View Poll Results: Select the appropriate response

Voters
5. You may not vote on this poll
  • I belong to group B or group C ; realistic impersonation of a false type is impossible

    3 60.00%
  • I belong to group B or group C ; realistic impersonation of a false type is possible

    0 0%
  • I belong to group A

    2 40.00%
  • I disagree with the premise

    0 0%
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Type Impersonation

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    too far
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Type Impersonation

    Virtually all socionists believe type manifests as both patterns in functional competence (dimensionality of function) and patterns of functional preference. Socionists differ, however, with respect to their interpretations of the origins of these observable patterns. Some socionists (Group A) believe type is determined by one's innate preferences/level-of-comfort with respect to different sorts of information and that apparent functional competence is not innate, but a consequence of these preferences. Others socionists (Group B) believe type is determined by asymmetries in innate competence and that one's functional preferences result from these asymmetries in natural ability. A third group socionists (Group C) feel that functional strengths and functional preferences are co-determined, that neither can rightly be interpreted as a deterministic of the other. A final group of socionists consists of individuals who have not given the question any serious thought and do not know where they stand in the matter. I dare say the majority of you fall into this final group. Further, if forced to take a position, I imagine most of you would describe yourselves as "co-determinists" (group C) or adherents to the "innate-competence determines preferences" school of thought (group B). I strongly doubt that many of you adhere to a "preferences determine strengths" interpretation (group A).

    If you belong to group B or C, by definition you believe functional competence is intrinsic to type. Logically, you should also believe that type cannot realistically be faked since no amount of effort or concentration can overcome an intrinsic deficit in functional competence. Is this the general consensus among members of this forum?
    Last edited by chrisalys; 01-06-2012 at 12:54 AM.

  2. #2
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm effectively a member of Group C (if type is not inborn, it arises so early in the first year or two of childhood that it makes no difference in practice). However, the question is hard to answer because I'm not sure what you mean by "realistic impersonation of a false type". If you mean like an actor on stage or in a movie, then yes, it's possible for a skilled actor to realistically fake another type. There might be some types which can't be faked in that way (I suspect it would be hard to convincingly impersonate your Conflictor or Supervisor, due to the weakness of the Vulnerable function), but certainly it's possible for some types.

    However, if you mean faked in the sense of living and interacting with people in real life, long-term, and convincing people that you're competent in areas in which you're really not, then no. It might be possible short-term, but eventually your lack of ability to improvise and innovate in your weak functions, and your unease with your unvalued functions, will show through.

    People do wear psychological masks (Jung's "Persona"), but these can't entirely hide one's inner type from a keen observer.

    In other words, you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

    I'm just not sure which poll option that makes me...
    Quaero Veritas.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    too far
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    I'm effectively a member of Group C (if type is not inborn, it arises so early in the first year or two of childhood that it makes no difference in practice). However, the question is hard to answer because I'm not sure what you mean by "realistic impersonation of a false type". If you mean like an actor on stage or in a movie, then yes, it's possible for a skilled actor to realistically fake another type. There might be some types which can't be faked in that way (I suspect it would be hard to convincingly impersonate your Conflictor or Supervisor, due to the weakness of the Vulnerable function), but certainly it's possible for some types.

    However, if you mean faked in the sense of living and interacting with people in real life, long-term, and convincing people that you're competent in areas in which you're really not, then no. It might be possible short-term, but eventually your lack of ability to improvise and innovate in your weak functions, and your unease with your unvalued functions, will show through.

    People do wear psychological masks (Jung's "Persona"), but these can't entirely hide one's inner type from a keen observer.

    In other words, you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

    I'm just not sure which poll option that makes me...
    That makes you the first poll option.

  4. #4
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Cool.
    Quaero Veritas.

  5. #5
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    764
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You can't fool yourself, or Ashton for that matter.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    too far
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    What a clusterfuck of a poll. Which one do I pick if I think "type impersonation" / "type personas" are an entirely bogus hypothesis that merely reflect a diagnostician's inability to type?
    Let me get this straight. You are saying that a hypothetical scenario in which an individual intentionally misrepresents his/her type (or otherwise behaves against his nature for the sake of deception) is "an entirely bogus hypothesis that merely reflects a diagnostician's inability to type?" If this is the case, I don't know what to tell you as you've failed not only to respond to the question posed but also to state anything remotely intelligible. Better luck next time.

