Honest Question
Does socionics measure innate type or behavior? I notice the type descriptions seem to rely on behavior - the external result, whereas the cognitive styles and Jungian types focus more on overall style of thought, IMO, I guess.
But I don't understand because what if I think and process the world holographically, but behavior-wise act IEI. Then what? Should a vortical synergistic feel internally they are holographic, a causal-deterministic dialectical-algorithmic, etc?
in principle it makes an account of the processes behind the behavior, but in practice it is not at all clear that doing so is within the realm of feasibility. most of the time arguing over what happens in a person "behind the scenes" seeds controversy and doesn't lead to clear consensi among students of socionics. decide for yourself whether you want down that road and join the zombie horde.Does socionics measure innate type or behavior? I notice the type descriptions seem to rely on behavior - the external result, whereas the cognitive styles and Jungian types focus more on overall style of thought, IMO, I guess.
your interpretation of how you process information in terms of "cognitive styles" is clearly the more dubious factor here.But I don't understand because what if I think and process the world holographically, but behavior-wise act IEI. Then what? Should a vortical synergistic feel internally they are holographic, a causal-deterministic dialectical-algorithmic, etc?
Yeah, but I guess I would like to know what people consider socionics to be then. For some reason, maybe for the sake of personas, I feel like it's an important distinction to be able to make. I have a feeling this is the basis for Tcaud's dual-type idea, even if he disagrees with me.Originally Posted by labocat
I honestly don't know if I can agree with you on this. It seems to some people typing generally consists of people looking at the core concepts, which I regard as superficial, like quadra values and simple function definitions and put more weight on that, generating an approximated estimation of a type that could be theoretically precise in the given framework, but have terrible pragmatic accuracy due to bias of how the theory is perceived. The fact that there are different schools of thought and ways of looking at what the functions represent on the fundamental level speaks volumes to me about what is fundamentally incoherent with socionics.your interpretation of how you process information in terms of "cognitive styles" is clearly the more dubious factor here.
The cognitive styles seem to be the least convoluted and pragmatic to use. I guess that is just my opinion, but when I see a certain style being used in a rather extreme way to the point that there is no question about it, I am kind of amazed that Gulenko came up with it because it's clearly there for me, whereas everything else in socionics and a lot of the posters here feel like a con-man trying to sell me on an idea or personal vision - especially Ashton.
It's somewhat unfortunate that what you say happens here, but I don't think socionics as a theory itself is bad. It works pretty well for most people I know. I've got a lot of shit in my head, my life, and past, so I'm not going to be too hard on the theory for not fitting me well into it. But anyway, no logic is perfect, it just has to be accurate. I guess you fall under similar circumstances that I do? Do you not find it helpful in at least understanding other people a bit? I do or I wouldn't still be posting here; I keep coming back because of that. I do kind of ignore the relations though and just like typing people so I know how they perceive the world. I think some people get hung up on the relations because they are a mathematical suggestion and nothing more - I know I did originally.
Here is a link to how useful different dichotomies and quaternions (including cognitive styles) are in diagnosing type (as well as the level of development of each idea): Source
Forms of thinking is the title of Gulenko's article on cognitive styles.№ Well conceived theoretical Practical developmental work Practical applicability Diagnosis
3 Form of thinking ---------- high ---------- average ---------- average ---------- heavy
"Heavy" in the diagnosis column is the lowest value. (You can check this by comparing the highs/lows in the 3 other columns). Therefore, according to the author of them, cognitive styles is one of the last things you should rely on to diagnose type.
Rated highest (or "lung" as it is written) is of course the four Jungian Dichotomies (As well as the Temperaments, and Clubs [Installation]), which are always the easiest to use to ascertain type. Most of the other stuff will be entirely confusing if read without first diagnosing type using the Jungian Dichotomies. Forget everything you know and start with the basics!
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
You can optionally do that [1] but you end-up with an inconsistent data learned by heart that has no use, except eventually to debate over its literal meaning. IMO the descriptions, together with the theory - namely when you read something about Te, as an IE and a function, you read something about *all* the types!
Basically, IMO you have to put your findings together, to analyze it and figure out what's it all about as a whole, because a sociotype is not an extensive class, merely a collection behavioral traits, but a (ought be consistent) model on which the personality of someone is based on. One needs to see the reason behind the behavior, that's it. It OFTEN happens that people do the same thing out of totally different reasons [2], that is the point, to figure out that mindset. The "facts" in the descriptions, like "type x may do this and that", are merely examples of what that type may do, its inclination.
So, Socionics is not about a literal meaning of the descriptions, and this is official, but no one can stop one (mistakenly) doing so.
---
[1] - but it's a mistake; you'd not be the first or the last to do it, though it is not because of Socionics itself.
[2] - if type related, in such case in Socionics it generally is an indicative that the types are different, rather than the same.
As a rule of thumb, I consider Socionics what Aushra wrote/said. Anyone can come later and make claims in the name of Socionics, these things may be reasonable or not, it's up to you to judge from here, people just tell you their objections.
Any IP shouldn't view their cognitive style as its described in Holographic Panoramic. You're not a dynamic type if you see it in Panoramic, because to see in that fashion you must be using information gathered from an Extraverted percieving function. IP's dont do that.
Read up on IEI VS and HP. One of them doesn't think what you think it means.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote