Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: The "Stage Theory" of Socionics

  1. #1
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The "Stage Theory" of Socionics

    This is just something I thought I would post. This is just a random correlation concerning Socionics and some information I got out of my psychology textbook for school.


    The psychoanalyst Erik. H. Erikson (1902-1994) proposed a "stage theory" of personality that splits life up into eight different levels, resolving an inevitable "crisis" at each one:

    1. Trust versus mistrust is the crisis that occurs during the baby's first year, when the baby depends on other to provide food, comfort, cuddling, and warmth. If these needs are not met, the child may never develop the essential trust necessary to get along in the world, especially in relationships.

    2. Autonomy (independence) versus shame and doubt is the crisis that occurs when the child is a toddler. The young child is learning to be independent and must do so without feeling to ashamed or doubtful of his or her actions.

    3. Initiative versus guilt is the crisis that occurs as the preschooler develops. The child is acquiring new physical and mental skills and enjoying newfound talents but must also learn to control impulses. The danger lies in developing too strong a sense of guilt over his or her wishes and fantasies.

    4. Competence versus inferiority is the crisis for school-age children, who are learning to make things, use tools, and acquire the skills for adult life. Children who fail these lessons of mastery and competence risk feeling inadequate and inferior.

    5. Identity versus role confusion is the crisis of adolescence, when teenagers must decide what they are going to be and what they hope to make of their lives. The term identity crisis describes what Erikson considered to be the primary conflict of this stage. Those who resolve this crisis will come out of this stage with a strong identity, ready to plan for the future. Those who do not will sink into confusion, unable to make decisions.

    6. Intimacy versus isolation is the crisis of young adulthood. Once you have decided who you are, said Erikson, you must share yourself with another and learn to make commitments. No matter how successful you are in work, you are not complete until you are capable of intimacy.

    7. Generativity versus stagnation is the crisis of the middle years. Will you sink into complacency and selfishness, or will you experience generativity, the pleasure of creativity and renewal? Parenthood is the most common means for the successful resolution of this stage, but people can be productive, creative, and nurturant in other ways, in their work or their relationships with the younger generation.

    8. Ego integrity versus despair is the crisis of old age. As they age, people strive to reach the ultimate goal--wisdom, spiritual tranquility, an acceptance of their lives. Just as the healthy child will not fear life, said Erikson, the healthy adult will not fear death. (Wade & Tavris, 2002)

    Of course, one must realize that these psychological concerns aren't limited to being only at the stage of life when they are supposed to occur. Plus, not everyone has equal trouble with each one; in fact, it may just be that there is one stage in life of those 8 stages that bothers different people, i.e. what may be a large concern for one person may never really be much of a concern for another. Hmm...



    So, what does this have to do with Socionics? Plenty. If you really look at the different stages, you might notice that each one seems to correspond with a specific concern that each of the 16 types has throughout their lives. And that is the hidden agenda. Is it no surprise that Erikson found eight specific stages?

    So here's my classification of the hidden agenda and eight stages of life. See if yours agrees with mine or not:

    1. Trust versus mistrust -- Introverted Intuition: ISTj, ISFj.

    2. Autonomy versus shame and doubt -- Extraverted Feeling: ENTp, ESTp.

    3. Initiative versus guilt -- Extraverted Sensing: ENFj, ENTj.

    4. Competence versus inferiority -- Extraverted Thinking: ESFp, ENFp.

    5. Identity versus role confusion -- Introverted Sensing: INTj, INFj.

    6. Intimacy versus isolation -- Introverted Feeling: INTp, ISTp.

    7. Generativity versus stagnation -- Extraverted Intuition: ESFj, ESTj.

    8. Ego integrity versus despair -- Introverted Thinking: ISFp, INFp.


    Your INTp friend,

    Cone

    Disclaimer: The previous material was only meant to be a very loose correlation between two theories. Technically, the material does nothing except show that other people also think about hidden agendas. This material should not be taken verbatim (as one should do with all of my posts). Instead, view this as an intuitive thought that has yet to be structured into something useful (if ever.)
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you don't develop type until you experience the crisis wouldn't that mean that on the average IxFPs get to avoid their hidden agenda? or are you saying all of these crises are experienced at some critical stage in childhood?

  3. #3
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not saying anything. This was simply a loose connection that I made one day. When each crisis occurs for each type is Erikson's idea. This could be looked into further, but for now, I'm not going to explore it.

    And if you want to know about IxFps, ask one.


    Your INTp friend,

    Cone
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  4. #4
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is pretty amazing how adaptable alot of theories are to socionics. really, pretty much everything that has to do with developmental stages can be connected in some way or another. I suppose it can go under the canopy of "systems integration"(a cool term that I'm sure all NT types enjoy).

    pretty much anything by Freud, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, that love triangle hoopla... anything that has to do with stages or phases. The more anyone reads, the more one finds how compatible it all is with socionics.