    Also, ashton, you really need to work on reading between the lines. Its no great surprise lots of people refuse to consider you an intuitive type. You are clearly intelligent, and yet so much flies miles over your head. Focus, Ashton, focus.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    too far
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    There might be some types which can't be faked in that way (I suspect it would be hard to convincingly impersonate your Conflictor or Supervisor, due to the weakness of the Vulnerable function), but certainly it's possible for some types.
    I've been told I can play the part of gamma NT. What do you think about that?

  8. #8
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is a Socionics article that references 'type impersonation' which has to do with Beneficiaries and Benefactors. It might be one of the articles siuntal translated.
    (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

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    too far
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    There is a Socionics article that references 'type impersonation' which has to do with Beneficiaries and Benefactors. It might be one of the articles siuntal translated.
    I'll check it out. SEEEE Ashton I told you such a thing existed

    now where was I. Oh, yeah. Did you have an opinion on the question I asked eyeseecold?

  10. #10
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    There is a Socionics article that references 'type impersonation' which has to do with Beneficiaries and Benefactors. It might be one of the articles siuntal translated.
    Ah, yeah, it was called "imitation", and there might be a few more articles on it but here's the one I was referring to:

    Quote Originally Posted by siuntal View Post

    On vectors of social progress - Dovgan (translation)

    4. Social and psychological meaning of relations of request and revision [benefit and supervision]


    The essential social value of relations of benefit/request lies in activating effect that the benefactor has on beneficiary, a forced inclusion in socially meaningful activities and in informational imitation by the benefactor of the beneficiary that allows for the quadra progression to happen.

    The essential social value of relations of revision/supervision lies on one hand in the correction of the fulfillment of the request by the supervisor and in suppression of inadequate behavior of the revisee, and on the other hand in assisting supervisee in resolving problems that are too difficult to him to solve.

    In my opinion, the informational and energy transactions should both be considered.

    Social request provides the energy transfer from the benefactor to the beneficiary, unilateral unconscious programming by the benefactor of the activities of the beneficiary, including him into work. Benefactor creatively and suggestively influences the beneficiary (transaction between functions 2 and 5), pushing on the behaviorist energy lever that works according to the principle of "stimulus-response" (transaction between 1st and 8th functions), thus activating work of the vital ring of beneficiary. Beneficiary automatically tries to realize the programming that was passed onto him by benefactor.

    While energy moves from benefactor to beneficiary, information travels in the opposite direction. Benefactor inspects abilities of the beneficiary and in some time tries to imitate them. Beneficiary thus activates the benefactor (transaction from 1st to 6th function) transferring over the information about creative methods of action (transaction f2->f7) that extend and widen narrow standards of the benefactor in the aspects of 7th function, as well as give a simpler but more adequate program of behavior for benefactor's 4th function (transaction from 7th to 4th function).

    Thus in the ring of benefit there is one-sided automatic unwinding of the energy on account of benefactor exerting influence on behavioral lever of beneficiary f1->f8 (in quasi-identical relations this energy unwinding is mutual, the request is sent both ways).

    Revision or social control transfers information from revisor to revisee, enabling the movement of information along the mental ring. Revisor transfers information from 1st function to the weak 4th function of revisee, and receives information reinforcement of its 2nd function. At the same time the energy is switched off, which manifests as demoralization of the revisee as revisor shuts off the revisee (f1->f8). Revisee unconsciously influences the revisor (f8->f5) and offers an acceptable program (f7->f8). Revisor from one hand corrects inadequate behavior of the revisee and from the other hand offers support in revisee's inadequate 4th function.

    Thus in rings of benefit and revision the energy and information are moving in different directions. In relations of request/benefit, the energy is transferred from beneficiary to benefactor, forming a chain of one-sided activation, while in relations of revision the energy moves from revisee to revisor, forming one-sided chain of protection, when revisor catches the flag that the revisee is no longer able to carry forward.

    At the same time, information is moving in the opposite direction. In relations of request/benefit, information moves from beneficiary to the benefator. In this sense, what occurs is called "reverse request" (term introduced by Gulenko), the main social attribute of which is imitation,due to which the values of one quadra are transferred to the next one within society or organization. For example, an EIE benefactor will imitate an SEE beneficiary, losing its ideological angle and becoming infused by values of freedom and prosperity. LSI benefactor will imitate an ILI, become more cautious, skeptical, pragmatic.

