Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 44

Thread: Change of Basic Attitude

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

    Default Change of Basic Attitude

    If a person is an introvert who extroverts or vice versa, do you think that the person is more likely to become their mirror or their contrary? Or something else?

    That is, if there is a major attitude change in the person in which they redirect their energy to the inside or outside, do you think that the person switches to the auxiliary function or reverses their lead function?

    To make this even simpler: does become or ?

    No right or wrong answers that can be confirmed by fact as I know of, so who would like to discuss?

  2. #2
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Contrary IMO. When I'm extroverted, I'm much more like an ENFp then I am an ENFj.

  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 BulletsAndDoves View Post
    Contrary IMO. When I'm extroverted, I'm much more like an ENFp then I am an ENFj.
    Is it a rational vs. irrational thing?

    and you know, I think I agree with that. In fact, I used to be close friends with an SEI and he kind of made me play the role of extravert in our friendship and I really think I came across as ENFp to him (not that he knows anything about socionics, but you know what I mean). lol
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  4. #4
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i'm so e that i don't think i'd even flip to this. when i'm being different or under stress, i'm prolly more like a LIE than anything else.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  5. #5
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze View Post
    i'm so e that i don't think i'd even flip to this. when i'm being different or under stress, i'm prolly more like a LIE than anything else.
    interesting! cute that you're so E that you'd never flip to I.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  6. #6
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,938
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think I behave more like my Mirror type.

  7. #7
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
    interesting! cute that you're so E that you'd never flip to I.

    lol. yeah introverts flip to extraversion but not usually the reverse. this is an introvert thing.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  8. #8
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I dunno, I act more IEIish than IEE or EII for sure...
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  9. #9
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    I think I behave more like my Mirror type.
    This.

  10. #10
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Tough question, but I'd say for me "acting extroverted" means more , less . So I guess the answer is mirror. Shrug.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    547
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This question is very complicated and has many ramifications. In theory, you shouldn't be able to change your type and become more extroverted according to circumstance. What you can do is engage in a particular IM element that would give the appearance of extroversion. You start shooting out Se, or Ne, for instance. Or Fe or Te. But it would have to be an IM element that you proficient in, methinks. An EII projecting Se and appearing as an SXE wouldn't make much sense. I've observed that types seem to be able to wear the following "masks": 1.beneficiary, 2.supervisee, 3.contrary, 4.superego, 5.mirror. 6.dual. What makes a person able to project one or the other, and if everyone is capable of "wearing" all of the masks, I do not know.

  12. #12
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xkj220 View Post
    This question is very complicated and has many ramifications. In theory, you shouldn't be able to change your type and become more extroverted according to circumstance. What you can do is engage in a particular IM element that would give the appearance of extroversion. You start shooting out Se, or Ne, for instance. Or Fe or Te. But it would have to be an IM element that you proficient in, methinks. An EII projecting Se and appearing as an SXE wouldn't make much sense. I've observed that types seem to be able to wear the following "masks": 1.beneficiary, 2.supervisee, 3.contrary, 4.superego, 5.mirror. 6.dual. What makes a person able to project one or the other, and if everyone is capable of "wearing" all of the masks, I do not know.
    This makes sense.
    Quaero Veritas.

  13. #13
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    well I think that when I start acting extraverted, obviously it's the Fe first but I can also shoot out the Ne if alcohol is involved. So then I'm like a cross between ENFj and ENFp or something. Also, my mother is ENFp so I find it easy to act like her, spouting off ideas and such. "what if this and that" and getting giggly and random.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  14. #14
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If I were really an LIE I would know a lot more than I do now. Most of my current knowledge is imaginitive and introspective. So no I don't think I've ever extroverted, realistically speaking.

  15. #15
    Creepy-male

    Default

    When I'm really stressed out and things become disorienting, I think I can start to act IJ/EII.

  16. #16
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    slightly mirror.

