Socionics is a prison (Read me)

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Socionics is a prison. Like anything human beings try to create, however well-intentioned- they always make a prison, a way of locking something in, one small spec of reality and milking that for all its worth.

It may seem like you have to stay wherever you are. That you are just such and such type and accept that. But that's just nonsense that's crazy. If I believed that, I'd still be that scared insecure little boy that pushed himself against the wall and tortured himself mentally. That invited all those sick people into his life because I didn't realize how much control and power and influence I really had.

Other people, everybody- you don't realize how crazy they are man. Including me. But now I can see outside of myself. I can see the big picture, for a brief snapshot in time (I may lose this in the morning) so right now, sit down shut up and listen to me. Other people, you see, they want you to act and be a certain way (due to their own weaknesses, natch), they want you to get some sort of confidence or self-assuredness from saying 'Okay I'm an isfp' because they get some comfort from processes you that way. They think you're looking at the world in a better way. That you're finding your true self. But are you? No, not really. Because you always have more questions about this shit. And it's great that we're questioning. But let's synthesize all this '2 grannies shopping at a modern electronics store' that we do. Let's find an answer. This answer will bring about more questions if you let it. More sissy pathways that go into endless sunrays of stories and novels and worlds and chapters and theatrical plays. But it's an answer. A raw, masculine ANSWER.

Here is the answer, chil'run. As a shaman- I'm telling you, that everybody can be all types, and be all things, and go everywheres. Human potential is well limitless. You can easily see a little bit of yourself in every type (People that aren't crazy and are actually thinking CORRECTLY can) So then as we ascend, we look down and see socionics for what it truly is.

Maybe it wanted to liberate people. It was a start. It wanted to find the answer. But listen. Some stupid russian bitch that couldn't get a date with anybody, that wanted love- but didn't want to TRY to do anything, like 99% of people who think too much, like 99.5% of people on this fucking planet, she just wasted away developing a system that although is true (in a very disjointed, disconnected way) was making her hide herself from all the love and joy that she was meant to experience. When she croaked, when she died I think she got to feel all those feelings that she wanted to want. But we can invite it in more and more as we live.

It's riding hotel elevators late and night up and down till you can't stop. It's seeing the small beauty in things. It's entering an abandon warehouse and seeing two really hot studs fucking suddenly, when you haven't saw or experienced any gay sex in 7 years. The raw thrill of that overwhelms you. And you can't fight it. You become who you truly are: Dust that's connected with more dust. Because that's all we ever are. You are just 'somethings.' And it's so wonderful and amazing how many little things we make because we realize that we are a 'something.' But that's all you are. That is the answer. The notions and perceptions and categorizations you have about things are interesting. But please understand how limiting they are.

Keep 'getting out of prison' every day. Do something every day that makes you feel like you just got out of prison.

[Jarno]

Here is the answer, chil'run. As a shaman- I'm telling you, that everybody can be all types, and be all things, and go everywheres.

So you are saying I can change from male to female if I want to. That's pretty ridiculous.

You didn't see the light, you were hallucinating.

Or maybe you just like to provoke or get attention. I don't know, but I'll soon find out.

[Jarno]

Actually........


(lol)

According to JUNG, we consist of a Self that is "the real us". Inside of that Self, that we can't completely know consciously, there is lot's of different archetypes. The most important being:
1. Ego - this is what you call and think of as "yourself" SOCIONICS TYPES THE EGO!!! The Ego is constructed the first year you live. This is PRETTY MUCH a proved fact....
2. Persona - the mask(s) you present to the world. It's how you want others to see you. If you type someone, you might easily mistype them based on their persona, if they have a strong Persona very different from their Ego.
3. Anima/Animus - the female/male part of a man/woman. This is seen by many as a counterpart to your Persona, while I don't agree totally on that. The Anima/Animus is unconscious in young people. The older you get, the more conscious is it. I know my Animus fairly well (35 years old). A person in control of his Anima/Animus can be mistyped as the Animi talk through their Egos. They might easily mistype themselves as well, as they confuse their Animi for their Ego. I did this myself. (my Animus is extroverted and logical, probably LIE or ILE?)
4. The Shadow - the supressed thoughts, feelings and actions of the Ego. Everything you think you are not, typically "bad" things (eg. evil, violent, selfish, etc.), but also certain good traits can be suppressed (eg. assertiveness, ability to say no, etc)

According to Jung, we are PHYSICALLY female/male because our hormones make it that way by looks, and NORMALLY the CONSCIOUS PSYCHE will IDENTIFY with a man when you look like a man, and a woman if you look like a woman. But this is ONLY a construct of the psyche. In reality we don't have genders psychologically. Of course, physically, it's a totally different story.

When it comes to TYPE, however, it is probably STRICTLY a matter of a construct of the psyche. As it is your EGO that is typed, and as the EGO is not inborn, but a "imagined" *I*, by definition, you "the Self" can be any type, and actually is ALL types.

Hmmm... Do you know your Shadow? It is always the OPPOSITE type of your Ego (naturally). I have an LSE Shadow. So IEIs that go "dark" will behave as evil LSEs. etc. EIIs who "lose it" probably become a negative version of an SLE, and ILEs become a negative ESI, etc. I think this is why we often project "evil" on our conflicting functions, cause we know from our Shadows that these functions are like when in a "negative drive".

When people talk about "dual type theories", I think they talk about Ego + Anima/Animus. They recognize a second voice in themselves, that can have a completely different type. The goal of individuation is to make the Anima/Animus fully conscious, so that he/she will cooperate and grow WITH you.

Anyways.... B&D DOES see something here, I am certain. IEIs (ime) probably more than any other type feel the different archetypes in themselves? Not sure why? Some types have trouble seeing the difference between Persona and Ego, while many, many IEIs I know are very familiar with their Shadows (I have noticed that strrrng is, he has on several occations pointed out that "evil" can be a good thing for the whole/for development, and that is exactly what Jung says - the Shadow should be tamed and controlled, and when possible - integrated into the conscious Ego), also I have seen many IEIs that naturally see beyond the Ego, and sense the greater Self behind. I think that is what B&D does. But most of all I think he describes a complex in himself, limiting him. And then he projects that complex onto socionics. B&D, you are right - you are more! Of course you are! <3

(sorry for the preaching. Just felt like defending B&D's thoughts since you were so negative)

no problem.

I was aiming at the psysical male and female. Although your explanation is a good defensive for the psychological part.

Anyways, anyone who sais you can be more than one type, like BD does and which is a common Noob idea, has not understood socionics. I just want to emphasize that.

[Creepy-male]

*threadjack*

This anima of mine, is this perhaps why I have "unusually strong ethics" for an ILE?

[ArchonAlarion]

I think "ethics" is poor word choice. I have strong feelings and emotions. I think about relationships between myself and others quite a bit. Its junk socionics to then say "Oh you have strong ethics".

I think you are interested and fascinated with Fe and that would make sense seeing as its your agenda.

[Creepy-male]

Feelings don't have rules, imo. That's why they're feelings! You feel them.

Females in general scare me, for multiple reasons. Like, they'll find out I'm some inferior being hitch-hiking through this world; then everyone will somehow find out and start looking at me funny--but not in a way that you can return. That, and I'm horrible worried about offending them somehow.

I got this from my mother. As she's an SLI, I got my fair share of frequent PoLR hits as a kid, compounded by the fact that she seemed to alternate between Scary Dad and Overcomponsating Mother completely at random. Oh, and my dad's last wife. She just generally beat me to death with Se every time I showed up, and made it pretty clear I was unwelcome there. (Clear to me, that is. I just don't get some Betas.)

EDIT

Archon, you're just wrong there. I'm not interested or fascinated in Fe, it's just something I naturally do.

And anyway, Mr Ti, you of all people should be able to appreciate "ethics" being a placeholder term until it's clear whether it's Fi or Fe (or Fo or Fum--I smell the blood of an Ing Lish Mun).

[ArchonAlarion]

Uhg, I'm getting sick of this forum, Idk what the fuck I did that every is on my case like Im being the biggest fucking dick or something.

Whatever Gulanzon, idc be whatever you want, jeez

[Creepy-male]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be harsh. It was said in a joking tone! Believe me!

But dude, seriously, as a Ne-bro, take my advice: don't stick to a theory, yo. Try to incorporate as many as you can.

I'm a 7w6. We're the mental health counselors of the enneagram. Why are you sticking to your Archonionics like it's some sort of fortress? I understand that's a natural defence mechanism due to the awful amount of "attacks" you receive, but are there any other reasons?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Uhg, I'm getting sick of this forum, Idk what the fuck I did that every is on my case like Im being the biggest fucking dick or something.

It sometimes seems I think that you are on or start out on the defensive, so maybe it is self fufilling prophecy? Maybe you just need to chill or something. Heh, i'm no fantastic advice giver though, ha.

Anyways, i'd asked you a question twice about why you don't acknowledge Fe-Fi as a dichotomy but you seem to use an Ni-Si dichotomy, and so forth. Basically, what's wrong with F sharing some characteristics, when they do? Maybe you could answer that

Whatever Gulanzon, idc be whatever you want, jeez

I don't think anyone can really force a type or a way of thinking on someone, regardless of how strongly another may disagree with it. At least in socionics, ya?

[Creepy-male]

I don't think anyone can really force a type or a way of thinking on someone, regardless of how strongly another may disagree with it. At least in socionics, ya?

Except with types

[ArchonAlarion]

Guys that's my point. I am incoporating a bunch of stuff from multiple theories, so far I've combined Model A stuff, Model X, and Smilexian (like the cycling).

I'm not being rigid, and I'm sorry if I'm coming across that way.


I see Ni-Si as a legitimate dichotomy because its reflected in the element make-ups.

Internal dynamics of fields
External dynamics of fields

Do you see how they "live" in the same domain? They are looking in the same area, but they are seeing opposite things.

Its like taking a picture and switching it from regular to inverted colors. Same picture, but opposite and conflicting focus.

whereas this "dichotomy"

Internal dynamics of objects
Internal statics of fields

They have little in common. They are both internal, sure, but then so is Ni and Ne. There is only an indirect connection to eachother because the dual element of Fe is Ti, which is the conflicting element of Fi.

[Creepy-male]

Let me help you out with Fe, Ne-bro.

It seems like you're being rigid because you start sulking when we MISUNDERESTIMATE you. You're falling into the McNoodle trap. Not everybody is as stunningly intelligent intelligent as you, so you need to make things digestible

I know it can be hard, but just try to chillax and treat things for what they are: a discussion. That's the advantage of a forum: you and you alone set the pace.

Question: have you experimented with the standing quadra dichotomies and the element dichotomies? Seems interesting to me.

[JuJu]

You know, people make their own prisons and dreams. If Socionics has become a prison for you, Sam--it's not as if the door's been locked. You can leave whenever you'd like, you know. Go out. Do what you want.

Your posts lately have been almost uniformly negative. Reading them, it seems to me that you're living in the twilight zone.

I go through depressions too, where I want to jump out of the window--they become easier to deal with as you get older--but this negative whining isn't the way to go about making it better.

[ArchonAlarion]

Im a bit confused by what you mean.

Do you mean like... dynamic/static and internal/external by "element dichotomies"?

If so, then yes, but I keep coming back to the standing three, because... well they work and I can't see how I'd add to them, but if I did it would create new elements and that would be very different.

I don't know what "quadra dichotomies" means.

[Creepy-male]

Yeah, internal/external, static/dynamic, objects/fields.

Quadra dichotomies are Merry/Serious, Judicious/Decisive, and Democratic/Aristocratic (less inclined to look at this one, actually).

[ArchonAlarion]

I think the quadra dichotomies might be a bit vague, but there is something to Merry/Serious (Fe/Ti vs Te/Fi), Judicious/Decisive, (Ne/Si vs Se/Ni) and Democratic/Aristocratic...

Democratic types have an internal and external element in the ego block.
Aristocratic types have either two externals or two internals in the ego block.

There are interesting affects on the quadra's due to this, which democratic and aristocratic reflect.

[Creepy-male]

I hadn't noticed.

Shall we shove over to this thread?

P.S. sorry for the threadjack, BnD. I still <3 you. :redface:

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Guys that's my point. I am incoporating a bunch of stuff from multiple theories, so far I've combined Model A stuff, Model X, and Smilexian (like the cycling).

I'm not being rigid, and I'm sorry if I'm coming across that way.

No worries

I see Ni-Si as a legitimate dichotomy because its reflected in the element make-ups.

Internal dynamics of fields
External dynamics of fields

Do you see how they "live" in the same domain? They are looking in the same area, but they are seeing opposite things.

Its like taking a picture and switching it from regular to inverted colors. Same picture, but opposite and conflicting focus.

Yes I can see what you're saying and I don't dispute it's another way to look at it. I even think it can be useful and valid in it's own right!

But although it's another way to look at it, in practice remember there are unconcious strong functions at work as well..

whereas this "dichotomy"

Internal dynamics of objects
Internal statics of fields

They have little in common. They are both internal, sure, but then so is Ni and Ne. There is only an indirect connection to eachother because the dual element of Fe is Ti, which is the conflicting element of Fi.

See, problem I think it is, is that when dealing with such abstract terms, it becomes easy to mis-interpret what the words mean and how it fits into practical reality. At least this is a problem for me.

Take:
internal dynamics of objects
internal statics of fields

As per your example, basically and

Now I say that they are opposites of the same thing. One is looking at the same thing as a dynamic of an object, things as they actually change from within (Fe) and things how the interact from a non-motion pov (Fi). It's like saying the static and the dynamic way to view the same thing, whether it's a film, an interaction, anything, but it is looking at the same thing from "opposite" viewpoints.

So, if a person is strong at internal dynamics of objects, they are also strong in internal dynamics of fields; aka, a person who is strong F (ego) is strong in Fe and is strong is also strong in Fi.

The difference is, is that one is a concious function and one is an unconcious function.

So.. as I understand it and how I see it work in people, the unconcious function works 'below the surface' to serve the concious function. Say an Fe ego type having Fi working underneath in service of Fe. They are both there to be called on and share similar ways of looking at something, but a different take on it..hence the overal shared dichotomy.

It is two ways of looking at the same thing, but a person has an overal reference in which way they express it. (leading to which is ego and which is underneath, but still available to the person].

Put this into duality: the idea of duality is that it's a complete psyche, that people are strong in everything and can handle all ways of dealing with the world.

For practical purposes, you have to have it this way, they are basically a dichotomy in practice as well as interpreting the reductionalistic words in the right way. or at least another way.

One who is strong in Se also has Si working underneath (and vica versa.) One who is strong in Se does not have strong Ne they have weak concious Ne. Se in practice, in a psyche is actually more different than Ne than the actual general observations of Se and Si..because in the first example, one is strong and the other is weak in a person, in the second example they can both be called upon and are both strong.

Traditional socionic dichotomies actually make sense from a reductionalistic level, and a practical level, as we see in individual people, and also what duality does and is supposed to do.

Thanks for replying. I think both ways of looking at it have some validity, but the existing socionic dichotomies have more validity overall. But the two ideas can co-exist, yeah?

[ArchonAlarion]

You could say that Fe-Fi is a dichotomy because they are both are internal, but with opposite domains... However, they don't really have much to do with eachother besides that.

Its like if you are Fe and Te is you neighbor who you hate. You see your neighbor has a new girlfriend, Fi. Great... but you have basically nothing to do with her and your dislike of her is more related to your dislike of your neighbor.

The connection between them is indirect and pretty useless to me.

Also I'm not too keen on the ID being strong. I think its easier to EMULATE the BEHAVIOR of your ID, BUT that doesn't mean you are actually PERCEIVING the ID elements. Do you get me?

[Steve]

You know, people make their own prisons and dreams. If Socionics has become a prison for you, Sam--it's not as if the door's been locked. You can leave whenever you'd like, you know. Go out. Do what you want.

I read in some enneagram book where they described humans as being in a prison without a guard and with the key inside. I think that definitely applies here.

Your posts lately have been almost uniformly negative. Reading them, it seems to me that you're living in the twilight zone.

I go through depressions too, where I want to jump out of the window--they become easier to deal with as you get older--but this negative whining isn't the way to go about making it better.

Sometimes it can be a helpful release to rant about stuff. My feeling is that Bullets&Doves is trying to justify to himself his decision to leave the forum (among other personal changes he feels ready to take in his life) to try and gain some certainty that he is making the right decision, which isn't unusual for a 6.

@ Mimosa: excellent posts.

I do think B&D has a general point about the potential to box ourselves in and start letting the types define us instead of letting us continually define and expand the types through experience. I've come to the conclusion that types are only the starting point, not the ending boundary. You can recognize information elements and different patterns in people, but to say that people ARE those patterns is where the problem lies. To say that someone does this and this because of that is nothing merely more than a guess and a projection, since you can never really know what is causing someone to do something. Heck, even trying to analyze it that way is not even analyzing something real, because when you're trying to analyze someone's actions or apparent motivations, you're analyzing something that happened in the past, and all you have of the past is your own selective memory and projection of what happened.

I think type theory is interesting and it can help you recognize patterns that you've seen yourself fall back on in the past (particularly with enneagram). But ego-identifying with the patterns and seeking a sense of self in it leads to the prison.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

You could say that Fe-Fi is a dichotomy because they are both are internal, but with opposite domains... However, they don't really have much to do with eachother besides that.

Its like if you are Fe and Te is you neighbor who you hate. You see your neighbor has a new girlfriend, Fi. Great... but you have basically nothing to do with her and your dislike of her is more related to your dislike of your neighbor.

The connection between them is indirect and pretty useless to me.

Also I'm not too keen on the ID being strong. I think its easier to EMULATE the BEHAVIOR of your ID, BUT that doesn't mean you are actually ]PERCEIVING the ID elements. Do you get me?

No, I don't think you understand the concept of the types and duality properly, or that concept in reality.

I felt I elaborated well enough in my post, and even as I wrote it, it occured to me that I was using my Ti to make sense of it and explain things in a Te way - my preferred function over the two strong T functions that I have, which also backs up what I said.

But you are entitled to your views regardless of course

[Creepy-male]

Cyclops, the problem is under Model X. According to which, only the valued elements exist in a person's psyche.

[JuJu]

I read in some enneagram book where they described humans as being in a prison without a guard and with the key inside. I think that definitely applies here.

Sometimes it can be a helpful release to rant about stuff. My feeling is that Bullets&Doves is trying to justify to himself his decision to leave the forum (among other personal changes he feels ready to take in his life) to try and gain some certainty that he is making the right decision, which isn't unusual for a 6.

It comes to a point, Steve, where it's over-blown, unhelpful, and counter-productive. That point is when it's incessant and negative (as it has been) and reaching desperately for self-justification where there is none... Why do that here, you know? Buy a journal or pray.

When you get into justifying, e.g. "isn't unusual for a 6," and all this hemming and hawing about whether to leave a computer forum, it can be unhelpful too. Suffering a fool gladly does not help the fool. (Not that Sam is a fool, or unintelligent; I've seen some intelligent people act pretty stupidly--personal experience as well.)

There's a lot of subjective being taken for objective in his posts. I believe it might be doing more harm than good to tacitly support it. that's all.

[ArchonAlarion]

well I'm not sure if they do or don't.

Its just something I'm thinking about.

[Steve]

It comes to a point, Steve, where it's over-blown, unhelpful, and counter-productive. That point is when it's incessant and negative (as it has been) and reaching desperately for self-justification where there is none... Why do that here, you know? Buy a journal or pray.

When you get into justifying, e.g. "isn't unusual for a 6," and all this hemming and hawing about whether to leave a computer forum, it can be unhelpful too. Suffering a fool gladly does not help the fool. (Not that Sam is a fool, or unintelligent; I've seen some intelligent people act pretty stupidly--personal experience as well.)

There's a lot of subjective being taken for objective in his posts. I believe it might be doing more harm than good to tacitly support it. that's all.

I hear ya.

Idk, I don't necessarily have a problem with his rants. If I don't feel like reading one, I don't.

I was hoping by making the 6 comment that it would help him bring awareness to what he was doing so that he could catch the pattern and not remain trapped in it, unless he should consciously choose to.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Socionics always was a prison. I just realized it. I have no idea how fair you're being with me here Justin, because I yelled at you before and I have no idea how much that hurt your feelings. You're also confusing objectivity with subjectivity.

So live your life as a socionics type. See what kind of fulfilling career, and/or relationships you can get from that one perception. And prove it to me with pictures, facts, call me on the phone. You can say a man isn't his job. Well there's some truth to that, of course. But you can't say 'INFP' on a job resume and that's it, or whatever. You can't just walk up to somebody in a real world social setting and say 'Hi, I'm Mike- I'm an infp.' Well maybe you could in some areas specifically designed for socionics nerds. *sigh*

I hate to be so challenging (No, I actually love it) but my guess is you wouldn't be able to do it. All you'll be able to do is go 'Hmm well that's interesting.' How do you integrate socionics into your real life, if at all? Does it really make people understand you better. Or does it just make them want to argue with you like I'm doing now?

How do I *not* understand socionics btw? I'm pretty much a fourteen year old girl at heart, ever eternally- and this stuff is the shit that fourteen year olds lap up so explain to me again how that works laughs.

Tell ya what. I'll keep working on it. But I get much more of a kick pointing out the gaps and holes of others, human nature-ly.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

This forum helped me realize some things. But again that was enneagram shit, not really socionics anyway- and it was really a subtle thing that I totally overblown and talked about to death. But in a way it needed to be overblown , talked about, as it needed to be worked through a lot.

[JuJu]

I hate to be so challenging (No, I actually love it) but my guess is you wouldn't be able to do it. All you'll be able to do is go 'Hmm well that's interesting.' How do you integrate socionics into your real life, if at all? Does it really make people understand you better. Or does it just make them want to argue with you like I'm doing now?

You integrate it, Sam, the same way you integrate anything else--religion or what you learn in school, or messages from music, you know.

It's positive too. It's about relationships and how we can maximize them.

You're missing the message.

In your recent posts, Sam, you're proselytizing--and negatively. You talk about "helping" and converting people to your way of thinking... In a slightly different context, it would be "onward Christian soldiers" and that bullshit.

As to what you said before, I'm a sensitive person and I was hurt that you seemed to believe what you wrote. I couldn't understand it, given what I knew of the situation. But I survived, you know, and here I am. I am slightly resentful you haven't apologized. But don't get me wrong, I'm not taking it out on you here and never would. Just being direct.

[Ritella]

yes. well said, juju and starfall.
wow. the title of this thread made me laugh so hard.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

yes. well said, juju and starfall.
wow. the title of this thread made me laugh so hard.

Why?

[Ritella]

Why?

uh. i think it's obvious. no?

it's just A TOUCH melodramatic.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

uh. i think it's obvious. no?

it's just A TOUCH melodramatic.

ah I see, but to answer your question, such a thing makes me withdraw, or even slighly annoyed, not laugh so hard.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

uh. i think it's obvious. no?

it's just A TOUCH melodramatic.

ah I see, but to answer your question, such a thing makes me withdraw, or even slighly annoyed or repulsed, not laugh so hard.