Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Socionics: Level 1

  1. #1
    CILi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    635
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    -
    Last edited by CILi; 05-31-2017 at 05:44 AM.

  2. #2
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Does "type" explain how we think, how we interact with the world, or both?
    Influence, yes, fully explain, no. On both counts.

  3. #3
    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

    There has to be some external impact of type. If all type affected was how you think about things (and how you think about things didn't affect your behavior) there would be no such thing as intertype relations. Nobody's saying that all Fi-egos run around judging every single person they meet as good or evil (or at least no moreso than Ni-egos, lol). But type must affect behavior in some way, or else socionics is only a useful tool for individuals to describe how they think, and in no way a theory that can be applied outside the self, much less a theory of social interactions.

    I get the impulse not to type on silly things like bossiness. But will Se cause people to tend to be more willing to take charge, all other factors being equal? Yes. Will it cause an Se-ego to try to take control of something she knows nothing about when there's a person of another type running that thing who is extremely knowledgeable and experienced? Only if that Se-ego is an idiot, and idiot is definitely *not* type related.

    Also, in my opinion, type fits more loosely than a lot of people seem to think.
    Influence, yes, fully explain, no. On both counts.
    Agreed.


    EDIT: Also, yes, how one thinks about things necessarily influences behavior. Socionics, imo, works at a pretty basic perceptual level, especially for ego functions. Like, it's possible, probably, to think "without" your creative function to some degree. But I think that no matter what, at some level, your leading function will color your cognition, no matter what function you are "using" at the time, and you are extremely likely to not notice it.
    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.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    78
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CILi View Post
    Information Metabolism/Aspects/Elements/Info...

    Does "type" explain how we think, how we interact with the world, or both?

    Are the two necessarily correlated?
    i say socionics does not discrimiate between them

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you mean interaction as in "between humans", then yes. It explains significant, previously unknown aspects thereof. But, socionics has nothing to do with how the individual chooses to prioritize their attention to various social endeavors. In every major field there are significant figures of every type.

  6. #6
    i'll tear down the sky Mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    TIM
    NeFi
    Posts
    1,108
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CILi View Post
    Information Metabolism/Aspects/Elements/Info...

    Does "type" explain how we think, how we interact with the world, or both?

    Are the two necessarily correlated?
    As others have said here, there's an influence but not an explanation of behavior and interaction. Socionics only claims how you go about metabolizing information, what you do with it, as well as everything about your personality, isn't under the realm of Socionics. Pretty much this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    How we think (in part). Socionics serves better as a theory about cognition, not a theory about behavior.
    From how I've come to understand things here, most forum members don't treat Socionics like this, easily falling back on stereotypes and generalizations.

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    There has to be some external impact of type. If all type affected was how you think about things (and how you think about things didn't affect your behavior) there would be no such thing as intertype relations.
    If there was no external impact, there'd be no use into looking at Socionics, I definitely agree with you. There's still an impact, but it's not through predictable behavior from what I can tell. The impact comes around during the exchange of information, not all explicit and verbal. I also find that in general practice, when the distinction of what Socionics influences and doesn't becomes hazy, forum members tend to rely on what is viewed as "more concrete," which are behaviors, even if there's no real evidence behind it.

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    Nobody's saying that all Fi-egos run around judging every single person they meet as good or evil (or at least no moreso than Ni-egos, lol).
    Hmm, I'm not sure we're going to the same forum then People still do it, even if not as directly as how you stated. And other people claim this as well, but it still goes on... This is a problem and it's curious, to me, how some people say it doesn't go on. Maybe we have different thresholds when we're not focused on looking out for these things?

  7. #7
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mattie View Post
    Hmm, I'm not sure we're going to the same forum then People still do it, even if not as directly as how you stated. And other people claim this as well, but it still goes on... This is a problem and it's curious, to me, how some people say it doesn't go on. Maybe we have different thresholds when we're not focused on looking out for these things?
    This. Nobody says that behavior isn't involved in typing at all either, but a less extreme statement seems more extreme when you disagree with it. Also, while people might reference those stereotypes, I think that comparatively few believe them in any straightforward manner, not like "if you're not silently judging everyone, you can't be Fi; or, you're Fi, you must be silently judging me." Except for extreme cases (i.e., Maritsa), people are more nuanced about it than that in their understanding, if not in their communication.


    If there was no external impact, there'd be no use into looking at Socionics, I definitely agree with you. There's still an impact, but it's not through predictable behavior from what I can tell. The impact comes around during the exchange of information, not all explicit and verbal. I also find that in general practice, when the distinction of what Socionics influences and doesn't becomes hazy, forum members tend to rely on what is viewed as "more concrete," which are behaviors, even if there's no real evidence behind it.
    But the exchange of information affects behavior. I just don't get how you determine someone's type based on nonverbal somethings that you pick up on while observing or participating in, essentially, conversation ("information exchange"). And even if you can, how can you communicate that at all? How can you discuss that on a forum? This seems more subjective to me, not less so. I would agree that socionics does not create prescriptive behavior patterns. Socionics never says "this action means indisputably this type, and this type indisputably performs this action." But I would say that Socionics makes predictions about behavior, of varying levels of accuracy. Accuracy increases the closer you get to the core of the function, until you have 100% accuracy with something like "Fi-leading types see the world through the lens of [insert your preferred Fi definition here]." Which is tautological, of course, but my point is that at the core of what the function is, socionics makes perfect predictions and as you get farther and farther out, those predictions dwindle in accuracy, until you get to things that have such a weak correlation to type that you can consider them "not type related." By this way of seeing things, the disagreement is about where to draw the line that says "this is no longer type related."
    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.

  8. #8
    i'll tear down the sky Mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    TIM
    NeFi
    Posts
    1,108
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    This. Nobody says that behavior isn't involved in typing at all either, but a less extreme statement seems more extreme when you disagree with it. Also, while people might reference those stereotypes, I think that comparatively few believe them in any straightforward manner, not like "if you're not silently judging everyone, you can't be Fi; or, you're Fi, you must be silently judging me." Except for extreme cases (i.e., Maritsa), people are more nuanced about it than that in their understanding, if not in their communication.
    I guess I'm sensitive to the references. For me, if someone draws on what we're talking about here, I take it as if they are using it as evidence when I'm not sure of what they are actually thinking. If you don't believe the stereotypes that you're using to communicate ideas through... That's a little confusing to me, especially because I'm one for thinking that language and tropes shape our understanding of things.


    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    But the exchange of information affects behavior. I just don't get how you determine someone's type based on nonverbal somethings that you pick up on while observing or participating in, essentially, conversation ("information exchange").
    I find this to be similar how people talk about picking up on others' vibes and intentions. The best way I can articulate this is looking for patterns in what I find to be related to a person's thought process, which is affect by how they communicate their thoughts. To me, it feels intuitive, I start to notice how a person generally organizes, emphasizes, and dissects information, as well as other qualities. So the way I type relies on how well I perceive the way a person's thought processes go, and when I use my own, fielding the reactions, where things fit and don't fit, to use as contrast for further evidence. I would need another time to try and further clarify how I type, I have a hard time verbalizing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    And even if you can, how can you communicate that at all? How can you discuss that on a forum? This seems more subjective to me, not less so.
    The descriptions I've been coming up with are my attempt. Obviously met with varying reactions. My perspective sees IME interactions much like a machine; your leading IME is one process that works a certain way, and it is connected to your creative IME in a particular manner, and they work together in a process manner, etc with the rest of the IMEs. So I'd to see if the person's thought-processes, through evidence of witnessing their reasonings and observations, match the machine model I have worked out. Obviously it chances with my understanding of Socionics and the IAs, so it isn't perfect, but I feel like it trims a lot of what I perceive to be the fat of distinguishing what is type related and what isn't.

  9. #9
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mattie View Post
    I guess I'm sensitive to the references. For me, if someone draws on what we're talking about here, I take it as if they are using it as evidence when I'm not sure of what they are actually thinking. If you don't believe the stereotypes that you're using to communicate ideas through... That's a little confusing to me, especially because I'm one for thinking that language and tropes shape our understanding of things.
    I think the language we receive shapes our understanding of things, but the language we produce is an attempt to reflect an understanding. But I understand your point. It's not that you don't believe the stereotypes, it's that you understand that you are using overstatement. It's like... rounding. In chemistry, you could technically have .0923857313 liters of something. And there are some purposes (the example here would be serious theoretical discussions) for which you need all twelve digits or whatever. But there are other cases in which .1 suffices perfectly well. Using a stereotype in a way that fails to qualify the fact that the stereotype does not apply to all members of the class is the same, imo. Sure, you may need the twelve digits for some things, and you've still got them written down somewhere. But for most communication purposes, .1 will suffice.

    I find this to be similar how people talk about picking up on others' vibes and intentions. The best way I can articulate this is looking for patterns in what I find to be related to a person's thought process, which is affect by how they communicate their thoughts. To me, it feels intuitive, I start to notice how a person generally organizes, emphasizes, and dissects information, as well as other qualities. So the way I type relies on how well I perceive the way a person's thought processes go, and when I use my own, fielding the reactions, where things fit and don't fit, to use as contrast for further evidence. I would need another time to try and further clarify how I type, I have a hard time verbalizing it.
    I know... but that's so immaterial. I think I understand what you're saying, but it just seems so much more solid to look for patterns in behavior than to look for patterns in thought processes. I'm not denying that both are useful, and I use both. When I type writers, I'm focused more on what I can guess about their thought processes. But when I type my friends that I'm around daily, maybe if they mention something about how they think, or if I am able to make a particularly good deduction about how they think, I'll use that to help type. But I use behavior too.

    And I also use behavioral examples to communicate. I know that they don't describe 100% of cases. But like in the chemistry analogy the 100% accuracy isn't necessary in most cases (and isn't achievable in the majority of cases).

    Maybe it helps to have a specific instance. So, my ESE friend loves to cook for everybody. She is everybody's mom. This is stereotypical ESE behavior. So I come on this board and say, "Well, I typed my friend ESE because she is an intense caretaker of everyone around her, and she's also very much the center of social interactions." That's not really why I typed her ESE. The reason I typed her ESE is something like you were talking about, about the vibes she gives off or whatever, while she's doing those stereotypical ESE things. Or it's how she tends to use fake demonstrative Se by giving a threat of a consequence (do x or else), but actually the real force is an emotional one, and if you don't do what she says, she's not actually going to do anything (in contrast to an SEE friend, who will use obviously fake emotion to get her way, but is also willing to back it up with force.) Like, emotional pressure as a means to volitional pressure vs. volitional pressure as a means to emotional pressure. But you notice how that second explanation required twice as many words and was nowhere near as clear? If I can evoke a picture in the reader's mind of the exact same type of person, and even the reasons why I think she's ESE, with a more simple or stereotypical description, why should I use the more complicated one? these common behavioral traits are good shorthand for communication. If someone came in the thread and said, "Hey, that's a stupid example. Not everybody who is a stereotypical caretaker is ESE!" Then I would come back and give the more detailed version.

    The descriptions I've been coming up with are my attempt. Obviously met with varying reactions. My perspective sees IME interactions much like a machine; your leading IME is one process that works a certain way, and it is connected to your creative IME in a particular manner, and they work together in a process manner, etc with the rest of the IMEs. So I'd to see if the person's thought-processes, through evidence of witnessing their reasonings and observations, match the machine model I have worked out. Obviously it chances with my understanding of Socionics and the IAs, so it isn't perfect, but I feel like it trims a lot of what I perceive to be the fat of distinguishing what is type related and what isn't.
    Yeah. I'm not at all opposed to that. It's not something that I can intellectually disagree with, even if I am emotionally "eh" about it. I mean, to each his own. I think both ways accomplish something different and neither is superior or inferior.
    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.

  10. #10
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The answer to the question seems sort of obvious. How we think necessarily affects how we relate to the world. What seems ill-defined here is not whether or not Socionics describes both, but to what extent and on what matters. Socionics I think attempts to describe manners of thought, how we process them, and how that particular processing interacts with other particular individuals manner of processing. However each of the information elements and what they ACTUALLY describe, to the extent information can be categorized in these eight particular fashions at all, describe very vague ideas that are incredibly dangerous to describe in very concrete fashion. The rule here is to tread lightly and with caution.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  11. #11
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Lol, way to falsely mitigate the scale of the issue.
    No, just showing how different degrees of precision are necessary in different situations. If you'd like, I can say it's rounding 92g up to 100g. In some situations, numbers only matter on that scale. Heck, it could even be rounding 758392g up to 800000g. Again, in some cases, that's the scale that matters.



    How is it immaterial? It doesn't seem plain as day to you when talking with a friend? You don't develop a kind of working knowledge of how your friend tends to see things, what their beliefs and outlooks on life are like, the sorts of motives they usually operate off of, how they'll likely feel about something, or how they'd likely react in some given situation? Of course you're very aware of all this I'm sure. Just as well, you probably tend to notice discrepancies between a friend's outward seeming behavior and what's actually going on with them internally. Am I right or wrong?
    Immaterial in the way all socionics is immaterial. Perceptually, you get it, if you know what to look for. But in description it's airy and imprecise and you're communicating an impression rather than anything really solid you can build an argument on. But fine, it's a poor critique. I think everything is immaterial in that sense.



    It's somewhat different when you can see and point out the behavior in its situational context (assuming you're picking up on the relevant nuances in the 1st place). But even regardless of that, do you honestly not realize how many different interpretations people (including yourself) will have when you attribute some generic behavior as constituent to a given type… ? Not to mention that the interpretations themselves often vary depending on the observer's type.
    Of course I recognize that words have multiple interpretations. I also recognize that people are capable of discerning which interpretations are useful in a given context. If that weren't true, it would be impossible to communicate using words at all.

    My favorite example is poetry. Poetry is the most open to interpretation of all literary forms of communication. It can also be the most precise, in a certain way. It is clearly imprecise if the question is, "how can we communicate without being misunderstood." But if the question is, "how can we communicate something that is difficult to put into words," it can be far more precise than jargon or anything. "The hum of thoughts evaded in the mind" or "nature without check with original energy" or "I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams," are all horribly imprecise according to the first metric. But once you know what they mean, they are far more precise than anything else you can use to describe the same thing, which is proven by the fact that you need a page and a half of criticism to half-describe what is said in a line and a half of poetry.

    So if we approach socionics as something that is easy to sense but hard to describe---and I think the IMs are quite easy to perceive after you've practiced a while (precisely because they are thought patterns rather than behaviors), and quite difficult to describe---then the trouble of multiple interpretations vanishes. Yes, it can be misinterpreted. But who cares? If we can get to the same goal (understanding) through one form or another, who cares which form we use? Potential for misunderstanding does not invalidate something as a mode of communication.

    I'm reminded of a time I had this Econ professor. 1st day of semester prior to the class, I was talking w/ some people I knew about our schedules, and a bunch of them were being weirdly emo and dreading the prospect of having a class with this particular prof. "Oh man, he is just so intense." I'd never met the guy, so I ask what they meant. "He's just so sharply serious and focused, and won't fuck around about putting you in your place if you say something stupid in his class. It's really intimidating." Naturally, this intrigued me greatly and made me very curious to meet this apparent legend of a man. Unfortunately within seconds of seeing him, it was obvious to me that he wasn't this towering, dominating figure they'd alleged him to be lol. Just a high-strung ESTj, kinda dorky even, non-emotive but impassioned about the subject. Quick to probe people with questions when they thought they knew something lol, but it was entirely good-natured challenging to try and get them to actually think about their opinions (as opposed to just having them). Idk, I thought he was pretty cool. And yet, people would get all butthurt and say he was "mean." Sure, I suppose I could see why they thought that, but it was really an annoyingly whiny misunderstanding on their part to not read between the behavorial lines about something so blatantly obvious.
    So if you could see why they thought what they thought, then you recognized the trait they recognized, i.e., their communication worked. Sure, you found another trait more salient, and I bet if you had described that trait to someone of moderate intelligence, they would have seen that side of it as well. But if you can see the aspect of reality (the professor's actual behavior) that was pointed to by the subjective descriptor ("mean," "hardass," whatever), then communication did take place. It worked.

    The shorthand interpretations may only seem clearer to you, because they're more open-ended and enable people to better stretch their own interpretations to fit lol. They think they understood what you said, when in actual fact they may be thinking of something wholly different. But since nobody complains of misunderstanding your point (since they can't really know if they did or not), this allows you to operate under the easy misconception that actual communication took place. When really all you did was give people enough of a blank template to project their own personalized stereotypes onto. You're playing something of a smoke&mirrors trick without realizing it.
    I dunno. Archetypes are pretty obvious to people. Sure, there is some degree of subjectivity, but if you take Jung seriously at all, people in theory have access to a sort of basic core of ideas. Why shouldn't the ESE stereotype be something we sort of know, the kernel of it anyway. I'm not saying it's part of the Collective Unconscious(tm), but it's a concept that has been pretty ubiquitous in culture, and so most people have some idea of this sort of perfect domesticity, this family-centered kind of do-everything, um, thing. So sure, stereotypes are personalized, but essentially similar. Again, it's a question of accuracy and precision. If I need to get more precise, I can and will. But sometimes you only need to communicate the sort of basic idea. It's a factual distinction to ask to what degree people hold basic ideas in common. I don't know how to prove or disprove that.
    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.

  12. #12
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Realistically, none of those stereotypes really apply :/. Most people of all the types are just… normal people, who don't really embody any particular archetypal role in life. Most ESFjs are not typical 1950s suburban housewives, most α-NTs will not be cast members from Revenge of the Nerds, etc.
    Sure, but if you find a typical 1950s housewife or a nerd revenger, is it so wrong to think ESFj and Alpha NT, respectively? The reason they're stereotypes is 'cause they fit the basic idea of these socionics concepts pretty well. Sure, people can deviate from those stereotypes, but that doesn't make the stereotype irrelevant.

    Also, yes, I do assume that people are intelligent. And I've always been a proponent of different strokes for different folks as far as socionics communication. But I feel like the legitimacy of some of the ways I do socionics is in question, much as I'm sure you feel that the forum at large ignores "your way" insofar as you have a way of doing socionics. I think that we largely agree, though, that different methods are useful for different people, no?
    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.

  13. #13
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You'd be surprised how many ESxp types there were in the cast of that film. You'd have to be an Se type to take any of the stereotypes it involves seriously.

  14. #14
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    No, not necessarily wrong. Personally, if someone described a person in these ways, my 1st thought would be those types too. And 9/10 times I would probably be correct in that estimation. But what about the vast majority of persons who don't readily fit any of the assigned behavioral stereotypes?
    Okay. Um, so, we agree? I'm not proposing stereotypes are definitions of types, merely as descriptions of common traits. So I would expect people to keep in mind that there are of course people who don't fit the stereotypes. But that doesn't make stereotypes useless. And I would venture to say that most people have something in common with the stereotype of their type. Like, if you made a list of top twenty common behavioral traits of a given type, it would be pretty darn rare to have an example of said type who didn't exhibit any of those behavioral traits on a fairly regular basis. For instance, you might find an IEI who is very feet-on-the-ground, making stuff happen in the real world. Not what you would expect based on the IEI stereotype. But that same IEI might fit the victim description to a tee. Positive behavioral signs are totally useful in typing, and have a valid place, just not an unlimited one.

    And to return to a broader use of the word behavior, typing has to be based in some way on behavior, because there is no direct access to the inner worlds of other people (or if there is, it is extraordinarily rare and difficult). So there must be some sort of external sign, however subtle, that leads you to deduce what you know about their internal world. If that external sign is relatively more common among members of one type than another, that makes it a "type-related" behavior, and worth using as evidence in a typing or as an example in a description of a type.



    I generally assume the same, but I don't assume that all people are aware of the same things (something Socionics teaches us). Yes, people have different methods and that's fine—so long as the method renders correct results. Obviously not all methods are equal in this respect.
    Well, we should separate methods from people. I'm imagining it now like a coordinate plane. Methods are equations. On the y axis is quality of results. On the x axis is intelligence of users. Different methods are different "equations" that is, they produce different results based on the intelligence/knowledge of the user. The whole stereotypes/behavior method of doing socionics probably produces virtually zero result, maybe negative results, when used by an individual with extremely limited knowledge and/or intelligence. But I think it works perfectly well when a person is intelligent and informed. And obviously the best method (the method that would produce the best results) is a combination of all the methods, taking in evidence from everything from VI to behavior to vibe to "Information Aspect" description or whatever. So yes, not all methods are equal, but there are factors that go into the quality of results besides just the method itself. I think that in absolute terms, virtually every method of socionics (besides maybe Maritsa's brain stem measurements) can produce useful results if employed by an intelligent, knowledgeable individual.
    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.

  15. #15
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic View Post
    The answer to the question seems sort of obvious. How we think necessarily affects how we relate to the world. What seems ill-defined here is not whether or not Socionics describes both, but to what extent and on what matters. Socionics I think attempts to describe manners of thought, how we process them, and how that particular processing interacts with other particular individuals manner of processing. However each of the information elements and what they ACTUALLY describe, to the extent information can be categorized in these eight particular fashions at all, describe very vague ideas that are incredibly dangerous to describe in very concrete fashion. The rule here is to tread lightly and with caution.
    Sometimes I think you might be the only sane person in the world.
    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...

  16. #16
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I'm not saying such stereotypes are entirely useless—just extremely limited in reasonable applicability. Using 'behavioral templates' like this is a cookie-cutter approach with too much incumbent upon the observer's intelligence + interpersonal awareness + socionics experience, to properly read between the lines and apply appropriately. Why not aim towards a better standard?
    Why only aim towards one "standard"? Why not use what works, when it works, where it works? I'm not interested in minimizing error. I'm interested in maximizing understanding. If we understand more using various methods, who cares if some people got confused or misled. If you can see them getting misled, offer them the alternative methods til you find one that doesn't mislead them.

    And I don't think you're taking seriously enough the many confounding variables involved whenever someone makes a behavioral attribution of another. Entire branches of psychology exist devoted to the subject of false attribution even, which should suggest that the problem is rather significant. Consider any descriptive trait you think is type-relevant, and I guarantee you'll find a wide range of interpretations between individuals insofar as what/how they perceive that trait manifesting in real-life terms.
    Sure, but when you say something like "IEIs avoid factual information in arguments and try to focus on the 'big picture,' how events are conceptualized, etc." doesn't everyone know what you mean? Or if you say, "SEIs attempt to find a diplomatic solution to a confrontation. They tend to make their discomfort known in an emotional manner

    So sure, if I say type x has trait y, many people will imagine that trait manifesting in many different ways. But the vast majority will have some things in common. If that thing-in-common is what I'm trying to communicate, then I've done my job, no matter how many interpretations I foster (and of course I will foster exactly as many interpretations as there are people in the room).

    I'm not dismissing the utility of observing behavior—in the broad sense. That is, obviously you need some kind of external cue of something about that person in order to infer anything about what type a person may be. The issue is: What kinds of cues should be taken seriously as reliable type indices vs. what kinds of indices are too broad/ill-defined and generally unreliable (or just plain wrong).
    Yes, I agree with you. To go to an example from long ago, I think "Fi egos are more likely than Ti egos to make a decision about what product to purchase based on a subjective opinion about the company that makes said product" is a perfectly useful type index. I wouldn't base an entire typing off of it, but it's a reasonable statement. It doesn't make the error of assuming either is correct or incorrect ("vote with your dollar" is a great way to change corporate behavior, but making decisions based on generalized principles, i.e., "buy whatever is cheapest" is useful too). But it does make a behavioral prediction. It doesn't assume that the prediction is 100% accurate. But it does claim that the prediction is statistically significant and therefore relevant evidence in a typing or a description or whatever.

    And as far as definition, well, again, you seem to think that quality-of-interpretation varies inversely with number-of-possible-interpretations, which I fundamentally disagree with (anything can have any number of interpretations). Things don't need to be defined explicitly for people to understand what you mean. This seems obvious to me.

    It's also documented that intelligent people possess greater abilities to rationalize against apparent contradictions, and so can/will hold out for longer periods of time in the face of being wrong. What you're saying here could easily backfire.
    What's the alternative? Stupid people are unlikely to generate any original understanding, which is necessary for something like socionics where all of the applicability and usefulness requires originality, i.e., the application of socionics knowledge and principles to novel situations. Intelligent people might be more trenchant when wrong, but they're far more likely to come to a defensible conclusion in the first place, and even a wrong-but-defensible conclusion can be considered useful. For examples see any decent thread in 16types history (Pride and Prejudice thread, for example).

    Aside from that, what you're saying here is the epistemic fallacy in a nutshell. Assuming that any method applied to a field of study will necessarily yield useful knowledge about it (given sufficient intelligence)—i.e. it would obviously be fallacious to take methods used in, say, psychology and apply them to something like chemistry. That wouldn't work very well or deliver any kind of meaningful information, considering that the nature of human minds are too distinct and removed from the nature of molecular bonds. The methods of study have to be aligned with the nature of what's being studied.
    This is a decent example of the interpretive issues I'm talking about. Sure, you can interpret these theoretical methods as being as distinct as chemistry and psychology (although psychology uses a "medical model," which is essentially applying the methods of biology/medicine to psychology, and that appears to be working fine, or is at least standard practice). But if you pay attention to context, you'll notice that I'm talking about different methods of doing socionics, which perforce must involve something "psychological" in nature, must involve the observation of human beings. I even took the time to exclude utterly preposterous methodologies, such as typing by spine length or something. I gave an example that set a loose boundary of reasonability, but left everything free within that boundary. It's a perfectly valid way of communicating.


    Not to everyone lol. You're probably assuming that people generally understand these things as well as you do. For instance, I'm reminded of an experiment that was done where females in a classroom were asked who the "alpha male" was. The answers were all over the place; most of them had no fucking idea what an "alpha male" even was nor who embodied that archetype. Curiously though, there was significant convergence in the overall opinion of the male subjects asked.
    The fact that the men understood implies that with enough explanation of the archetype ("alpha male") instances thereof can be identified. This seems like an argument for behavioral descriptions, not against.

    Lol. If this forum was sitting in that class, I guarantee you the prevailing opinion would have been "ESTp" or some other equally retarded typing. Because people suck at reading behavior properly. So no, what you're saying doesn't "work."
    But it wasn't a question of socionics typing. That, frankly, is difficult. But if you recognized their description of the man in his actual behavior, then they communicated something to you. It's analogous to socionics. If we attach fifteen different subjective labels to the same behavior, we're still describing the same behavior. As such, it should still be possible to look through the subjective label (and I would add that your more positive descriptor of the man is no less subjective) to the behavior, despite the subjectivity of the label. Socionics can and does work like that. People read subjective descriptions, but those subjective descriptions help them understand real-life behaviors. If you look through a window at one part of a door, you can probably still recognize the door by that one part.
    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.

  17. #17
    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

    5) Socionics is not a personality theory in the sense of personalities as mainly defined by external behavior traits. Socionics's types are defined ultimately by deeper personal priorities and motivations. However, external behavior traits provide clues as to the person's priorities and motivations.
    Expat already solved this. I agree with this statement.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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