Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Most sentences contain all 8 information elements

  1. #1
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Most sentences contain all 8 information elements

    For the people who are information element junkies:

    When trying to type someone based on the information they communicate, it's always possible to make a case for any of the 8 information elements. This is one reason why typing based on pure information is an unreliable undertaking.

    Let's discuss...

  2. #2
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Why don't you fuck off about all this information junky stuff. Just because you don't understand them, or some other people have varying degrees of understanding them, doesn't mean they are shit.

    When trying to type someone based on the information they communicate, it's always possible to make a case for any of the 8 information elements. This is one reason why typing based on pure information is an unreliable undertaking.
    OK let's discuss it. I know a guy who's dead focused on communicating factual information. He's a wealth of knowledge and his explanations go on forever. He's a dominant Te. Where is the issue with that?

    I'd recommend that you start off reading Jung's psychological types to get an idea of how dominant functions can manifest, then take it from there.

    I do however object to someone taking a tiny piece of information and saying for instance, "hey that person is Se"! That's obviously silly and just implies a lack of common sense.

    It is like using a dichotomy, and someone plans their journey to work on a Monday morning and sticks to it then somehow calling them J.

  3. #3
    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 Cyclops View Post
    Why don't you fuck off about all this information junky stuff. Just because you don't understand them, or some other people have varying degrees of understanding them, doesn't mean they are shit.



    OK let's discuss it. I know a guy who's dead focused on communicating factual information. He's a wealth of knowledge and his explanations go on forever. He's a dominant Te. Where is the issue with that?

    I'd recommend that you start off reading Jung's psychological types to get an idea of how dominant functions can manifest, then take it from there.

    I do however object to someone taking a tiny piece of information and saying for instance, "hey that person is Se"! That's obviously silly and just implies a lack of common sense.

    It is like using a dichotomy, and someone plans their journey to work on a Monday morning and sticks to it then somehow calling them J.
    Oke maybe I should say it like this.

    Of course you can type information, but the way people use it on this forum is most of the times wrong. They take one word out of a sentence and label it with some information element. Then another person comes and takes another word out of the same sentence and labels it with a different information element.

    Sure Jung was right, augusta was right, I'm not disputing that. Just the way people have applied their theory is wrong. So far, the majority of the people here make these kind of mistakes.

  4. #4
    Slippery when wet Simon Ssmall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ✈ ↺
    Posts
    2,231
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    Of course you can type information, but the way people use it on this forum is most of the times wrong. They take one word out of a sentence and label it with some information element. Then another person comes and takes another word out of the same sentence and labels it with a different information element.
    I dont see it as a trend. Most people who do it are not being listened to anyway. So I dont see your problem.
    Looking for an Archnemesis. Willing applicants contact via PM.

    ENFp - Fi 7w6 sp/sx
    The Ineffable IEI
    The Einstein ENTp

    johari nohari
    http://www.mypersonality.info/ssmall/

  5. #5
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,784
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    For the people who are information element junkies:

    When trying to type someone based on the information they communicate, it's always possible to make a case for any of the 8 information elements. This is one reason why typing based on pure information is an unreliable undertaking.

    Let's discuss...
    I believe you have a point: to some extent the interpretation of what people say is prone to Forer Effect. Not only with what people's say or write, but also interpretations of IE in music. E.g. I have seen people type minimal music style songs by King Crimson as Ti music (link). Well, it's possible that the structured approach to minimal music is Ti, but I don't feel it that way. Minimal Music gets me into sort of trance like mystical state that I prefer to relate to Ni. Apperently, different people hear different things.
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  6. #6
    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

    Sure, if you analyze something on the sentence level, you'd be wrong. But if you use a given sentence, that is typical of how a person communicates, and then explain how said sentence relates to a thought pattern, it can reveal a lot about the person's type.

    No one method is complete in itself, obviously, and type is something that should be left as flexible as possible. But given that socionics is about information, as it is expressed and as it is digested, it only makes sense to analyze what people say/write, as discourse is one of the primary methods both of communicating information and of representing our own thoughts, that is, our own digestion (metabolism) of information.
    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.

  7. #7
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    For the people who are information element junkies:

    When trying to type someone based on the information they communicate, it's always possible to make a case for any of the 8 information elements. This is one reason why typing based on pure information is an unreliable undertaking.

    Let's discuss...
    That you can make a case for every IE doesn't mean each one is equally good.

    I agree with your point about finding "keywords". Even specific descriptions on wikisocion (esp. relating to Reinin dichotomies) take it too far. I used to think myself an Alpha NT and my father LIE (now retyped as LII) before posting here. He speaks of "processes" and such all the time, which seemed to confirm dynamic dichotomy. Except once I realized I got it wrong, it all started making much more sense. It's hard to argue his logic, but often surprisingly easy to find a counterexample. The "processes" are rules of the system, and there's little attention paid to how they develop.

    I suppose my point is that just because someone seems to have a type-related trait, it doesn't mean they are this type. On the other hand, how they react to different situations is an indicator of it. It can still be misleading but much less so, especially if intentions and the message (not the exact choice of words) are considered. In the end, the only way to type another person is to consider the information they consciously and unconsciously give (verbal or not). The alternative is "self-typing only", which is MBTI's approach.

Posting Permissions

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