    I don't want to shy off Cone's topic, because it is an interesting post, but i will say this:

    I have been reading Freud's lecture on "the EGO and the ID", the connections with it and Socionics are all there. I suggest everyone really read it because, at least from my experience, it is just as helpful a tool in understanding Socionics as is anything by Jung- probably more, really. It just goes to show how all encompassing this socionics stuff really is. It seems psychologists such as Freud, Erikson, Maslow, Rogers, Jung, etc... are all talking about the same things, just with their own shades of meaning. Freud, I've noticed, focuses alot on duality and life and death drives, things that i've never read in psych class, which corresponds in many ways with Jung's dichotomies. When you get into the more liberal, humanistic sorta stuff, its really just a sort of transmutation of the same basic ideas... obviously brought forth by the individual values and probably types or atmospheres of the psychologists.

    Socionics is a form of this "Systems Integration"(such a cool term!), as we all know, giving a skeletal structure to alot of very vague and equivocal ideas. It fuses them, gets rid of the clutter, and puts forth something tangible and practical.

    I don't know if there is really a way to connect Erikson's theory with socionics, but it definitely seems like its going to help me make some good connections, maybe help me develop my understanding a bit more.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What some see as all encompassing others see as undefined/unproveable.

  6. #6
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    well thats why some people are able to use their perceptions, like cone did, and go "woah!" i can totally make something out of this.

  7. #7
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Seems like everything I post makes the ENTps say, "Hey! This is awesome!", and the INTjs say, "No, I don't think so." That's Socionics for you...

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth
    I have been reading Freud's lecture on "the EGO and the ID", the connections with it and Socionics are all there. I suggest everyone really read it because, at least from my experience, it is just as helpful a tool in understanding Socionics as is anything by Jung- probably more, really.
    You know, I've been meaning to read that for sometime now. Guess I'll have to hop on down to the local library and get some books on Freud. (They have entire shelves filled with just Freud! For a quack, he sure made an impact!)


    Your INTp friend,

    Cone
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    I'm not saying anything. This was simply a loose connection that I made one day. When each crisis occurs for each type is Erikson's idea. This could be looked into further, but for now, I'm not going to explore it.
    I think there is definitely something to this model. I can certainly recognize the 5. Identity versus role confusion in myself, and there are few other cases that seem to lend some support to this theory, but I am still looking for more external confirmation... I think the nature of the crisis may well be defined according to Erikson's idea, but their implications will reflect in people's lives later (or earlier) on as well if there are some unresolved issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    And if you want to know about IxFps, ask one.
    I think we should. Don't we have at least (Thank You) and maybe some other INFPs writing here, hint, hint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    You know, I've been meaning to read that for sometime now. Guess I'll have to hop on down to the local library and get some books on Freud. (They have entire shelves filled with just Freud! For a quack, he sure made an impact!)
    He did indeed, and I am not saying that he did not have many worthwhile ideas. I have tried reading him, but often his ideas just seemed all so weird and the rather arbitrary interpretations and the lack of any evidence did not inspire me, but I guess I should try once again, maybe something can be salvaged from him after all. In my opinion people in (some) position of authority should just always bother to qualify their speculations with proper disclaimers, for example:
    My Interpretation of Dreams may well be just a figment of my imagination and there is not a shred of objective evidence to support it. Nevertheless I hope you may find my literary style enjoyable and my ideas inspiring. Just do not try this at home. :wink:


    Quote Originally Posted by WW
    well thats why some people are able to use their perceptions, like cone did, and go "woah!" i can totally make something out of this.
    I guess we all get our kicks from different things. It just seems to me that nowadays when there is so much progress in brain science, genetics and psychology that we are living in exciting times and finally getting some objective measurable facts, and even we should think more about possible methods of verification, and think in terms of correlations and heritabilities, but of course even those studies have many sources of error. I just do not quite see the point of having a theory just for the sake of theory.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    671
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    http://forum.socionix.com

    I don't see what's so important about the possibility of extraterrestrial life. It's just more people to declare war on.

    EVERYONE PLZ CONTINUE TO UPLOAD INFINITE AMOUNT OF PICS OF "CUTE" CATS AND PUPPIES. YOU KNOW WE GIVE A SHIT!!

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hmm... well my point about the IxFPs was part of a broader point meant to demonstrate how illogical this seems. Firstly, if the crisis doesn't develop until point X in our life then we would probably not see both a full development of identity/personality until that point but most psychologists/sociologists would say that a very significant portion of the personality is developed by age 5 not age 30 or whatever. Secondly, you would see more uniformity in how people develop. If we (for the most part) experience the same crises in the same time order then you would see personality A from 1-2 then personality B from 3-5 and so on and so forth (at least for a rather large portion of the society. But we in fact do not see that we see the "baby types" or progenitors to full type from youth on (with some irregularities of course). Also, I know for a fact IxFPs do not avoid their hidden agenda that is why a lot of them drop out of school and have trouble holding down jobs. Also, I know my hidden agenda's roots and they extend much further into the past than

    adolescence, when teenagers must decide what they are going to be and what they hope to make of their lives.
    Also, when I was reading the statements I felt like crises 2, 1, and 4 described me best (in that order). I made the connections before even knowing that you were going to connect the crises to specific types so believe me I am not trying to be difficult for the sake of it.

    Also I think the way you interpret a crisis has to do with type not vice versa because people don't respond (even as children in my experience) to phenomena uniformly. The delineations seem to be in keeping with type but whatever.

    The reason I responded the way I did was because I've read that information before and have already tried to make connections with it but they seem tenuous. If you can overcome the hurdles I mentioned above then fine I'll listen but as for now the whole idea seems to have a secondary impact instead of a direct one on socionics.

    Anyway, just some thoughts... develop it some more

  11. #11
    Creepy-

    Default

    Is there any way that this could be developed into a method of type ID?

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.

  13. #13
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here's an excerpt from my psychology textbook, right after the explanation of Erikson's theory:

    Erikson showed that development is never finished; it is an ongoing process, and the issues of one period of life may be reawakened during another. His work was important because he placed adult development in the context of family and society, and he specified many of the essential concerns of adulthood: trust, competence, identity, generativity, and the ability to enjoy life and accept death.

    However, Erikson's stages are far from universal, and the psychological concerns he identified do not necessarily occur at only one stage of life. Although in Western societies adolescence
    is often a time of confusion about identity and aspirations, an identity crisis is not limited to the teen years. A man who has worked in one job all his life, and then is laid off and must find an entirely new career, may have an identity crisis, too. Likewise, competence is not mastered once and for all in childhood. People learn new skills and lose old ones throughout their lives, and their sense of competence rises and falls accordingly. Moreover, people who are highly generative (in terms of being committed to helping the next generation) tend to be so throughout their lives, doing volunteer work or choosing occupations that allow them to help others (Mansfield & McAdams, 1996).

    Stage theories, therefore, are no longer considered an adequate approach to capturing life development. As one psychologist summarized, "There is not one process of aging, but many; there is not one life course followed, but multiple courses....The variety is as rich as the historic conditions people have faced and the current circumstances they experience" (Pearlin, 1982).

    -- Wade and Tavris, 2002



    I will agree, when I first started to apply the stage theories to Socionics, I saw that not only one, but a couple of the stages could directly apply to me, and that they should. Each stage, disregarding when and where it happens and only looking at what it is, applies in some way to everyone, no matter how subtlely it may apply. For instance, in order, each stage applies to me:

    6, 2 (of which I think is big for almost eveyone), 3, and 1

    4 -- should never really have to worry about this one until I'm older and in college
    5 -- I thrive on the change of my identity
    7 -- hopefully, this doesn't happen
    8 -- this seems like a lifelong process

    What about 5 and INTjs? Make sense? Maybe not.

    Is there any way that this could be developed into a method of type ID?
    I'd say it depends on whether the person up for type ID has or doesn't have problems with his hidden agenda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    I.e. correlation does NOT equal causation. I am consistently AMAZED that people (especially the second rate social scientists and the media) are by-and-large completely unaware of this fact. It is almost never taught in schools, and you almost need to be born with this knowlege to know it these days.
    We were taught this within the first week of psychology class, so don't worry about me.


    Your INTp friend,

    Cone
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    The brain, at its core, is entirely abstract. That is, it is a giant mass of interrelations upon correlations with no real universal grounding.
    Sure there is the physical structure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    correlation does NOT equal causation.
    Hence my gripe with all of "science" and my love of the philosophical theories that Cone finds so useless.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well that is a problem with all thought of course. But what if the physical structure is the metaphysical structure?

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    He did indeed, and I am not saying that he did not have many worthwhile ideas. I have tried reading him, but often his ideas just seemed all so weird and the rather arbitrary interpretations and the lack of any evidence did not inspire me, but I guess I should try once again, maybe something can be salvaged from him after all. In my opinion people in (some) position of authority should just always bother to qualify their speculations with proper disclaimers, for example:
    My Interpretation of Dreams may well be just a figment of my imagination and there is not a shred of objective evidence to support it. Nevertheless I hope you may find my literary style enjoyable and my ideas inspiring. Just do not try this at home.
    I noticed that the people who say this kind of stuff are the same people who teach a math class by solving problems, and expect their students to follow.

    I guess we all get our kicks from different things. It just seems to me that nowadays when there is so much progress in brain science, genetics and psychology that we are living in exciting times and finally getting some objective measurable facts, and even we should think more about possible methods of verification, and think in terms of correlations and heritabilities, but of course even those studies have many sources of error. I just do not quite see the point of having a theory just for the sake of theory.
    How else can one probe a black box? If you have a bunch of variables and not enough euqations, then analogies and probing can be the best way to create a possibly good model. For example, the only reason we know the internal structure of the earth is due to earth quake readings at different locations on earth. This idea came from the fact that P waves and S waves have different properties of material penetration, and because they have similar properties to waves traveling in other subtances. So, thats essentially where theories come from. You see one process, and then you see another where one variable vs another makes a similar pattern. If enough patterns match, why not try more patterns from the other model? If there is correlation, maybe it continues to correlate, usually it does. Each type evolved for solving specific problems, and freud's mind evolved for analyzing psychological patterns, im sure he is quite appologetic for not ebing able to explain how his own brain figured out what it did, by for those who temporarily accept the theory and try it, they see that it works fine. If you are in a car and some starts screaming, do you stop to reason why they are screaming stop (only to get hit by a bus from your blind spot)?

    I'm sorry for making so many attacks on your posts, but I feel that you don't accept other ways of thinking as valid, and demand a translation into your functions which is more work than actually making the discoveries.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Tallinn
    Posts
    595
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Now, now, calm dawn and relax. Curious is INFJ and you are ENTp, so there is a relation of supervison between you two and you as supervisee naturally will feel how the supervisor controlls every thought of yours and takes away your freedom to think independently. It's the case of TIMs not mixing up An interesting note to say is that having such relation at home, you are belonging probably to the group of people having potential to get ill into schisofrenia.

    And you are not alone in this Delta -Alfa case, me too deosn't get along with Delta Intuitives and Feelers. Their psychlogy doesn't make sence all the time, like most of the NF peoples talkings. No offence

  20. #20
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    I noticed that the people who say this kind of stuff are the same people who teach a math class by solving problems, and expect their students to follow.
    Seems like I learn more from that method than the standard "here's the equations, now get to work" method.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    by for those who temporarily accept the theory and try it, they see that it works fine.
    Sure, it works fine...temporarily.

    You know, CuriousSoul makes a good point. But like Freud, I forgot to put a disclaimer at the bottom of my post.

    Disclaimer: The previous material was only meant to be a very loose correlation between two theories. Technically, the material does nothing except show that other people also think about hidden agendas. This material should not be taken verbatim (as one should do with all of my posts). Instead, view this as an intuitive thought that has yet to be structured into something useful (if ever.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    I'm sorry for making so many attacks on your posts, but I feel that you don't accept other ways of thinking as valid, and demand a translation into your functions which is more work than actually making the discoveries.
    You know what I've often noticed, Slava? People who often accuse others of selfishness are actually the most selfish themselves. Find the analogy.

    Sorry for attacking your post, Slava, but people defend me, so I have to defend them.


    Still your INTp friend,

    Cone
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Now, now, calm dawn and relax. Curious is INFJ and you are ENTp, so there is a relation of supervison between you two and you as supervisee naturally will feel how the supervisor controlls every thought of yours and takes away your freedom to think independently. It's the case of TIMs not mixing up Very Happy An interesting note to say is that having such relation at home, you are belonging probably to the group of people having potential to get ill into schisofrenia.
    I'm INTj.

    Seems like I learn more from that method than the standard "here's the equations, now get to work" method.
    Because you share business logic with the person in the example I gave. Of course you will follow their logic better. What bothers me is the fact that every time an INTp teaches my classes, they assume that everyone should understand their way of thinking otherwise they are stupid. Then they not only reject any theory that has no logical proof, but, they throw insults and uncalled for comments about the source of the theory. When I watch ym math professor solve problems on the board at his own pace, I have no time to keep up with what he is doing, and that I think is hippocritical too, because hes standing there doing transformations in his head and recursive substitutions, and expects us all to relate to him like we are his friends if we understand him, or enemies if we dont. My point is... let others think the way they think and thank god/nature that these people were gifted with the ability to easily solve specific tasks for you, so that you don't have to worry about that aspect of reality. That means not to dismiss then degrade the source of a theory.

    Sure, it works fine...temporarily.
    Just like evolution, theories evolve too. Why don't we go criticize evolution for being so analog and lacking in logic. Its interesting sometimes how the least logic things (like white noise) can solve very complex problems that logic cannot solve... I wanna see someone use business logic to solve the traveling salesman problem.

    You know what I've often noticed, Slava? People who often accuse others of selfishness are actually the most selfish themselves. Find the analogy.

    Sorry for attacking your post, Slava, but people defend me, so I have to defend them.
    Thats a good analogy, but it isnt complete... because if it was then any accusation I make would imply me being a hippocrit... which isn't always the case. Lets evolve the analogy
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  22. #22
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    Because you share business logic with the person in the example I gave. Of course you will follow their logic better. What bothers me is the fact that every time an INTp teaches my classes, they assume that everyone should understand their way of thinking otherwise they are stupid. Then they not only reject any theory that has no logical proof, but, they throw insults and uncalled for comments about the source of the theory. When I watch my math professor solve problems on the board at his own pace, I have no time to keep up with what he is doing, and that I think is hippocritical too, because hes standing there doing transformations in his head and recursive substitutions, and expects us all to relate to him like we are his friends if we understand him, or enemies if we dont. My point is... let others think the way they think and thank god/nature that these people were gifted with the ability to easily solve specific tasks for you, so that you don't have to worry about that aspect of reality. That means not to dismiss then degrade the source of a theory.
    Wow, unfortunately, I do see alot of your math professor in myself. That's kind of how I solve physics problems in my CHS Physics class. I think I'm explaining everything, but maybe I'm going to fast for everyone (but they should know this stuff; they're in the same Physics class (I see what you mean, Slava)). The physics teacher (ISTj) never really comments on my work; maybe he just doesn't understand me? Oh well, thanks for the comments, Slava.

    Oh, and another thing I just remembered. A friend of Bill Gates once said of him that Gates, after hearing a proposition by an employee, would often sharply dismiss that proposition, as well as harshly degrade the "source" of it and also the employee himself. But it wasn't because Gates wanted to exert his immense power, but rather because he wanted to hear the employee defend his claim and show Gates that his proposition is right after all. You must remember, an INTp has a difficult time coming up with a good theory and an even more difficult time defending that theory, due to a weak Ne and an almost non-existent Ti. And due to that weakness, he's very afraid of accepting any theory that has the slightest whiff of being illogical. He wants pure and logical theories, or at least theories that you can back up somewhat, for one of his biggest fears is the fear of being wrong in a conclusion. That's why INTps are so skeptical. And that's also why I love listening to ENTps on this forum and in the real world. INTjs--well, the functions are in the wrong order...

    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    Just like evolution, theories evolve too. Why don't we go criticize evolution for being so analog and lacking in logic. Its interesting sometimes how the least logic things (like white noise) can solve very complex problems that logic cannot solve...
    Yes, that's what I should have added after my comment. I agree with this. But don't forget, some theories are better than others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    I wanna see someone use business logic to solve the traveling salesman problem.
    What is this problem you speak of?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    Thats a good analogy, but it isnt complete... because if it was then any accusation I make would imply me being a hippocrit... which isn't always the case. Lets evolve the analogy
    Thank you, and I agree, but sometimes you have to be a bit dogmatic to get your point across. We're all hypocrites in one way or another.


    Your INTp friend,

    Cone
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  23. #23
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    You must remember, an INTp has a difficult time coming up with a good theory and an even more difficult time defending that theory, due to a weak Ne and an almost non-existent Ti.
    I think that the 7th and 8th functions are the lazy functions. We can do them, but we don't really like to.

    I would say that I can "do Te" pretty damn good, but when I do, it feels like I am slamming my head against a wall. I have to conciously try to ignore my "thought digressions" about how all these facts relate together; makes it very hard to concentrate on practical things. Of course, this effects the efficacy of it, so it is a little weaker than Ti. Usually, I just ignore trying to concentrate on the facts and just let my mind "absorb" information on its own.

    Like when it comes to things like trivia and organizational skills, I am good but not great, but when it comes to conceptual reasoning, many times I am second-to-none. (And like many ESTp's, I can talk my way out of anything.)

    And as for Ni, I can also do that when I want, but I never (ever!?) do. I always put off things like planning and paying attention to the time, extrapolating patterns, etc.

    I would say that the INTp could make thier own theory, they just really don't want to when it comes down to it.

    Travelling Salesman:

    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Traveli...anProblem.html

    This is a silly problem that some people seem to think is important. I never knew why it is so popular. (This is my error though, I do not proclam to say that it is unimportant.)

    I The first time I saw it, I thought "of course it is going to be NP!" But, you know, proving things in math is 99.999999% of the battle. I could say it looks obvious, but that shows how stupid I am since I guess it is a big deal.

    I think the ordeal now is to find an algorithm that solves it, but I would guess that the algorithm would have to be of the same complexity of the "input data" itself. (Since there is no particular pattern to the cities; it is not simplifyable as things like scheduling are [since there is only one salesman] so I would think that a solution would be about the same size as the coordinates of the cities.)

    Anyway, I am probably wrong, but there is alot of information on it.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the ordeal now is to find an algorithm that solves it, but I would guess that the algorithm would have to be of the same complexity of the "input data" itself. (Since there is no particular pattern to the cities; it is not simplifyable as things like scheduling are [since there is only one salesman] so I would think that a solution would be about the same size as the coordinates of the cities.)
    You are totally correct... but the algorithms that are best for this currently are not logical ones... they are ones that have been adapted from nature itself... simulated anealing, GA (evolutionary algorithms), neural networks are by far the best for solving this. And if some guy wasn't like... hey why don't we use a similar aproach as human evolution, or why not use a similar aproach to a piece of metal anealing... then the solutions to this problem would be much slower today, allong with many other algorithms out there, such as routing of internet netwroks (the best search algorithms were adapted from ant society studies!)
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default I go on and on...

    Quote Originally Posted by Slava (at school)
    I noticed that the people who say this kind of stuff are the same people who teach a math class by solving problems, and expect their students to follow.
    My high school math teacher did exactly that - anything wrong with the method? Some like it, others do not. She was a giant of a woman who believed in keeping strict discipline, and when she locked the door and started the lesson you could hear a pencil drop - and you knew you did not want to let it happen again. If you could keep up with the breathtaking pace - and I swear we had to write as fast as we could - she sure did know her calculus, but I had difficulties... Before I met her I thought I was mathematically gifted, she taught me otherwise.

    There are pros and cons to every method, and I guess this goes to socionics discussion too. I am sorry if I took you the wrong way, but I stand behind my opinions. Sorry that it took a while to answer, been busy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slava (at school)
    How else can one probe a black box? If you have a bunch of variables and not enough euqations, then analogies and probing can be the best way to create a possibly good model. For example, the only reason we know the internal structure of the earth is due to earth quake readings at different locations on earth. This idea came from the fact that P waves and S waves have different properties of material penetration, and because they have similar properties to waves traveling in other subtances. So, thats essentially where theories come from. You see one process, and then you see another where one variable vs another makes a similar pattern. If enough patterns match, why not try more patterns from the other model? If there is correlation, maybe it continues to correlate, usually it does.
    But this is exactly the point, here we have a prime example of how science should be done. First you have the observations, then you try to think of a potential hypothesis that could explain what is going on and try to formulate a theory that could make some testable predictions. And if the theory fits the facts, then the theory has explanatory power, unless, or until, it is replaced with a more accurate theory. You know how the story goes so do not start nitpicking on my words now.

    But did Freud see any correlations? Maybe he thought he did but did he actually do any statistical analysis on his patients? Did he put his psychoanalysis to test against another school of therapy? Was he just speculating on a theoretical subject that had no real relevance to the lives of thousands of people? There are tremendous differences that make the whole comparison invalid. While Freud probably tried his best, on the balance I would still weigh his contribution as mainly negative. There were many other approaches to psychiatric problems already at Freud's time, and the prominence Freud attained hindered the progress of more empirically oriented schools, the path of history could have been different. This subject has been a topic of endless debate and I am afraid neither of us are particularly qualified to contribute anything truly original, so perhaps this Wikipedia article provides a fairly neutral summary of his legacy.


    Freud's Legacy
    Freud trained as a medical doctor, and as such, he believed his research methods and conclusions were scientific. However, his research and practice were condemned by many of his peers. This is most likely because his basic claim, that many of our conscious thoughts and actions are motivated by unconscious fears and desires, implicitly challenges universal and objective claims about the world (proponents of science conclude that this invalidates Freudian theory; proponents of Freud conclude that this invalidates science). Psychoanalysis today maintains the same ambivalent relationship with medicine and academia that Freud experienced during his life.

    Clinical psychologists, who seek to treat mental illness, relate to Freudian psychoanalysis in different ways. Some clinical psychologists have modified this approach and have developed a variety of "psychodynamic" models and therapies. Other clinical psychologists reject Freud's model of the mind, but have adapted elements of his therapeutic method, especially his reliance on patients' talking as a form of therapy. Experimental psychologists generally reject Freud's methods and theories. Like Freud, Psychiatrists train as medical doctors, but—like most medical doctors in Freud's time—most reject his theory of the mind, and generally rely more on drugs than talk in their treatments. This could be more to do with modern drive to a 'quick fix' rather than problems with Freud's theories, however.

    Freud's psychological theories are hotly disputed today and many leading academic and research psychiatrists regard him as a charlatan. Although Freud was long regarded as a genius, psychiatry and psychology have long since been recast as scientific disciplines, and psychiatric disorders are generally considered diseases of the brain the etiology of which is principally genetic. Freud's lessening influence in psychiatry is thus largely due to the repudiation of his theories and the adoption of many of the basic scientific principles of Freud's principal opponent in the field of psychiatry, Emil Kraepelin. In his book "The Freudian Fraud", research psychiatrist E. Fuller-Torrey provides an account of the political and social forces which combined to raise Freud to the status of a divinity to those who needed a theoretical foundation for their political and social views. Many of the diseases which used to be treated with Freudian and related forms of therapy (such as schizophrenia) have been unequivocally demonstrated to be impervious to such treatments.

    Freud's model of psycho-sexual development has been criticized from different perspectives. Some have attacked Freud's claim that infants are sexual beings (and, implicitly, Freud's expanded notion of sexuality). Others have accepted Freud's expanded notion of sexuality, but have argued that this pattern of development is not universal, nor necessary for the development of a healthy adult. Instead, they have emphasized the social and environmental sources of patterns of development. Moreover, they call attention to social dynamics Freud de-emphasized or ignored (such as class relations).

    Some criticize Freud's rejection of positivism. The philosopher of science, Karl Popper formulated a method to distinguish science from non-science, or "pseudoscience". For Popper, all proper scientific theories are potentially falsifiable. If a theory is incapable of being falsified, then it cannot be considered scientific. Popper pointed out that Freud's theories of psychology can always be "verified", since no type of behaviour could ever falsify them. Although Popper's demarcation between science and non-science is widely accepted among scientists, it remains a controversial one itself within philosophy of science and philosophy in general.

    Within psychiatry, there are disputes over the causes of mental illness. Many psychiatrists argue that all mental illnesses are caused by neurological disorders. The work of Emil Kraepelin established scientific psychiatry, which maintains this view, although it is worth noting that Freud made significant contributions in this area. Other critics, such as Thomas Szasz, argue that mental illness does not even exist, since there is no objective pathology to observe.

    Behaviourism, evolutionary psychology and cognitive psychology reject psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience. Humanistic psychology maintains that psychoanalysis is a demeaning and incorrect view of human beings. The other schools of psychology have produced alternative methods of psychotherapy to psychoanalysis, including behavior therapy, cognitive therapy and person centred psychotherapy.

    The official position on the impetus for mental disorders and on interpretation of behaviour and mental processes is eclectic: it includes all perspectives of psychological schools (including Psychoanalytic, Behaviouristic, cognitive, and Humanistic).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

    Quote Originally Posted by Slava (at school)
    Each type evolved for solving specific problems, and freud's mind evolved for analyzing psychological patterns, im sure he is quite appologetic for not ebing able to explain how his own brain figured out what it did, by for those who temporarily accept the theory and try it, they see that it works fine.)?
    No each type, and every mind, evolved to propagate the genes of its carrier. This is tautology, but it does not make it any less true. Human minds are simply not pure scientific instuments on the search for objective truth. Siegmund Freud was according to most socionists an ENTP, thus:

    Oldham Style: Inventive
    Basic Pleasure: Recognition
    Basic Fear: Recognition Obscurity


    Freud most likely sincerely believed that he was solving psychological patterns, but where is the validation of his theories? People desperately seeking cure to troubling mental health problems are prone to believe anything told by dedicated cutting edge medical scientists. Healers/shamans/ and medicine men have been greatly praised throughout history. Most likely his theories also did work quite well: Freud's authority figure and the doctor's dedicated attention and complicated explanations undoubtedly made it easier for his patients to believe in his healing power, and most likely did contribute to their healing: Placebo effect is well documented - and we all appreciate when someone sincerely listens to our worries.

    Alpha craves praise and public recognition and novelty for the sake of novelty, Delta would like to use the most efficient methods and the principal motivating drive is probably more to do with pair bondage - which again causes its own set of problems. I guess this discussion is also a conflict of quadra values. I shall try to watch my words more carefully from now on, I do not want to consciously insult people, but probably end up doing it anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slava (at school)
    If you are in a car and some starts screaming, do you stop to reason why they are screaming stop (only to get hit by a bus from your blind spot)?
    Actually I do. Or I did once, I had just got my driver's license and was parking on the street in front of my grandma's house, when my sister and cousins started screaming and waving their hands. I could not figure out what happened to them all of a sudden. Only a moment later did I realize that I had bent the traffic sign... Luckily the car bumper had only a small scratch. I guess it goes to show I was a rational type all along. The extreme case of rationality means ignoring the reality. A very rational pupil can accurately solve a series of 20 arithmetic tasks and not mention that the half of them required multiplication instead of addition. An extremely rational person is “abnormally normal” in his expressions: he judges not “what things are” but “what they must be” in his opinion.
    http://socioniko.narod.ru/en/article...ov-visual.html
    Taught me a lesson too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slava (at school)
    I'm sorry for making so many attacks on your posts, but I feel that you don't accept other ways of thinking as valid, and demand a translation into your functions which is more work than actually making the discoveries.
    I can give as good as I get. Translating your ideas is a lot of work, but so it should be. For example, I thought first that we could just type people by trusting each other's intuition. Then I came to see that this method is only as good as the expertise your intuitive mind has accumulated. It can only work when each participant has their memory stuffed full of reliably typed people, and as this is not the case we have to try to verbalize the debate, and get rid of the intuitive leaps as far as possible. Now for example if you can demonstrate the effectiveness of VI or any intuitive method, then I am all ears.

    Perhaps I have also given totally wrong impression here: by all means do feel free to express your thoughts, it is often only much later when it is realized that one odd little idea proved to be the missing piece in the puzzle, but anyone can come up with any number of complicated ideas - as I myself have abundantly testified - it alone do not amount to much. The challenge is to prove them correct beyond a reasonable doubt. I know it is hard - but therein lies the beauty. You may say that it is unrealistic, but how can you know before you have even tried? I have tried to generate countless examples trying to differentiate between the socionics types, so far with little succes, yet I am still dreaming of "the ultimate decider section question"... Talks is cheap and meaningless praise is easy to come by. Thoughtful criticism takes times and effort. Try to think of testability and the practical applications, and I am willing to meet you at least halfway...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    You know, CuriousSoul makes a good point. But like Freud, I forgot to put a disclaimer at the bottom of my post.
    Heh, heh. I like it... You are now in (some) position of authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    Just like evolution, theories evolve too. Why don't we go criticize evolution for being so analog and lacking in logic. Its interesting sometimes how the least logic things (like white noise) can solve very complex problems that logic cannot solve... I wanna see someone use business logic to solve the traveling salesman problem.
    But evolution is and never has been lacking in logic. On the contrary it became generally accepted because it was the most simple single theory capable of explaining many otherwise mysterious features: remnant organs, speciation, sexual dimorphism, convergent evolution: (The difference between homology (detailed similarity of organization that is not explainable by similarity in function) and analogy (gross similarity explainable by similarity in function) was in fact recognized before Darwin. It was formalized by Richard Owen. With Darwin, it was recognized that homology is explained by descent from common ancestors, and that analogy is due to similar selective pressures acting on different starting organisms, i.e. convergent evolution.) http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Convergent_Evolution

    Today the amount of logical evidence is simply staggering. Theories either evolve to greater perfection to closer match reality, or they are discarded as non-working. So far Freud's track record has not been particularly impressive. Socionics has yet to solve the most basic issue of correct typing. Many other fields have shown much more progress - keep your eyes open, the answers may arise out of the blue.

    I am not a mathematician, and do not know the details of the problem, but I hope to have understod the thrust of the argument. The traveling salesman problem is technically solved with Gaussian White Noise. This method may be technically semi-random and thus in a way "intuitive", but nevertheless essentially it only extends the applicability of "business logic" as it creates a new fairly simple method suitable for solving complex problems. Unlike in most cases in socionics and psychology it also provides with a certain test-retest reliability, and would indeed be a good role model for us to emulate. For example, type people any way you wish, as long as you independently reach the same type in 99% of (unusual) cases. We are nowhere near yet, and same goes for most psychological theories. Therefore the call for strict logic, (which according to socionics INTJs possess) Or as Linus Torvalds put it: Talk is cheap, show me the code - and I bow to the greater man. :wink:

    Or just keep on writing and generating ideas. I just like to ask the impossible. Read my criticism, and improve your arguments if you can - feel free to ignore them, if you do not see the point.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see your side as well. So I guess it all comes down to... each one of us should keep on doing what we do and things will eventually work out for both of our types as a society. Maybe our purpose for coexisting is to generate systems that are the strengths of the other quasi type, ... for example I would do mental statistics based on feel, and you might create a amthematical system of probability and possibility to work out the same types of problems, and for me I would have to work out some sort of way to predict the future or to do simulations of multiple events in time, which is what you can easily do in your mind. I will from not on try to generate logical proof from any intuitive insites, but keep in mind, that when I get all happy and excited that usually means I have found something, so please help in the conversion process .
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I shall do my best. Often it easily happens that the best ideas get ignored when you do not really have the expertise to evaluate them - or simply nothing to add. I especially liked your Type / Voice Correlation it seems to hold water surprisingly well, including most of my family... Now if you could still work on the remaining types. I want to know what I sound like: :wink:
    "INFj - Hard to explain but very characteristic tone."

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I especially liked your Type / Voice Correlation it seems to hold water
    Thanks, you actually reminded me to update it... so I just added some more info to it, and all the types have a voice deffinition. Some day I would love to get some recordings for both men and women of each type and generalize the speech patterns.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    we need to start a thread that makes us think what type a person is behavior wise. Female ISFPs have this habit of looking down at precise points in the conversation that I can't seem to define. That is one distinguishing characteristic but I will try to find more and document them well. ExTP eyebrows are another one.

Posting Permissions

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