Just A thought
Is it possible that someone can be so balanced that the never identify with any of the socionics types.
Maybe the had a hard life and had to grow up very fast.
Maybe the interact with all types of people young and old and the learn from them.
Maybe an ILI type learns the proper social customs in essence thepolr becomes very hard to spot.
I think so. But I think you should type more based on quadra values, than on polr. An ILI will never value
One can become an ambiguous embodiment of their quadra (it is very difficult), but subdued functions are, well, subdued.Originally Posted by Primus Sucks
What do these signs mean—,
, etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason,
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function(extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
I don't think it's that difficult. I kind of wonder what happened to those who are not. Were they more isolated? Or maybe just in some kind of position that didn't pose many challenges that weren't immediately playing to their strengths? Spoiled, in a sense, to sit in a box..
Maybe That's it I read some of the descriptions and I think to myself I don't know anyone like that. And I know hundreds of people and know them well enough to remember there names.
What? What are you saying exactly. Elucidate.
I am saying the I have read all of the descriptions and most of them don't remind me of anyone I know.
Maybe a select few but I would say those people have personality disorders.
they are very unpleasant.
Well ok maybe you dont believe in socionics then?
I never said that.
I do believe however that people make socionics a lot more than I should be.
Threads like alpha music or beta music ect prove this true.
Behaviorally, yeah, a type can rise above its stereotypes, but a sociotype is a determinant of what kind of information a person processes and emphasizes. An ILI that recognizes what to say and when to say it, to maintain basic social etiquette is still an ILI that cannot genuinely work with those situational dynamics that involve such responsiveness without being learned beforehand, and even so, it will be mechanical and artificial.Is it possible that someone can be so balanced that the never identify with any of the socionics types.
Maybe the had a hard life and had to grow up very fast.
Maybe the interact with all types of people young and old and the learn from them.
Maybe an ILI type learns the proper social customs in essence the
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
Yes. I think someone can be socially balanced - that means having a behavior that makes him impossible to type, at least not so easy. But inside, he uses a certain view that can't be neutral in respect to the model, perhaps inconsistent, changing. When Socionics is understood, one can figure out why neutral attitudes are impossible - why such claim is officially false. Information elements are mutually exclusive, one can't see something both manner at the same time, "Ti" is "not Fi", "Te" is "not Fe", and so on, different relations, not necessarily negation, with the other IEs. In any respect - in our case something that pertains to a pair or a set of applicable IEs -, ambivalence towardsactual information is not a middle way, but a partition itself.
Someone who's the shepherd, the dog, the sheep and the wolf all at once is a Gamma in my book (1). They are flexible people who tend to learn everything they can and avoid specialization in any respect (2). This is what I think of when I read the OP.
I met people that I can't precisely type, but I never met one that I can take for every type.
---
(1) - one of Ni and Fi in the Ego, the other still valued - Super-Id;
(2) - they IME rarely accept their limitations, too.
most people who think they are "balanced" are just deluded about themselves.
I know the prevailing sentiment on 16t is that it's impossible to be unbiased as it's basically written into the theory that the introverted functions are subjective and thus personal in an internalized manner. I think it's important to make the distinction that metabolizing information and behavior are completely different.
You can interpret information that's skewed toward your worldview but as long as the individual is unwilling to listen to opposing viewpoints, isn't doomed to a life of self-serving bias.
Well, they say experience/life is a cruel teacher.Someone who's the shepherd, the dog, the sheep and the wolf all at once is a Gamma in my book (1). They are flexible people who tend to learn everything they can and avoid specialization in any respect (2). This is what I think of when I read the OP.
I met people that I can't precisely type, but I never met one that I can take for every type.
---
(1) - one of Ni and Fi in the Ego, the other still valued - Super-Id;
(2) - they IME rarely accept their limitations, too.
IEE Ne Creative Type
Someand role lovin too. (
too...
Yeah but note that it's Internal/External you're talking about. Fields IEs are conceptual (Introverted when they're a Base function), things that happen in your mind, but not necessarily subjective, in the general sense. That's in Jung only. Augustinavichiute clarified this difference, take a look here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48s#post725848.
Deduction, logical reasoning and especially the sense of consistency are such examples, they're not based on direct experience, internalized yes, but not subjective in that sense. In Socionics, what you describe there is rather the Internal IEs: Intuition and Ethics.
I previously gave an example regarding things that are internalized, conceptual, not based on the factual experience but still objective and correct. The designs that engineers and architects do, of their correctness depend investments of millions, the life of a lot of people, they have one chance to do it correctly. When they're faced with a new challenge, a huge bridge in a new place and conditions, they have to use correct and objective reasoning, but they build that bridge in their minds and they do it well. It actually works in reality, how? Such reasons are why Fields External IEs (Si, Ti) can't really be named subjective.
Talking of Si, that's the understanding of direct consequences, the states of things, we use it all the time in our lives, you know for example what can harm you and you don't need to actually test it, if you try it (eg jumping off a high building), it may be the last thing you do
---
I'd add that bias should not be confused with objectivity here. External IEs (Logic, Sensing) deal with in formation that *is* a certain matter and can't be otherwise, however that does not mean that it is necessarily true or that the actual convictions based on them can't change. There are things that you feel to be a certain way (stuff like insights, associations, good/bad, like/dislike), others you know for sure to be a certain way (seen or concluded); while the latter are objective, they are not necessarily unbiased, that does not pertain to IM anymore, but to senses, knowledge, understanding, background, intelligence, etc.
I agree regarding behavior.
Love your avatar that's Benny the Cop right ?
ILIs value select displays of Fe. It's just very select, and they get pissed off at the rest of it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
