Discuss.
Which type is most likely to succeed?
Discuss.
The end is nigh
Question is too vague in of itself. It depends on how you define success. If you're thinking success in terms of achieving the American Dream, I'd say LIE, mainly because America as a culture seems pretty LIE-oriented.
If you thinking more in terms of relationship success or being happily married with children, maybe a type like ESE.
If you're thinking of success with just being happy and feeling fulfilled, that's not type related IMO.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Which type has the best eyes?
The end is nigh
LII does calculus better than anyone else.
Yeah, I agree with WL.
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
which type would most likely be voted most likely to succeed?
ESFp no doubt.
The saddest ESFj
...
Which type is most likely to have a successful suicide attempt?
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
LIE. The are most ambitious.
LIIbrarian is on track. LIE seems to be the over-achiever though.
to me achievement is related to socionics but not in the way ArchonAlarion means. achievement is related to family of origin dynamics and marriage, both of which are socionics related.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
wat
The saddest ESFj
...
Jake your signature concerns me.
Is there something you'd like to share?
not dying?
The saddest ESFj
...
Almost there!
Aubrey de Grey says we can avoid aging | Video on TED.com
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
The most likely to be "successful" is obviously dependent on context. I think extroverted rationals are probably the most likely to obtain positions of authority in general; they are the natural "managers," whether it be of people or things.
If we're talking about the American Dream, SLE and LIE come to mind: they are both logical types, meaning they have proficient awareness of and command over the material world (assuming a sufficient degree of intelligence, of course, but I think that can remain an assumption). Se valuing extroverts are probably the most materialistic in terms of going out of their way to obtain more-than-sufficient resources ("get all you can get" sort of mentality), and I would think that the logical ones are probably typically the most successful at this.
When it comes to "success" as defined by the "average" person, ie supporting a household, providing what is necessary, and maintaining a stable lifestyle, LSE is probably the paramount.
In terms of social or political success, I think extroverted ethical types probably reign supreme; again, the Se valuers are probably more likely to put extra effort to deliberately take it to extremes.
I would say, in the most general sense, that Se valuing extroverts are probably the closest to what we naturally think of as "ambitious" in terms of having a strong desire to put forth more than sufficient effort in order to obtain excessive substance in any one realm
LSE. They have the will-power that the LIE lacks.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
They might lack the direction, though.
I personally think each type is equally likely, provided that they're supported by their dual (which, in that example, would give vision to LSEs and willpower to LIEs).
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Just because they lack in Ni foresight does not mean that they will lack direction.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I'm surprised to see a question like this coming from you actually. I don't think this can really be type-related at all, seeing that there's so many forms of success and there isn't really a type that is self-damaging really. It sounds like a person-to-person variation that type can't predict.
ExTjs are succesful in the sense that their definition of success perfectly matches that of being stuck in a hard-work-trap.
Who is the cutest dual couple?
The end is nigh
ESE-LII
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
(Please ignore me everyone, no need to answer to me directly, I'm just stating something for the record. If you like to debate it, please do but don't expect me to answer.)
This is a particularly interesting question I've been playing with myself lately.
Firstly, success implies a result. So it's the application of a creative function. So only creative subtypes compete in this skill IMO.
Second, success implies a positive result by the very nature of the meaning of the word. To the static types the continuance of the journey is the objective whereas dynamic types feel enjoyment at actually reaching a goal. So only dynamic types apply.
So we come to a question, do we mean success in a particular issue, in which case Te and Fe of IP's seems to be the function to use (though they achieve this by seeming like losers in a more general sense of the word) or just success as a generally positive outcome in which case we should be talking about Ej-Si and Ni (though they achieve this by making innumerable, but particular sacrifices in their own life and losing a lot in that way).
(Basically dynamics are losers during the journey but can reach success, statics lead a winner's life but lose in the end.)
That's all. Again, sorry for the intrusion.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
My own of course!
aw
The end is nigh
The types to succeed are the ones most willing to work hard, smart, and have some blind luck. =]
"Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..."
- Voltaire
Hmmm, I dunno about that. LIE's can get pretty enthusiastic about business ventures. Their innate enthusiasm over how they see their business project (Te) becoming (Ni) can (and often does) give them a fair amount of drive.
Affirmative imo.
Last edited by Cyclops; 04-14-2010 at 06:04 PM. Reason: typo
Everyone has their own definition of success. If you're talking money, maybe LIE or LSE? If yu're talking power, maybe SLE or SEE? Anyway, complicated, lots of variables, etc.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
This is pretty good, also a good reason to find your dual or even a activity or benefit relation. Everyone gets to win.
Yes, I agree with this. The Creating function in particular seems to signify a kind of volitional activity, a process that the person controls, and the result is intended to be a success of some kind. On the other hand, the Accepting functions seem to me to signify an event that requires a defensive reaction, either through acceptance of the circumstances (Limiting/Dynamic), or defiance of these (Empowering/Static).
True. Nevertheless, I think the point at which the person believes s/he is succesful at the task is the Limiting/Creating/Static function. This is why I explained this state as contradictory to you. The success is at the point where no amount of effort allows you to do better than you have so far. Statics tend to assume to have reached this point too soon, whereas Dynamics postpone it ad infinitum.Second, success implies a positive result by the very nature of the meaning of the word.
So I have to say this is something I disagree with. Dynamics are in a state of positive discovery where new information keeps opening insights into a problem. The newly discovered information keeps making the problem seem more complex than it had before, but as long as the person is in this information gathering process s/he keeps getting closer to perfection. There is a mixed sense of optimism and lacking faith in one's abilities*. In Statics the attitude is opposite: pessimistic towards the oppurtunities allowed by the problem, but seeing oneself as some kind of hero for noticing this.To the static types the continuance of the journey is the objective whereas dynamic types feel enjoyment at actually reaching a goal.
* user Jonathan used to display this attitude very clearly. He was always pointing out ways in which the problem at hand was more complex than others had assumed it to be so far, with visible enthusiasm. At the same time, he never manifested the arrogance of suggesting he had the ability to solve the problems where others failed. This, imo, is what Creating/Dynamic/Empowering is all about.
Just thought I'd tell you my version of the story.
edit: there are also times when Creating/Empowering/Dynamic signifies an activity where the person uses their incomplete knowledge of an issue in a risk-taking kind of way; one does not need to fully understand the issue to act upon it.
Last edited by krieger; 04-14-2010 at 07:24 PM.
If you are pointing that the limiting-creating-static function causes a sense of agency, I would have to agree. And your description is apt. But you are leaving out the point that this situation, where one can't expend more effort tends to start to seem dissatisfying quickly, and more to the point, it is rarely the optimal result, more than a dead-end.True. Nevertheless, I think the point at which the person believes s/he is succesful at the task is the Limiting/Creating/Static function. This is why I explained this state as contradictory to you. The success is at the point where no amount of effort allows you to do better than you have so far. Statics tend to assume to have reached this point too soon, whereas Dynamics postpone it ad infinitum.
Couple of examples from my travails with my IJ-Ti father.
If we're changing tires or basically doing anything which involves tightening bolts. He will continue to tighten the bolts continuously until they can be tigtened no more. But sometimes he tigthens them so tight he can't undo it himself and quite commonly he ends up breaking the metal itself so that the bolt, while tight, is destroyed. (He's a strong guy even in his seventies). This is certainly an end-point but calling it success is somewhat dubious.
Or an example of negotiations. In any negotiation situation he will continue pressing on the other negotiatior until the other person thinks he's a complete d*** and utterly untrustworthy, and gives up on the deal. Again, this is certainly an end-point, but ...
Or in the case of his building projects. He has repeatedly started building a vacation villa. First it was a small one, then a bigger one, then an even bigger one. When they become close to finished, they still end up being full of building materials, old storage items and so on. But he never uses them for anything except storage and when the end starts to loom, he starts building somewhere else. The old ones never get finished and the villa remains some kind of utopia in which he believes all of our extended family will eventually gather and thank him. The old half-built things tend to go to ruin slowly when starts concentrating on his new project.
Or when he's writing his articles, he will write a good article, then he will scour it until he finds some mistake. Instead of just correcting the mistake, he will start rewriting the whole d*** thing by hand. When he becomes incapable of finding any more clear faults, he starts fiddling with synonyms and continues to change them back and forth and create a stream of new versions of the article, every now and then stopping to rewrite the whole thing by hand so that he gets a better (more clearly written) version without all the correction markings. At some point he will eventually decide it's ready and send it to a paper. (He's one of the most published scientists in his field but he could have had a much better career with some control of his habits).
Or his idea of fun... We played chess when I was a kid. He was actually sort of nice about it. He played me until he was in a winning position. Then he proceeded to make silly moves to purposefully let me win. Then he congratulated me on my victory. I was on to him at age 4 and the chess ritual was half fun, half annoying to me. But I did like chess. Some years later I actually learned to play chess and we retried the game. I won. He pestered me for a rematch. I won. And so on ad nauseam until I decided to throw a game, which was apparently his chosen end point. Never played since.
And don't get me started on the times he's crashed his car or boat, usually due to oversteering or driving too fast.
My point being that while he is a successful man by any standards, he doesn't f***ing know when to give up. He overdoes everything and usually ends up shooting himself in the foot.
Also, thanks to socionics I've finally sort of started to understand that all of these events aren't a sign of mental illness or deep-seated evil and desire to plague people but rather... socionics. And once more for the record, despite my negative description of him here, I've grown to sort of like the guy and do accept that he has achieved many things in his life and mostly due to his own diligence.
...
I think you selecting Jonathan as a case example of all dynamics is misleading. IPs results are taciturn-positive-results. Meaning that they are full of questions. It can be interpreted as an unfinished state I guess, but for them it's not.So I have to say this is something I disagree with. Dynamics are in a state of positive discovery where new information keeps opening insights into a problem. The newly discovered information keeps making the problem seem more complex than it had before, but as long as the person is in this information gathering process s/he keeps getting closer to perfection. There is a mixed sense of optimism and lacking faith in one's abilities*. In Statics the attitude is opposite: pessimistic towards the oppurtunities allowed by the problem, but seeing oneself as some kind of hero for noticing this.
* user Jonathan used to display this attitude very clearly. He was always pointing out ways in which the problem at hand was more complex than others had assumed it to be so far, with visible enthusiasm. At the same time, he never manifested the arrogance of suggesting he had the ability to solve the problems where others failed. This, imo, is what Creating/Dynamic/Empowering is all about.
What I suspect he's doing, is actually jerking you around.
An example of my relations with ESFps. If I meet an ESFp whose pursuit involves me, I will give them the message that they are "not finished" with whatever they are doing, that they are progressing but that they are still unfinished. This makes them happy and encourages them. But it's not MY path. I'm already done at that point. I'm just leading them around in a neverending quest making both of us happy.
If anything, I would say that dynamic types tend to believe they have "finished" too early and statics too late, which is the exact opposite of your thesis. We just prefer to give you the impression that YOU are not finished because it makes you happy and gets you off our backs which makes us happy. Making statics run around in circles maintains status quo and keeps us happy in our positive results.
Ips like to sow doubt to make you rethink and do more work. Ejs like to posit countering certainties which make you rethink and do more work.
Exactly. This is typical of EJ types in particular. It is the prematurely caught end-point of "ultimate understanding" which tends to cause embarrassing situations.Just thought I'd tell you my version of the story.
edit: there are also times when Creating/Empowering/Dynamic signifies an activity where the person uses their incomplete knowledge of an issue in a risk-taking kind of way; one does not need to fully understand the issue to act upon it.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Notice how you are relating all kinds of observations that are all manifestations of a common phenomenom. You don't explicitly state your conclusion or consise description of the phenomenom (like I do in my posts) despite that your focus is on it. The above is a pristine example of Creating/Empowering/Dynamic info, imo.If we're changing tires or basically doing anything which involves tightening bolts. He will continue to tighten the bolts continuously until they can be tigtened no more. But sometimes he tigthens them so tight he can't undo it himself and quite commonly he ends up breaking the metal itself so that the bolt, while tight, is destroyed. (He's a strong guy even in his seventies). This is certainly an end-point but calling it success is somewhat dubious.
Or an example of negotiations. In any negotiation situation he will continue pressing on the other negotiatior until the other person thinks he's a complete d*** and utterly untrustworthy, and gives up on the deal. Again, this is certainly an end-point, but ...
Or in the case of his building projects. He has repeatedly started building a vacation villa. First it was a small one, then a bigger one, then an even bigger one. When they become close to finished, they still end up being full of building materials, old storage items and so on. But he never uses them for anything except storage and when the end starts to loom, he starts building somewhere else. The old ones never get finished and the villa remains some kind of utopia in which he believes all of our extended family will eventually gather and thank him. The old half-built things tend to go to ruin slowly when starts concentrating on his new project.
Or when he's writing his articles, he will write a good article, then he will scour it until he finds some mistake. Instead of just correcting the mistake, he will start rewriting the whole d*** thing by hand. When he becomes incapable of finding any more clear faults, he starts fiddling with synonyms and continues to change them back and forth and create a stream of new versions of the article, every now and then stopping to rewrite the whole thing by hand so that he gets a better (more clearly written) version without all the correction markings. At some point he will eventually decide it's ready and send it to a paper. (He's one of the most published scientists in his field but he could have had a much better career with some control of his habits).
Or his idea of fun... We played chess when I was a kid. He was actually sort of nice about it. He played me until he was in a winning position. Then he proceeded to make silly moves to purposefully let me win. Then he congratulated me on my victory. I was on to him at age 4 and the chess ritual was half fun, half annoying to me. But I did like chess. Some years later I actually learned to play chess and we retried the game. I won. He pestered me for a rematch. I won. And so on ad nauseam until I decided to throw a game, which was apparently his chosen end point. Never played since.
And don't get me started on the times he's crashed his car or boat, usually due to oversteering or driving too fast.
My point being that while he is a successful man by any standards, he doesn't f***ing know when to give up. He overdoes everything and usually ends up shooting himself in the foot.
Also, thanks to socionics I've finally sort of started to understand that all of these events aren't a sign of mental illness or deep-seated evil and desire to plague people but rather... socionics. And once more for the record, despite my negative description of him here, I've grown to sort of like the guy and do accept that he has achieved many things in his life and mostly due to his own diligence.
Ok, but you call the guy an Ti-IJ, which means you see a lot of Ti in him. A lot of what you're describing is probably influenced by the Accepting/Static/Empowering Ti function too. Notice that I describe this as "defying circumstances", which is what he does when he keeps turning the nut when he probably could have known it was about to break, and what he does when he keeps badgering the negotiating partner when he could probably have picked up signs of them getting irritated.My point being that while he is a successful man by any standards, he doesn't f***ing know when to give up. He overdoes everything and usually ends up shooting himself in the foot.
Also, thanks to socionics I've finally sort of started to understand that all of these events aren't a sign of mental illness or deep-seated evil and desire to plague people but rather... socionics. And once more for the record, despite my negative description of him here, I've grown to sort of like the guy and do accept that he has achieved many things in his life and mostly due to his own diligence.
There is probably also a difference between Limiting Se and Limiting Ne. Limiting Ne opens the possibility of using Empowering Ti, whereas Limiting Se results from usage of Empowering Ti. Your description of a negative result following an act of defiance probably relates to the latter, whereas my descriptions have more of an Ne state in mind.
Anyway, I agree with your point that the result isn't necessarily a success, it's just a result. But I don't in any strong way agree that any other function in socionics can be correlated with success.
I suppose a Dynamic focussing a lot on their Accepting/Limiting function will see just about every circumstance as concluded as soon as they notice it. In the same situation a Static will see an oppurtunity to do something new. Other than that, I don't see what you're getting at here.If anything, I would say that dynamic types tend to believe they have "finished" too early and statics too late, which is the exact opposite of your thesis. We just prefer to give you the impression that YOU are not finished because it makes you happy and gets you off our backs which makes us happy. Making statics run around in circles maintains status quo and keeps us happy in our positive results.
Last edited by krieger; 04-15-2010 at 02:41 PM.
Very well noticed. I didn't actually notice that part myself. But that is of course a representation of my personal view of an end point. When I understand a phenomenon, I become detached an disinterested. My job at that point is done. There is no need for a formal statement. But well played, labcoat, very good.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
No it's exactly the opposite. The creative function finishes the situation, releases us from the pressure. It is just that there end points we see as end points are extremely different. The accepting limiting function isn't the end, it's a beginning. But anyway, I'll settle for disagreeing, I don't really want to go deeper into this. But thank you, it was a most stimulating discussion.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
I agree that it's a beginning and when the Creating function is used the "proper" way, that is exactly what it is. I just believe that to finish the issue right after encountering it is exactly what Limiting/Accepting means: it's what it means when the Creating function is left out of the picture. To do so would basically mean using the Creating function in the most low-quality, riskiest way as in: not even caring about the complex part of the problem; orienting by a superficiality and hoping things pan out well. Anyway, I certainly also appreciate these talks and feel I stand to gain a lot from them, but I'll agree to having them on terms suited to both our preferences.No it's exactly the opposite. The creative function finishes the situation, releases us from the pressure. It is just that there end points we see as end points are extremely different. The accepting limiting function isn't the end, it's a beginning. But anyway, I'll settle for disagreeing, I don't really want to go deeper into this. But thank you, it was a most stimulating discussion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
