Basis for Socionics

[krieger]

you will find the Holy Scriptures right here:

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

[rat1]

There's so many asshole wana be scientists who act like nothing exists unless it's publicized in a science journal. It's like your senses are an vacuoles of empty space.
Like we can't use our common sense and personal experiences as evidence. We need to conduct experiments, operationalize every term, and control for every variable before we can say anything.
The evidence is right in front of your eyes, dick. Read the type descriptions. Look at people. Does socionics seem to predict peoples behavior? Does it explain the things they do? Does it match with your life experiences of people? Well there you go, fucking evidence.
And by the way, socionics is so basic it couldn't not exist. What, you think 8 simple mathematical functions have no representation in how we think? We arent gona find any traces of the most basic math equations in our behavior or our thought patterns? That's too absurd to you? You need to study it more and collect evidence before you'll even ponder the notion? Fucking people drive me insane.

[Beautiful sky]

Read Jung's Personality Types.

Refer to Labcoat's post.

I agree with Crazed that science doesn't explain everything and just because it's published doesn't mean that there isn't more to learn about it.

[aestrivex]

Ok, I may come off as very ignorant by posing this question, but what exactly is socionics based on? (In layman terms, preferably)

My understanding at present is of some arbitrary information elements which represents the building block of the universe, of which different people are differently attuned to. And that because their brains are naturally attuned to different information elements, it affects their behaviour, hence the reason why similar "types" behave similarly.

How much evidence is there that "types" really exist in the first place, and that information aspects and elements are a meaningful construct to base a personality theory on? Heck, there isn't even any strong consensus as to what represents a type other than a few made-up type descriptions.

its just a model. if you conceptualize socionics as a perfect description of reality, it will come across as lacking. if you conceptualize it as a hypothesis and the IM elements as tentative guesses of information types based on observations (and yes drawing from jung's observations) and see how much use you can find of it, your question largely subsides, because there is not strictly a need to postulate mechanisms for the functioning of the model in order to recognize that it has some external applicability.

[consentingadult]

What aestrivex said, or in my own words: I use it as a theory of ideal types (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_type). Note however, that for lot of people, Socionics is a system that does describe real, existing types, where every individual fits one type nicely.

My personal opinion is that Carl Jung's insights (which where based on his observations and not on systematic research) have been translated by him into a terminology that, although it sounds very intellectual, actually is sort of esoteric, if you allow me to be a bit blunt. Basically the same phenomena are also described by mainstream psychology and even sociology. E.g. 'entitlement' (Extroverted sensing) and 'discomfort avoidance' (introverted sensing). The content of various forms of rationality as described by sociologists as Max Weber and Karl Mannheim clearly have significant overlap with extroverted and introverted logic as described by Socionics. As such, you can consider Socionics as a sort of proto science, one that is not without merits when used on a day to day basis, especially when complemented by insights from other social and behavioral sciences.

[consentingadult]

Read Jung's Personality Types.

The book is called 'Psychological Types'.

Did you actually read it?

[Jarno]

There's so many asshole wana be scientists who act like nothing exists unless it's publicized in a science journal. It's like your senses are an vacuoles of empty space.
Like we can't use our common sense and personal experiences as evidence. We need to conduct experiments, operationalize every term, and control for every variable before we can say anything.
The evidence is right in front of your eyes, dick. Read the type descriptions. Look at people. Does socionics seem to predict peoples behavior? Does it explain the things they do? Does it match with your life experiences of people? Well there you go, fucking evidence.
And by the way, socionics is so basic it couldn't not exist. What, you think 8 simple mathematical functions have no representation in how we think? We arent gona find any traces of the most basic math equations in our behavior or our thought patterns? That's too absurd to you? You need to study it more and collect evidence before you'll even ponder the notion? Fucking people drive me insane.

+ 1000

I have nothing to add.

[aestrivex]

Basically the same phenomena are also described by mainstream psychology and even sociology. E.g. 'entitlement' (Extroverted sensing) and 'discomfort avoidance' (introverted sensing). The content of various forms of rationality as described by sociologists as Max Weber and Karl Mannheim clearly have significant overlap with extroverted and introverted logic as described by Socionics. As such, you can consider Socionics as a sort of proto science, one that is not without merits when used on a day to day basis, especially when complemented by insights from other social and behavioral sciences.

[consentingadult]

What aestrivex said, or in my own words: I use it as a theory of ideal types (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_type). Note however, that for lot of people, Socionics is a system that does describe real, existing types, where every individual fits one type nicely.

My personal opinion is that Carl Jung's insights (which where based on his observations and not on systematic research) have been translated by him into a terminology that, although it sounds very intellectual, actually is sort of esoteric, if you allow me to be a bit blunt. Basically the same phenomena are also described by mainstream psychology and even sociology. E.g. 'entitlement' (Extroverted sensing) and 'discomfort avoidance' (introverted sensing). The content of various forms of rationality as described by sociologists as Max Weber and Karl Mannheim clearly have significant overlap with extroverted and introverted logic as described by Socionics. As such, you can consider Socionics as a sort of proto science, one that is not without merits when used on a day to day basis, especially when complemented by insights from other social and behavioral sciences.

I agree that it is useful as one framework out of many, and may produce some interesting insights when complemented by the other behavioral sciences. It is based on real life observations, and I too confess that I see the patterns. Jung came up with the observations and categorized them into the 4 dichotomies, but it isn't him who came up with Model A (of which most discussions here build upon), did he? Information metabolism, aspects and elements aren't his creation, or is it? Are Jung's observation and those of Model A the same? He did not say that introverted feeling would complement extroverted thinking, and that the complement of functions would result in duality and have its impact on human relationships, did he?

Jung made observations and categorized what he observed. We observe the same patterns and acknowledge that such categorizations are useful. We start to infer outer behaviour to certain functions and categorize individuals exhibiting these behaviours to the various types. This is all there is to it, isn't it? Learning to categorize people as accurately as possible. Is that the aim of socionics? Because I honestly don't find it of much use and warrant of the amount of time spent and effort expended I see the people in this forum doing, in the quest to gain such an understanding.

First of all, I don't believe Jung created four dichotomies, at least not in the MBTI sense. In Psychological Types, he talks about extroversion and introversion, and combines these orientations with sensing, intuition, feeling and thinking. And he in fact did not say that introverted feeling would complement extroverted thinking, i.e. in one person. He did say, however, in chapter 10, Part C, paragraph 11, that if introverted feeling is the main function of an indivuidual, it can only be complemented in that individual by either extraverted sensing or extraverted intuition as a secondary function. What you probably are referring to is the dynamics of intertype relations, something Jung didn't discuss in his book. I think the insights on the relationship between Fi en Te are to be credited to Augusta, as are other insights of Model A; she took Jung's work and expanded magnificently on it, imho.

As far as the aim of Socionics: I guess each individual has their own reasons and aims for it. And about people on this forum: it is mostly about socializing, and to a lesser extent about Socionics. I myself am a student of Sociology and even in that case Socionics has its merits. A while ago one of our professors gave a lecture on the Dutch healthcare system, that she explained in detail about four different attitudes towards organizing a healthcare system. Now I doubt that she knows about Socionics, but I swear these four attitudes resemble quadra values. Now why is this relevant? Because knowing about quadra values make it a lot easier to understand such concepts, and how these relate to other aspects of society and its organization. There are so many applications of Socionics (again: in tandem with other insights) that it can be quite productive or interesting. Some of us are here for socializing, some of us want to expend their knwoledge, and many are somewhere in between. Other people, who are not here, might be wasting their time wacthing TV or getting themselves drunk in a bar, which imho is also a perfect legitimate way of getting yourself through life.

[consentingadult]

Basically the same phenomena are also described by mainstream psychology and even sociology. E.g. 'entitlement' (Extroverted sensing) and 'discomfort avoidance' (introverted sensing). The content of various forms of rationality as described by sociologists as Max Weber and Karl Mannheim clearly have significant overlap with extroverted and introverted logic as described by Socionics. As such, you can consider Socionics as a sort of proto science, one that is not without merits when used on a day to day basis, especially when complemented by insights from other social and behavioral sciences.

Yeah, I know, you think I'm a dumbass. But then I always wonder, why it is that dumbasses call me a dumbass, attention whores call me an attention whore, narcissists call me a narcissist, idiots call me an idiot, and ignorant people call me ignorant?

Fortunately, good people think I'm an okay person.

[Jarno]

+ 1000

I have nothing to add.

In which case you should, I don't know... Fuck off?

ah yes tell everybody who not agrees with you to fuck off, so you don't have any critisism on your own opinion, which than automaticaly must be the correct one.

[Jonathan]

Ok, I may come off as very ignorant by posing this question, but what exactly is socionics based on? (In layman terms, preferably)

My understanding at present is of some arbitrary information elements which represents the building block of the universe, of which different people are differently attuned to. And that because their brains are naturally attuned to different information elements, it affects their behaviour, hence the reason why similar "types" behave similarly.

How much evidence is there that "types" really exist in the first place, and that information aspects and elements are a meaningful construct to base a personality theory on? Heck, there isn't even any strong consensus as to what represents a type other than a few made-up type descriptions.

You raise some excellent questions.

For someone relatively new to Socionics, I think it's only responsible to point out that while it's *based* on Jung's types, it isn't identical. It's an offshoot, an interpretation, based on writings by Augusta, who founded Socionics. MBTI, also based on Jung, has a completely different interpretation. Jung's view of the functions is very different from Augusta's; most notably, his description of extraverted and introverted sensing are quite different from what you'll encounter here.

On the other hand, I think the original question is asking not so much whose theory does it come from, but rather, what is the basis for believing that it has any validity?

I think individually, people recognize that it fits their own observations about people that they had even without the theory. It simply codifies and structures what people already observe about people. So when people believe that "types" exist, I think that what they're really thinking is that the theory that types exist merely gives a name to what they observe in those around them.

Of course, the great weakness of socionics is that it is primarly based on anecdotal observations by theorists and introspection, as well as a few small focus group "studies."

MBTI, on the other hand, has many large statistical studies which have been undertaken. Most of them, however, do not attempt to resolve fundamental questions, such whether types exist. I'm not familiar with all the latest research; however, I do remember that in MBTI there was some study to see if there was some sort of bifurcated distribution in the scales (as I recall, I think generally there's more of a normal distribution, as one would expect), and also studies on the longitudinal stability of MBTI scores....not that either of these things would either prove or disprove the existence or stability of types.

In my view, Jung's original descriptions represent an elegant division of reality, or phenomena. The distinctions may seem arbitrary; yet I believe he was onto something real. None of his arguments are based upon presupposing any biological cause. Therefore, his conception of the types may be seen more as philosophy, a categorization of aspects of reality, rather than a biological or brain-centered theory.

Augusta's interpretations may seem at times arbitrary, although I think they're based on a lot of observations of people. Certainly there is wide, wide disagreement on what everything means, as is obvious by looking at how different Socionists type various people. When they all agree, I suspect it's because they're following each other rather than that they really all have the same understanding.

So why does it persist? Why do we keep talking about it? I suspect that at a personal level, people keep having observations that reinforce the idea that types (in some form...maybe not as stable or fixed as Socionics proposes) actually exist.

There are a number of ways that Socionics could be researched scientifically. To my knowledge, none of them have been tried. In particular, Socionics makes falsifiable predictions about intertype relations. It would be possible to undertake a large statistical study to investigate it's claims.

I would see this as involving possibly a few different approaches of determining type, and some ways to rate intertype relations. It could then be scientifically determined if any of the proposed ways of determining type can accurately predict anything about relations between people, and which ones predict this better.

This would be a hard study to do correctly, but possible. Even with studies meant to investigate relatively simple things, like whether some nutrient really helps you, I always wonder if something about the design of the study masked useful information (e.g., maybe the vitamin really does help some people with some unknown commonality, such as some gene, but not others, so this may be reported that it has no benefit at all).

Another possible avenue of research would be to try to isolate different IM elements through exercises and see if these correspond to the stimulation of any particular part of the brain.

[Jarno]

ah yes tell everybody who not agrees with you to fuck off, so you don't have any critisism on your own opinion, which than automaticaly must be the correct one.

But I think it's quite straightforward and apparent to everybody else that I am only telling you to leave because you've got nothing to contribute.

so I can only contribute when I have a different opinion. And cannot say when I agree with someone. Oke if that are the rules... pretty weird though.

[Crispy]

Guide on How to Test Socionics' Validity for Yourself:

1. Read ALL 16 Type descriptions from multiple sources
Examples: http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/ (Click the Learn More Button)
http://www.socionics.com/prof/prof.htm
http://www.socionics.com/advan/prof/prof.htm

2. If you find one that matches you nicely, read the same type description from several other sources (try googling socionics for more descriptions)

3. If you have read all 16 type descriptions from multiple sources and still don't believe any of them capture your personality, you have already failed. I'd suggest moving on to a subject easier to understand.

Now the only excuse for threads like these are a lack of reading or a lack of understanding. Huzzah!

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I believe in socionics because my parents seem like such real-life examples of esfj and intj. If I didn't see socionics happen in 'real life' I wouldn't talk about it so much on the internet. I'm not just being a dweeb here just because I make long, ranty posts about stuff.

Crazedrat is right. I believe you are being a tad too susceptible and impressionable to fancy pants 'professional speaking.' A lot of quacks have tried to use that neurotic bs on me. Usually when I pissed them off for acting too gay (or something, like anybody else I'm a jagged pill to swallow and you'll either love me or hate me) and they didn't have the balls to directly say I was being too faggy for them, instead they had to try to 'diagnose me' with disorders in order to save their own social standing.

What I'm getting to, what I'm alluding to, is that socionics is simply BASED ON HOW OTHER PEOPLE MAKE YOU FEEL EMOTIONALLY. Through the long-haul. Who in life would be there for you when you're at the worst. Instead of just worry about their own public image? Who is gonna defend you when you're in a shitty mood and who will just leave you. Or will exploit at you, teach you and 'nag at you' when you don't wanna be nagged at?

It's different for everybody and that's what makes it interesting. But if you want the 'raw answer' that is what socionics primarily is about. I don't think you can get to the interesting 'details' of the theory until you understand that.

And if you don't know how other people are making you feel, that's not something science can answer. That is just an issue of you being disconnected with your own humanity and your own subjective feelings. You just have to be a firework, like katy perry said and show people exactly who and what you are if you want people to understand you. Yeah and then your true enemies will show up. But also your true friends. Your true friends FOR YOU. Nobody else. I imagine it will be painful and scary, but you will also grow too and look back on it and discover what things meant to you emotionally.

You have to act out a little and be yourself, no matter how much it will piss off other people..... but I don't think that's an excuse for people to be a troll or bully. That is just as much 'blockage' as somebody being annoyingly passive. It's not about figuring things out as it is simply showing people who you are. ((that's why I always love posts about art people made))

...Doesn't that sound much more exciting and better than 'proving yourself' to some professional machine that doesn't even really exist and was just invented by some fearful bureaucrats?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Keep it simple. (At first, this is your socionics 101 lesson. =p)

Think of somebody you really like. You just like them.....their general essence. Their aura or whatever. Haven't you ever had that happen before? lol. (I worry about "scientists" sometimes)

That person is probably your dual, semi-dual or activity even. A compatible person for you.

Feelings change sometimes. But socionics also explains that too. The people who you think you love because its all 'opposites attract', but in the end, end up getting on your nerves and you hating each other, are your conflictors. The people who are still opposite but in a much more complimentary way, are duals. You see people in real life play out this drama all the time. Their ex will be somebody totally different than them , like a yin-yang symbol without the small white and black circle. Just black and white together with no curvy flow. Which clashes, not meshes well.

People rarely get it right at first. People don't get love the first try. Love just isn't something you get right the first time. You have to make mistakes. You HAVE TO. Or you won't learn, change and grow and find out who you're really meant to be.

Duality is usually hard to notice just like love is hard to find. It's that diamond in the rough, that sparkle and shimmer of pure awesomeness in so much filth and blackness....but if it was right in front of your face you would mock it and tease it and take it for granted.

[rat1]

The theory does lack realism. That's the whole thing about it. Are you going to find a perfect square in reality? Are you going to find a perfect function either? It's an abstract logical framework [created by a Ti type] which models behavior. Models < Keyword. The model is never going to BE what it models. That's the only way it would ever possess true realism. What are you even looking for? A book of neuroscience? Personality theory is subjective. Using socionics is subjective.

[Beautiful sky]

Read Jung's Personality Types.

The book is called 'Psychological Types'.

Did you actually read it?

Yes, that's just a minor detail and why I pointed out Labcoat's post because he posted the link to the book.

You can now comfortably rule out ESFj and ESTj for me because it's clear that with the frequency of my non concern for "being perfect," my HA is not "to be perfect."

My duals strive to be perfect and often want others to embody their ideal or image of perfection. I make errors in factual information all the time...so obviously I'm not perfect, don't want to be, nor do I want perfection from others. I want HA Si "to be healthy."

[consentingadult]

The book is called 'Psychological Types'.

Did you actually read it?

Yes, that's just a minor detail and why I pointed out Labcoat's post because he posted the link to the book.

You can now comfortably rule out ESFj and ESTj for me because it's clear that with the frequency of my non concern for "being perfect," my HA is not "to be perfect."

My duals strive to be perfect and often want others to embody their ideal or image of perfection. I make errors in factual information all the time...so obviously I'm not perfect, don't want to be, nor do I want perfection from others. I want HA Si "to be healthy."

I'm not into Ganins oversimplifications. He uses the word "be" too much, but the mobilizing function is not about being, but about appearing, about how you want to come across to other people. Many LIIs and EIIs I know have an obsession for health, consider themselves experts on it, eat according to supposedly healthy or alternative diets (often involving all kinds of nutritional supplements in the form of pills), but are basically very unhealthy persons. Physically, they typically look frail and unhealty, like this guy here:



And as to EIIs: if there is a type in the Socion who actually is a perfectionist, instead of just wanting to be perceived as such, it is the EII. They are the moral perfectionists, if not moralists, pur sang.

ETA: on the hidden agenda of ESEs and LSEs: "to be perfect" is way off for these types. Their mobilizing function is more about wanting to be perceived as original and creative (in the inventive sense), which, of course, they aren't, since they actually are unimaginative. But that doesn't stop them trying. (I must admit, however, that when I see them doing it, I think they are quite cute, especially the females).

[krieger]

maybe you should take as a typical example of an INxj someone who actually types themselves as such.

[rat1]

The functions are mathematical in nature, and duality is no different.

[consentingadult]

maybe you should take as a typical example of an INxj someone who actually types themselves as such.

Why? I couldn't care less how people type themselves, I can judge for myself.

[krieger]

i'm saying... if a person can spend years pondering what type they are based on decades' worth of information about themselves and come to a different conclusion than that they are an INxj, this probably invalidates the notion that they are a "typical" variant of the type. it's not just a major red flag where the second hand internet based, information-impoverished typing is concerned. using the person as an example is what is dubious.

anyway, you can ignore this principle all you want. i feel i have adequately exposed what you're doing to the people reading this thread.

[717495]

Socionics for me is based on objectifications of qualities by Jung and a couple others, which in turn are perceived by me as a couple different brands of psychological distance, Si/Ne people vs Se/Ni people, and Fe/Ti people vs Fi/Te people. I don't really see it as a model or theory, because types are so naturally imbedded into people everyday, to the point that most understanding is clearer by observation than explanation. I see new attributions to the overall stereotypes as being conjecture.

[consentingadult]

i'm saying... if a person can spend years pondering what type they are based on decades' worth of information about themselves and come to a different conclusion than that they are an INxj, this probably invalidates the notion that they are a "typical" variant of the type. it's not just a major red flag where the second hand internet based, information-impoverished typing is concerned. using the person as an example is what is dubious.

anyway, you can ignore this principle all you want. i feel i have adequately exposed what you're doing to the people reading this thread.

information-impoverished? I don't think so:

http://www.youtube.com/user/niffweed17

Also, from a social-psychological POV, we already know that the view we have of ourselves, is often the most incorrect one. The Self is a construct, not a measurement. I myself would never claim that I am IEE, since I cannot perceive myself very well. And you know this is true, since I have explained this to you quite a while ago in a PM.

[Jonathan]

maybe you should take as a typical example of an INxj someone who actually types themselves as such.

Why? I couldn't care less how people type themselves, I can judge for myself.

Labcoat's right. Besides, Niffweed is typed by a number of other people as ILI. You're best off using more standard examples. However, I suspect you're really just trying to score a few "points" by your example, as a way of saying that the types are backwards from the way a lot of people think of them.

That's okay actually (I mentioned in another thread that Gamma != conservatism, but then again, you can have all your own definitions, so it could equal that).

I guess that's the main point of the OP though...Everybody is entitled to his own definitions. You can call the IM elements anything you want. As the OP suggests, that's the problem with Socionics.

[Beautiful sky]

Yes, that's just a minor detail and why I pointed out Labcoat's post because he posted the link to the book.

You can now comfortably rule out ESFj and ESTj for me because it's clear that with the frequency of my non concern for "being perfect," my HA is not "to be perfect."

My duals strive to be perfect and often want others to embody their ideal or image of perfection. I make errors in factual information all the time...so obviously I'm not perfect, don't want to be, nor do I want perfection from others. I want HA Si "to be healthy."

I'm not into Ganins oversimplifications. He uses the word "be" too much, but the mobilizing function is not about being, but about appearing, about how you want to come across to other people. Many LIIs and EIIs I know have an obsession for health, consider themselves experts on it, eat according to supposedly healthy or alternative diets (often involving all kinds of nutritional supplements in the form of pills), but are basically very unhealthy persons. Physically, they typically look frail and unhealty, like this guy here:



And as to EIIs: if there is a type in the Socion who actually is a perfectionist, instead of just wanting to be perceived as such, it is the EII. They are the moral perfectionists, if not moralists, pur sang.

ETA: on the hidden agenda of ESEs and LSEs: "to be perfect" is way off for these types. Their mobilizing function is more about wanting to be perceived as original and creative (in the inventive sense), which, of course, they aren't, since they actually are unimaginative. But that doesn't stop them trying. (I must admit, however, that when I see them doing it, I think they are quite cute, especially the females).

Are you kidding? My duals all of them want things their significant other (at least) to be as perfect or embody their sense of perfection and when the person doesn't match up, they get short with them (putting it lightly). I can see the mobilizing function as striving to be creative or viewed as a creative person for LSE. Heck, my bf is a writer (a meticulous, precise, perfectly executing kind, who takes hours at his skill - mobilizing to be perfect is really clicking here). My Chemistry teacher used to say KISS...Keep it Simple Stupid, meaning that you'll be able to solve certain problems if you don't overcomplicate the issue and lose frame of the basis and fundamental concepts. I'm not calling you stupid, keep in mind. YES, I am very spiritual and a health nut; ask my BF, I sneak him "healthy" breakfasts and snacks all the time. We look frail and unhealthy because we watch what we eat and because genetically most of us are incapable of gaining a lot of weight or building a lot of muscle. And, who's to say we're unhealthy anyway because we look skinny and frail; we've maintain sustainable conditions in which we can live long and healthy lives.

Who is that guy? looks like an ISTp type.

[consentingadult]

I'm not into Ganins oversimplifications. He uses the word "be" too much, but the mobilizing function is not about being, but about appearing, about how you want to come across to other people. Many LIIs and EIIs I know have an obsession for health, consider themselves experts on it, eat according to supposedly healthy or alternative diets (often involving all kinds of nutritional supplements in the form of pills), but are basically very unhealthy persons. Physically, they typically look frail and unhealty, like this guy here:



And as to EIIs: if there is a type in the Socion who actually is a perfectionist, instead of just wanting to be perceived as such, it is the EII. They are the moral perfectionists, if not moralists, pur sang.

ETA: on the hidden agenda of ESEs and LSEs: "to be perfect" is way off for these types. Their mobilizing function is more about wanting to be perceived as original and creative (in the inventive sense), which, of course, they aren't, since they actually are unimaginative. But that doesn't stop them trying. (I must admit, however, that when I see them doing it, I think they are quite cute, especially the females).

Are you kidding? My duals all of them want things their significant other (at least) to be as perfect or embody their sense of perfection and when the person doesn't match up, they get short with them (putting it lightly). I can see the mobilizing function as striving to be creative or viewed as a creative person for LSE. Heck, my bf is a writer (a meticulous, precise, perfectly executing kind, who takes hours at his skill - mobilizing to be perfect is really clicking here). My Chemistry teacher used to say KISS...Keep it Simple Stupid, meaning that you'll be able to solve certain problems if you don't overcomplicate the issue and lose frame of the basis and fundamental concepts. I'm not calling you stupid, keep in mind. YES, I am very spiritual and a health nut; ask my BF, I sneak him "healthy" breakfasts and snacks all the time. We look frail and unhealthy because we watch what we eat and because genetically most of us are incapable of gaining a lot of weight or building a lot of muscle. And, who's to say we're unhealthy anyway because we look skinny and frail; we've maintain sustainable conditions in which we can live long and healthy lives.

Who is that guy? looks like an ISTp type.

Oh, LSE can be perfectionists alright, but it has nothing to do with their mobilizing function,

That guy is aestrevix aka niffweed. He types himself as ILI, most people agree wuth that typing. I and some others think he is LII.

[Beautiful sky]

Oh, LSE can be perfectionists alright, but it has nothing to do with their mobilizing function,

That guy is aestrevix aka niffweed. He types himself as ILI, most people agree wuth that typing. I and some others think he is LII.

I can see ILI, possibly; LII I can't see in him. He cares way too much about what others think of his work to be an alpha.

[consentingadult]

He cares way too much about what others think of his work to be an alpha.

It is simply not true that alphas do not care what others think about their work. Also, I don't see that he cares what other people think about his work.

[Jonathan]

Basically the same phenomena are also described by mainstream psychology and even sociology. E.g. 'entitlement' (Extroverted sensing) and 'discomfort avoidance' (introverted sensing).

By the way, while it's very interesting to compare Socionics to various other psychological attributes. However, I think it's important to recognize the vast differences too. Socionics Se seems to bear some relationship to entitlement, but is not the same as it. Entitlement is a disorder; Se is not a disorder. Jung's original version of Se is completely different from entitlement.

Si is also different from discomfort avoidance. Again, IM elements are not in themselves disorders, but focus on a given IM element may predispose one to certain disorders. In Jung, Si has nothing to do with discomfort avoidance, and in Socionics, it's still not exactly the same thing. Some people see Si/Ne quadras in ways related to discomfort avoidance, but that's questionable. It's hard to believe that the skills associated with LSE, SLI, ESE, and SEI are due to some sort of avoidance disorder.

He cares way too much about what others think of his work to be an alpha.

It is simply not true that alphas do not care what others think about their work. Also, I don't see that he cares what other people think about his work.

Yeah, that's true. So maybe you could argue that because he doesn't care what others think and Alphas do, then he's still not Alpha.

The main issue though is that he comes off differently from people commonly believed to be LII, so if he's LII, then you probably have to retype the others too. ...Which is okay, just flip everybody and it comes out about the same....

[consentingadult]

Basically the same phenomena are also described by mainstream psychology and even sociology. E.g. 'entitlement' (Extroverted sensing) and 'discomfort avoidance' (introverted sensing).

By the way, while it's very interesting to compare Socionics to various other psychological attributes. However, I think it's important to recognize the vast differences too. Socionics Se seems to bear some relationship to entitlement, but is not the same as it. Entitlement is a disorder; Se is not a disorder. Jung's original version of Se is completely different from entitlement.

Si is also different from discomfort avoidance. Again, IM elements are not in themselves disorders, but focus on a given IM element may predispose one to certain disorders. In Jung, Si has nothing to do with discomfort avoidance, and in Socionics, it's still not exactly the same thing. Some people see Si/Ne quadras in ways related to discomfort avoidance, but that's questionable. It's hard to believe that the skills associated with LSE, SLI, ESE, and SEI are due to some sort of avoidance disorder.

You are assuming that in my dictionary (or in those of psychologists), entitlement and discomfort avoidance are always disorders. This is not the case. Each of these phenomena have both healthy and pathological manifestations. But it is through the understanding of the pathological versions, we can understand and recognize healthy manifestations better.

[Jonathan]

You are assuming that in my dictionary (or in those of psychologists), entitlement and discomfort avoidance are always disorders. This is not the case. Each of these phenomena have both healthy and pathological manifestations. But it is through the understanding of the pathological versions, we can understand and recognize healthy manifestations better.

Okay. I admit I'm not an expert on them and just go on what I found on the internet. If you can post links to what these are about, that may be helpful. Still, if anything I read about discomfort avoidance is even close, it doesn't seem to be about sensing. If someone avoids situations that make the person uncomfortable, that doesn't have to do with sensing, and if someone avoids situations that cause moderate physical discomfort, that may be an indication the person is an intuitive type and is simply avoiding physical tasks as much as possible.

[consentingadult]

[quote=Jonathan;790917]

...if someone avoids situations that cause moderate physical discomfort, that may be an indication the person is an intuitive type and is simply avoiding physical tasks as much as possible.

Exactly: there are 8 functional positions in model A in which Si can manifest itself. all of them different!

I'm sorry, I can provide no specific links to resources on the internet. My knowledge framework is a huge assembly of information I collected and put together over the years, and can't be summarized with a few links.. There are a couple of books mentioned on my wiki user page, but that is only a tiny bit of what I've read and studied. But try the schema therapy book mentioned there, it will explain these phenomena in both their healthy and malfunctional manifestations, but it won't suffice: you will also have to study how other psychologists look at these thinks. Often, they think very much the same, but just with a slightly different twist, that allows you to create a framework of complementary knowlegde.

[tcaudilllg]

I agree with Crazed that science doesn't explain everything and just because it's published doesn't mean that there isn't more to learn about it.

Right here: that is the basis for socionics. In socionics, everything ultimately boils down to commonly recurring patterns of misinterpretation and disagreement, with type as the explanation for the recurrence. The patterns were observed first, and THEN the types were offered to explain the patterns.

[tcaudilllg]

@crazedratsshadow: I don't disagree. What I am questioning is the basis upon which the theory is built. Take the intertype relations, (imo among the most important contribution of the theory) which is based upon the validity of model A and the assumed complementarity of the functions. So long as the reason for such complementarity remain obscure, so too would everything remain relatively subjective: guesses and assumptions. Unfortunately, the prerequisite to understanding complementarity requires, in part being able to define the functions themselves. A task which have not made much headway, judging from the lack of clear understanding and consensus as to what the functions really "compose" of, which is exactly the "basis" to which I refer to in this thread.

No no no no the relations came first -- this was Augusta's unique talent, to perceive them -- and then came Model A as the explanation for them. Of course, she first wanted to see what might be underlying them, and Jung's was the only typology that existed. The shoe fit, and the rest is history.

Augusta was a marriage counselor. She made socionics as a tool for marriage treatment and advise. Then came Gulenko and Boukalov, who saw the theory as a means for, variously, increased understanding of human organizational behavior, and superior understanding of human intellect with associated ramifications for the nature of the universe. This was something of a departure from Augusta's original intentions, and judging by her letters (available at typelab.ru) she never quite bought into either view.

A brief reflection on why socionics, and Augusta, were failures: people take their marriages very seriously. They take love seriously. A minority of people end up marrying their dual. If it were otherwise, the word "compromise" wouldn't even come up in the context of marriage, because there would be no clash of priorities. Now imagine someone telling you that you and yours priorities were forever irreconcilable, and that this would lead to fights over the exact same things for as long as your marriage lasts. If you are pragmatic you will accept it... but if you are hopeful then this would dash it. You either have to give up the hope, or the science. Many people would choose the hope.

[Jonathan]

Exactly: there are 8 functional positions in model A in which Si can manifest itself. all of them different!

Ah, so for example if an IEI avoids various practical tasks that seem too "dry" (a fairly common IEI complaint), then you would consider that "Si role" and hence simply further reinforcement of the idea that Si = discomfort avoidance?

Seems counter-intuitive to me.

Now as to your apparent view that I'd have to master the entire field of psychology in order to understand your point about this one issue....It doesn't seem that would be necessary, if you just stated why you think Si = discomfort avoidance.

However, I'm wondering if you think that could also be seen in terms of a type difference between us...e.g.:
* Ti: One has to master every possible thing about the context of someone else's viewpoint to even be able to discuss it.
* Te: One should be able to find those things that are relevant to the discussion and put the key points "on the table" so to speak.

That's only one idea of the Ti/Te difference and not everyone would agree. I just notice that it's usually those people regarded as Alphas (or LII) on the forum who suggest that one needs to read 1,000 books, posts by the user, etc., to even question something, and Te types who believe that that they can critique or propose an idea based on a few key facts and explicitly stated definitions.

(An alternative view is that what I have above is for base-Ti only and that ELIs might think in a way closer to what I have as Te above.)

[consentingadult]

Exactly: there are 8 functional positions in model A in which Si can manifest itself. all of them different!

Ah, so for example if an IEI avoids various practical tasks that seem too "dry" (a fairly common IEI complaint), then you would consider that "Si role" and hence simply further reinforcement of the idea that Si = discomfort avoidance?

Seems counter-intuitive to me.

Now as to your apparent view that I'd have to master the entire field of psychology in order to understand your point about this one issue....It doesn't seem that would be necessary, if you just stated why you think Si = discomfort avoidance.

However, I'm wondering if you think that could also be seen in terms of a type difference between us...e.g.:
* Ti: One has to master every possible thing about the context of someone else's viewpoint to even be able to discuss it.
* Te: One should be able to find those things that are relevant to the discussion and put the key points "on the table" so to speak.

That's only one idea of the Ti/Te difference and not everyone would agree. I just notice that it's usually those people regarded as Alphas (or LII) on the forum who suggest that one needs to read 1,000 books, posts by the user, etc., to even question something, and Te types who believe that that they can critique or propose an idea based on a few key facts and explicitly stated definitions.

(An alternative view is that what I have above is for base-Ti only and that ELIs might think in a way closer to what I have as Te above.)

You do not have to master an entire field: you asked me if I could provide links to information, and I simply said I couldn't, for reasons stated. Aren't you actually projecting your own views on structure on me?

As to Si in relation to discomfort avoidance/comfort creation, the matter was discussed, although not in dept, in the following thread:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=36384

As to the Si-role manifestations in IEIs, do not put words into my mouth, since I never said anything along the line of reasoning you wrote on that.

[Jonathan]

As to the Si-role manifestations in IEIs, do not put words into my mouth, since I never said anything along the line of reasoning you wrote on that.

Sorry, it was not my intention to imply that you were saying anything about Si-role in IEI. I was simply trying to interpret what you said about the definition of Si as discomfort avoidance as being consistent with discomfort avoidance in N types because, as you mentioned, Si exists in 8 positions (e.g., in all types) in Model A. I merely gave an example of what that might mean for as IEI....attempting to reconcile typical understandings of IEI with your definition of Si. I did not and would not imply that you had said something you didn't say.

Aren't you actually projecting your own views on structure on me?

No, I was just stating a possible theory about the difference between Ti and Te, and how that manifests on the forum. It may or may not be correct. Basically, it's just an observation that people on the forum who self-type as Ti-oriented tend to argue by directing people to some broader context (like pointing out some other thread, etc.), whereas those who self-type as Te-oriented tend to argue specific points more explicitly. I don't know what your self typing is though, and there are various views of my type.

As to Si in relation to discomfort avoidance/comfort creation, the matter was discussed, although not in dept, in the following thread:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=36384

There, it appears that you define only "-Si" (Delta Si) as discomfort avoidance. Actually, if we were to clarify that it means specifically taking physical actions to minimize discomfort, rather than a tendency to avoid or procrastinate situations one finds uncomfortable, then it may make more sense.