Socionics Temperaments (description by poli)
You may want to relocate this post based on whatever accepted constitution arises from the users of Model A. I redefined the four temperaments into a four component scheme, where the first component (EJ temperament) traditionally signifies the original step of production, and the other three follow in order. It came to me first in a visualization of the temperaments in their finer forms, static/dynamic, and extroverted/introverted. Since extroverted functions seek change and initiative, the E temperaments provide the initial influence, where EJs create the physical limits, logically by admitting methods, and EPs pinpoint and originate an initial basis for an axiom. The E temperaments move onto initiating trades and new ideas, while the I temperaments stay back to organize and perfect the system. This ordering of the temperaments does not mean necessarily that the E temperaments can not organize an already existent system, for this will naturally happen when trades (the tools for methods) make some original methods more available to new systems (when the dynamic flow choses to enter previous realms, looks for new passages from older grounds). The I temperaments can also originate new rules for traditional schemes, for example when their becomes error in IJ framework, or when IPs begin to combine their methods to gain new insights into reconstructing a framework. Temperaments are also designated by specific behaviors classified into common definitions, however I intend to specify the overall implication of their behaviors. The pertaining definitions are generalized and concise. They do not account for every theoretical circumstance, but intend to attach common behavior to a reasoning behind each directive dichotomy (ethics, logic, intuition, and sensing.)
EJ - the Progressors ~ signified by ethical and logical endurance
The EJ-Progressors seek new methods to expand their industries. They provide the force to open new doors for the EP-Deciders and a stable base for construction for the IJ-Organizers. It is their responsibility to designate latest enhancements into a position of power in order to initially progress situations into new spheres of potential.
EP - the Deciders ~ signified by intuitive or sensory assertion
It's the EP-Deciders job to explore new areas provided by previous EJ-Progressor methods and to choose as to which systems will be originated and imposed for future generations to specialize. It is their responsibility to assume appropriate genres, that their new initiations are of enough significance in comparison with their old, and that they remain original wherever applicable, or else energy will be reused on old systems which will eventually become unsuitable.
IJ - the Organizers ~ signified by ethical or logical comprehension
The IJ-Organizers are the ones who specialize in a given system previously originated by the EP-Deciders. It is their job to search for all implications of the system and to perfect it into a personal or logical framework. It is the responsibility of the IJ to justify society's formations to assure future consideration of them into ruling.
IP - the Preservers ~ signified by intuitive or sensory philosophy
The IP-Preservers assist the IJ-Organizers by providing a dynamic flow in contrast to constructing their situated model. This dynamic flow is comprised of advanced methods that aid energy from one model to another, overall stabilizing finely specialized developments in frameworks and perceiving connections drawn from them. It is their responsibility to improve methods of drawing relevant connections to means, and to assess and share these means, or else existent systems will have no vision to improve on.
Last edited by 717495; 06-05-2009 at 03:28 PM.
I've edited and extended these definitions in hope that you comprehend the visualization I had in mind.
not a bumblebee
I think this is a really forced analogy. Sure, it works for some types - but would an ESE really be more of a progressor than an ILE? Would an ESI be called an "organiser" rather than a "preserver"? Isn't an LSE the ultimate "organiser"?
A number of your definitions seem to indicate specific functions rather than temperaments per se. For example, a lot of your E definitions describe Ne better than E in general, e.g. "The E temperaments move onto initiating trades and new ideas" "seek new methods to expand their industries".
I also think your theory suffers from only considering the base function of each temperament i.e. EJ = Te/Fe, EP = Ne/Se, IJ = Ti/Fi, IP = Ni/Si (I'm assuming by "temperament" you mean "people/types of that temperament", rather than "informational elements of that temperament"). Wouldn't the beta system work better with:
1. IEI comes up with idea and decides that it's worth pursuing (Ni, some Ti-HA)
2. SLE starts implementation (Se-base, Ni-suggestive)
3. LSI organises.optimises system and preserves it (Ti-base, Se-creative, Ne-PoLR); EIE encourages wider participation and keeps up belief in system (Fe-base)
I don't think the same temperament organisation holds for each quadra, I'm not even going to attempt to hypothesise other quadra's systems.
I know you're trying to make a generalised overview of the temperaments, and aren't looking at specifics, but there are too many exceptions to your generalisations for them to be valid. The generalisations about the temperaments aren't general enough; yet if you make the generalisations wide enough for them to be valid, you'll no longer have your analogy. Please correct me if I've misinterpreted what you've written, and I'll see if I can suggest a way to make your point clearer.
Last edited by octo; 06-06-2009 at 01:33 PM.
Originally Posted by Agee The Great
I can't say much on this yet except that, in the way I see it, the EJ types are much more in to promoting a method and less in to systemizing and perfecting their understanding like IJs. They more so want to make methods reachable and with good use, ethical EJs more so than ILEs yes, where as the EP types are more capable of choosing to promote a specific system using methods that are in the works, thus the difference between rational and irrational extroverts. Perhaps when you read it, it came a little hazy, but from my viewpoint these generalizations hold, even though they're just generalizations. You can't generalize beyond personality type. I understand that the terminology is vague, but I intend to give examples.
Tags for this Thread