Socionics vs Socionix = practical/works vs impractical/doesn't

[JuJu]

Typing overly behaviorally, or even one step removed from behaviorally, like "This person is aggressive therefore he's Se", led me to find too many inconsistencies because there is no such absolute term as what constitutes objectively "aggressive" behavior, and then to say that someone's psychological makeup consists of an "aggressive or forceful function"?

Steve... Like all Socionics information elements, Se has nothing to do with so-and-so getting mad, as you're trying to make it seem here.

Like all info elements, Se is something you can see in behavior and feel psychologically.


In Se egos, Se is something you see manifested in someone's personality continually, i.e. nearly all the time... (Like Ne in your ego and Fe in mine...) Thus, "Se leading."

My point is, you can't take specific traits which appear as such in a certain context and ignore the motivational context.

Maybe you're right, Steve, and the 'why' of someone's personality = enneagram... That is irrelevant to Socionics, as 'why' is not what Socionics seeks to describe. (Personally, I think 'why' is much more complicated than the enneagram presents it.)

Socionics describes personalities via how they process info... The only way one can detect how people process info is by observing their personalities, (e.g. psychological "traits,") to see and feel how the info is manifested in their personalities. ("Manifested" = what you can see and feel it in a person's personality.)

While yes, in comparison to Si or Ne, Se is much more "hard and concrete and sort of acts like different impulses of 'force'" it is not forcefulness in and of itself, just as yellow can appear "bright, light, happy," while purple can appear "deep, dark, mysterious", those words do not equate with the colors. The word "force" only is useful in comparing Se to other functions on a very general and abstract level, and not behaviorally at all.

To extend your color example to Socionics and the real world--just as I don't give a shit "why" e.g. purple wants to be purple (lol; ) I don't particularly give a shit why Se wants to manifest in certain people, (i.e. what the enneagram describes.)

I am a practical man and thus content to know Se (and the color purple, for that matter,) when I see them and feel them, i.e. I am content with Socionics, unpolluted by the enneagram.

This is all by way of saying, you and Socionix are abstracting Socionics--something meant to be tangible and experiential--to the point of being impractical, ineffable, and signifying next-to-nothing to real people in the real world.

[717495]

You can abstract it all you want, just don't tell me about it. I have my own problems to deal with via

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Eh, I think Se creative and Se dominant feels differently. Sure I agree that the word aggressive doesn't fully cover it, for instance, ESTj's and ISTp's can be aggressive, but typically it is the reasons they get aggressive and the means in which they get aggressive which seperates the differences.

For instance, delta ST's can be aggressive but it is done by relaying the facts aggressively with little interest in Fe, ie they can seem immune to it being there or not. Beta ST's can be aggressive for power plays and enjoy/try to create the means available for Fe interaction within it.

Like I can be aggressive with what I see as the facts on this forum at times, and recent example, deante, is aggressive with context of establishing his dominance with a display of what I see as 'showboating' or goading in a way to create a tense emotional atmosphere for instance.

Of course this may be coloured by my own delta ST perception, but I hope the message of what i'm saying comes across reasonably well.

[duality is cringe]

@JuJu, having read your interaction, I feel you've misunderstood Steve entirely. Regardless of opinions of Bale's type, I don't think that there's any arguement over whether not one can see - and other fuctions - manifesting in someone's behavior. Steve never associated with getting angry, he rightly expressed concern over such behavior - along with other things - being misattributed to .

This is all by way of saying, you and Socionix are abstracting Socionics--something meant to be tangible and experiential--to the point of being impractical, ineffable, and signifying next-to-nothing to real people in the real world.

I completely disagree. I think Ashton/Socionix's more "Jungian" approach offers much clearer and more accurate assessments of how functions manifest IRL. Much more so than the simplistic garbage paraded around here and workshop (ex: Se = force, Si = bodily states, Te = productivity, efficiency, blah blah blah).

[717495]

I think what JuJu is trying to say is that slapping ass actually correlates to , not .

[duality is cringe]

I think what JuJu is trying to say is that slapping ass actually correlates to , not .

Who are you, strange sir?

[JuJu]

I think Se creative and Se dominant feels differently. Sure I agree that the word aggressive doesn't fully cover it, for instance, ESTj's and ISTp's can be aggressive, but typically it is the reasons they get aggressive and the means in which they get aggressive which seperates the differences.

Yes, I agree 100% with this... Delta and Beta Se come across differently... To me, Delta Se (my Dad is ESTj) comes across as more dry, (as opposed to fiery and dramatic, as in betas, as their Se is mingled with Fe,) and the Te is palpable as well, (usually makes Deltas come across as sensible, for lack of a better word.)

I completely disagree. I think Ashton/Socionix's more "Jungian" approach offers much clearer and more accurate assessments of how functions manifest IRL.

DeAnte, Socionix has no functional model, so how on earth can you say it manifests better IRL..? There isn't a even a hypothesis as to how all of it might work in practice, nevermind any research. (Nevermind its adherents rarely leave the house.)

What Steve proposes is a Ti jack-off based on a misunderstanding of Socionics' purpose--which he in good faith, I know, believes is a genuine critique of Socionics--but in actuality, is not because it does not work in practice and has nothing to do with real people. (See above.)

It's just a bunch of tangential Ti jack-offs, which mean nothing when combined...

Just because Socionix says it's "Jungian" doesn't mean it has any validity, or that any of the 5 or so Socionixists know what they're talking about.

I think what JuJu is trying to say is that slapping ass actually correlates to , not .

LOL!!

[xerx]

It's just a bunch of tangential jack-offs which mean nothing... Just because they say it's "Jungian" doesn't mean it has any validity, or that any of them know what they're talking about.

Yep. Most of it even directly contradicts Jung.

[ArchonAlarion]

You've straw-manned Steve, JuJu.

I've seen him explicitly state that Se is not "aggressiveness, forcefulness, willpower, etc"

And I doubt he disagrees with observing behavioral traits, speech, and VIing as the only accurate means to type people.

[JuJu]

A strawman is an argument based on a misrepresentation.

Socionix is based on a strawman of Socionics, and in itself, it is incoherent and non-functional as a working model.

There's no strawman in that.

[Creepy-male]

A straw man is a misrepresentation of an argument.

You then argue against the straw man and claim to have refuted the original argument.

Wikipedia agrees.

[Steve]

Yes, I agree 100% with this... Delta and Beta Se come across differently... To me, Delta Se (my Dad is ESTj) comes across as more dry, (as opposed to fiery and dramatic, as in betas, as their Se is mingled with Fe,) and the Te is palpable as well, (usually makes Deltas come across as sensible, for lack of a better word.)

Ok This has been simmering in me for a while and it's about to explode, but it finally crystallized:

You are Ne ENFp. You are oozing with Delta. There is no Ti anywhere to be found in you, and your way of emotionally relating is totally on a different axis than Fe/Ti exchanges.

You are in no way identicals with this man:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBkhqvwdyNo]YouTube - Anthony Hopkinsicasso... interview with Jimmy Carter[/ame]

nor this man:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llLY9VUKpRM]YouTube - Robert Anton Wilson - Pessimists vs Optimists[/ame]

nor this man:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov75Ld1BhwU]YouTube - Shepard Smith Rants About the AIG Bonus Hearings![/ame]

Sorry, but you don't cut it.

You can feel the Fe push and pull in each of those 3. While each has a different personality, the feel is distinct. With Fe people there is always a direct causal effect they exude that is intended to have a direct effect on the person and mood or whatever.

This is totally vacant in your communication. Whatever you put out seems like a constant set emotional context of where people stand with you. Honestly, I feel like all Fe that people used in debates/discussions has been engulfed and disintegrated in your midst. Not a criticism, but your way of relating seems very enigmatic for me at times and it's hard to figure out where you stand relationally sometimes. Something about your initial move to Beta NF didn't seem right. I know a lot of it was because you could relate with Nick's tastes and preferences and approach to life, but you are not in the same quadra on an essential level, which again says something about what socionics actually does/doesn't describe.

I think you'll find more similarity with these people, who are Ne ENFp:







He may be a 6 E-type, while you're (as far as I can gather so far) a 3, in case you're curious.







All the videos you've made have this distinct Ne gaze in your eyes, just like Chris Rock and David Gallagher shown above clearly possess. You always look like you're "looking into" objects and just everything about it screams Ne. Pretty much all Ni leading types I've seen (and even all Ni egos) exude an aura of "looking through" like a strong laser piercing through metal. Also, the Se complementary awareness gives them a kind of targeted-ness, none of which you have. What you have is a kind of casually "looking into" different points, but bound by this background peripheral smooth continuity of Si.

Edit: Also, you are EP>EJ. All the ENFjs in the videos have a detectable aura of inner control while you seem loose and free.

Just for kicks google search pics of David Gallagher and check out some of the pics where he's with girls or other friends. They'll probably remind you of your social circle.

