Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: LII/INTj and Contingency Planning

  1. #1
    Creepy-male

    Default LII/INTj and Contingency Planning

    So I realize this isn't technically Socionics, but rather MBTI. But hear me out I am interested because I think I've found an interesting correlation between the two and I want to bounce it off you all.

    So in Socionics, an INTj or LII, is considered to be ; is creative and is producing, that is from my understanding in a sense is "handed off to" the to produce a result.
    So... Since a key word for is "possibilities" and a key word for is "analysis"
    ---- is concerned with the "external" aspects of intuition (which are perceived as possibilities)
    ---- is concerned with the "internal" aspects of the objective qualities of things (which analysis is the process of discerning such qualities)
    This would seem to imply that in a sense the LII is concerned with taking in a large sum of "possibilities" and then analyzing these "possibilities" to figure something out. This seems to be the mechanism for contingency planning, for example looking at all possible moves on a chess board and then analyzing them for the most benefical move. In essence its strategic thinking.

    Please correct me if I am wrong on the Socionics

    Now in MBTI the INTj is called the "Mastermind" in Kiersey and is considered to be distinguished by this role, contingency planning, or strategic thinking. I won't go into depth but if your interested in MBTI click the link to get up to speed. http://www.keirsey.com/handler.aspx?...5&c=mastermind

    Doesn't this seem as though there is a vague correlation here? What do you make of this?

    Oh and please don't send me to the other typologies forum, I am interested in what you make of this in terms of socionics and not in terms of MBTI.
    Last edited by male; 09-03-2009 at 06:56 PM.

  2. #2
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that Ne more so adds certain conditions to Ti, where as Ti is the main mode and isn't being directly effected by Ne, unless one decides to more so engage in Ne. So I'm not really sure if looking at all the possibilities and then deriving an analysis of them would really be considered contingency planning, because I think it is Ti that uses Ne as a tool for analysis, not Ne that asks to be analyzed the probabilities of. If anything I think contingency planning is more in the realm of Ni types, and also Chess is probably more of an NiTe game. I'm not all certain on this, but this is what I've been hearing.

  3. #3
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think there's a good chance that this applies to both LII and ILI - perhaps even the entire NT club. However, the LII's analytical planning - which is sometimes totally foolproof and sometimes prohibitively slow - is not the same as the ILI's procedural planning, which relies less on formulas and more on the natural flow of events.

    The INTP description on that site struck me as a very good LII description. Starting from its description, the LIIs would be masters of navigating man-made systems - such as chess - whereas ILIs would be masters of navigating real events, which flow more smoothly.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  4. #4
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    I think that Ne more so adds certain conditions to Ti, where as Ti is the main mode and isn't being directly effected by Ne, unless one decides to more so engage in Ne. So I'm not really sure if looking at all the possibilities and then deriving an analysis of them would really be considered contingency planning, because I think it is Ti that uses Ne as a tool for analysis, not Ne that asks to be analyzed the probabilities of. If anything I think contingency planning is more in the realm of Ni types, and also Chess is probably more of an NiTe game. I'm not all certain on this, but this is what I've been hearing.
    Alright, well lets confine ourselves for the moment to just consider the role of creative and producing rather than add the additional layer of complexity involved with making sure that I am using the right functions....

    So, the way I've always conceptualized creative and producing is that the creative function "extracts raw material spontaneously", in a sense its creative - it happens spontaneously and creates raw material to be used.

    The producing function then takes that raw material and fashions it into something - It produces something.

    For xxxp types what is produced is going to be , , , or in english -- a perception or viewpoint of their immediate environment (, - The Sensing Side) or of their interalized conception about something (, - The Intuitive Side).

    For xxxj types what is produced is going to be , , , or in english -- a "judgement" on the objective (, ) or subjective (, ) qualities of something.

    Maybe refering to the Creative Function as "extracting" is too powerful and willful of a term, I've always conceptualized creative functions as maybe like a constant flow that flows into a person from which they produce something from it based on their producing function. Continuing this analogy, all people would be sensitive to flows of all function but their creative function would be the function to which their is less resistance to the flow of... so like an Fe would let their immediate emotions flow in more and produce something from it, where as types far from Fe-creative (Thinking types) would have impediance or resistance to this flow, but it would still occur. In a sense it would be like a circuit or water system with various flows and resistances, maybe it may mirror itself in brain structure or something.

