Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Thinking styles and patterns of self-typing

  1. #1
    Creepy-male

    Default Thinking styles and patterns of self-typing.

    Any possible relationship?

  2. #2
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I dont understand the question

  3. #3
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,786
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanks Arthur View Post
    Any possible relationship?
    yes, any possible relationship. So impossible relationships should not be considered.
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  4. #4
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult View Post
    yes, any possible relationship. So impossible relationships should not be considered.
    Wah? Am I the only one who forgot to take acid before reading this thread?

  5. #5
    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 Typhon View Post
    I dont understand the question
    I'm not sure too.

  6. #6
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    I'm not sure too.
    Maybe theres nothing to understand?

  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

    maybe he wants to know if one can type himself by examining his thinking style, whatever that may be.

  8. #8
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah I guess thats it, lol.

  9. #9
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Or maybe how people with different thinking styles approach self-typing.

  10. #10
    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

    I think he's asking whether Holographic/Vortex/Algorithmic/Cause-Effect manifests in self-typing patterns. If they do, then that would assist greatly in typing people who keep changing their types.



    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

  11. #11
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    Or maybe how different thinking styles approach self-typing.
    That's the ticket.

    Like, would each of dialectical-algorithmic, cause-effect, holographic, and vortex have consistent patterns in how they approach self-typing?

  12. #12
    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 Thanks Arthur View Post
    That's the ticket.

    Like, would each of dialectical-algorithmic, cause-effect, holographic, and vortex have consistent patterns in how they approach self-typing?
    I don't know what style I have, but I used dichotomies and descriptions for my selftyping.

  13. #13
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanks Arthur View Post
    That's the ticket.

    Like, would each of dialectical-algorithmic, cause-effect, holographic, and vortex have consistent patterns in how they approach self-typing?
    You lost me again

  14. #14
    ._. 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 Thanks Arthur View Post
    Like, would each of dialectical-algorithmic, cause-effect, holographic, and vortex have consistent patterns in how they approach self-typing?
    I've thought for a while that Se-ego holographic thinkers (SLE and ESI) are likely to mistype as Ne-egos. Especially the latter type. The reason for that would be stereotypes, which rule supreme here. Someone shoving their opinions down others' throats? Probably Ne-PoLR. Someone always looking at the issue from many sides? Must be Ne-valuing. Etc. Basically there's this stereotype of Ne equaling open-mindedness or considering many aspects rather than going with what's most obvious, which, needless to say, fails for the two types I've mentioned. They're probably likely to mistype for ILE and EII (the latter more commonly, I suspect), two types which do have Ne in their ego, yet use cause-effect thinking stereotypically associated with devalued Ne. I would even go as far as to say that the nature of Ne is lost in this common perception.

    /rant over

    To be honest, I can't see at this point how each style would approach self-typing, though it makes sense that it would influence it. For me - in context of dialectical-algorithmic thinking - it is considering several types simultaneously and how they suit me, as if there always a "what if". Even up to now, I sometimes explore this other-type-branch, consider how what I do, think, how I am, would go with it and if it all doesn't make more sense this way. I'm not sure how to explain it better nor how applicable it is for other types with this style - for example LSE or SEI. Doubts seem to be inherently connected with it, but they're usually associated with ILI rather than a common denominator for several types. So maybe it's different with them.

  15. #15
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanks Arthur View Post
    Any possible relationship?
    I doubt it is anything clearly obvious.

    Why? What did you have in mind?

  16. #16
    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 Aiss View Post
    I've thought for a while that Se-ego holographic thinkers (SLE and ESI) are likely to mistype as Ne-egos. Especially the latter type. The reason for that would be stereotypes, which rule supreme here. Someone shoving their opinions down others' throats? Probably Ne-PoLR. Someone always looking at the issue from many sides? Must be Ne-valuing. Etc. Basically there's this stereotype of Ne equaling open-mindedness or considering many aspects rather than going with what's most obvious, which, needless to say, fails for the two types I've mentioned. They're probably likely to mistype for ILE and EII (the latter more commonly, I suspect), two types which do have Ne in their ego, yet use cause-effect thinking stereotypically associated with devalued Ne. I would even go as far as to say that the nature of Ne is lost in this common perception.
    I agree that this is a concern, especially with ESI/EII.

    As a Holographic thinker, the way I type (both myself and others) is to "try on" different types, like hats, trying to see which one fits best. They're not considered simultaneously, like Aiss described -- I take off one "hat", put on another, see if it fits, then go back to the first one and see if it fits better. If it's a particularly difficult case, I'll go back and forth between different hats many times before I finally decide which one fits best. Consequently, even when I do come to a conclusion as to which hypothesis is correct, it's still just "the hat that fits best", and can be changed if new data comes to light.

    I think Vortex thinkers would be the most likely to frequently change their self typing, followed by Holographic types, then Dialectical-Algorithmic, and then Cause-Effect would be the least likely to change their self-typing once they've decided -- even if their self-typing is wrong.
    Quaero Veritas.

  17. #17
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Haha Krig. I think my problem when I started with Socionics was having my head crushed by wearing too many hats at once.



    Anyway, as for Cause-effect, I recall a post by Isha describing how she basically went from typing to typing by "reconstructing" each old one, and salvaging what made sense and reincorporating that into a new, more sense-making typing (paraphrase, not quote). That's why if you look at the unholy trail of typings she's left strewn about in her wake, anything more than a single step doesn't make much sense, but each individual retyping is at least reasonable (imo).

  18. #18
    ._. 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 Thanks Arthur View Post
    Anyway, as for Cause-effect, I recall a post by Isha describing how she basically went from typing to typing by "reconstructing" each old one, and salvaging what made sense and reincorporating that into a new, more sense-making typing (paraphrase, not quote). That's why if you look at the unholy trail of typings she's left strewn about in her wake, anything more than a single step doesn't make much sense, but each individual retyping is at least reasonable (imo).
    That's the sort of plot I like - where every part is perfectly possible, but the whole seems impossibly improbable. Not saying anything about that person's type, just about the idea. Maybe it's because dialectical-algorithmic is "complimentary" to cause-effect, so I enjoy it. (I use "" as duals always have this or the other pair, but it doesn't mean it always is, like in contraries.)

    Out of curiosity, do you relate to any thinking style in particular and if so, how strongly?

  19. #19
    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 Thanks Arthur View Post
    That's the ticket.

    Like, would each of dialectical-algorithmic, cause-effect, holographic, and vortex have consistent patterns in how they approach self-typing?
    What are these?
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  20. #20

  21. #21
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azeroffs View Post
    What are these?
    It's a Gulenko thing that links thinking style with Dynamic/Static + Negativist/Positivist + Process/Result.

    @Aiss: short answer is dialectal-algorithmic. Long answer is short answer + elaboratin, but I'm playing WoW with hitta right now

  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

    Here's what I'm thinking at present (after reading Krig's post)...

    Process: Consider many types simultaneously
    Result: Consider one type at a time
    Positivist: Comes to a final answer
    Negativist: Constantly reconsidering

    Static/Dynamic just seems like the Reininization of those dichotomies at this point. Dynamic is when the initial spread matches the final spread (many-many or one-one), whereas Static is where it doesn't (holographic - considering one type at a time to arrive at a set of probabilities, cause-effect - considering many types at once to come to one conclusion).

    (The effect of Krig's post here was the process/result distinction)

    EDIT: The Positivist/Negativist distinction here is uncomfortably similar to the "I know I don't really understand the theory"/"I understand the theory well" distinction.



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

    Default

    I think the impact of thinking style should not be overstated. It is a relatively difficult to quantify phenomenon compared to several other things in socionics. I would expect temperament and club to have a far greater impact on the way a person reaches their self-typing than thinking style.

Posting Permissions

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