Meeting my LSI-Se friend

[Sir Knight]

Oh, and, here's an excellent post by Azeroffs detailing the mental state of all the perceiving (N/S) functions and another excellent post of his about the Judging (F/T) functions and their positions in one's Model.

Also, how much would you say you know about socionics? Any holes in your knowledge you would like filled in?

[Aleksei]

first name that came to mind was jesus (like the mexicans pronounce it -- hay-zoose)

It's more like heh-zoose.

The cat reminds me of this incredibly hot but psychotic ESI I frequently butt heads with in an MBTI forum. She has an angry bald cat in her av as well.

[Variant]

Aha thanks sirknight for that post..needed that. Ya just a little stressed lately, back to to the actual topic. Apparently my mom knows The Ti-ISTJ's mom . And i also found some baby photos of her in my photo album...? Like when we were 5 or 6? Kinda weird, i wonder how this will turn out.

I don't get it, every baby photo i look at I'm smiling. What is there to smile about when you're a kid? Kid's are just crazy

[Sir Knight]

*

So valuing manifests as wanting to know why and how everything connects and to have the logical "blueprint" of how any given system (politics, economy, etc.) works, but having a great deal of difficulty figuring out those whys and how, and requires a lot of focus to make that blueprint?

...that was gobbledy****, I'm sorry, let's try an analogy: If a type came upon, oh, let's say a Spitfire with his good friend, the type could open the hood up and look at all the wires, gears, tubes, and the like and, within a few moments, would have a pretty good conception of how all of this stuff would make the car work, and perhaps even what would make this car better or worse than another car. The type, being valuing could have done the same thing, but not nearly as quickly or naturally, and so values and is interested in Mr. 's knowledge?

I mean, if I'm understanding it right, is very much about looking at a system, reducing it down into it's most basic components, and figuring out optimal ways to manipulate those components. Is that close?

A*

Well, suburban young'ins are quite shielded from the potential awfulness of life. Maybe I just had the benefit of a quiet childhood, but I'd like to think that most children have plenty to be happy about: you're still curious, still superstitious, and still largely free from responsibility. Perfect recipe for having fun all the time.

Anyway, did you have any more questions about Socionics? Socionics.us and also the Socionics wiki are good places to find answers if we can't give you any.

[Variant]

So valuing manifests as wanting to know why and how everything connects and to have the logical "blueprint" of how any given system (politics, economy, etc.) works, but having a great deal of difficulty figuring out those whys and how, and requires a lot of focus to make that blueprint?

...that was gobbledy****, I'm sorry, let's try an analogy: If a type came upon, oh, let's say a Spitfire with his good friend, the type could open the hood up and look at all the wires, gears, tubes, and the like and, within a few moments, would have a pretty good conception of how all of this stuff would make the car work, and perhaps even what would make this car better or worse than another car. The type, being valuing could have done the same thing, but not nearly as quickly or naturally, and so values and is interested in Mr. 's knowledge?

I mean, if I'm understanding it right, is very much about looking at a system, reducing it down into it's most basic components, and figuring out optimal ways to manipulate those components. Is that close?



Well, suburban young'ins are quite shielded from the potential awfulness of life. Maybe I just had the benefit of a quiet childhood, but I'd like to think that most children have plenty to be happy about: you're still curious, still superstitious, and still largely free from responsibility. Perfect recipe for having fun all the time.

Anyway, did you have any more questions about Socionics? Socionics.us and also the Socionics wiki are good places to find answers if we can't give you any.

It takes quite an effort to understand something self-learnt and i don't have much time as of now to self-learn again, however i do want to put aside some free-time for Wiki-socion. Other than that i would prefer to ask on forums because you guys have obviously done your homework. I only do have a vague understanding of some things but i do know my limits to using my "unrefined knowledge".

Lol i'd actually learn better from people with Ne, seriously i start sweating bullets because it makes a whole lot of fuking sense. I can be wrong but the things IEE says to me is kind of mind blowing. Maybe i do learn better from Ne or perhaps Fe or just self studying (but of course i'm just stuck with my thoughts, rarely do i come to an answer

[Sir Knight]

Well, I guess it's time to rewatch Tron then. The new one looks damn flashy. Even if it'll be bad, at least it looks fun to watch.

But, yeah, I grasp what you're saying. The judging functions seem much easier to understand and recognize than the perceptive ones, anyway.

[Variant]

Well, let's go to what is...and how I can explain it when I have PoLR.

Well, yes, it's systems and very neat and linear thinking. It is the idea that the world runs according to a system. Whatever violates the principles of the system is an error and must be ousted from the system.

I don't know if you have ever seen Tron but my ILE friend had me watch it last night. It was a very good example of to where I was starting to almost think in that way through the course of the movie.

But your analogy pretty much explains it.

Think of writing a programming script or writing commands for your CPU from scratch (i.e. no cheats, of sorts, where you have a list of commands in front of you and all you do is take someone's brain work and do it yourself to make something happen...that would be a approach)...that and what it involves without knowing short-cuts that other people have figured out and so making your own script from your understanding of what each thing being inputted means and so one is able to make a complex program from those most basic parts.

But it, as said, goes down to systems and the parts of the systems. Adept would allow one to know and understand exactly what each part does and can do (though this might be more biased towards blocked with ). One would also know and understand precisely what each part of system means in relation to every other part in the 'whole' of that system.

And so valuers, in theory, would seek to make sense of things in relation to this way of thinking instead of just relying on expert sources which tell one what is fact and what is fiction, to make a huge generalization.

If, say, you and I were just hanging around, I could point out when something is an example of , but explaining it here is tough. Bleh, I tried (kinda, but realized I am not really explaining anything to make it really make sense).

Wow interesting, this is exactly what i do at math tutor sometimes, he explains it all to me but if i still don't understand. He can't really help me anymore, so i have to think about it all by myself until i understand it again. I have to break it all down and have it make sense to me, how this formula contributes to this answer, bla-bla-bla. Can anyone truly understand how to explain Ni. From reading this I'm actually quite confused about cognitive functions (How each person approaches the problem). What confuses me the most is between mbti cognitive functions and how socionics lays it out. I want a link that explains every cognitive function with precise detail.

Say for example, some people are reallly good at physics (I think Te?) and suck at math. While others are (Realllly good at math, but suck at physics). And some are just good at both (1 better than the other i assume).
But it's weird, I SUCK at physics but i'm doing fairly well in math (tutor and also from maturity in a sense). If i lay out my functions...Fe, Ni, Se, (Ti). What the frig? so which functions would you use more in for physics/math of does it not have to do with functions at all?

[Marie84]

Well, let's go to what is...and how I can explain it when I have PoLR.

Well, yes, it's systems and very neat and linear thinking. It is the idea that the world runs according to a system. Whatever violates the principles of the system is an error and must be ousted from the system.

I don't know if you have ever seen Tron but my ILE friend had me watch it last night. It was a very good example of to where I was starting to almost think in that way through the course of the movie.

But your analogy pretty much explains it.

Think of writing a programming script or writing commands for your CPU from scratch (i.e. no cheats, of sorts, where you have a list of commands in front of you and all you do is take someone's brain work and do it yourself to make something happen...that would be a approach)...that and what it involves without knowing short-cuts that other people have figured out and so making your own script from your understanding of what each thing being inputted means and so one is able to make a complex program from those most basic parts.

But it, as said, goes down to systems and the parts of the systems. Adept would allow one to know and understand exactly what each part does and can do (though this might be more biased towards blocked with ). One would also know and understand precisely what each part of system means in relation to every other part in the 'whole' of that system.

And so valuers, in theory, would seek to make sense of things in relation to this way of thinking instead of just relying on expert sources which tell one what is fact and what is fiction, to make a huge generalization.

If, say, you and I were just hanging around, I could point out when something is an example of , but explaining it here is tough. Bleh, I tried (kinda, but realized I am not really explaining anything to make it really make sense).

[Sir Knight]

*

As is said in these parts... Not Type Related (NTR). Functions don't determine your aptitude in any subject. You can be a brilliant mathematician (or, for that matter, a crazy rambling hobo) no matter what type you are. It's just that some types are going to have it a lot easier than others when it comes to learning and applying their knowledge. Still, through focus and perseverance you can really be anything you want to be. It may take you most of your adult life to get there, but hey, no pain no gain.

Anyway, as for the funtions, they are each made up of three elements: Are they static or dynamic, internal or external, and object-focused or field-focused?

Object functions are very specific: they will look at one noun (person place or thing) at a time, to the exclusion of all else, giving that thing the full span of their attention. An object function does not include the observer in its examination, only the object of choice.

Field functions, on the other hand, are very general: they look at large groups of nouns, constantly comparing and contrasting all of the nouns within that field. The field always includes the observer, and the observer will constantly be comparing himself to other nouns in his field.

Static functions study one thing as it is right now, in the present. Think of pausing a video tape and then just tapping the pause button, constantly advancing forward by one frame and trying to take in as much information as possible about each frame as you can.

Dynamic functions look at a thing from both the past, the future, and the present, taking in information about the whole continuum of that thing's existence. Take the same videotape, start at the beginning, and then watch it at thirty-two times speed fast forward. You'll pass by those same frames the Static is intensely studying and see them, but only as a blur; an important but tiny piece of the whole.

External functions look at the physical, visible, tangible aspects of whatever thing it is studying. This can refer both to physical objects, like a table, or intangible concepts, like an idea or a system of belief. In this way, External functions can be said to be objective.

Internal functions look at the intangible, inner qualities of an object. But, of course, because you don't have x-ray vision, you can't actually look at these things, so you really can only make the best possible guess you can as to what is happening inside. Internal functions also look at the same tangible markers an external function would look at, but deems them less important, preferring to analyze the internal qualities that those external markers imply (like, a frown means that somebody feels sad on the inside.)

So, to put that all together, is the function encompassing The Internal Dynamics of Fields. So, basically, it's the function that looks at subjective qualities within a vast body of objects that include the observer, and analyzes them over time.

Which is just word soup that doesn't mean much to you yet, but how that works is that, for example, is often associated with time. types can't actually predict the future, but, rather, they look at a given situation (an object within their field) and then compare that situation to other, similar situations that they've experienced before (other objects within the same field) and, based upon how those other situations turned out, be able to make a pretty good guess as to how this situation will turn out.

So if my sister is going on a date with another shiftless, pleasant pothead, I can compare him to the numerous other, similar men she has dated, remember how all of those previous encounters ended, and perhaps tell her that this one will likely end up in the same way. Which is too bad. I like the men she dates. Very calm.

Anyway, there is a problem with and it's inaction. When faced with a big decision, a type can become locked into endless deliberation: Take my attempts to choose a major for instance: there are many career fields I'm smart enough to enter in to, and they all have pros and cons. Which one should I pick? I will compare them all to one another, and also to myself (how interested/possibly dedicated towards this am I?), to my peer group (what would m friends think if I picked X major over Y?) and to people at large (how would having Z job make me look to total strangers?) and so on.

Essentially, can get locked into this process of consideration until they either tire of the line of inquiry or starve to death.

This is where comes in. is 's "support" function, in that they each fill in what the other is missing. is the External Statics of Objects, the opposite of . is specific, objective, and focused where is general, subjective, and equanimous. could take one look at the dilemma above and say, "Look, , pick Major X. It's what you're best at, has the best payoff, and will be the most rewarding." On the other hand, helps by making those deliberate consideration, where might act without taking proper care to consider the future ramifications of an action. To , if it can't see any immediate, here-and-now consequences of doing something then it will do it, so may want to step in and say, "You know, this may look like fun now, but you might not think so a week from now."

Note that all of the above is likely just incoherent newbie babble and might not actually be correct, so take it with a grain of salt. I hope that it isn't, but, you know, disclaimers and all that.

[Variant]

Ohh ok, this reminded me of something in myers briggs about the supportive function. My helps me if i've come into a stalement in a problem. Then i again i still don't really understand much of what each function is. I think of as literally "a walk in the park".

[Variant]

What would it take for me to look at a person, indicate their temperament, type, and subtype /etc. Like a master of socionics or something, where would i start? Cause if i were to do that...it would actually be pretty amazing. wat you guys think?

[Aleksei]

Ohh ok, this reminded me of something in myers briggs about the supportive function. My helps me if i've come into a stalement in a problem. Then i again i still don't really understand much of what each function is. I think of as literally "a walk in the park".

That is assuming you're ENFJ in MBTI. A lot of EIEs aren't (I'm ENFP).

I think Se-HA works that way anyway though.

[limNol]

What would it take for me to look at a person, indicate their temperament, type, and subtype /etc. Like a master of socionics or something, where would i start? Cause if i were to do that...it would actually be pretty amazing. wat you guys think?

That's not how it works, man. There are people who have spent years studying socionics and still can't agree on some people's types. And to be able to use socionics like that, socionics would have to be a lot more developed as an objective science than it is right now. No one even knows what the objective psychological basis of socionics is in reality, and a lot of people doubt that one even exists -- socionics is more like a rigid theoretical model that approximates complex, fluid behavior. Finally, even if socionics were much more developed than it is, that wouldn't change the fact that type is something very much below the surface; getting a feel for people's types requires getting to know them very well.

My advice -- keep learning about socionics because it's cool, and don't lose your enthusiasm (!), but don't put too much stock in socionics because it's got a long way to go. And so do you, so don't limit yourself by letting socionics use you instead of the other way around. Socionics is a slippery bitch that will mindfuck you when you least expect it, and life is a lot more complicated than duals, PoLRs, and complimentary functions.

[Variant]

That's not how it works, man. There are people who have spent years studying socionics and still can't agree on some people's types. And to be able to use socionics like that, socionics would have to be a lot more developed as an objective science than it is right now. No one even knows what the objective psychological basis of socionics is in reality, and a lot of people doubt that one even exists -- socionics is more like a rigid theoretical model that approximates complex, fluid behavior. Finally, even if socionics were much more developed than it is, that wouldn't change the fact that type is something very much below the surface; getting a feel for people's types requires getting to know them very well.

My advice -- keep learning about socionics because it's cool, and don't lose your enthusiasm (!), but don't put too much stock in socionics because it's got a long way to go. And so do you, so don't limit yourself by letting socionics use you instead of the other way around. Socionics is a slippery bitch that will mindfuck you when you least expect it, and life is a lot more complicated than duals, PoLRs, and complimentary functions.

I completely agree bro, sometimes i just don't know enough socionics for it to applicable yet. Too bad it's the only good model we have to analyze people for now, not much i can do other than that...So i guess now i just have to know what the person is like try* to get along. Argh i hate how it feels one-sided sometimes with people cuz they don't try to understand where the other person is coming from.

Buh like for that idea, i noe it's far fetched, always wondered if socionics could allow us to type people like *ding*.

[JuJu]

That's not how it works, man. There are people who have spent years studying socionics and still can't agree on some people's types. And to be able to use socionics like that, socionics would have to be a lot more developed as an objective science than it is right now. No one even knows what the objective psychological basis of socionics is in reality, and a lot of people doubt that one even exists -- socionics is more like a rigid theoretical model that approximates complex, fluid behavior. Finally, even if socionics were much more developed than it is, that wouldn't change the fact that type is something very much below the surface; getting a feel for people's types requires getting to know them very well.

My advice -- keep learning about socionics because it's cool, and don't lose your enthusiasm (!), but don't put too much stock in socionics because it's got a long way to go. And so do you, so don't limit yourself by letting socionics use you instead of the other way around. Socionics is a slippery bitch that will mindfuck you when you least expect it, and life is a lot more complicated than duals, PoLRs, and complimentary functions.

I agree that a lot of work, (esp. experiments and research) needs to be done as re: Socionics, (esp. in the English-speaking world, where virtually none has been done thus far.) Also, it's true--many people who've been studying Socionics for years disagree on typings.

That said, I strongly disagree with your statement: "don't put too much stock in Socionics because its got a long way to go."

Apple computer had a long way to go in the 70s -- however, that would've been the perfect time to put stock in it (you know what i mean?)

I think that most people on this board realize that there's something to Socionics... The sociotype and inter-type descriptions match-up with will real-life experiences uncannily.

The people who frequent this forum are pioneers in this field. Fledgling though it is.

Also, a small point: I disagree that getting a feeling for someone's type "requires getting to know them very well." It can be helpful--especially when you're first starting out at typing people--but not a requirement. (SOmetimes it can even be a hinderance, e.g. it's hard to type people you know REALLY well b/c you've seen so many sides of their personalities.)

Getting a feeling for someone's type requires getting to know the 16 types/8 functions well--and then getting to know someone well enough to discern which of these they manifest... It can take years to get the basic knowledge down. After that, it's pretty easy to type people (and it gets easier with practice I've found.)

What's so exciting about Socionics right now is--WE ARE DOING the work... Right here, on this forum.

[limNol]

Too bad it's the only good model we have to analyze people for now, not much i can do other than that

I don't think there will ever be a model that allows us to "analyze people" ... just certain aspects of their thought processes and behavior. Good thing we don't have to analyze people to enjoy them. :wink:

(Although sometimes analyzing them makes it more fun )

I agree that a lot of work, (esp. experiments and research) needs to be done as re: Socionics, (esp. in the English-speaking world, where virtually none has been done thus far.) Also, it's true--many people who've been studying Socionics for years disagree on typing.

That said, I strongly disagree with your statement: "don't put too much stock in Socionics because its got a long way to go."

Apple computer had a long way to go in the 70s -- however, that would've been the perfect time to put stock in it (you know what i mean?)

I think that most people on this board realize that there's something to Socionics... The sociotype and inter-type descriptions match-up with will real-life experiences uncannily.

The people who frequent this forum are pioneers in this field. Fledgling though it is.

Also, a small point: I disagree that getting a feeling for someone's type "requires getting to know them very well." It's helpful--especially when you're first starting out--but not a requirement. (SOmetimes it can even be a hinderance, e.g. it's hard to type people you know REALLY well b/c you've seen so many sides of their personalities.)

Getting a feeling for someone's type requires getting to know the 16 types/8 functions well--and then getting to know someone well enough to discern which of these they manifest... It can take years to get the basic knowledge down. After that, it's pretty easy to type people (and it gets easier with practice I've found.)

What's so exciting about Socionics right now is--WE ARE DOING the work... Right here, on this forum.

Of course I agree there's something to socionics -- I'm here aren't I?

There's putting stock in something, and then there's putting stock in something. You're right, this is a great time to be investing time in socionics, figuring out how to extend its theoretical principles, exploring its applications, and so on. All of us who are here to make serious progress in terms of furthering our own understanding of socionics and exploring its theoretical implications and practical foundations see it as something that has some potential to it and is worth making some sort of commitment to.

But that doesn't mean we put all our eggs in this basket or take it as some be-all-end-all. I said don't put too much stock in it because when I read ReiLingBaz's original post, I felt like he was treating it as a solution or explanation to some complex shit, like he was probably assigning it more solidity and concrete weight than it currently has, especially since he is just beginning his exploration of socionics. That's where I was coming from when I said not to put too much stock in it.

So yeah, when Apples were first being pieced together, that would've been a good time to invest some money in them. But you wouldn't want to use them to store government secrets or run a nuclear weapons system -- that would be putting too much (metaphorical) stock in them. :wink:

Damn right we're doing socionics right now; that's why we shouldn't treat it as something that's already been done.

Like you say, typing someone means getting to know them well enough to recognize their use of the functions. You're right that over time, it becomes easier to achieve this level of familiarity with people. It's not "getting to know" someone in the traditional sense, its a much more specific kind of familiarity, but being able to model aspects of people's psychology and behavior with confidence at least means getting to know certain aspects of them very well. But it's true that this doesn't necessarily mean you have to have a tell-each-other-your-deepest-darkest-secrets friendship to type someone. Still, knowing someone well enough to type them is a far cry from being able to look at them and just 'know' their type, which is what RLB was originally talking about.

[Variant]

Oi oi, there are some people i can type with very vague understanding of the person themselves y'know? I sort of have this affinity for Ti-ISTJ girls, they seem to apparent to me and it's hard to miss. For other types, uhh needs some work.

[Computer Loser]

I agree that a lot of work, (esp. experiments and research) needs to be done as re: Socionics, (esp. in the English-speaking world, where virtually none has been done thus far.) Also, it's true--many people who've been studying Socionics for years disagree on typings.

That said, I strongly disagree with your statement: "don't put too much stock in Socionics because its got a long way to go."

Apple computer had a long way to go in the 70s -- however, that would've been the perfect time to put stock in it (you know what i mean?)

I think that most people on this board realize that there's something to Socionics... The sociotype and inter-type descriptions match-up with will real-life experiences uncannily.

The people who frequent this forum are pioneers in this field. Fledgling though it is.

Also, a small point: I disagree that getting a feeling for someone's type "requires getting to know them very well." It can be helpful--especially when you're first starting out at typing people--but not a requirement. (SOmetimes it can even be a hinderance, e.g. it's hard to type people you know REALLY well b/c you've seen so many sides of their personalities.)

Getting a feeling for someone's type requires getting to know the 16 types/8 functions well--and then getting to know someone well enough to discern which of these they manifest... It can take years to get the basic knowledge down. After that, it's pretty easy to type people (and it gets easier with practice I've found.)

What's so exciting about Socionics right now is--WE ARE DOING the work... Right here, on this forum.

I agree with this.

And I think we can all generally agree that there are a handful of people we get along with, and a handful of people we don't get along with.

I dunno, call it common sense, call it Ti, but that alone is enough to convince me that there's something going on.

With that said, Socionics can be used as a tool to guide you in the right direction. If I'm planning to spend the REST of my life with ONE person (marriage), no way in the hell will I spend it with a conflictor.

[limNol]

With that said, Socionics can be used as a tool to guide you in the right direction. If I'm planning to spend the REST of my life with ONE person (marriage), no way in the hell will I spend it with a conflictor.

Of course you don't want to spend your life with a conflictor, but when you make a decision to avoid someone or not spend your life with them, you don't make it be cause of a theoretical construct -- it's because you don't find your interactions with them fulfilling.

If socionics accurately describes reality, people will shy away from their conflictors regardless of whether they're familiar with socionics. Sure, if you decide to break with someone, socionics can help you make sense of the situation, but if socionics is "guiding" you to make major decisions that you wouldn't otherwise make, then either socionics is flawed or you've misapplied it in a very destructive way.

(you = one, not YOU )

[redbaron]

Of course you don't want to spend your life with a conflictor, but when you make a decision to avoid someone or not spend your life with them, you don't make it be cause of a theoretical construct -- it's because you don't find your interactions with them fulfilling.

If socionics accurately describes reality, people will shy away from their conflictors regardless of whether they're familiar with socionics. Sure, if you decide to break with someone, socionics can help you make sense of the situation, but if socionics is "guiding" you to make major decisions that you wouldn't otherwise make, then either socionics is flawed or you've misapplied it in a very destructive way.

hmmm. I understand what you're saying here but because there are so many other factors besides socionics, those other things can outshine the socionics factors (things such as common interests, religious views, similar history and past experiences, etc) when determining to get into a relationship with someone and only AFTER you've already established some history with that person will some of the personality clashes really start to come out. Remember, socionics intertype relations describes primarily the relationship at a CLOSE psychological distance. In other words, after you're ALREADY involved with that person. And in many instances after a number of years. So it's to your advantage to be *aware* of the person's type to begin with.

my two cents.

[limNol]

hmmm. I understand what you're saying here but because there are so many other factors besides socionics, those other things can outshine the socionics factors (things such as common interests, religious views, similar history and past experiences, etc) when determining to get into a relationship with someone and only AFTER you've already established some history with that person will some of the personality clashes really start to come out.

True, but if you felt a connection with someone and hadn't experienced these clashes, would you prevent yourself from entering a relationship with them just because you've theorized they have a certain socionics type?

Besides, if you aren't close enough to them to experience these clashes, are you going to type them as your conflictor to begin with?

And in many instances after a number of years

If it takes this long for differences to rise to the surface, there's also a chance these differences aren't type-related. Sometimes, people just clash when they get too close and it has nothing to do with socionics.

So it's to your advantage to be *aware* of the person's type to begin with.

Awareness is always good. Hard to argue with that. :wink:

[Computer Loser]

Originally Posted by redbaron
hmmm. I understand what you're saying here but because there are so many other factors besides socionics, those other things can outshine the socionics factors (things such as common interests, religious views, similar history and past experiences, etc) when determining to get into a relationship with someone and only AFTER you've already established some history with that person will some of the personality clashes really start to come out. Remember, socionics intertype relations describes primarily the relationship at a CLOSE psychological distance. In other words, after you're ALREADY involved with that person. And in many instances after a number of years. So it's to your advantage to be *aware* of the person's type to begin with.

my two cents.

I had 3 year relationship with an enfp that was just painful/a drag because I was so committed to beating a dead horse.

The honeymoon stage- In the beginning things were great, new, and exciting. Its when infatuation takes over, and flaws are impossible to see. But once that lovey dovey stuff weared off, uh oh, it was game over. It was seriously impossible to understand, work, and appreciate each other's differences, impossible. It almost felt like my way of showing affection annoyed the hell out of her.

In hindsight, there were some things I could have caught, but I was a bit ignorant then. This is where socionics could help me next time. I can now get a "gist" of someone after interacting with them for a bit.

Same stuff applies with friends. I see friendships ruined in a similar fashion as above

[limNol]

I had 3 year relationship with an enfp that was just painful/a drag because I was so committed to beating a dead horse.

The honeymoon stage- In the beginning things were great, new, and exciting. Its when infatuation takes over, and flaws are impossible to see. But once that lovey dovey stuff weared off, uh oh, it was game over. It was seriously impossible to understand, work, and appreciate each other's differences, impossible. It almost felt like my way of showing affection annoyed the hell out of her.

In hindsight, there were some things I could have caught, but I was a bit ignorant then. This is where socionics could help me next time.

Same stuff applies with friends. I see friendships ruined in a similar fashion as above

I understand where you're coming from. What you say about catching things earlier rings true cuz in my experience, socionics makes me more attuned to aspects of relationships I might be otherwise tempted to gloss over. Personally, I can fall into the trap of idealizing people when I get to know them, so thinking about socionics sharpens my awareness of the way people's values, goals, and perspectives can clash at the root. In this way, I think socionics can build certain muscles (so to speak) for sensing different levels of relationships, muscles that might otherwise remain unused. But it's important here that socionics is feeding into our ability to see things more clearly and feel them more deeply in all their complexity, not leading us to break with people on purely theoretical grounds.

PS. Thinking about it, I realize that sometimes I fall into the trap of thinking it's always possible to work through differences, that I can change things in a relationship, whereas socionics can counteract this by helping me understand that sometimes there are differences in perspective that are insurmountable and it's ok to just let go and move on.

[Computer Loser]

I understand where you're coming from. What you say about catching things earlier rings true cuz in my experience, socionics makes me more attuned to aspects of relationships I might be otherwise tempted to gloss over. Personally, I can fall into the trap of idealizing people when I get to know them, so thinking about socionics sharpens my awareness of the way people's values, goals, and perspectives can clash at the root. In this way, I think socionics can build certain muscles (so to speak) for sensing different levels of relationships, muscles that might otherwise remain unused. But it's important here that socionics is feeding into our ability to see things more clearly and feel them more deeply in all their complexity, not leading us to break with people on purely theoretical grounds.

PS. Thinking about it, I realize that sometimes I fall into the trap of thinking it's always possible to work through differences, that I can change things in a relationship, whereas socionics can counteract this by helping me understand that sometimes there are differences in perspective that are insurmountable and it's ok to just let go and move on.

tell me about it... when i see my mom trying to change my dad or vice versa, i'm just thinking in my head, "thats useless, don't even try..." it makes me sad to see people struggle so hard in this regard. when people are criticized for being themselves, that's painful to see. i've realized there are just some fundamental things you can't change about the other person no matter what you do. but i guess that's where love and patience comes in, right? working through these things.

[Variant]

-->Limnol
What? Then why bother getting into a relationship if you know it's gonna turn out into a disaster? It's like how you stick your hand in a boiling pot of water even though you know it's gonna hurt. "Hmm i think i'll just put my hand over it and not in it, so i won't get burned". But the steam is still gonna start to hurt, and either way it's so ridiculous.

It feels like you're playing devil's advocate, arguing against socionics theory and pretty much everything else. "When u make a decision whether or not to spend your life with someone, u dun base ur decision through theoretical construct, but becuz u don't find your interactions fulfilling? Well when has socionics gone wrong in general? The shiz already tells us that it's not gonna work. You have SO many but this, but that...(how many "buts", like 20?) comeon bro. Sure i agree with some of the stuff you say, nevertheless i get a feeling that you think we're basing all our decision solely on socionics and nothing else. If you asked every socionics member to raise their hand up if they've ever made a decision with only socionics. Only a few dumbshits will, because obviously it's only a guide and you need more than just a theory to confirm, we all agree that we need experience to know the true them*(The real shit). Like "OH hey this person is actually pretty nice, sum's up socionics theory nicely" or "oh my goodness, this person is my conflictor, i shall try and get a long with him/her knowing this theory"
You've given your opinion, but our experience sTiLLl justifies that theory, whether or not there are (common interests, hormones, blindness,differences ) and such, the outcome is inevitable. I think socionics is a way for us to understand each other better, so that we may all contribute to a better society. Better xoxoxo than ever

Oh ya props to red-baron summarizes my thoughts

Just so u know, i think everyone interprets everyone's post/feel about things differently. Therefore do not get all pissy/wissy about what i just wrote. And also, is 2 months of socionics to an ENFJ still considered new? I hope not, it just takes time to break it all down to chew. O btw what the frig is your type? you don't argue like an ISTJ..INTJ?

[limNol]

tell me about it... when i see my mom trying to change my dad or vice versa, i'm just thinking in my head, "thats useless, don't even try..." it makes me sad to see people struggle so hard in this regard. when people are criticized for being themselves, that's painful to see. i've realized there are just some fundamental things you can't change about the other person no matter what you do. but i guess that's where love and patience comes in, right? working through these things.

You're right, love and patience are a big part of it, and any relationship is going to have obstacles to overcome. I think the hardest part is where you draw the line between patience and settling for something that just isn't healthy or fulfilling. At any point in almost any relationship, you can find a reason to break things or to try to tough things out, and regardless of what you decide, you're not always going to be sure of yourself...at least IME. Maybe an awareness of the aspects of relationships socionics deals with can help us become more attuned to which factors in a relationship are differences you can work through and which are fundamental clashes in perspective.

[golden]

True, but if you felt a connection with someone and hadn't experienced these clashes, would you prevent yourself from entering a relationship with them just because you've theorized they have a certain socionics type?

Speaking from first-hand experience (12 years with, 10 years married to, conflictor), I'll back up what red has said here and add a bit. There are all sorts of ways to connect with someone, and one's conflictor can have some of the qualities a person is looking for. My ex and I didn't frequently clash in an overt way, not at the beginning, nor after years together.

Sometimes a person I type as LSE (conflictor), I do clash with them right away. But sometimes not.

My ex and I were always working at cross-purposes somehow, and where with time, in a more "ideal" relationship, you come to understand the person better, in my marriage things went the opposite direction. We understood each other less as time went on, and our inability to accomplish anything together left us both unfulfilled and sort of frozen as individuals.

In advance of marrying him, I did have some questions. I wanted to know his MBTI type and he tested as ESTJ, a type that described him to a T; I'd always typed as INFP, extreme in I, N, F, and P. I wondered at the time, if we were opposites in all four dimensions, where were we going to find common ground? I consulted the information on MBTI compatibility then available and found that ESTJ and INFP was held up as a good match.

If I'd had access to Socionics at the time (yes, our MBTI types do seem to hold true across the two systems), I'm not sure I can say I would have ended the relationship. I don't know what I would have done. But I do think, at the least, my expectations and decisions within the relationship would have been very different, and the relationship would have ended anyway, but perhaps in ways that were not so devastating to me, because I would have protected myself more.

More ideally, I would have known about Socionics while dating when I was very young. If that had been the case, I probably would have been looking for someone quite different from my husband. And if I'd had a history of finding such people, and therefore being more at ease with expressing myself confidently, I might have seemed much less attractive to him to begin with.

Besides, if you aren't close enough to them to experience these clashes, are you going to type them as your conflictor to begin with?

As I said, there were no giant clashes. Just as duality is often referred to as a comfortable relationship, something about the conflictor pairing was uncomfortable. In a subtle way. It's easy enough to tell oneself that over time, with increased experience of the other person, more comfort will develop.

If it takes this long for differences to rise to the surface, there's also a chance these differences aren't type-related. Sometimes, people just clash when they get too close and it has nothing to do with socionics.

In my understanding, Socionics intertype descriptions set out deliberately to describe the long-term development of relations, not so much the short-term. Augusta was studying married couples when she began to notice certain patterns, and what she noted seems to have been which couplings stood the test of time, and which didn't.

Although plenty of non-Socionics-related factors can influence how particular less-favored relationships will play out, and can also make two particular individuals with well-matched types less than right for each other, through difficult experience I would say that although your observations here make logical sense and are worth considering, they don't hold true.

Seems like most people into Socionics recognize that conflicts can and will arise in all sorts of ways, even in the best of relationships, and that one of the core issues is whether the people involved have enough compatibility to work together to solve the problems they inevitably face.

As I said elsewhere on this forum, the best description of conflictor relations I've read is in the Reinin book linked to here (and which I see you're aware of):

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=32812

Reinin says that in conflict:

A. partners perceive the following: "You solve your problems at my expense"
B. they mutually ignore problems
C. each partner's area of strength threatens and stresses the other
D. the other's very real needs are dismissed as whimsical, not important

Ime, the most important aspect of this conflict is that if one partner gets what he/she needs, the other loses out. I never really found that this dynamic applied to something small like deciding where to eat dinner! Put two reasonably mature and well-intentioned people together and their relationship will not fall apart over such things. In a marriage, many decisions made will be huge and have long-term consequences, and for me, there is where the deep-seated, seemingly unavoidable problems arose. And when the problems did arise, they could not be solved. Except through divorce.

[Variant]

Golden, i'm sorry to hear that, must've been tough. Hope you find what's right for you.

Has anyone noticed that we made a huge tangent away from the thread? (albiet still talking about it all this time?). Hmm then i guess i'll have to make an even bigger tangent to get back on track.

I can't really think of much to say...because there's so much going on in each of our lives. How the frick can you build a relationship if i only see her 2 times a week . I'm starting to doubt whether this will work or not, if it does work...then i also wonder if long-distance relationships would hold. I read all these things about socionics but it's hard not to doubt when you haven't experienced the full of it. Anyone give me some heads up on LSI's? Any advice would help.

*Edit* sometimes i don't want to do anything with duality, it just adds another load of doubt into my mind. I get frustrated since most people don't even know about socionics and just "lives their normal lives" y'know? They just live with what they have and it's sad to see people have broken relationships. kil me please

[redbaron]

Golden, i'm sorry to hear that, must've been tough. Hope you find what's right for you.

Has anyone noticed that we made a huge tangent away from the thread? (albiet still talking about it all this time?). Hmm then i guess i'll have to make an even bigger tangent to get back on track.

I can't really think of much to say...because there's so much going on in each of our lives. How the frick can you build a relationship if i only see her 2 times a week . I'm starting to doubt whether this will work or not, if it does work...then i also wonder if long-distance relationships would hold. I read all these things about socionics but it's hard not to doubt when you haven't experienced the full of it. Anyone give me some heads up on LSI's? Any advice would help.

*Edit* sometimes i don't want to do anything with duality, it just adds another load of doubt into my mind. I get frustrated since most people don't even know about socionics and just "lives their normal lives" y'know? They just live with what they have and it's sad to see people have broken relationships. kil me please

oh I hear you, I feel exactly the same!

And I think seeing each other two times per week for a relationship is actually pretty good.

[golden]

Golden, i'm sorry to hear that, must've been tough. Hope you find what's right for you.

*Edit* sometimes i don't want to do anything with duality, it just adds another load of doubt into my mind. I get frustrated since most people don't even know about socionics and just "lives their normal lives" y'know? They just live with what they have and it's sad to see people have broken relationships. kil me please

No worries. I keep rehashing that stuff here when people are like, "Maybe conflict isn't so bad," or "If the relationship seems okay, someone is mistyped," of if there's an assumption that intertype problems are always immediately evident. Also the idea that conflict must look like two people beating e/other up all the time in an obvious way. That sorta thing.

Although I don't like the way duality is held up as some kind of shining beacon or a cure-all, I still think Socionics can be a way to avoid some major problems. Doesn't matter if the other person does/doesn't know or care about Socionics. If it helps, what's very cool is to meet dual couples who are doing really well and have never heard of Socionics. Like my best friend's parents, married 40-plus years and still in love and super functional together.

[limNol]

Golden, thanks for sharing your experiences -- that's given me a lot to think about.

I definitely get what you mean about intertype relationships emerging over time. I think when we first meet people, stuff like common interests, background, etc. often takes precedence over the psychological patterns defined by socionics types. Plus, the less we know someone, the more we tend to project assumptions onto them.

And that's one of the reasons that for everything socionics can do, we have to be careful about how we use it. I mean, I have seen people who knew about socionics, fresh into an exciting new relationship, proclaiming that they have found their dual only to later realize that they had confused their dual with their conflictor (after all, the two can appear similar in many ways). Socionics has a lot of potential, but there's also a lot of room for ambiguity, and it's important to keep that in mind.

Back to an earlier point, though, I do think intertype relationships also effect things on the day-to-day level even if intertype relationships become more pronounced over longer stretches of time. If socionics type were something that only mattered over the long term, it wouldn't be possible to figure out someone's type without knowing them for a long time.

Also, thanks for pointing out that part in Reinin's book. That's a great description of conflict, and it highlights the subtlety of intertype relationships, which is so important.

[limNol]

-->Limnol
What? Then why bother getting into a relationship if you know it's gonna turn out into a disaster? It's like how you stick your hand in a boiling pot of water even though you know it's gonna hurt. "Hmm i think i'll just put my hand over it and not in it, so i won't get burned". But the steam is still gonna start to hurt, and either way it's so ridiculous.

It feels like you're playing devil's advocate, arguing against socionics theory and pretty much everything else. "When u make a decision whether or not to spend your life with someone, u dun base ur decision through theoretical construct, but becuz u don't find your interactions fulfilling? Well when has socionics gone wrong in general? The shiz already tells us that it's not gonna work. You have SO many but this, but that...(how many "buts", like 20?) comeon bro. Sure i agree with some of the stuff you say, nevertheless i get a feeling that you think we're basing all our decision solely on socionics and nothing else. If you asked every socionics member to raise their hand up if they've ever made a decision with only socionics. Only a few dumbshits will, because obviously it's only a guide and you need more than just a theory to confirm, we all agree that we need experience to know the true them*(The real shit). Like "OH hey this person is actually pretty nice, sum's up socionics theory nicely" or "oh my goodness, this person is my conflictor, i shall try and get a long with him/her knowing this theory"
You've given your opinion, but our experience sTiLLl justifies that theory, whether or not there are (common interests, hormones, blindness,differences ) and such, the outcome is inevitable. I think socionics is a way for us to understand each other better, so that we may all contribute to a better society. Better xoxoxo than ever

Don't worry man, I hear you. But I don't think socionics is as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Socionics has a lot to offer, and it certainly gives people a valuable awareness, but it's not some magic formula that lets you automatically and effortlessly "know" if a relationship will be a "disaster." I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was arguing "against socionics theory" -- all I'm saying is that when it comes to actually applying socionics, there are a lot of ambiguities and subtleties we have to take into account.

And also, is 2 months of socionics to an ENFJ still considered new? ISTJ..INTJ?

I can't speak for you, but when I'd only known about socionics for 2 months, I was still oversimplifying, sometimes completely misinterpreting, a lot of the complexities and nuances of socionics, and I definitely wasn't ready to make much use of it in my daily life. That's just my experience though.

O btw what the frig is your type? you don't argue like an ISTJ..INTJ?

You tell me. :wink:

[golden]

Golden, thanks for sharing your experiences -- that's given me a lot to think about.

I definitely get what you mean about intertype relationships emerging over time. I think when we first meet people, stuff like common interests, background, etc. often takes precedence over the psychological patterns defined by socionics types. Plus, the less we know someone, the more we tend to project assumptions onto them.

And that's one of the reasons that for everything socionics can do, we have to be careful about how we use it. I mean, I have seen people who knew about socionics, fresh into an exciting new relationship, proclaiming that they have found their dual only to later realize that they had confused their dual with their conflictor (after all, the two can appear similar in many ways). Socionics has a lot of potential, but there's also a lot of room for ambiguity, and it's important to keep that in mind.

Back to an earlier point, though, I do think intertype relationships also effect things on the day-to-day level even if intertype relationships become more pronounced over longer stretches of time. If socionics type were something that only mattered over the long term, it wouldn't be possible to figure out someone's type without knowing them for a long time.

Also, thanks for pointing out that part in Reinin's book. That's a great description of conflict, and it highlights the subtlety of intertype relationships, which is so important.

Thanks for being amenable to my my long-winded quibbling. I agree with your response, except for the bolded part. Type interrelation (not type per se) is what plays out over time, and it's not the only way to type someone--it's just one piece of the puzzle.

Now that I know a little about Socionics, I have a better, quicker sense for how I fit with someone. It can be a subtle thing, duality and other interquadra relations are not the total answer to anything, and I agree it's important not to assume we absolutely know someone's type, including our own.

[Variant]

oh I hear you, I feel exactly the same!

And I think seeing each other two times per week for a relationship is actually pretty good.

Wow lol that means a lot to me..Do you really think so? It feels slow but i don't know how far we'll get. Seems interesting everytime i try to meet her, eh except it's funny that i just "stare through her" rather than at her. Something about an LSI's eyes that make me feel comfortable...

[Variant]

No worries. I keep rehashing that stuff here when people are like, "Maybe conflict isn't so bad," or "If the relationship seems okay, someone is mistyped," of if there's an assumption that intertype problems are always immediately evident. Also the idea that conflict must look like two people beating e/other up all the time in an obvious way. That sorta thing.

Although I don't like the way duality is held up as some kind of shining beacon or a cure-all, I still think Socionics can be a way to avoid some major problems. Doesn't matter if the other person does/doesn't know or care about Socionics. If it helps, what's very cool is to meet dual couples who are doing really well and have never heard of Socionics. Like my best friend's parents, married 40-plus years and still in love and super functional together.

Lol i laugh when i hear this because that LSI's girl has a dual family. And 2 dual relations within that family, Mom is Ni-EIE, dad is LSI(unknown subtype, maybe Ti sub as well , LSI girl: "My dad and I are like identical". Figure that much out ya?. I've talked with that girl a little more now about typological theories (strange how she just listens to me), she believes there's something to socionics except she doesn't take iniative to do the* research. I'm basically the guy taking all the important info* from socionics and applying it to her life thus making it interesting and practical to her.

[Variant]

Don't worry man, I hear you. But I don't think socionics is as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Socionics has a lot to offer, and it certainly gives people a valuable awareness, but it's not some magic formula that lets you automatically and effortlessly "know" if a relationship will be a "disaster." I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was arguing "against socionics theory" -- all I'm saying is that when it comes to actually applying socionics, there are a lot of ambiguities and subtleties we have to take into account.


I can't speak for you, but when I'd only known about socionics for 2 months, I was still oversimplifying, sometimes completely misinterpreting, a lot of the complexities and nuances of socionics, and I definitely wasn't ready to make much use of it in my daily life. That's just my experience though.


You tell me. :wink:

Mmm 'nuances' that word showed up 5 times this week. Your type huh...i dunno ISTJ D

[Variant]

Today is December 17th, 2010...

My soul is crying, my heart is bleeding...Nothing bad happened but..i just thought of this song "No Boundaries" by Adam Lambert. Listen to this while reading.



Tonight i went to a semi-formal Christmas party, i see that girl and i just greet her.. She's an intelligent girl so you could imagine the clothing she might wear, black and simple. I look at all the close friends that she has, she already has like... Everything...why would she want talk to another guy?, she probably doesn't even need any extra company. She laughs, she cries, she smiles with her friends... so what can i do that her friends can't do? I won't know for sure what she might be thinking about me, but I don't see much feedback. Just thinking about it is painful y'know? It's hard to approach her thinking about this all the time...I doubt, I doubt that this would ever work because i can bring myself to talk to her some of the times. Sometimes i have to force myself to talk to her because she has* all her friends around. And it's pretty uncomfortable.... LOOK if she was actually a little interested what would she do? Nothing! I can't do anything about it at my state right now, but maybe I'm just over thinking things or actually I could be mistaking her as my SO. But why? God set everything up so clearly! but why is it that I'm over complicating things, I want to strive to have a good marriage! have kids! come back to the church with my wife and serve! BUT WHY? Why does it have to be this way?, why do i have to suffer in my own thoughts? why isn't there anyone who can emotionally heal me. WHY do i have to hide my tears from my family, my dreaded brother and friends? Why do i have to end up crying myself to sleep doubting my ever existence?
This is what i dream t that i might do, i might even just go get her a book early Sunday before christmas, and write her a card.

"Hey Sharon, *pulls out gift*, I know this isn't a lot...but here. Merry Christmas Sharon.... i hope you like it. Bye..."

And in the card...
"I like you, but i can't bring myself to... I'm not the one deciding... I'm sorry."

That's probably the least i can do if i know it isn't going to work out. The main problem is probably me and I'm sure I got a long way to go. Giving up...
Everything i just said, just erase it and kill me.

P.S. I wonder what kind of book i should get her...?

[redbaron]

oh sweetheart, how old are you? You remind me of myself when I was very young.... I'm sorry. Gosh, the book thing is a good idea. Something I would have done too. Get her a book on something or someone she's interested in. A biography? I remember I loved David Bowie and back in 1989 when his biography came out, a guy I liked from college bought me that book and sent it to me one summer when we were away in our respective cities for summer break. That was so sweet. It made a big impact on me too. I never forgot it. Don't let your love for this girl slam you down so hard though. That's not good and it makes me sad (as if my feelings have anything to do with this, lol!!). Chin up, she's just a girl! there are many of them, or so I'm told.

[Variant]

oh sweetheart, how old are you? You remind me of myself when I was very young.... I'm sorry. Gosh, the book thing is a good idea. Something I would have done too. Get her a book on something or someone she's interested in. A biography? I remember I loved David Bowie and back in 1989 when his biography came out, a guy I liked from college bought me that book and sent it to me one summer when we were away in our respective cities for summer break. That was so sweet. It made a big impact on me too. I never forgot it. Don't let your love for this girl slam you down so hard though. That's not good and it makes me sad (as if my feelings have anything to do with this, lol!!). Chin up, she's just a girl! there are many of them, or so I'm told.

Haha, thank you for that ._. I am only 17, young yes, impatient yes, want to mature faster? yes. time goes slow? yes. The world can't wait for me, so i have to do everything i can do better myself. Last night was probably one of those sad nights many EIE's have, alone with only their thoughts. C'mon I try to show that I'm happy but get real, everyone is miserable.

Have times changed? I don't know what book would suit a Ti-ISTJ. A girl with guy interests. Tough i need more suggestions though. Someone from the personality.type forum suggested the 1st book of 'Sword of the truth' series.
"Wizard's First Rule" by Terry Goodkind. I really don't know if Ti-ISTJ girls like this sort of thing. Prolly not

*Edit*, i just remembered that we are both Christians, so i can get some Christainy, manly (but girly) book. Ima list my findings.

[redbaron]

i just remembered that we are both Christians

this made me lol! no offense. just tickled me how you "just remembered". Anyway, I think you're super cute and you should just get her any book you think she might be interested in. Even if she's not, she'll notice it for the gesture it is and recognize that you put some thought into choosing it for her. It will have certainly served its purpose.