Vocabulary associated with the information elements
Vocabulary - Wikisocion
Has anyone seen this? How well do you think it works as a tool for typing someone? Do you thinkvaluers tend to use the
vocabulary? How accurate do you think these lists are?
I valuebut its a weak function, so I rarely use the
vocabulary, I use all the time and to a lesser extent
.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
And people think
Anyway, I'm going to affirm what HC said above. I think I basically tend to focus around Ti and Si (short sentences, discrete movements), but it's more around what you talk about. Like with HC's LSEdad, my LIEdad seems to like to focus around money, efficiency, Effort, and all this other alien stuff.
On the flip side, though, I think I'm one of the nerdier SEIs, so what I tend to talk about are topics that interest me, Random Fun Facts, etc. I think this is why there's still some residual doubt as to whether or not I'm ILE. With that in mind, I think you also need to look at delivery and--here I go, contradicting myself--figures of speech, a lot of which are in that vocabulary list.
You did?
I hate this. It makes
It just sucks. To me. It's like so superficial and cliche. I don't like any of it. There's no true depth to it. Anybody could act like that.
I can't believe this is published. Keep your ideas to yourselves sometimes unless you test them in reality using peer-reviewed tools.
Well, what's wrong with extracting your own depth of meaning?
If a man is pointing to the moon and you're just looking at his finger you might find a lot of flaws in the finger. I know is not entirely like that but try to look beyond words. For example, try to disregard the phrase entirely and just keep the "feeling", the attitude, the direction of the phrase. I think it might stop being so cliche. It might still suck, but maybe not that hard.Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
"What is love?"
"The total absence of fear," said the Master.
"What is it we fear?"
"Love," said the Master.
I chose Love
Nothing. But you can't really gaze deep into something when it's so banal and dumb to begin with. I like looking deeply into things, but if there's no innate depth then it's just like '...'
Also to whoever wrote this, please understand that I'm not criticizing you. I'm just criticizing your ideas...
I find a lot of your advice to me patronizing and heavy-handed. I'm not REALLY angry and fed-up with this as I'm coming across, really. I just...don't think they really get it. I mean come on. Nobody in their right minds would like some of the stuff theI think it might stop being so cliche. It might still suck, but maybe not that hard.and
no, no, no, the problem is that you look to deep at the thing.... not that you looked to shallow... try looking less at the words and more at the feelings. For example
* I saw a sky like I have never seen before.
If you hear this in a robotic, empty voice... it sounds plain stupid. But if you don't see the words and only see a sky that is leaving someone breathless/speechless and see this person trying to say something about a thing so beautiful that he know he cannot express, you will hear the statement in a different way... I you hear the dreamy inflections in the voice of the speaker and I think it might make sense.
Also, as a side note, is not the words that count but the communication, the way they are expressed. If for each of the phrases you would have an youtube clip, things will look way clearer.
"What is love?"
"The total absence of fear," said the Master.
"What is it we fear?"
"Love," said the Master.
I chose Love
It happens. For what it's worth, it was not intended to be patronizing.
"What is love?"
"The total absence of fear," said the Master.
"What is it we fear?"
"Love," said the Master.
I chose Love
Agreed.I hate this. It makes
It just sucks. To me. It's like so superficial and cliche. I don't like any of it. There's no true depth to it. Anybody could act like that.
I can't believe this is published. Keep your ideas to yourselves sometimes unless you test them in reality using peer-reviewed tools.
Also I've never heard anyone speak like the Ni talk. Ever ever ever.
The Si talk is cliche and petty.
tbh I relate most with Ne and Ti, some parts of Fe, a few parts of Si... yeah.
My fav one is "She looks yummy" lol
The end is nigh
Sigma, just out of curosity- what is your type?
My ESE friend talks like that all the time.
"These buffs. They're DELEESHUS. Om nom nom."
IEI
"What is love?"
"The total absence of fear," said the Master.
"What is it we fear?"
"Love," said the Master.
I chose Love
@Gul: yes lol okay they do.
Its more something I/Si-ers talk like when we're silly or messin around.
Okay this is back to the whole health/food/comfort deal.
What I meant was that it'd be more interesting if the vocab (in general) was more about the meter of sentences. Like how the sentences are structured and such. I think the Ti and Te went into a bit about that.
Like I can't write in big text blocks, for example. Well I can, but I don't want to. I like writing in short blips. Easier to digest for the reader. Easier to review and analyze at later dates, etc.
The end is nigh
those words can be misleading when you take them to litteraly.
I hate this. It makes
It just sucks. To me. It's like so superficial and cliche. I don't like any of it. There's no true depth to it. Anybody could act like that.
I can't believe this is published. Keep your ideas to yourselves sometimes unless you test them in reality using peer-reviewed tools.
I sort of feel that way about the
The article is on Wikisocion.com so anyone can post or edit something. So if you see stuff on there you think doesn't capture the essence of
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
I don't see the Vocabulary as a "tool for typing."
It should be.
The end is nigh
okay, maybe it's a shovel, while there are other things that are bulldozers
lol
It has the potential to be a bulldozer though.
The end is nigh
First we must answer the question: Is type real?Vocabulary - Wikisocion
Has anyone seen this? How well do you think it works as a tool for typing someone? Do you think
I value
until this question is answered all of this talk of vocabulary as it pertains to type is meaningless nonesense.
Types are not real, because Socionics is only a model of the human mind.
It's like, are numbers real? No, they're just representations of quantities of physical things.
EDIT
And no, maths is not "real" either, it's still a model (or rather, all the little bits and pieces that describe different things are models, but you get my point, I hope?), and still has little glitches here and there where it doesn't match 1:1 with reality. I think.
I probably dug myself a hole with that analogy. Oh well.
jxrtes, tag in!
Verbalization is probably one of the most consistent indicator of information usage via the mental ring functions.
The more someone works on their ego/super-ego the more detailed and nuanced their verbalization will be.
But just because someone says some word doesn't mean much about their type.
Someone that says "I don't know" constantly is probably not valuing Te.
Someone that often says "I know better then you" might value it and may even be strong in Te. This of course, may not be true, but it still shows confidence.
Someone that has a need to explain things to others understanding might value Ti, they might even try to explain a exceedingly complex topic and fail, but that doesn't mean they don't try their utmost.
Someone that tells colorful stories to brighten everyone's mood might value Fe and Si.
The word usage and the final effect are not so important as the intentions of the speaker, and this is harder to decipher in people merely unskilled at their ego functions. In this sense, typing can be difficult and imprecise, people can often just mimic their experiences back.
Even for Jung when he first endeavored to study psychological types, he commented that much of humanity is somewhat undeveloped.
Or equally trying to bluster with their PoLR.
"Nobody can possibly criticize me! Look at how good I am!"
Ah, but the subtle difference in verbalization is there.
"I know better then you" considers an audience.
"I'm totally certain of my knowledge" considers only oneself.
And will be interpreted differently by different types. For one, it's a invitation to a joust, the other, perhaps an attempt to end a line of questioning. The intent of the communication is quite different, as is the possible responses.
As verbalization is a big part of communication, the automatic and non-automatic interpretations of these sort of differences often determines the positive/negative reactions and form a basis for compatibility.
Body language, emotional expression, deception of course play a large role in face to face communication, but when we speak naturally, and thoughtfully. We will be heavily using our ego functions.
I see what you mean and agree that socionics has a logic behind it.
But the logic does not necessarily fit with the reality. In terms of FACTS socionics doesn't seem much more accurate than claiming that your match can be determined by what colors you prefer.
Socionics says "You test as A then you=A" and "He tests as A? Well then he=A" but you and he are NOT identical. For starters you are simply separate people. You also have different appearance and experiences, too.
What is worse is some socionists go "Well, yeah, he tests as X, but I think he is really Y!"
Silliness. Pure silliness. The best thing they have is the test and it fails to satisfy much of the time. So then they do a VI, or a 'consultation'(shuddering with shivers!), but they have no grounds for anything they claim.
Socionics claims there is some pure core called a "monad" 'in' us and that this monad is unchangeable and there from birth, dictating who and what we become. This is not proven fact.
Not to say that it won't someday be proven. But this monad idea is related to something that physical science is in opposition to...
I'll leave it at that.
I agree that this has the potential to be useful, but I really think there are too many compromising factors for it to work well. Vernacular is far too malleable, as well as being too colloquial. You say words because you hear them often, regardless of what they actually indicate. On top of that, everyone's vision of the subtle nuances of these "give-away" words is twisted by personal insight, which is exactly what we're looking for...
This can work, but you have to know what the person in question believes those words to mean, what colorings they may have for the individual, etc. What it really boils down to is that while there are agreed upon meanings for words, there aren't agreed upon associations to subtle nuances brought about in personal past.
If you know which meanings of these words the person focuses on in conversation, rather than the words themselves, you'll be getting somewhere important and telling, but not before.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Thats more of what i was looking for Allie
The end is nigh
this approach doesn't work for social sciences, you have to use some humanistic approach. So if it can't be measured with machines or isn't totally perfect, when humans can measure it, then it's sufficient.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote