A Male INTj's Dream Conversation
eh there's not much to go on, but i'm not really getting an Alpha vibe from those women. they seem
Based on what you said, do you defineas a quality that is essentially warm? Because this is something I would go as far as to debate not just in it's merit as the sole variation of
Further, if the people in the picture are not ESEs, then they are generally EIE, and, for the purposes of this thread, this would perhaps be hair-splitting.
The only other possibility I can think of would be that I took the picture out of context, because I haven't deeply studied the types of any of the people in that picture.
Last edited by jason_m; 01-19-2011 at 11:13 PM.
I get "extraverted feeler" vibes from them, but not necessarily ESE. My first impression of the woman in white, in particular, is of SEE. The woman in gray could be ESE, I suppose. One isolated photo is not nearly enough for me to come to any sort of firm conclusion.
Quaero Veritas.
Here is the problem I have:
Look at the following list of people:
- Bill Cosby
- Sandra Bullock
- Reese Witherspoon
- Erin Andrews
- Jennifer Lopez
- Courtney Love
- Tom Cruise
- Jennifer Alba
Now, sort it in the following way, and think of their functions as you read down the list:
- Courtney Love
- Erin Andrews
- Sandra Bullock
- Bill Cosby
- Tom Cruise
- Reese Witherspoon
- Jennifer Alba
- Jennifer Lopez
Where do you draw the line as to where the Fe-egos start and where they end? (Do you see what I'm generally getting at?)
Last edited by jason_m; 01-20-2011 at 10:08 PM.
Er... sorry, it's going over my head.Originally Posted by jason_m
If it helps, I would probably type Cosby, Bullock, and Cruise and ESE, Witherspoon and Lopez I'm not sure, Courtney Love I vaguely thought was SLE, and I don't know who Erin Andrews is. But I'm not sure if that's what you're asking. :/
Quaero Veritas.
The point I was trying to make is that there is some overall pattern as you go down the list. The people at the top of the list are strong Fe-egos (perhaps take Courtney Love out). As you go down, it morphs from Fe to Fi. Where exactly do the Fe egos stop and the Fi egos start? Can a line be drawn at all? These are important socionics questions, because they apply to Model A - specifically, how to demarcate different types. In other words, separate one type from another (and thereby type people in general).
By the way, Erin Andrews is the person in grey in the picture above - good observational skills, := . And I was wrong about the people in the picture. I got excited and looked them up, and realized that, as enthusiastic as the people seem, the two on the left are just laughing at something someone said, yet I'm certain Erin Andrews is an Fe-ego. My mistake...
Last edited by jason_m; 01-20-2011 at 06:17 AM.
For instance, where I draw the line is right at Tom Cruise: is he an Fe-ego or an Fi-ego?
He has very friendly, outgoing vibes, but, if you look at his interviews, there are elements of "sincerity" that might be better placed with Fi, like say, Jennifer Lopez...
Another minor note: I think that identical relations should not be called "identical," but rather "symmetric"; I don't see myself in a lot of my identicals, but there is always a similarity in our information metabolism, given that the same function can manifest itself in different ways (in fact, identicals might not always get along because of the differences). This small clarification might help people better understand socionics...
So basically you're having difficulty typing Ethical types? That's what it sounds like to me. I don't so much see a spectrum there as a list of individuals with different sociotypes.
Quaero Veritas.
I note from the picture that I am not in the conversation... hence I don't see why I should care whether such a conversation is taking place.
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
(I will let you in on a dirty secret.) I know for a fact that this does not appeal to ESEs:
(Whether you or I are this is another question.)
jason_m, i think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. if you accept the idea of dichotomies, and if you recognize that everyone uses all of their functions (but not in the same way), then i think all of the questions you're asking are kind of unnecessary. (whether you believe socionics models reality correctly is another issue.)
3 Women (of ANY type)
+
A Dreaming Male LII
=
Conversation?
I don't know why logic or intuition would choose your argument over mine; given both the complexity of the issue (the degree of variation amongst types, the number of people that need to be considered, etc.) and the empirical nature of the problem, one would think that an affirmative answer could only be given by experiment. I think it is quite intuitive that there is room for the notion of a "blurring," "morphing," "spectrum", etc. between functions mentioned above, as well as the notion that there are varieties of functions that types use differently. (I agree that whether or not this invalidates Model A is another issue.)
With respect to the issue of there being more types, consider the following thought experiment:
Take the whole world population and put it into one single room. Type every person in that room. What are the chances that every single person fits one exact, unanimous type, and that you can group any two people into one exact relation that fits perfectly with the original typings that you made? Common sense says that this is not possible, as at least some people will not fit into the system, and therefore there must logically be other factors there... (Or else there would be some, at this point, unobtainable answer which explains the disparities amongst types or relations, or what causes these disparities cannot even be classified as a "factor"... both defying logic and common sense.)
(Once again, whether Model A is generally valid or not is a completely different issue; it just is not logically possible for it to be absolutely correct.)
Last edited by jason_m; 01-21-2011 at 04:01 AM.
I don't know if you're taking it too literally/seriously or if you did not read my apology to Krig the Viking.3 Women (of ANY type)
+
A Dreaming Male LII
=
Conversation?
It sounds like you're projecting your own confusion onto the theory itself. Of course socionics is a little fuzzy and doesn't offer absolute answers, but it's not necessary or beneficial to invent concepts like this to "explain" why. I suppose if you're into philosophy that kind of thing can be fun, but it's not going to help you learn socionics.
One reality, many manifestations.
A bit of both, really.
Let the Socionics commence...
For one, I don't see how "inventing" explanations is counterproductive anymore than developing them through other means... (I wonder if what this debate could simply come down to is the issue of "top-down" versus "bottom-up" thinking styles). In any event, if you look at the history of science, etc., many theories have been "free creations of the human mind" used to explain phenomena. In terms of truth-value, what it comes down to is a matter of testing, and perhaps the problem is that these notions are not testable within a limited time-frame, etc. With respect to the overall value or merit of this approach, there is no way one could deduce that developing such theories cannot enrich one's personal understanding of socionics (or perhaps help in other more general issues).
If you debate the merits of the thought experiment, consider the pigeonhole principle. Given some level of math skills, perhaps there is some way to reverse-engineer an experiment using it to determine approximately how many types there are in reality...
If you're coming up with your own theory, by definition you aren't learning about socionics. I may be a little conservative when it comes to theory-building, but most of your criticisms seem pretty basic (applicable to any sociological or scientific theory) and easily resolved (as glamourama pointed out). As for the question "how do I distinguish types", you just have to become familiar with the types and their manifestations.
Um what?If you debate the merits of the thought experiment, consider the pigeonhole principle. Given some level of math skills, perhaps there is some way to reverse-engineer an experiment using it to determine approximately how many types there are in reality...Socionic types only exist as part of a system. You could say there are 2 or 16 or 32 or 6.4 billion, whatever you choose. I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "type" other than set of people.
I can't emphasize this enough: There are many different behavioral manifestations of each type. People always want to understand these differences when they learn about socionics, hence subtypes and all that stuff. There's nothing wrong with that, but socionics is about the commonalities within each type, not the differences. In most cases I find that subtypes just make everything more inaccurate, not less, because it just gives you more ways to rationalize bad typings.
Not directly, but sometimes indirectly you can be. For example, through learning about the accepted socionics traits of the types that you use to build it, or by better understanding how socionics fits together as a model in order to implement your theory.
Are they "basic" or "fundamental?" Do you see where I'm going here...I may be a little conservative when it comes to theory-building, but most of your criticisms seem pretty basic (applicable to any sociological or scientific theory)
Fair enough. But how can they be resolved?and easily resolved (as glamourama pointed out).
What I was referring to is that there might be some inconsistencies in how people type others, because some traits overlap. The question would then be about how a line could be drawn between one overlapping trait and another. (Or perhaps a bigger issue is how to better classify traits so what is overlapping becomes more "visible", and perhaps removes the need to draw a line at all...)As for the question "how do I distinguish types", you just have to become familiar with the types and their manifestations.
I meant objectively determine the number of relations through observation, experiment, etc. relative to the types of the people involved, and then compare this with the number of expected relations, to determine an approximate number of types (or something similar to this...).um what?
Good point, but the problem I have found is that without sub-typings, some typings simply don't add up...I can't emphasize this enough: There are many different behavioral manifestations of each type. People always want to understand these differences when they learn about socionics, hence subtypes and all that stuff. There's nothing wrong with that, but socionics is about the commonalities within each type, not the differences. In most cases I find that subtypes just make everything more inaccurate, not less, because it just gives you more ways to rationalize bad typings.
This is how I've always seen it. One's type isn't necessarily a box. More a studio apartment. Lots of room for one person to move around in, lots of potential for customization.
Not really...You simply can't address this problem at this level of generality. It's like looking at a slide through two different microscopes and asking why one image is slightly darker than the other. Do you really want to make up a metaphysical theory to explain it or should you just assume it's a flaw with the microscope itself?
By acknowledging that there is variety within types, and that nothing in science is 100% accurate or for certain.Fair enough. But how can they be resolved?
Again, socionics is not really about visible "traits". It's about the underlying mechanism - information metabolism.What I was referring to is that there might be some inconsistencies in how people type others, because some traits overlap. The question would then be about how a line could be drawn between one overlapping trait and another. (Or perhaps a bigger issue is how to better classify traits so what is overlapping becomes more "visible", and perhaps removes the need to draw a line at all...)
Define relation.I meant objectively determine the number of relations through observation, experiment, etc. relative to the types of the people involved, and then compare this with the number of expected relations, to determine an approximate number of types (or something similar to this...).
This is exactly my point. You just gotta keep tweaking it until it works - subtypes are a kind of cop-out solution. Socionics is a science, so one can't get away with only usingGood point, but the problem I have found is that without sub-typings, some typings simply don't add up..., one has to use
too.
You know, I've noticed this: so much of debate is about defending yourself - or perhaps proving yourself. (I will admit that I am as guilty of it as anyone.)
This would be my model of a good debate:
Person 1: This my thesis.
Person 2: Your thesis is consistent with my notions of reality for reasons 1, 2, 3, etc. and inconsistent for reasons a, b, c, etc. How can this be reconciled?
Person 1: (Attempts to objectively compare their thesis with these reasons, and come to some reconciliation, either positive or negative.)
Person 2: (Once again, provides objective criticism.)
.
.
.
The process continues until the debate is resolved or it is determined that no conclusion can be reached.
Think of how often Internet debates actually look something like this...
What I'm saying is that a debate should often be open-minded, for the purposes of learning something; under this model, instead offering a proof as to why your point is correct, a debate is looked at more as an opportunity to solve some sort of research or theoretical problem. (And especially on this forum, disagreeableness is confused with type, specifically thinking qualities - not calling anyone on it here.)
I find that the process is too often about proving than learning, and that's why I don't really like participating...
And I'm not calling on anyone specifically; we're all guilty of it. It's just something that I've noticed that is sort of a mild annoyance to me...
Jason
Last edited by jason_m; 01-22-2011 at 06:10 AM.
According to my calculations:
Let d = dream conversation.
If and only if:
LII + d =
Then:
ILE + d =
SEI + d =
ESE + d =
SLE + d =
etc.
So LII2 + d =
So LII3 + d =
So LII10100 + d =
I'll take SNSD over my original option, thank-you.
i still think the first group are Gamma SF trophy wives...
1 +
+1.
LII
From this pic alone there is nothing about them that particularly makes me think they are alpha. Definitely not the stuff of my "dreams".i still think the first group are Gamma SF trophy wives...
they look too inorganic
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Silicon is not organic.
If you catch my drift.
It was just supposed to be a joke; what is going on in the picture is perhaps more important than the types involved, and finally, I would be surprised if every single person there was Gamma SF.
(This is what I'm referring to when I speak of disagreement simply for it's own sake, as opposed to open-minded objectivity.)
Last edited by jason_m; 01-28-2011 at 11:22 AM.
lol, so because i disagree with you, i lack open-mindedness and objectivity? oh please.
I wouldn't lol. They all look irritating clones to me. The right one is maaaaaaaaybe tolerable.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
EDIT: I remember from video interviews that the person on the right seemed to be an Fe-ego. I found this picture with these people laughing, seeming so typical of this function. I just wanted to make a joke about how these attractive Fe-ego women laughing and giggling would be enjoyable to an LII. I thought about spending time checking video interviews to make sure that they are the right type, but I hoped that forum is not so petty and fault-finding that I would have to spend much time in order to defend myself in a debate over the types in a stupid joke...
Last edited by jason_m; 01-28-2011 at 10:56 PM.
Sorry for derailing your joke. I wasn't trying to be a nitpicker, it's just that it was pretty instantly apparent to me that at least two of the three were probably not ESE, so the joke kinda fell flat. However, I understand your reasoning behind the joke, and would have found it appropriately amusing had I received a more distinctly Alpha vibe from the photo.
Quaero Veritas.
Comrade:Sorry for derailing your joke. I wasn't trying to be a nitpicker, it's just that it was pretty instantly apparent to me that at least two of the three were probably not ESE, so the joke kinda fell flat. However, I understand your reasoning behind the joke, and would have found it appropriately amusing had I received a more distinctly Alpha vibe from the photo.
No big deal. It's not you I'm referring to. You seemed genuinely curious. However, I notice that there's a general vibe the forum gives off that small details can become huge, heated arguments over nothing.
and so now i'm apparently petty and fault-finding, along with being nonobjective and close-minded. yay!
Woot wooo wooooooooooo
SSSSSSsssssssOOOOOooooooCCCCCCCCcccccccccIIIIIIIii iiiiiiiOOOOOoooooNNNNNNNnnnnnnnIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiii CCCCCCCCCCCccccccccccSSSSSSSSSsssssss to save the day!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
