philosophy, is it will help you meet your dual. Not that it will help you interact with your dual; but that it will help you traverse society adequately in order to meet them in the first place.
I may even venture to say 'conquering' these aspects of society which seem to get in the way of meeting your dual, is actually the reason people learn these theories. Reaching a point of social operational invincibility seems the best way to go about this. That, though, is only a means to an end.

[Angel von Himmel]

this is fine, up until the point you mentioned "efficiency". for some types, inconsistency in one's behavior is more costly (while other types may thrive on it.) additionally, you may have to manipulate the relationships with others (depending upon how they've interacted with your past consistency or inconsistency) if you are to get the "new" intertype relations right.

Could be ... no one I know is perfect with all functions.

[Angel von Himmel]

It isn't type change, it's world view change. And it isn't practical because it is abandoning your self needs for the preservation of otherly needs; and it assumes through fulfilling these otherly needs, you invariably are fulfilling the selfs needs. But this is a false assumption. The illusion is you're rounding out your weaknesses by turning them into strengths; but these 'structural weaknesses' in a type (as rmcnew is calling them) don't exist due to a types failures; they exist in response to its strength.

Actually, that is correct. The very fact that there is strength implies weakness. This is why those who have dominated in the past were good at making "strength weakness" and "weakness strength", as well as "coming right while coming left" and "coming left while coming right" ... it sounds impossible, but there have been whole civilizations conquered and built by sole individuals on this premise.

If you follow this chameleon philosophy, what will happen is you will entrench yourself in a way of living which only feigns fulfillment; but actually renders true fulfillment impossible.

This is the difference between "conception" and "deception" ... one is real, the other is not. Yet, they both have a consequence; a positive or negative effect in their fulfillment.

[Angel von Himmel]

Every one of us has just come across "something" on you right now.

Yeah, guess I showed "too much form" there, huh? ...

[crazedrat]

Yes, and I think the only reason to reach for this omniscience is to gain the power to traverse society and claim your dual. It grants no personal fulfillment in its own right. All it really is, is a very fundamental and strong education. Not so different from learning anything, really; other then that socionics is more useful.

[Angel von Himmel]

Yes, and I think the only reason to reach for this omniscience is to gain the power to traverse society and claim your dual. It grants no personal fulfillment in its own right. All it really is, is a very fundamental and strong education

The thing about your dual though is that you simply use each other to cover weakness, and to help each other learn to cover weakness. You never learn to transcend the type you use; you just get better at mastering and being that type.

Like I stated before ... for some people they are suppose to just be one type, and learn that type. For those people, finding your dual would be necessary. I also think there are people who are suppose to learn the functions in such a way that they master all the types. I think I am one of those people. And some day I am going to help others do the same.

[Elro]

When you can master all the functions. And I mean every single function. When you can master all the types. And I mean every single type. This would equal invincibility. No one could have anything on you. You can fit in anywhere. You can be friends with anyone. You can dominate any situation. And, I think this is the exact and only real reason why people study personality types. If not consciously, unconsciously. To achieve a state of invincibility is something all things that have ever have taken shape have desired.

And I think that what I am proposing is something more like an " inner locus of control" gained by a knowledge of socionics and adaptation to social circumstances.

Something like what I have here:

Good luck with that. I would think "mastering" all the functions would spread you too thin, so you would suck at all of them. (The ultimate Ne>Se conundrum. )

[crazedrat]

Ok. Imagine if you studied the game of starcraft (or chess) really hard, and you knew everything there was to know about starcraft. In the world of starcraft, you would be this omniscient type you are referring to. Do you see the difference? You aren't changing your type, you're just learning. You don't need your dual to help you with starcraft, but you do need them for your own fulfillment once you walk away from that game.
Now more generally, you're discussing using socionics to 'master' the ~world~ in this same way we have mastered starcraft. And after doing so, one would have no need for their dual.
The problem I have with this, is that it assumes a limited world. It also pays no respect to our internal experience of reality as a type.
You are playing starcraft, and you're owning because you're the omniscient type in the world of starcraft. But in your mind, you understand starcraft in terms of your basic I.M. type; the same old type you always were, and you get this lingering feeling of ..'lets get out of this chair and go spend the day with my dual'.
The world is not limited or static. You can't 'learn it'; and even if you could, this wouldn't alter your I.M. type, but only your behavior within the static world at hand. And you will still long for duality outside of this world; within your head, within the infinity of reality and experience.

[crazedrat]

society shouldn't exist the way it does, and we should be living in caves. But if you lived with your dual in a cave in a warm place near an oasis, it would probably be pretty fun. and if you had the rest of your quadra to keep you company, and there was an ocean nearby, and you knew how to fish, then you'd really be set.

although it would probably get boring. so then you'd have to build some kind of entertainment. and i bet you'd want to start building places to save your fish that you've caught, and making better ways to catch more fish, and making it so you had more leisure time, and...... oh yeah, damn.
Or would all that happen if you had your dual around? I don't think it would.
At least it would never get out of control.
Yeah, cave living

[Jarno]

Oke I would like to participate in derailing my own thread if it is oke with you guys :-d

I am curious and have some questions:

- If you change your type, does your face suddenly change too, to match the VI of the new type?

- If you can have these mental powers, is it also possible to change your iq to 180?

- Is a type to be considered changed when for example an ISFP says:
'I can make this more effecient.' Does this mean he is using Te as an ego function instead of his/her Polr, and therefor changed his type to ESTJ?