DeAnte, Socionix has no functional model, so how on earth can you say it manifests better IRL..? There isn't a even a hypothesis as to how all of it might work in practice, nevermind any research. (Nevermind its adherents rarely leave the house.)

There was a basic dynamic model originally developed by Sarah and Ashton where functions did have different manifestations in each type. The basis of the model was not prescriptive but rather descriptive of what the functions "do" in each type, as opposed to what the functions "are" and what people's personalities "are" as a result of those functions, as it is portrayed in model A. I've still found the basis of the Model to hold true on a general level, but cannot used too specifically to say that "This person likes Ti stuff better than Ne because he's Ti subtype" or something like that.

What Steve proposes is a Ti jack-off based on a misunderstanding of Socionics' purpose--which he in good faith, I know, believes is a genuine critique of Socionics--but in actuality, is not because it does not work in practice and has nothing to do with real people. (See above.)

It's just a bunch of tangential Ti jack-offs, which mean nothing when combined...

Haven't we had this issue before? It wouldn't surprise me at all with you being a Ti PoLR.

I guess your pan-sexuality only applies to the physical world and not the world of opposite functions, cause it looks like you aren't participating in this jack off.

Just because Socionix says it's "Jungian" doesn't mean it has any validity, or that any of the 5 or so Socionixists know what they're talking about.

I don't know what is considered "Socionix" at this point. I haven't spoken to Ashton much recently so I don't know what his views are that still coincide with my own. We started from a similar place, but I don't know where we are anymore relative to each other. There seem to be some differences as of late.

But in response to your sentence there, I read Jung's whole thing on the psychological types, and there are some very strong parallels with my own understanding of the functions. I would be happy to discuss and compare Jung point by point.

[Steve]

@JuJu, having read your interaction, I feel you've misunderstood Steve entirely. Regardless of opinions of Bale's type, I don't think that there's any arguement over whether not one can see - and other fuctions - manifesting in someone's behavior. Steve never associated with getting angry, he rightly expressed concern over such behavior - along with other things - being misattributed to .

Thanks for reiterating this. I didn't realize that wasn't clear to JuJu.

I completely disagree. I think Ashton/Socionix's more "Jungian" approach offers much clearer and more accurate assessments of how functions manifest IRL. Much more so than the simplistic garbage paraded around here and workshop (ex: Se = force, Si = bodily states, Te = productivity, efficiency, blah blah blah).

Jung really paints a picture of the functions and there's a lot of interesting insights to take from him in understanding the functions.

[Mattie]

Jung really paints a picture of the functions and there's a lot of interesting insights to take from him in understanding the functions.

Do you have any favorite sources from Jung that points towards how you see the functions? I'm curious to make the comparison, and because it seems like you and DeAnte have a similar mindset, I would like to see your perspective even if only it is to understand where you're coming from

[Gilly]

The more important question is this:

Do you realize that Jung and Socionics define the functions differently and that neither point to an objectively observable process, and that therefore any attempt to correlate the two is really just giving you license to mix and match what you like? I mean, if you find an amalgam of the two that works for you, hey, by all means, use it. But don't call it Socionics, because it's not, and you're just going to confuse yourself and other people.

[ArchonAlarion]

The more important question is this:

Do you realize that Jung and Socionics define the functions differently and that neither point to an objectively observable process, and that therefore any attempt to correlate the two is really just giving you license to mix and match what you like? I mean, if you find an amalgam of the two that works for you, hey, by all means, use it. But don't call it Socionics, because it's not, and you're just going to confuse yourself and other people.

Yes.

[Tom]

Basically Steve just slapped this thread with the Big Black Cock of Correctness.

[Steve]

Basically Steve just slapped this thread with the Big Black Cock of Correctness.

[717495]

So JuJu is an ENFp? I remember watching one of his youtube videos explaining that he's an INFp because he likes being alone, yet that line of reasoning is not exactly lateral with introversion.

Steve = = big black cock. Makes sense. So that must mean JuJu has a big black cock as well.

Who are you, strange sir?

I am iceman. Nice to meet you.

[Jarno]

The more important question is this:

Do you realize that Jung and Socionics define the functions differently and that neither point to an objectively observable process, and that therefore any attempt to correlate the two is really just giving you license to mix and match what you like? I mean, if you find an amalgam of the two that works for you, hey, by all means, use it. But don't call it Socionics, because it's not, and you're just going to confuse yourself and other people.

I don't understand.

How do they not point to an objectively observable process? What is an objectively observable process according to you?