Why is it that some types can see the connection between personality type and physiology and others can not?
What characteristics make certain types more prone to resist the idea of physiology as an indicator of personality?
VI
Why is it that some types can see the connection between personality type and physiology and others can not?
What characteristics make certain types more prone to resist the idea of physiology as an indicator of personality?
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Since you've argued repeatedly that as an EII you're a declaring type, go ahead and declare it all over us.Originally Posted by Maritsa33
There are several reasons for both questions.
Why is it that some types can see the connection between personality type and physiology and others can not?
Utilization of a method in approaching the subject matter allows some types to apply something to view it's consistency, is my best answer here. The reason why others can not may be due to refusing, valuing perception rather than analysis and conformity.
What characteristics make certain types more prone to resist the idea of physiology as an indicator of personality?
Resisting the idea of physiology as an indicator of personality again has several reason behind it, some more shallow and brief and others more deliberate and complicated. Where shallow, I would say that the person simply wants to deny it, for their own reasons; where more deliberate, I would say that the person wants to create a system outside of this, in which case, all their efforts to such a direction are directly contradictory to that of others.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Perception of relativity is your friend, Maritsa. Dont be afraid to hug it.
VI is unreliable. Even if it is true, it is an artform that very few can master. Many subtle signs hint to personality.
Socionics -
the16types.info
Please describe these INFjs
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Mary darling, you're embarassing.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I don't consider physiological traits to be too telling about cognitive patterns. Sure, there may be something to working out type based on pictures, but the way most people on this forum do it is merely say "You look like 'x' so I think you might be type 'y'." That's WRONG WRONG WRONG.
If anything, VI would rely on subtle indications that have nothing to do with physiological genealogy, such as facial expression and similar indications of emotions, though I'm not sure about this. I have heard several times before that the eyes are most telling concerning VI.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote