Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: what do you think of this article?

  1. #1
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default what do you think of this article?

    by Sergei Ganin

    I thought I'd post this article to make things a bit more clear. Although what I'm going to say is obvious, it does not always register in a thought process as much as it should.

    When we are talking about N types or T types or F or S types, we often take a much wider scope than is necessary.

    For example we say ESTp is T type, which is sort of true, but try assigning your classic T traits to this type and you fail. Why? Because ESTp is the S type, that's why. By the exact definition of T, T types would be the T dominant types only. But because T as auxiliary function is also quite strong, in many cases you can broaden up the definition and get away with it.

    I think I might have mentioned on several occasions before how important Hidden Agenda could be. Well, to the untrained eye it could easily overshadow auxiliary function, hence leading to the wrong conclusion. Even people with over-sensitive HA themselves often get confused as to which is their stronger function, that or the auxiliary one.

    So if you think that someone is ESTp but surprisingly quite emotional and bubbly, which you might find doesn't go along with T, just remember, they are not T in the first place. So, to summarise all of the above...



    Think of:

    N types as ENTps, INFps, INTp and ENFps ONLY
    T types as INTjs, ISTjs, ENTjs and ESTjs ONLY
    F types as ESFjs, ENFjs, ISFjs and INFjs ONLY
    S types as ISFps, ESTps, ESFps and ISTps ONLY


    (I found it on socionics.com)
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  2. #2
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,465
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    From what little I knew about "Sergei Ganin," (if that's even his real name) he has a reputation for being a womanizer and a scoundrel. I don't think anything can be said about the motivation under which he writes without taking that into account.

    I think there is some merit in his views, however. (his views on womanizing)
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  3. #3
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    From what little I knew about "Sergei Ganin," (if that's even his real name) he has a reputation for being a womanizer and a scoundrel. I don't think anything can be said about the motivation under which he writes without taking that into account.

    I think there is some merit in his views, however. (his views on womanizing)
    really? why?
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  4. #4
    07490's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    there
    Posts
    3,047
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know but people hate him over here and his site. The Visual Identification in the type's description turns a lot of people off.
    (D)IEE~FI-(C)SLE~Ni E-5w4(Sp/Sx)/7w8(So/Sp)/9w1(sp/sx)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    1)
    A girl who I want to date, asks me: well first tell me how tall you are?
    My reply: well I will answer that, if you first tell me how much you weigh!

    2)
    A girl I was dating said she was oh so great at sex etc, but she didn't do blowjobs.
    My reply: Oh I'm really romantic etc, I just will never take you out to dinner.

  5. #5
    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

    Anyhow, there's some theoretical sense to what he says in this article, but I think the problem he addresses would be better solved by adjusting our "classic T traits," possibly moving some of them to Judging.



    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

  6. #6
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    13,088
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
    by Sergei Ganin
    I'm not even gonna read further.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  7. #7
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
    by Sergei Ganin

    I thought I'd post this article to make things a bit more clear. Although what I'm going to say is obvious, it does not always register in a thought process as much as it should.

    When we are talking about N types or T types or F or S types, we often take a much wider scope than is necessary.

    For example we say ESTp is T type, which is sort of true, but try assigning your classic T traits to this type and you fail. Why? Because ESTp is the S type, that's why. By the exact definition of T, T types would be the T dominant types only. But because T as auxiliary function is also quite strong, in many cases you can broaden up the definition and get away with it.

    I think I might have mentioned on several occasions before how important Hidden Agenda could be. Well, to the untrained eye it could easily overshadow auxiliary function, hence leading to the wrong conclusion. Even people with over-sensitive HA themselves often get confused as to which is their stronger function, that or the auxiliary one.

    So if you think that someone is ESTp but surprisingly quite emotional and bubbly, which you might find doesn't go along with T, just remember, they are not T in the first place. So, to summarise all of the above...



    Think of:

    N types as ENTps, INFps, INTp and ENFps ONLY
    T types as INTjs, ISTjs, ENTjs and ESTjs ONLY
    F types as ESFjs, ENFjs, ISFjs and INFjs ONLY
    S types as ISFps, ESTps, ESFps and ISTps ONLY


    (I found it on socionics.com)
    it all just depends whether you are focussing on differences or on the most obvious.

    Differences, then you can see in any type whether it's either a T or F
    Obvious, then you look at their most obvious function, and that could be neither T or F

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

    Default

    The idea fits me. S is my worst area, and I'm about even on T and F, with T being more dominant. This is obviously just generalized though.

    One thing I noticed is that I'm pretty good at using and valuing Si, I just chose not to most of the time, which is part of the problem. It's because I value Se instead.
    Last edited by 717495; 10-18-2009 at 01:11 PM.

  9. #9
    Hello...? somavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,474
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    From what little I knew about "Sergei Ganin," (if that's even his real name) he has a reputation for being a womanizer and a scoundrel. I don't think anything can be said about the motivation under which he writes without taking that into account.

    I think there is some merit in his views, however. (his views on womanizing)

    Is this true?
    How do you know this?

    EDIT: If it is true...brilliant. I was considering trying organise a meeting as he's local to me...but this info changes everything. I now definately want to meet him.

  10. #10
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glamourama View Post

    the problem is that he's trying to use the dichotomies to explain things that should be explained by functions, and twisting the meaning of them.
    exactly.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  11. #11
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    he makes thing more complicated then necessary.

    It's probably because people want to keep improvising on socionics. Which is unnecessery and only gives this kind of shit.

  12. #12
    I've been waiting for you Satan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Behind you
    TIM
    sle sp/sx 845
    Posts
    4,956
    Mentioned
    137 Post(s)
    Tagged
    15 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    From what little I knew about "Sergei Ganin," (if that's even his real name) he has a reputation for being a womanizer and a scoundrel. I don't think anything can be said about the motivation under which he writes without taking that into account.

    I think there is some merit in his views, however. (his views on womanizing)
    cos real men don't like women.

  13. #13
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    he makes thing more complicated then necessary.

    It's probably because people want to keep improvising on socionics. Which is unnecessery and only gives this kind of shit.
    Okay. Circles don't fit perfectly into squares anyhaps.

  14. #14
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
    by Sergei Ganin

    I thought I'd post this article to make things a bit more clear. Although what I'm going to say is obvious, it does not always register in a thought process as much as it should.

    When we are talking about N types or T types or F or S types, we often take a much wider scope than is necessary.

    For example we say ESTp is T type, which is sort of true, but try assigning your classic T traits to this type and you fail. Why? Because ESTp is the S type, that's why. By the exact definition of T, T types would be the T dominant types only. But because T as auxiliary function is also quite strong, in many cases you can broaden up the definition and get away with it.

    I think I might have mentioned on several occasions before how important Hidden Agenda could be. Well, to the untrained eye it could easily overshadow auxiliary function, hence leading to the wrong conclusion. Even people with over-sensitive HA themselves often get confused as to which is their stronger function, that or the auxiliary one.

    So if you think that someone is ESTp but surprisingly quite emotional and bubbly, which you might find doesn't go along with T, just remember, they are not T in the first place. So, to summarise all of the above...



    Think of:

    N types as ENTps, INFps, INTp and ENFps ONLY
    T types as INTjs, ISTjs, ENTjs and ESTjs ONLY
    F types as ESFjs, ENFjs, ISFjs and INFjs ONLY
    S types as ISFps, ESTps, ESFps and ISTps ONLY


    (I found it on socionics.com)
    I think he's basically stressing the importance of the dominant function, for instance when you look at SLI or SEI, it's pretty apparent that the person is an S type (so for instance if you know their temperament then it's ISXp). Although one has T (Te) and the other has F (Fe), as it's an auxillary function it's not as apparent as for instance an ESTj or an ESFj who live and breathe these functions with there judging functions being in first place.

    So it seems to be saying to me that it's easier to type someone when you think about their dominant dichotomy and/or function first, as the second function works differently and isn't always "switched on" like the first is.

    It's pretty obvious imo, but it's maybe useful to keep in mind when for instance (as per his example) that you could say an ESTp isn't a T type, because the second functions aren't as obvious as the first functions, so it can become more confusing trying to type someone by their creative function when better way to approach it could be from their dominant function.

    That's what I think he's saying, so on the one hand it is simple, on the other it's practical when typing people, I suppose.

  15. #15
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    He should just use "TJ types", "NP types", "SP types", "FJ types" to designate those groups. In any case this is just silly complaining about naming conventions. Also it quite often happens that a person's Creative function overshadows their Base in much the same way as the HA might overshadow the Creative like he says.

  16. #16
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    One thing that I dislike about theories on temperament based function axis "strength" is the fact that there are two of these theories available that are both held to be tenable in socionics discussions but contradict eachother.

    The first is that the PoLR is the weakest function, and that for that reason, an NJ type is awkward in S and balanced in T/F, an SJ type is awkward in N and balanced in T/F, TP types are awkward in F and balanced in N/S and FP types are awkward in T and balanced in N/S. This is theory that conflicts with Ganin's claims in the posted article.

    The second is that the Base function is the strongest function, and for that reason, a TJ type is awkward in F and balanced in N/S, an FJ type is awkward in T and balanced in N/S, a SP type is awkward in N and balanced in T/F and an NP type is awkward in S and balanced in T/F. This is the theory that Ganin uses here.

    The "official" story is that neither theory is right, because function strength is function based, not function axis or temperament based.

  17. #17
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    One thing that I dislike about theories on temperament based function axis "strength" is the fact that there are two of these theories available that are both held to be tenable in socionics discussions but contradict eachother.

    The first is that the PoLR is the weakest function, and that for that reason, an NJ type is awkward in S and balanced in T/F, an SJ type is awkward in N and balanced in T/F, TP types are awkward in F and balanced in N/S and FP types are awkward in T and balanced in N/S. This is theory that conflicts with Ganin's claims in the posted article.

    The second is that the Base function is the strongest function, and for that reason, a TJ type is awkward in F and balanced in N/S, an FJ type is awkward in T and balanced in N/S, a SP type is awkward in N and balanced in T/F and an NP type is awkward in S and balanced in T/F. This is the theory that Ganin uses here.

    The "official" story is that neither theory is right, because function strength is function based, not function axis or temperament based.
    What the fuck are you talking about? The article by Ganin strikes me as something which is designed to be straightforward but just as a general reminder, hence:

    Quote Originally Posted by article
    Although what I'm going to say is obvious, it does not always register in a thought process as much as it should.
    Whatever you are talking about is just an overcomplication and mostly a complete waste of time to bother to understand.

    When you talk about:

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    He should just use "TJ types", "NP types", "SP types", "FJ types" to designate those groups
    in your previous quote I was assuming you mean instead of calling someone a T dominant, you would prefer to call them a TJ type, which is just linguistic garnish with no real use, and you go on to say yourself:

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    In any case this is just silly complaining about naming conventions
    And this:

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    One thing that I dislike about theories on temperament based function axis "strength" is the fact that there are two of these theories available that are both held to be tenable in socionics discussions but contradict eachother.

    The first is that the PoLR is the weakest function, and that for that reason, an NJ type is awkward in S and balanced in T/F, an SJ type is awkward in N and balanced in T/F, TP types are awkward in F and balanced in N/S and FP types are awkward in T and balanced in N/S. This is theory that conflicts with Ganin's claims in the posted article.

    The second is that the Base function is the strongest function, and for that reason, a TJ type is awkward in F and balanced in N/S, an FJ type is awkward in T and balanced in N/S, a SP type is awkward in N and balanced in T/F and an NP type is awkward in S and balanced in T/F. This is the theory that Ganin uses here.

    The "official" story is that neither theory is right, because function strength is function based, not function axis or temperament based.
    Aside from the linguistic garnish, is just bullshit. How many people do you meet where their PoLR function can handle more information than their base function? How many people do you meet where their creative function is switched on for longer, overall than their dominant function? (the first one probably never, the second one it can seem that way, maybe, but not everyone has a subtype from actual observations).

    Calling someone an S type (either Se or Si concious preference out of this dichotomy) because they are S dominant applies to vast majority of people in the real world (who are S dominant for instance), because it's their base function, you notice they are this type almost all the time.

    Other theories aren't any use if they don't actually work, and this sort of stuff that you post makes me wonder how you can apply socionics at all.
    Last edited by Cyclops; 10-20-2009 at 04:52 PM.

  18. #18
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    FYI, your post contains more linguistic garnish than mine did.

    The article by Ganin strikes me as something which is designed to be straightforward but just as a general reminder
    I'd hate to find out that the reminder reminds of a fact that turns out not to be right. That's why I prefer to review the assumptions Ganin makes in this thread carefully instead of accepting it all and assuming he is right from the start.

    How many people do you meet where their PoLR function can handle more information than their base function?
    I never claimed or implied this.

    How many people do you meet where their creative function is switched on for longer, overall than their dominant function?
    Phaedrus claimed to be such a person (INTp with a very strong focus on Te). I don't buy into the story that he is INTj, ISTj or INFp, so I'm inclined to think he was right about this. Smilingeyes also mentioned these kinds of people a lot in his writings and like me held the view that the Creative function can be a stronger focus in a person than the Base function.

    Calling someone an S type (either Se or Si concious preference out of this dichotomy) because they are S dominant applies to vast majority of people in the real world (who are S dominant for instance), because it's their base function, you notice they are this type almost all the time.
    It's no less common for people to be undecided on a person's Creative function than it is for them to be undecided on their Base functions. People type others as "INTj or INFj" or "ESFj or ENFj" all the time.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    2,916
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    well, it's pretty badly phrased, but i think what he is really trying to say is types with T/F as their auxiliary function might not be as obviously T/F than those with T/F as their dominant function.
    which can sometimes apply, thus the reason why an ENFp is typed wrongly as ENTp, etc.

    lol. kinda agree with Cyclops.
    INTp
    sx/sp

  20. #20
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To me it just seems like rearranging semantics or something. I mean if you know how what you say and what you mean align (and how they don't)... if it were so perfect that you are always using the precise most perfect word in the universe to say that thing, then maybe your exact words would exactly match your thoughts. But changing words isn't always changing thoughts... and looking at a chair upside down rather than right-side up doesn't change the fact that it's still a chair. To call someone a "logical type" is a variable in a way... you could say it 10 times over the course of 10 days and have it mean something slightly different every time you said it... it's about defining ones variables more than it is about giving the variables a different name. I think that it seems superficially theoretical to me... like writing a 10 page paper on how many different ways to rearrange and look at a really long algebra equation and what new ways of thinking come about easier given different arrangements. Then I simply wonder what is the point, although I do see it as helpful in the sense that it can be very eye-opening depending... like in the way you can read the same "deeply meaningful profound etc." quote several times over the year because everyone repeats it and then one day it suddenly comes to mean a lot more to you than it did before (this happened to me recently with the phrase "twice the pride, double the fall" because I can now see how pride rises inside as one/I starts falling inside in a compensatory way).

  21. #21
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I love you, Loki!
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    us
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    Most of what he writes is for attracting women to the theory.
    it worked on me

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    us
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Parkster View Post
    I'm not even gonna read further.
    LOL

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    us
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mercutio View Post
    cos real men don't like women.
    lol, what do real men like?

Posting Permissions

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