    The main part of the transaction of "reverse request" is in transfer from 2nd to 7th function. Beneficiary creatively shows the benefactor examples of new kind of behavior. 7th function is normative, it accrues the knowledge and know-how of others, adjusts values, it also possesses dual type of thinking.

    Also:
    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor Socionics PhD View Post
    Gulenko's blog entry of 22.10.2010.

    http://goul.socionics.kiev.ua/2010/1...li-nevyigodno/
    And:

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    (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

  11. #11
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gnarlycharlie View Post
    Did you have an opinion on the question I asked eyeseecold?
    I might not have understood your opening prompt correctly, but I'll go ahead.

    I think type is composed of the following: a structure of function dimensionality or capacity, which is basically the Strong/Weak dichotomy. Then there is functional preference which is Valued/Unvalued. Lastly, functional focus which is Conscious/Unconscious. Preference-focus-capacity; all of these together produces distinct competencies which are the 16 types.

    With that said, I agree that type impersonation is possible. Although one's functions are always (Strong/)Weak, (Valued/)Unvalued, and (Conscious/)Unconscious, it's possible for a person to adopt a persona of another type in regards to behavior - imitation through observation, either intentionally or reactively. Not to mention unconscious and sporadic psychological manifestations that faintly hint at other neighbouring types.
    Last edited by EyeSeeCold; 01-06-2012 at 12:13 PM.
    (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

  12. #12
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gnarlycharlie View Post
    I've been told I can play the part of gamma NT. What do you think about that?
    Well, I don't know you or what type you are, etc., so I can't comment on your case specifically. But hypothetically you might be able to impersonate some other type for a while, with varying levels of success, depending on things like the circumstances involved, whether you're using weak or strong functions, how much practice you've had and how well you've honed your skill for impersonation, etc. However, an observant person, if they observe you for long enough, would eventually realize that your Gamma NT role is just a surface-level persona, and the real you is something different.

    This actually happens fairly frequently, although the people involved usually have no knowledge of socionics and are not intentionally trying to deceive one another. Often first impressions are based on the social role one plays, and can be dramatically incorrect. One could argue that the plot of Pride and Prejudice, for example, involves a case of a woman misreading a man's personality due to a mistaken first impression, and eventually realizing her mistake as she learns more of his true personality.
    Quaero Veritas.

  13. #13
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    tldr

  14. #14
    "Cool Mafia Godfather" ~SLE Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    TIM
    ESTp 8
    Posts
    918
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Its both, but type cannot be faked.

  15. #15
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is hard to answer because of some unclear areas in the premises.

    First, "authentic impersonation" should be defined, here I gather it is a matter of how much knowledge an observer has about the subject. If the researcher finds ways to look behind the courtain, would he find the real type or not? Is it an empirical argument which maybe is confused for a rational one? This seems to me to be the case, but things in themselves, which Socionics theorizes about (and models) but which cannot be known, should not be confused with the phenomena (our observations). Indeed, a thought experiment can be used to form a convincing intuitive opinion by means of demonstration, just I see no such thing anywhere in the premises. For example, do we talk about a hypothetical ability to follow a subject undetected all the time, or the possibility to detect experimentally what he feels or how he reasons, or do we talk only about realistic casual interaction?

    Another thing that's not clear to me is how is it supposed to understand what "strength" mean. My personal approach is to call as such the easiness to process or accept a certain type of information, but which cannot directly translate in concrete actions of practical abilities (ie "good at math"). On the contrary, I found out that these more low-level strengths can have opposite outcomes out there, for instance the same mindset can render someone law compliant, another one a law breaker (that's his strict rule). Calmness and indifference can make workaholic as well as a lazy person. Socionics is a cognitive model and its descriptions are nothing more than keys to understand all its possible configurations, therefore since no behavioral pattern should be taken as a guarantee of the type of a person by itself, I would not think to use them as evidence, but as elements in constructing reasons for my belief.

    Assuming that we talk about the cultural meaning of competence, I relate to Group A. That's because since I understand the type as merely a preference, even within Socionic's particular meaning and even if instinctual, any relation to different concrete competences is arbitrary. Of course it is understandable for the people belonging to a type to have great chances to develop similar strengths in similar situations, but that's because they are inclined to make similar choices that train them in a certain direction, otherwise nothing is determined in advance.

    But then again, the way I truly understand "strength" of a type is different than the above, the ones I'm talking about are not absolute, but depend on the aspect that is extracted from the actual information based on a context, one's personal preference (type) being one such context. Taking the simples case, the one of contradictory IEs ('conflicting"), they can be separated into two opposite systems of evaluation, say "reason to believe P" (External: S, T) VS "no reason to disbelieve Q" (Internal: N, F) [1], where P and Q have same nature [2]. So based on Socionics itself, it sounds impossible to find common ground for an absolute reference, how can something convince that it is possible to talk about absolute strengths pertaining to the Sociotype when their view is dependent on the Value or Strength of the IAs?
    ---

    [1] - only an analogy.
    [2] - say either experimental or formal, either discursive or intuitive/common-sense, and so on.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  16. #16
    Cat Lady aixelsyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    488
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default My username is wookie

    And I am a humanist before I am a socionist.

    I don't doubt that individuals may try to adopt superficial characteristics of others but this can occur with regard to identicals as well as persons of any other type because of the unlimited diversity between individuals regardless of type.

    It may be easier for indenticals to adopt each others expressions and mannerisms and it may be more common for beneficiaries to try and adopt basic attitudes of the benefactor, but I would hardly call it type impersonation as it is people imitation. After all, we learn what we do, in early life, from imitation. It's only natural. Perhaps imitated behavior can have socionics implications, but I feel it's more as to how people are given the option to augment their present way of thinking about things and projecting themselves.

    Certainly this tendency can result in type confusion so long as we fail to notice and to differentiate behavior that is spontaneous and, in a sense, natural,( coupled with ways of perceiving the world in ways an individual is most competent)from behavior and mode of perception that is borne out of an individual's striving to go beyond their home world, in a sense, and see things from a different angle while engaging functions that may be weaker in terms of Model A.
    Last edited by aixelsyd; 01-07-2012 at 01:05 AM.
    Life's a bitch and she's got me pussy whipped.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    too far
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Or you're just a dyslexic retard. No great surprise, hurrr, since you apparently can't be fucked to make coherent use of line breaks in your OP.
    lol

    Bro, just cause fig Newton's candidacy is tanking doesn't mean you need to get all bent out of shape.


    Let's try this again in less complicated words: Anybody who takes the feat of 'type impersonation' seriously, probably can't type very well.

    Interesting theory you got there. You even went to the trouble of explaining it clearly this time. Nice work. I'm still not sure what you mean by "take seriously," but it's cool. I'll roll with it.

    Anyway, I take it you consider yourself a poor typer. Wait...what's that? You consider yourself an above average typer? Huh, that's odd. You have, after all, repeatedly accused Gul of impersonating an ethical type (cause he supposedly adores Fe) and ESC of impersonating ILI (cause he supposedly imagines himself the second coming of Carl Jung). Wouldn't that make you the sort of person "who takes the feat of 'type impersonation' seriously?"
    Perhaps you draw the distinction that impersonation necessarily involves self awareness of one's deception. If such is the case, you have successfully eluded the hypocrite label, but you still qualify as a grade A thread derailer; nothing you have written, after all, is remotely relevant to the question posed. Did you think I had asked forum members their opinion regarding the level of corresponding between competence in typing and how seriously a person takes "the feat of type impersonation?" I'm gonna go ahead and answer that rhetorical myself. No, ashton, you didn't think that. Without little consideration, you judged the contents of this thread in addition to its author useless/personally-distasteful and figured you'd jump at the opportunity to play little ms. know-all who thinks she's too cool for school.

    Well I've got news for you ashton, you've much to learn and you're certainly not too cool for school. So, kiddo, kindly do yourself a favor and put on that big-boy thinking cap of yours. It's time to start putting those brains of yours to good use

  18. #18
    24601 ClownsandEntropy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    TIM
    LII, 5w6
    Posts
    670
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton
    Anybody who takes the feat of 'type impersonation' seriously, probably can't type very well.
    So you think it's impossible for anyone to accomplish type impersonation (and hence the feat should not be taken seriously)? I would put you in the first category, unless I'm missing something?

    Anyway, I feel like I'm Category B, and think true type impersonation impossible (although people can, say, change their speech to how they think a different type would speak, it would really only be achievable online or with limited interaction).
    Warm Regards,



    Clowns & Entropy

  19. #19
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You can, but it takes more effort to be something that goes against natural instincts. I can only imagine such people ending up much more of a neurotic mess for it.

  20. #20
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    ESC and Gulanzon have been walking case examples of how type impersonations aren't convincing. Check the Typings Spreadsheet: Abysmally few people on this forum buy into ESC's ILI self-typing, and plenty of eyebrows have been raised against Gulanzon being an ethical type.
    Eh, you could also say it is an example of why argumentum ad populum is not reliable; and an example of cognitive biases affluent on the forum, especially the bandwagon effect.

    Unless there's a way to objectively and definitively type(of which there is not), you could take either approach.



    I should get a copyright on ESC/EyeSeeCold @t16t, collect on all the namedroppings.
    (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

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    too far
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Looks like you missed the operative word 'feat' in what I said—i.e., achieving actual success.

    I'm arguing that the average person isn't going to be very successful at impersonating another type in a compelling way, no matter how diligently they may try. What I'm saying has nothing intrinsic to do with my personal typing ability.
    Oh ok, sure. I don't think this is what you were saying earlier, but whatevs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    My stance sounds the same as yours, I think—that obviously some do attempt type impersonation to varying degrees of deliberateness, and that they may manage to convince some people (particularly themselves ofc) under some conditions they are indeed that type. But it's a brittle self-concept (or calculated persona) that'll tend to break down under scrutiny of intertype relations, observed real-world dynamics, etc. There's only so much a person can fake well enough and long enough to get away with it.
    So you do understand what the poll is asking! good work. Now you just have to fill out option one as your selection and you'll be good to go! See, wearing that thinking cap does good things for you )


    Further, I think sociotypes manifest many subtle nuances which would be extremely difficult even for trained, professional actors to mimic convincingly. Which is interesting IMO, but I'll stop here for now.
    Let me let you in on something. People are far more suggestible than you probably imagine. Play into a man's subconscious expectations and he'll never second guess a false persona. People seek consistency and they'll overlook the pieces that don't fit.

    The question isn't whether it is possible to deceive others (it is). The question is whether a given type can successfully affect the strong functions of a different type.
    Last edited by chrisalys; 01-07-2012 at 10:45 AM.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    too far
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    I might not have understood your opening prompt correctly, but I'll go ahead.

    I think type is composed of the following: a structure of function dimensionality or capacity, which is basically the Strong/Weak dichotomy. Then there is functional preference which is Valued/Unvalued. Lastly, functional focus which is Conscious/Unconscious. Preference-focus-capacity; all of these together produces distinct competencies which are the 16 types.

    With that said, I agree that type impersonation is possible. Although one's functions are always (Strong/)Weak, (Valued/)Unvalued, and (Conscious/)Unconscious, it's possible for a person to adopt a persona of another type in regards to behavior - imitation through observation, either intentionally or reactively. Not to mention unconscious and sporadic psychological manifestations that faintly hint at other neighbouring types.
    Which means you fall into either group C or B, depending upon whether you believe functional preference and conscious/unconscious are secondary to functional strength. Now, if you believe an individual can authentically imitate the functional stack of a different type, then select the second poll option. If not, select the first poll option.


    I should get a copyright on ESC/EyeSeeCold @t16t, collect on all the namedroppings
    It doesn't work that way ya goof. The United States grants no right to personal privacy and certainly grants no right to collect payment on conversational usage of your name, image, likeness, or personal slogans.

    If it did, I'd file a claim on ISeeCold and call you that
    Last edited by chrisalys; 01-09-2012 at 10:59 AM.

  23. #23
    "Cool Mafia Godfather" ~SLE Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    TIM
    ESTp 8
    Posts
    918
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Type impersonation is impossible.

  24. #24
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I gather that if you give the man a high enough stake and two dichotomously opposite options, something insightful will happen.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  25. #25
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gnarlycharlie View Post
    Which means you fall into either group C or B, depending upon whether you believe functional preference and conscious/unconscious are secondary to functional strength. Now, if you believe an individual can authentically imitate the functional stack of a different type, then select the second poll option. If not, select the first poll option.
    I'm still not sure of your categories, but no I don't agree that you can authentically take on another functional configuration, because you can not reset your own. You can however adopt behavior and thinking patterns; including there being functional reasons allowing type similarity.
    (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

  26. #26
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    Ah, yeah, it was called "imitation", and there might be a few more articles on it but here's the one I was referring to:




    Also:


    And:
    This too: http://www.socioniks.net/biblioteka/7/kolca_zakaza.html
    Last edited by EyeSeeCold; 01-12-2012 at 11:45 AM.
    (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

Posting Permissions

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