  17. #17
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,744
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glamourama View Post
    i think i'm generally more like an ENFj when in 'extroverted' mode... restless, engaging, dramatic, on my soapbox.
    Same here, particularly if I'm around my LSI friend, who I think tries to get me drunk all the time for that very reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

  18. #18
    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 xkj220 View Post
    I've observed that types seem to be able to wear the following "masks": 1.beneficiary, 2.supervisee, 3.contrary, 4.superego, 5.mirror. 6.dual.
    Not Activation? (I noticed a pattern there - if Activation is added to that list [and Identical, but that's trivial], then all masks are shared across dual pairs.)



    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

  19. #19
    jessica129's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,122
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I seem to morph into a manic SLE. Sometimes it feels good.

  20. #20
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xkj220 View Post
    I've observed that types seem to be able to wear the following "masks": 1.beneficiary, 2.supervisee, 3.contrary, 4.superego, 5.mirror. 6.dual.
    Not Activation? (I noticed a pattern there - if Activation is added to that list [and Identical, but that's trivial], then all masks are shared across dual pairs.)
    Just noticed something -- other than Mirror (and Activation, if we include that), all of those types are either the same Cognitive Style, or the cognitive style of your Dual. By logical extension, could we also include Supervisor and Benefactor?

    Come to think of it, when I have to take charge of a group of unruly people, I do adopt an SLE "mask".

    Working hypothesis: when a person adopts a behavioural mask or persona, it will be either of a type in his own quadra, or a type that shares the cognitive style of himself or his dual.

    Of course, that's just a hypothesis based on the current evidence. There may be evidence which contradicts it.

    [On the other hand, maybe we could eliminate Activation after all -- the "Mirror" thing may just be a case of relying on your secondary Ego function. Or maybe when people think they're acting like their Mirror, they're actually acting like their Supervisee? Hmm.]
    Quaero Veritas.

  21. #21
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    slightly mirror.
    Same.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  22. #22
    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 Krig the Viking View Post
    Just noticed something -- other than Mirror (and Activation, if we include that), all of those types are either the same Cognitive Style, or the cognitive style of your Dual. By logical extension, could we also include Supervisor and Benefactor?

    Come to think of it, when I have to take charge of a group of unruly people, I do adopt an SLE "mask".

    Working hypothesis: when a person adopts a behavioural mask or persona, it will be either of a type in his own quadra, or a type that shares the cognitive style of himself or his dual.

    Of course, that's just a hypothesis based on the current evidence. There may be evidence which contradicts it.

    [On the other hand, maybe we could eliminate Activation after all -- the "Mirror" thing may just be a case of relying on your secondary Ego function. Or maybe when people think they're acting like their Mirror, they're actually acting like their Supervisee? Hmm.]
    I've heard that types will mimic their Benefactors.

    Perhaps we should just say that any type can mimic any other? Saying that the only dichotomy you can't cross is Process/Result seems odd to me.



    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

  23. #23
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Perhaps we should just say that any type can mimic any other? Saying that the only dichotomy you can't cross is Process/Result seems odd to me.
    I don't know, I'm not tied to the theory, but it does make a certain amount of sense. As an LII, both my Mental Ring blocks are Holographic (TiNe in my Ego, FiSe in my Super-Ego), and my Vital Ring blocks are Vortex (FeSi in my Super-Id, TeNi in my Id). Therefore, in my psyche there already exists the capacity for Holographic and Vortex cognitive styles. It's not that great of a stretch to say that it would be easier for me to imitate other Holographic and Vortex types than it would be for me to imitate a Cause-Effect type, or a Dialectical-Algorithmic type.
    Quaero Veritas.

  24. #24
    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 Krig the Viking View Post
    I don't know, I'm not tied to the theory, but it does make a certain amount of sense. As an LII, both my Mental Ring blocks are Holographic (TiNe in my Ego, FiSe in my Super-Ego), and my Vital Ring blocks are Vortex (FeSi in my Super-Id, TeNi in my Id). Therefore, in my psyche there already exists the capacity for Holographic and Vortex cognitive styles. It's not that great of a stretch to say that it would be easier for me to imitate other Holographic and Vortex types than it would be for me to imitate a Cause-Effect type, or a Dialectical-Algorithmic type.
    On the other hand, it makes simple functional sense that you'd have an easier time imitating your mirror than imitating your supervisor.

    It might be good to split this into to parts: every type can use every function (but with varying degrees of competence), and every person can mimic every behavior (these aren't necessarily type-related, but can fool typing). Process/Result will not affect behavior mimicry... it may influence which function takes shotgun while a particular function is being focused on (although function blocks also have a claim to deciding this).



    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

  25. #25
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    Or maybe when people think they're acting like their Mirror, they're actually acting like their Supervisee? Hmm.]
    Hm, that's sounds like an interesting suggestion. Works for me just fine. When I'm extroverting I'm more like ENFp than ENTp. It works fine for some (if not all) ESTps when they're introverting.

  26. #26
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I stay ILE. Just less inclined to interact and grumpier.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  27. #27
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Extroversion in the way you're talking about doesn't really have anything to do with type. You would just act like a more/less sociable version of yourself. Like what ArchonAlarion said.
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  28. #28
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd just like to point out that stereotypical definitions of extroversion are associated with Fe/Se/Ne and so anyone who acts more "extroverted" might think they are acting like one of these extroverts. When I'm more "extroverted" I wouldn't say I become more ENTj-ish. If anything I become more like an ESFj/ENTp. I'm just pointing out that there is no pattern to this. People won't necessarily act more like their mirror/contrary or whatever else. It's arbitrary because it's not type related.
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  29. #29
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glamourama View Post
    are you talking about the classical definition of extroversion or the socionics definition? because according to the socionics definition, I don't see why Te would apply any less than the other extroverted elements...
    sterotypical extroversion = classical extroversion in my book.

    Obviously Te is socionics extroversion
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  30. #30
    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 Azeroffs View Post
    I'd just like to point out that stereotypical definitions of extroversion are associated with Fe/Se/Ne and so anyone who acts more "extroverted" might think they are acting like one of these extroverts. When I'm more "extroverted" I wouldn't say I become more ENTj-ish. If anything I become more like an ESFj/ENTp. I'm just pointing out that there is no pattern to this. People won't necessarily act more like their mirror/contrary or whatever else. It's arbitrary because it's not type related.
    Since type cannot be confirmed by any uniform objective means and many people change their types and battle with the idea "which type am I?" or "am I introvert or extrovert?" or "Am I J or P?" I say that this is at least relevant for discussion. Since people have responded it means that they can comprehend the significance/meaning of the question/topic.

    I agree that there are many stereotypical definitions of what introversion and extroversion are. My own definition is attitude toward the external environment. That is, the relation one has with the outside world. The many stereotypes of E/I, it appears, are more symptoms than definition.

    You can make the assumption that type does not change, or that when a person changes their behavior they are not changing their type. But can you prove this? Can you even generate a reasonable argument? Perhaps you can generate a reasonable argument, but I don't think you can prove it.

    Why not? Because everyone is different/everyone is unique. Some people just don't fit into the 16types as easily, regardless of how much you want them to. Moreover, 15 people can see how a two people belong to the same type and feel it is obvious, whereas another 10 people cannot see this similarity.

    A billion trillion people can agree with your statement that type never changes or that my topic is arbitrary, but then perhaps two or three people out of this billion trillion can disagree and generate their own arguments... so who is right?

  31. #31
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok, you probably should have defined extroversion because it seems that a good amount of people in this thread didn't realize which definition you were using. Maybe I'm wrong.

    If a person's type changed they're personality would be unrecognizable from day to day. Can't you just tell when someone is not them self? Maybe over a long period of time someone might have different behaviors, but at the core people don't change. If it could change, there is no reason why a person couldn't be as different tomorrow as they are in 20 years.

    True, I can't prove it, but there are many things that you rely on every day that aren't provable.
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  32. #32
    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 Azeroffs View Post
    Ok, you probably should have defined extroversion because it seems that a good amount of people in this thread didn't realize which definition you were using. Maybe I'm wrong.
    When two doctors are talking about a new illness they usually discuss the symptoms before they realize the cause. I am not certain of the cause of E/I so I just assume let everyone talk about how they see it, that way I am not forcing a potentially false definition.

    The definition I use is general attitude toward the external environment. An extravert, to put it simply, models their behavior after what they see around them. For example, they will wear a the ball cap of the local sports team, or go skateboarding because everyone on the block is doing it. An introvert will not like this kind of thing and will, of course, create reason why they don't. They will resist conformity as a result and will always seem devaluing.

    This is why I/E is an attitude and not so much a set of symptoms. But, of course, the symptoms stem from the attitude and are often a direct implication of it.

    Looking at I/E this way, the notion of 'type' begins to alter a bit. It does for me at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by Azeroffs View Post
    If a person's type changed they're personality would be unrecognizable from day to day. Can't you just tell when someone is not them self? Maybe over a long period of time someone might have different behaviors, but at the core people don't change. If it could change, there is no reason why a person couldn't be as different tomorrow as they are in 20 years.
    I agree we all have parts of us that do not change/remain consistent through life. But is this really 'type'? I don't know. It seems some people share obvious type, but then something happens and it doesn't seem that way anymore.

    Sometimes we think things don't change, and then WE change and realize those things CAN change after all...

    Quote Originally Posted by Azeroffs View Post
    True, I can't prove it, but there are many things that you rely on every day that aren't provable.
    I agree with this. It is like proving orange is orange, or black is black and white is white. However, each person is obviously unique so it becomes very important that the definitions are very clear from the start. So far it seems Socionics is vague and the dichotomies are not-so-exclusive.

    I'll add one more thing; and this is kind of a secret...

    Everything that makes us unique is introverted.
    Last edited by Waddlesworth; 10-25-2009 at 09:59 PM.

  33. #33
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is probably a coincidence. Don't over-think it.

  34. #34
    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 BulletsAndDoves View Post
    This is probably a coincidence. Don't over-think it.
    lol

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    547
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Krig, Brilliand -- You could be onto something with this theory. The explanation I can find for me observing that it is easier to act like your beneficiary rather than your benefactor (and supervisee rather than supervisor) is that they could be on a "lower level" energetically speaking (taking as frame of reference the person of course, not objectively). It is easier to go down than up, But it is certainly possible that those could be "faked too". But still, Krig; maybe it was IEE and not SLE what you were able to "fake"?

    Also, I hesitated whether to include mirror or not, as I believe at the moment that it is not so much "a mask", but that one is able to "tune" themselves more to the creative function, making it "heavier" temporarily (like you guys pointed out). This might be easier to do if you are the producing subtype, also.

    Btw, the "thinking styles" article is very interesting. I'll give this some thought.

  36. #36
    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 Krig the Viking View Post
    I don't know, I'm not tied to the theory, but it does make a certain amount of sense. As an LII, both my Mental Ring blocks are Holographic (TiNe in my Ego, FiSe in my Super-Ego), and my Vital Ring blocks are Vortex (FeSi in my Super-Id, TeNi in my Id). Therefore, in my psyche there already exists the capacity for Holographic and Vortex cognitive styles. It's not that great of a stretch to say that it would be easier for me to imitate other Holographic and Vortex types than it would be for me to imitate a Cause-Effect type, or a Dialectical-Algorithmic type.
    I was reading this thread with great interest - then this made me realise why I gave up studying physics as a higher level.

  37. #37
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xkj220 View Post
    Krig, Brilliand -- You could be onto something with this theory. The explanation I can find for me observing that it is easier to act like your beneficiary rather than your benefactor (and supervisee rather than supervisor) is that they could be on a "lower level" energetically speaking (taking as frame of reference the person of course, not objectively). It is easier to go down than up, But it is certainly possible that those could be "faked too". But still, Krig; maybe it was IEE and not SLE what you were able to "fake"?

    Also, I hesitated whether to include mirror or not, as I believe at the moment that it is not so much "a mask", but that one is able to "tune" themselves more to the creative function, making it "heavier" temporarily (like you guys pointed out). This might be easier to do if you are the producing subtype, also.

    Btw, the "thinking styles" article is very interesting. I'll give this some thought.
    No, I'm pretty sure it was SLE. Certainly it was heavy on the Se. I help out with a youth group, and when I was trying to organize a large group of junior high kids, or trying to get them to be quiet and listen to the instructions, I've found that my usual communication method of polite, reasoned dialogue didn't work so well. So, I consciously started to imitate my mental picture of a military leader, and started barking orders to get the kids to fall in line. Worked much better. Sitting here analyzing it, it's pretty clear that the mental picture I was imitating was an SLE -- which makes sense. I was in a situation that required Se, and my normal behaviour wasn't cutting it, so I imitated the type I knew was better at that kind of thing than I am -- my supervisor.

    Having thought about it some more, I strongly suspect subtype plays a significant role in which masks one is most easily able to wear. As a Creative subtype (or Irrational subtype, if you prefer), my Se is already stronger than other subtypes of LII. This would allow me to slip into "SLE mode" easier than, say, SLI mode, or ESI mode.

    Looking at it the other way, constant use of a certain mask would exercise those functions more than usual, strengthening them and eventually resulting in a subtype. So in effect, the way to change your subtype would be to go around wearing a mask all the time, which I imagine would be very tiring.

    This is a fascinating line of inquiry. If true, it has certain implications for DCNH subtype theory:

    For Fe-Dominant Subtype, Process types would tend to resemble EIE, while Result types would tend to resemble ESE.
    For Te-Dominant Subtype, Process types would tend to resemble LSE, while Result types would tend to resemble LIE.

    For Se-Creative Subtype, Process types would tend to resemble SEE, while Result types would tend to resemble SLE.
    For Ne-Creative Subtype, Process types would tend to resemble ILE, while Result types would tend to resemble IEE.

    For Fi-Normalizing Subtypes, Process types would tend to resemble EII, while Result types would tend to resemble ESI.
    For Ti-Normalizing Subtypes, Process types would tend to resemble LSI*, while Result types would tend to resemble LII.

    For Si-Harmonizing Subtypes, Process types would tend to resemble SEI, while Result types would tend to resemble SLI.
    For Ni-Harmonizing Subtypes, Process types would tend to resemble ILI, while Result types would tend to resemble IEI.

    Of course, this could all be a load of crap. No empirical verification at this point -- except for one thing. I figured out a while ago that my own Creative subtype resembles NeFi more than NeTi. It's only one data point, but it does corroborate the idea, such as it is.

    This is all very speculative, I realize. I hope nobody takes it too seriously, as I'm not really prepared to defend it in debate. It's just food for thought.

    [* Note: Interestingly, this would explain why Normalizing ILEs seem so much more aggressive to me than Normalizing LIIs, at least here online.]

    Quote Originally Posted by somavision View Post
    I was reading this thread with great interest - then this made me realise why I gave up studying physics as a higher level.
    Haha, sorry about all the Ti! I can't help it!
    Quaero Veritas.

  38. #38
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh my goodness, I was walking home from work and I suddenly figured this whole thing out! Check it out:

    Why should xkj220's and my observations be true? Why should Process types only be able to wear the "mask" of other Process types, and not Result types? Why should Result types only be able to wear the "mask" of other Result types, and not Process types? The answer is that it all has to do with which half of the psyche the relevant elements are located.

    In Model A, all Holographic types (for example) have Se, Ne, Fi, and Ti in their Mental Ring. So why could a Holographic type wear the mask of SeTi, TiNe, NeFi, and FiSe, but not NeTi, TiSe, SeFi, or FiNe? The answer is in the way information flows within Model A:

    The Structure and the Elements of the Socionics Model - Wikisocion

    Here is a diagram of Information Flow in the Mental Ring:
    Code:
    1-------->2
    ^         |
    |         |
    |         v
    4<--------3
    In an LII, the Mental Ring would look like this:
    Code:
    Ti------->Ne
    ^         |
    |         |
    |         v
    Se<------Fi
    A person can only imitate the thought patterns of a type whose information flows in the same direction as their own. In an LII, information flows from Ti to Ne, so they can think like a TiNe, but not a NeTi. In an LII, information flows from Ne to Fi, so they can think like a NeFi, but not a FiNe. And so on.

    The same thing is reproduced in the Vital Ring. A Holographic type can think like a NiFe, but not a FeNi, because in Holographic types, when the Vital Ring is excited, information flows from Ni to Fe, not the other way around.

    We can look at it another way: placing greater emphasis on one function will naturally result in a slightly greater emphasis being placed on the subsequent function in that type's information flow. In an LII (such as myself), placing greater emphasis on Ne will naturally result, by a sort of spillover effect, on a slightly greater emphasis on Fi. Placing greater emphasis on Fi will result in a slightly greater emphasis on Se. And so on.

    I take it somewhat further and say that, over time, if one repeatedly places greater emphasis on any function, that function will become stronger, like a muscle does when exercised. Eventually, this will result in subtypes, resulting in the division of subtypes I outlined in my previous post.

    Now that I think about it, this theory has some similarities to Filatova's proposed subtype system (at the bottom of the page here). If anybody has a link to a page where her subtype system is described more fully, I would appreciate it. There is at least one obvious difference between our two systems (in her system, an ESE with enhanced Si would somewhat resemble SEI, whereas in my system, an ESE with enhanced Si would somewhat resemble SLI.), and I would like to find out more about why that is.
    Quaero Veritas.

  39. #39
    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

    Cripes... I think this is rubbish.

    First off, acting out your mental image of an SLE does not require using - that actually strikes me as a rather thing to do. (I could also see it as or , but anyhow...)

    Secondly, you seem undecided on what a subtype does to your function usage - you're an subtype, and you seem to have claimed both that that strengthens and that that strengthens in two consecutive posts.

    Despite being associated with this theory of possible masks, I really think that every type is capable of every mask... because they're just masks, they aren't who you are.



    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

  40. #40
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Cripes... I think this is rubbish.

    First off, acting out your mental image of an SLE does not require using - that actually strikes me as a rather thing to do. (I could also see it as or , but anyhow...)
    I don't understand this at all. How would focusing on the internal statics of objects help me to think or act like someone who focuses on the external statics of objects? Wouldn't it make more sense to actually focus on the external statics of objects?

    I can see how Ne might help you perceive the inner structure of someone's mind, but in order to actually imitate that structure on your own, you would actually have to use the corresponding functions, would you not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Secondly, you seem undecided on what a subtype does to your function usage - you're an subtype, and you seem to have claimed both that that strengthens and that that strengthens in two consecutive posts.
    This is a good point -- the idea that Creative subtype strengthens both Se and Ne is something Gulenko said; I'm not sure of his reasoning behind it. However, the traditional Accepting/Producing subtype system says the same thing: when one Producing element is strengthened (such as Ne in LII), they all are. Presumably, in DCNH theory, this would also hold true, except that strengthened Ne would result in slightly less strengthened Se, and even less strengthened Ni and Si.

    I see no reason why both things could not be true, though. In an Ne-Creative LII, for example, you could see Ne strengthened the most, Se strengthened the second most, Fi strengthened the third most (from the effects of strengthening Ne), and Ti strengthened the least (from the lesser effects of strengthening Se). That seems to reflect my own experiences, anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Despite being associated with this theory of possible masks, I really think that every type is capable of every mask... because they're just masks, they aren't who you are.
    I don't know, unless you accept the idea that one information element can "pretend" to be another information element (which, as I said above, makes no sense to me), then the only way a Result type could imitate the cognitive function of a Process type would be to somehow reverse the flow of information in the psyche. That may be possible, I don't know, but even if it is, it certainly seems likely that imitating the cognitive function of someone with the same direction of information flow would be much easier than having to think "in reverse", as it were.
    Quaero Veritas.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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