    Lol and I know this seems very mechanical but is this a correct viewpoint or a false one in your understanding?
    Last edited by male; 09-03-2009 at 06:58 PM.

  5. #5
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just two words: Michael Scofield

    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  6. #6
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    I think there's a good chance that this applies to both LII and ILI - perhaps even the entire NT club.
    You mean strategic planning? I would agree and it is extensively stated in kiersey, but how does this correlate to Socionics? I thought socionics groups have temperaments different than Kiersey (where the NT's are Rationals). I hardly ever hear hardcore socionics talk about splitting 4 of the types in xNTx (LII, ILI, LIE, ILE)

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    However, the LII's analytical planning - which is sometimes totally foolproof and sometimes prohibitively slow - is not the same as the ILI's procedural planning, which relies less on formulas and more on the natural flow of events.
    Does this have to do with the difference in xxxp and xxxj dictomy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    The INTP description on that site struck me as a very good LII description. Starting from its description, the LIIs would be masters of navigating man-made systems - such as chess - whereas ILIs would be masters of navigating real events, which flow more smoothly.
    Your saying the INTp from kiersey matches the LII (INTj) from Socionics well? Because chess is the Realm of Mastermind INTj's in Kiersey and not of Architect INTp's in Kiersey. xNTj's in Kiersey are Coordinators and Masters at contingency planning and strategy, while xNTp's are Engineers and Masters at Logical Design and Structure (Blueprints).

  7. #7
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1981slater View Post
    Just two words: Michael Scofield

    Lol, Yes <---- (My two words)

  8. #8
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    So I realize this isn't technically Socionics, but rather MBTI. But hear me out I am interested because I think I've found an interesting correlation between the two and I want to bounce it off you all.

    So in Socionics, an INTj or LII, is considered to be ; is creative and is producing, that is from my understanding in a sense is "handed off to" the to produce a result.

    So... Since a key word for is "possibilities" and a key word for is "analysis"
    ---- is concerned with the "external" aspects of intuition (which are perceived as possibilities)
    ---- is concerned with the "internal" aspects of the objective qualities of things (which analysis is the process of discerning such qualities)
    This would seem to imply that in a sense the LII is concerned with taking in a large sum of "possibilities" and then analyzing these "possibilities" to figure something out. This seems to be the mechanism for contingency planning, for example looking at all possible moves on a chess board and then analyzing them for the most benefical move. In essence its strategic thinking.

    Please correct me if I am wrong on the Socionics

    Now in MBTI the INTj is called the "Mastermind" in Kiersey and is considered to be distinguished by this role, contingency planning, or strategic thinking. I won't go into depth but if your interested in MBTI click the link to get up to speed. http://www.keirsey.com/handler.aspx?...5&c=mastermind

    Doesn't this seem as though there is a vague correlation here? What do you make of this?

    Oh and please don't send me to the other typologies forum, I am interested in what you make of this in terms of socionics and not in terms of MBTI.
    This is just my opinion about MBTI versus Socionics, but I see no real difference between the two other than the intertype relations and then some of the 'paperwork'(methods, acronyms, etcetera). It is just a matter of terms. LII in MBTI is LII in socionics. Both are Jung, but Socionics has intertype relations added to it.

    In Socionics LII has Ti as 'accepting' and Ne as 'producing'. You seem to say that Ti is producing. I am confused because the IM model has the auxiliary function as producing(Ne is producing in LII, not Ti) Maybe you just have your own terms though.

    It seems like you are applying a deeper logic to types than is intended by basic type theory.

    The LII is a person who lives in a systematically designed, logical world which they create originally for themselves(introverted attitude to facts). They live by specific primordial truths/their own facts. Their typical problems in day-to-day life primarily involve their interactions w/other people because their logic naturally makes them reserved and therefore they appear bizarre and are subject to critical evaluation and are ostracized.

    You seem to be rationalizing the Ne by making it seem like thinking. From what I have observed Ne in LII manifests like this:
    The creative Ne is the tendency for the INTj to be swept up in revolutionary movements/political ideas or new philosophical or scientific paradigm shifts. The LII waits for the right moment to act on this.

    The LII is the common mastermind behind-the-scenes in the revolutionary atmosphere. The true authority behind the politicians and fuddie duddies. This is because they have transcendental logic first, then the 'atmosphere' is considered. A problem is that the LII is completely helpless with volition and does not know how to defend against or launch physical or quasi-physical attacks, so they end up being pushed by the wayside.

    Of course there are problems with that interpretation. One could ask the question "well, are Ti and Ne mixed? People don't REALLY act w/one function at a time." All I can say about that is that it must be like a heterogeneous mixture. and NeTi would be, say, 10 blue pebbles and 5 green pebbles, whereas a TiNe would be 10 green pebbles and 5 blue. Sometimes, when the time is right, there is a surge and the ratio changes. Maybe.

    I see, respect, understand and can relate to the transcendental interpretation of Ne, but I have found from my experience that there is a need to be simple and basic in the perceiving of what a 'type' is in the "real world", that is, who do these people end up being really?

  9. #9
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth View Post
    In Socionics LII has Ti as 'accepting' and Ne as 'producing'. You seem to say that Ti is producing. I am confused because the IM model has the auxiliary function as producing(Ne is producing in LII, not Ti) Maybe you just have your own terms though.
    Oh yea Great Point! I think this could be a semantics issue, I should probably clarify this up, do you have a link to where I could get a good diagram of the IM model? I read up on this a long time ago and I think I understand the basic idea but possibly I am not using the proper terminology.

    From my point of view; I conceive the producing ( for the LII) function as a spontaneous flow of "information" into the individual. For a simple example consider a type which has or as their producing function -- this flow would manifest itself as a constant influx of emotional awareness, they would be sensitive to how they feel at all times <like feeling the force or something - but don't press the metaphysicalness of this interpretation too far and think and types can be jedis or something ridiculous>. The point would be that I conceive the producing function as a spontaneous flow of information into the individual.

    The accepting function ( for LII) I would consider as the next step in the process. It accepts something from the producing function ( for LII) and uses it as raw material to produce a something as the final step in a process.

    This has always been my personal interpretation of IM, but its a bit mechanistic and metaphysical... though I use it to "derive" out ideas more so than to actually propose that people literally are machines which run on various jungian functions which are supplied by some mysterious flow of jungian functions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth View Post
    It seems like you are applying a deeper logic to types than is intended by basic type theory.
    Possibly so, but I don't think theres anything wrong with travelling down the rabit hole into deeper areas, so long as you remember your way back to reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth View Post
    You seem to be rationalizing the Ne by making it seem like thinking. From what I have observed Ne in LII manifests like this:
    The creative Ne is the tendency for the INTj to be swept up in revolutionary movements/political ideas or new philosophical or scientific paradigm shifts. The LII waits for the right moment to act on this.
    Well, I am considering the interplay between and so that why.... I haven't looking into detail about but I conceive it as a perceptual function, concerned with perceiving something.... I consider and as intuitive perception which doesn't exist in reality but in an internal, imaginery, conceptualized, mind's eye, virtual way. Were as and exist as observations in the immediate and real world (5 sense things - taste, touch, smell, sight, sound).

    in specific seems to me to be a "particular brand" of intuition that is concerned with perception of possibilites. It is intuitive rather than sensing because possibilities are things that potentially exist but do not currently exist in the environment. If they currently existed then it would not be a possibility but a reality and the realm of sensing functions and not that of intuitive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth View Post
    Of course there are problems with that interpretation. One could ask the question "well, are Ti and Ne mixed? People don't REALLY act w/one function at a time." All I can say about that is that it must be like a heterogeneous mixture. and NeTi would be, say, 10 blue pebbles and 5 green pebbles, whereas a TiNe would be 10 green pebbles and 5 blue. Sometimes, when the time is right, there is a surge and the ratio changes. Maybe.
    Interesting, this thought process reminds me of chemical kinetics and equillibrium... but I hate chemistry lol, I prefer physics. At any rate I don't think and are mixed -- I think Ne, Ni, Se, and Si are concerned with perceptual styles and I think Ti, Te, Fi, and Fe are concerned with types of perception. Neither can really work without the other thats why on IM they are grouped together on each line. You can't just sense something in your environment, the natural of that sensation is either logical or emotional. Even further confusing is that I believe that people have all these things going at once, just some overpower each other.... going back to the analogy to chemical kinetics and equillibrium this is like Reaction Mechanisms, Partial Deratives, and etc.... and I am exhausted.... maybe I'll come back to this later but this is a mountain of a problem to tackle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth View Post
    I see, respect, understand and can relate to the transcendental interpretation of Ne, but I have found from my experience that there is a need to be simple and basic in the perceiving of what a 'type' is in the "real world", that is, who do these people end up being really?
    Could you elaborate? I can definitally tell you that my goal isn't to be purely transcendental about this -- remember the topic is about contingency planning... people strategically thinking.... something that you see some people exercise often and other don't in the real world.... that is the reality in this discussion.

  10. #10
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    You mean strategic planning? I would agree and it is extensively stated in kiersey, but how does this correlate to Socionics? I thought socionics groups have temperaments different than Kiersey (where the NT's are Rationals). I hardly ever hear hardcore socionics talk about splitting 4 of the types in xNTx (LII, ILI, LIE, ILE)
    Time was that the four clubs (NT, NF, ST, SF) were more talked-about than the temperaments (EP, EJ, IP, IJ). They don't seem quite so popular anymore (on this forum), but that's more for not thinking about them than thinking that they don't matter.

    Kiersey's temperaments are hard to think about in terms of Socionics, because they don't balance across our dichotomies. All of the Socionic small groups are binary combinations of the Reinin dichotomies, but in Keirsey, whether the Thinking/Feeling dichotomy matters in finding your temperament depends on which side of the Sensing/Intuition dichotomy you fall on.

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Does this have to do with the difference in xxxp and xxxj dictomy?
    It might. All I was thinking of was the difference between LII and ILI - it could be related to Rational/Irrational (j/p) or Static/Dynamic (MBTI's J/P).

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Your saying the INTp from kiersey matches the LII (INTj) from Socionics well? Because chess is the Realm of Mastermind INTj's in Kiersey and not of Architect INTp's in Kiersey. xNTj's in Kiersey are Coordinators and Masters at contingency planning and strategy, while xNTp's are Engineers and Masters at Logical Design and Structure (Blueprints).
    Well, I like chess, and I'm good at it. Perhaps it just feels like something I could've made.

    I've grown to like the J/P switch (IJ=Ip, IP=Ij, EP=Ep, EJ=Ej), and the Keirsey description of INTP fit well with that view.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  11. #11
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I can attest to the fact that INTjs have good contingency planning skills. They are not nearly focussed on events as much as ENTjs tend to be, though, so to mark it off as a primary skill of theirs is not quite right. The MBTI in general tends to mistake a lot of ExTj characteristics for INTJ ones.

    I also fully support the view that planning skills are typically posessed by NT types.

    Just two words: Michael Scofield
    That's an ENTj.

    A problem is that the LII is completely helpless with volition and does not know how to defend against or launch physical or quasi-physical attacks, so they end up being pushed by the wayside.
    That is the main respect in which INTjs differ from the definite, self confident mastermind that the MBTI portrays their INTJ type as.

  12. #12
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Oh yea Great Point! I think this could be a semantics issue, I should probably clarify this up, do you have a link to where I could get a good diagram of the IM model? I read up on this a long time ago and I think I understand the basic idea but possibly I am not using the proper terminology.
    It is nothing special. If rational type then all rational are accepting and all irrational are producing. Strong accepting and producing for ego and id blocks, weak for super-ego and super-id. I never read any especially good explanations of it though.

    Quote Originally Posted by havelucidreams

    Could you elaborate? I can definitally tell you that my goal isn't to be purely transcendental about this -- remember the topic is about contingency planning... people strategically thinking.... something that you see some people exercise often and other don't in the real world.... that is the reality in this discussion.
    I think that many people interest in Jungian typology get snagged on defining functions. They end up redigesting and reevaluating what each function is, spending much of their time and energy on this, never coming to any clear conclusions. What is essential is an approach that is more practical and can answer the most important question of all: "Is type real?"

    I'll make a brief expose to illustrate what I mean:

    I/E is attitude toward outside world and its conventions, norms etcetera. I/E is NOT level loudness, not friendliness, not gregariousness, not how many friends a person has, not how talkative a person is; though those can be symptoms of I/E they are not definitive of it. I/E is ATTITUDE. It is how a person FEELS about adhering to conventions or conforming to prevailing attitudes etcetera. That is what Jung said and Socionics and MBTI are based on what Jung said. You may differ in your opinion on this, but this is how it is.

    Intuition is defined by Jung as "from whence it came and where it is going". So extraverted intuition is merely pairing "from whence it came and where it is going" with the extraverted attitude. So Ne is participating in new social/scientific paradigm shifts and being absorbed in the perception of these paradigm shifts. Ni would be opposed to this, prefering conservatism and an interest in one's own internal interests.

    I hope that is clear enough.

    A lot of people try to delve too deep without getting their facts straight in the first place. I already have suffered and learned from this common mistake, so now I can help others get their facts in line from the beginning.

    Some people on this forum have been talking about neurotransmitters and physiological psychology but they don't even know the fundamental difference between I/E, J/P, N/S, F/T. They can't even prove type is real and they start applying typology to topics that are way over their heads, probably fantasizing that they will get recognition for it because people are silly that way. They haven't proven type is real and have never touched a human brain but they think they can propose all sorts of these crazy ideas.

  13. #13
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth View Post
    I'll make a brief expose to illustrate what I mean:

    I/E is attitude toward outside world and its conventions, norms etcetera. I/E is NOT level loudness, not friendliness, not gregariousness, not how many friends a person has, not how talkative a person is; though those can be symptoms of I/E they are not definitive of it. I/E is ATTITUDE. It is how a person FEELS about adhering to conventions or conforming to prevailing attitudes etcetera. That is what Jung said and Socionics and MBTI are based on what Jung said. You may differ in your opinion on this, but this is how it is.

    Intuition is defined by Jung as "from whence it came and where it is going". So extraverted intuition is merely pairing "from whence it came and where it is going" with the extraverted attitude. So Ne is participating in new social/scientific paradigm shifts and being absorbed in the perception of these paradigm shifts. Ni would be opposed to this, prefering conservatism and an interest in one's own internal interests.
    Well the I have to admit I don't see Introversion/Extroversion the same way....

    "Pop Psychology" (which I personally loath) suggests that introverts are the shy, akward, unsociallable, and reserved people where as extroverts are the assertive, self-confident, sociallable, and open people. However inherently there is this idea in this definition that Introverts seem to posses purely negative qualities and extrovert positive qualities. For the longest time I've always wanted to distance myself from the idea of being introverted because of this... but I think if one goes back to the source of this idea before it made its way into society and became warped by popular conception one can discover more. The idea I believe orginally came from Jung and the way I've come to understand it is in terms of "Energy". That an introvert's energy is focused inward (inside themselves) and an extrovert's energy is focused outward (out to others). Imagine people having energy which supplies their state of being with vitality and a positive or negative attitude towards their life. Introverts look inside themselves in order to build up vitality and expressing themselves to others drains them off that vitality. Whereas extroverts look to others to exchange energy with in order to build up vitality whereas being alone drains them off that vitality....... great now your probably thinking this sounds very metaphysical.... but consider the realistic ramifications.... an introverted person who is fascinated by their own mind and spends time thinking and solving problem because they are fascinated by them, they feel empowered when they solve problems and feel a sense of wonder, awe, and appreciation when they think - they may extrovert to others and share their ideas, but it is draining and eventually they will be drawn back to doing that which they love and provides them with "enthusiasm" for their life..... contrary the extroverted person who is fascinated by other people, their ideas, and sharing their ideas with others... they may not prefer to think so much solitarily but definitally they like to share ideas they find interesting with other people.... the key difference is they would lose their enthusiasm for interesting ideas if there was no one immediately around them to share it with or interact with, if they could only share it with themselves they would become bored and unenthusiastic exactly contrarily to the introvert. Haven't you ever observed this in reality yourself? Also I don't believe that introversion or extroversion is an absolute idea but one which is more distributed.... like being extroverted doesn't mean you can't be alone for more than 1 minute without breaking down.... I think it would depend more so on how extroverted or how introverted.... mild extroverts could endure "introverted" time longer than extreme extroverts which don't endure "introverted" time too well.... also I think people adapt.... I think if you put a person in solitary confinement for several months or a couple of years (as awful as that sounds) they would learn to be introverted.... because it is in their best instinct for survival to adapt. So yea alot is at play.... but............................................... .......................

    REGARDLESS... the point would be that introverts focus their energy inward and gain enthusiasm from that and lose enthusiasm from focusing it outward and extroverts do the reverese process. That is my conception of introvert vs extrovert

    As for intuition..... thats a mountain to tackle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth View Post
    Some people on this forum have been talking about neurotransmitters and physiological psychology but they don't even know the fundamental difference between I/E, J/P, N/S, F/T. They can't even prove type is real and they start applying typology to topics that are way over their heads, probably fantasizing that they will get recognition for it because people are silly that way. They haven't proven type is real and have never touched a human brain but they think they can propose all sorts of these crazy ideas.
    Oh god neurotransmitters and physiological psychology..... its incredibly fascinating but it scares me also since it gets dangerously close to the notion that humans are nothing more than advanced peices of biologically machinery which run on a master program which is inherent to the laws of physics which govern the universe. I don't find that idea pleasant... but I can't disprove it either....

    K, but anyways.... what is this you are talking about with people possibly fantasizing about recognition for their groundbreaking psychological ideas??? I mean I can understand why you'de be upset but this topic is confined to simply discussing the relation between MBTI and Socionic INTj's based on the common trait of contingency planning. No one here is hubrisly trying to "win" recognition for some groundbreaking idea.

    Finally type being real....type isn't "really" real but its a theoretical concept developed by humans to explain that which is real. The typology in my opinion is only really useful as a conversational term to discuss ideas which may be beyond that which common language can facilitate. At any rate, I think I'd rather side with realistic observation than theoretical prediction.
    Last edited by male; 09-05-2009 at 03:57 AM.

  14. #14
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Well the I have to admit I don't see Introversion/Extroversion the same way....

    "Pop Psychology" (which I personally loath) suggests that introverts are the shy, akward, unsociallable, and reserved people where as extroverts are the assertive, self-confident, sociallable, and open people. However inherently there is this idea in this definition that Introverts seem to posses purely negative qualities and extrovert positive qualities. For the longest time I've always wanted to distance myself from the idea of being introverted because of this... but I think if one goes back to the source of this idea before it made its way into society and became warped by popular conception one can discover more. The idea I believe orginally came from Jung and the way I've come to understand it is in terms of "Energy". That an introvert's energy is focused inward (inside themselves) and an extrovert's energy is focused outward (out to others). Imagine people having energy which supplies their state of being with vitality and a positive or negative attitude towards their life. Introverts look inside themselves in order to build up vitality and expressing themselves to others drains them off that vitality. Whereas extroverts look to others to exchange energy with in order to build up vitality whereas being alone drains them off that vitality....... great now your probably thinking this sounds very metaphysical.... but consider the realistic ramifications.... an introverted person who is fascinated by their own mind and spends time thinking and solving problem because they are fascinated by them, they feel empowered when they solve problems and feel a sense of wonder, awe, and appreciation when they think - they may extrovert to others and share their ideas, but it is draining and eventually they will be drawn back to doing that which they love and provides them with "enthusiasm" for their life..... contrary the extroverted person who is fascinated by other people, their ideas, and sharing their ideas with others... they may not prefer to think so much solitarily but definitally they like to share ideas they find interesting with other people.... the key difference is they would lose their enthusiasm for interesting ideas if there was no one immediately around them to share it with or interact with, if they could only share it with themselves they would become bored and unenthusiastic exactly contrarily to the introvert. Haven't you ever observed this in reality yourself? Also I don't believe that introversion or extroversion is an absolute idea but one which is more distributed.... like being extroverted doesn't mean you can't be alone for more than 1 minute without breaking down.... I think it would depend more so on how extroverted or how introverted.... mild extroverts could endure "introverted" time longer than extreme extroverts which don't endure "introverted" time too well.... also I think people adapt.... I think if you put a person in solitary confinement for several months or a couple of years (as awful as that sounds) they would learn to be introverted.... because it is in their best instinct for survival to adapt. So yea alot is at play.... but............................................... .......................

    REGARDLESS... the point would be that introverts focus their energy inward and gain enthusiasm from that and lose enthusiasm from focusing it outward and extroverts do the reverese process. That is my conception of introvert vs extrovert
    I agree with your definition. Of course our difference here is only a matter of words. enthusiasm=attitude and attitude is feeling, which is whether it is agreeable or not.

    The introvert had a positive attitude toward internal, extravert toward external. Socionics reduces attitude to kinetic energy because feeling is the only function capable of action. Just stating facts here.

    Quote Originally Posted by haveluciddreams
    Oh god neurotransmitters and physiological psychology..... its incredibly fascinating but it scares me also since it gets dangerously close to the notion that humans are nothing more than advanced peices of biologically machinery which run on a master program which is inherent to the laws of physics which govern the universe. I don't find that idea pleasant... but I can't disprove it either....
    Have lucid dreams.

    Quote Originally Posted by have lucid dreams
    K, but anyways.... what is this you are talking about with people possibly fantasizing about recognition for their groundbreaking psychological ideas??? I mean I can understand why you'de be upset but this topic is confined to simply discussing the relation between MBTI and Socionic INTj's based on the common trait of contingency planning. No one here is hubrisly trying to "win" recognition for some groundbreaking idea.
    No one? Really? you sure about that?

    Egos are what has wrecked Socionics.

    Quote Originally Posted by haveluciddreams
    Finally type being real....type isn't "really" real but its a theoretical concept developed by humans to explain that which is real. The typology in my opinion is only really useful as a conversational term to discuss ideas which may be beyond that which common language can facilitate. At any rate, I think I'd rather side with realistic observation than theoretical prediction.
    This is up for debate. If type turns out to merely be a theoretical concept that makes it wishy-washy to me. What use is it them? If type is not real then there is no point for socionics.

    Oh, and I am not as much of a jerk as I am coming across as.

  15. #15
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth View Post
    I agree with your definition. Of course our difference here is only a matter of words. enthusiasm=attitude and attitude is feeling, which is whether it is agreeable or not.

    The introvert had a positive attitude toward internal, extravert toward external. Socionics reduces attitude to kinetic energy because feeling is the only function capable of action. Just stating facts here.
    k so we can play the semantic game but attitude and enthusiasm are quite similar ideas, and I likewise agree with your notion of "attitude". Interestingly enough though I like the word enthusiasm... it comes from a greek word roughly meaning "having a god within" and in common usage it typically means being passionate and energetic about something Enthusiasm Definition | Definition of Enthusiasm at Dictionary.com. You can read up on it there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth View Post
    No one? Really? you sure about that?

    Egos are what has wrecked Socionics.
    Possibly so, generally speaking I don't doubt your accusations, but as far as this topic goes it hasn't turned to a big ego-clash fest. The problem with personality theory in comparison to other intellectual subjects is that people tend to take it a little bit more personally (please excuse the pun).

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth View Post
    This is up for debate. If type turns out to merely be a theoretical concept that makes it wishy-washy to me. What use is it them? If type is not real then there is no point for socionics.

    Oh, and I am not as much of a jerk as I am coming across as.
    Hmmm well.... I think type isn't a perfect match to the real complexity that exists within human personality.... but its close enough to be instrumental. To me its easier to describe another person as LII than load up 5000 adjectives and idiosyncracies that describe what LII represents.

    Lol and you are not coming across as a jerk.

  16. #16
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    (Analogy to "is type real": ) Are atoms real? We say sometimes that everything is made up of atoms (and number them from 1 to whichever hundred-something number we manage to make), but that isn't really true. Atoms are an extremely common consequence of the interaction of smaller particles, such as electrons and protons. However, the parts that make up atoms appear in other forms: free electrons, free protons, neutrinos... Given that some atoms never even form molecules (i.e. helium), why do we study chemistry? Because chemistry describes most of what we deal with on a daily basis - things that we could never keep track of if we thought of them in terms of straight physics.

    Likewise, the human brain is an extremely complex machine, capable of an incredible number of very different states - but only a small percentage of these are stable, yet fewer can be reasonably caused by a human body with tolerable sensory input, and of these, many differ only in minor ways. Depending on what counts as "minor ways" there could be any number of types, but Socionics works with 16, and has achieved a notable level of predictive power for that level of measurement precision.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  17. #17
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    (Analogy to "is type real": ) Are atoms real? We say sometimes that everything is made up of atoms (and number them from 1 to whichever hundred-something number we manage to make), but that isn't really true. Atoms are an extremely common consequence of the interaction of smaller particles, such as electrons and protons. However, the parts that make up atoms appear in other forms: free electrons, free protons, neutrinos... Given that some atoms never even form molecules (i.e. helium), why do we study chemistry? Because chemistry describes most of what we deal with on a daily basis - things that we could never keep track of if we thought of them in terms of straight physics.

    Likewise, the human brain is an extremely complex machine, capable of an incredible number of very different states - but only a small percentage of these are stable, yet fewer can be reasonably caused by a human body with tolerable sensory input, and of these, many differ only in minor ways. Depending on what counts as "minor ways" there could be any number of types, but Socionics works with 16, and has achieved a notable level of predictive power for that level of measurement precision.
    Well......... atoms are great seeing as how everyone thinks of them like dots they see in some textbook but the fact is atoms and subatomic particles can't be perceived by our direct senses. What we do know about atoms and subatomic particles comes about from studying things such as scattering experiments.... in such experiments people observe particular actions which occur under highly controlled conditions and make logical inferences in order to explain these actions. Through these inferences a model is created in order to explain the true nature of the atom. However, the model is not nessicarily the true nature of the atom, and more often than not models evolve as they are explored and tested..... in a similar fashion I find it foolhardy to think socionics or any other personality typology is a perfect model of such a complex thing as personality, but I think certain advances in the field have enabled people to explain people and their personalities to a high level of practical accuracy. I just wouldn't take your type as the gospel truth of your or other people's nature. What we know based on personality theory is just our attempt to make logical inferences based on the observed differences of behavior between a variety of characters.

  18. #18
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is a way of categorizing people. Each category is assumed to interact in a different way with the other categories. If anything Socionics is formal logic(think Aristotle). All of this talk about atoms and such seems to be empty philosophizing that will not help us reach any conclusions.

    This is just a thought, but if you think that Socionics is more than a kind of logic then you may be giving Augusta et al a little bit too much credit; though it is true that much of the 'meat' on the logical 'bones' is quasi-Jungian, occult-based knowledge.

    As for the original topic of this thread? Well, I don't have the patience right now.

  19. #19
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth View Post
    Socionics is a way of categorizing people. Each category is assumed to interact in a different way with the other categories. If anything Socionics is formal logic(think Aristotle). All of this talk about atoms and such seems to be empty philosophizing that will not help us reach any conclusions.

    This is just a thought, but if you think that Socionics is more than a kind of logic then you may be giving Augusta et al a little bit too much credit; though it is true that much of the 'meat' on the logical 'bones' is quasi-Jungian, occult-based knowledge.

    As for the original topic of this thread? Well, I don't have the patience right now.
    I agree and the atom analogy got overboard.... to simply state my case I think type isn't real.... I think its just a scientific model of people's personality, while its not "real" its close enough to reality to be useful. The end, now get some patience.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •