Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: Why you're not who you think you are

  1. #1
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,624
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default Why you're not who you think you are

    http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...think-you-are/

    Much of the information that introspection generates is fleeting, on-the-fly construction at a particular point in time: how we think we feel, why we guess we’ve made the choices we have. By looking inward, we don’t gain access to a stable set of impressions regarding an unwavering, authentic self. We produce a temporary status report.
    What does this mean as far as typology is concerned? what about analyzing what people report about themselves for type?

  2. #2
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Nothing, typology pretty much tells you that you don't really know who you are.

    Socionics basically says, you are how you process information and communicate with others.

  3. #3
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The trouble I've found with "who am I" is that it's almost entirely dependent on my current mood. If I'm in a pissy mood, then I'll describe myself as pissy; if I've achieved some great accomplishment, I'll think of myself in reference to how great I think I am at the moment.
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  4. #4
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    this is why I gave up on taking personality tests. depending on my mood, and what context I want to think about or timeframe, I can answer anywhere from agree to disagree on a significant number of questions.

  5. #5
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    189: My answers to various questions can vary greatly based on my mood

    Disagree|--------|--------|Agree
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  6. #6
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,624
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think its more than "mood."

    If people don't know stuff about themselves they're likely to just make it up.

    styles of thinking and taking in information from the world are pretty fluffy things. the sort of things people would have to make up lol.

    I'm curious if anyone even clicked the link.

  7. #7
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That website carries ads for Abilify

    do not trust
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kassie View Post
    http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...think-you-are/

    What does this mean as far as typology is concerned? what about analyzing what people report about themselves for type?
    The study seems to be describing an irrational perception of reality, according to what I have understood from this page.

    http://www.socionics.us/theory/rat_irr.shtml

    I'm not sure what's the point she is making anyway. All I could make of it is that she encourages growth and an awareness of what that entails.

    Another interesting entry from the same author. I'm guessing she is IEE, from the things she write about or reference.

    http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...ouse-yourself/

  9. #9
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's no reason to believe what a random professor says about such a complex topic.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think I am who I am. Does that mean I don't think I am who I am, anymore?

  11. #11
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,624
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    It wasn't about trust lol. anybody who has spent more than a few days on this forum should see its just obvious. if I didn't bring type into this you guys would have responded way differently.

    Lame.

  12. #12
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,624
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    I'm not sure what's the point she is making anyway. All I could make of it is that she encourages growth and an awareness of what that entails.
    No, not really. Theres nothing to "encourage." growth happens.

  13. #13
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Psychology is a (very) soft science, "studies say" is kinda meaningless...
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  14. #14
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As far as typology is concerned, the article does not necessarily negate personality typing.

    While there is a flexible, changeable, and contextual aspect to personality, there is also a universal and unchanging aspect to personality. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Underneath the personality changes over a period of time there is a constant theme, or "information metabolism" that can be identified. The context is approached in a similar manner in each instance, even if that approach is more refined over time.

    While individuals may report themselves to be "this" or "that" depending on context, it is important for type tests to ask a series of questions which help the test interpreter to identify the consistent themes which underlay the answers. Think of typology as time-lapse photography of people.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  15. #15
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,624
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Finally. somebody actually gets it.

    I think there are certain core things in our self concept that are pretty static yeah. but when somebody is asked to describe themselves at any given point in time whatever they have to say in general probably isn't a description of Who They Are.

    I want to say more but I'm not sure how to articulate and I have to finish getting ready for work which is probably for the best lol

    Edit. this is re: Ashtons post

  16. #16
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kassie View Post
    Finally. somebody actually gets it.

    I think there are certain core things in our self concept that are pretty static yeah. but when somebody is asked to describe themselves at any given point in time whatever they have to say in general probably isn't a description of Who They Are.

    I want to say more but I'm not sure how to articulate and I have to finish getting ready for work which is probably for the best lol

    Edit. this is re: Ashtons post
    It seems like I am just as likely, when prompted to consider my own personality, to see things that are currently troubling or unintegrated, or things that I have been habitually told about myself but that are untrue (something that can happen in circumstances of oppression), as to recognize constant core qualities. After all, the core is something I'm apt to take for granted because it feels natural. So if I were feeling very optimistic about socionics and other personality theories, I could say that maybe one way they can benefit me is by helping me, over time, sort this out by seeing what core traits I might be ignoring, and understanding that some of my self-concepts are off-base--identifying potential strengths and weaknesses.

    But I did say "if." For that to work, clarity, precision, and insight would all be required, and to the extent that I don't know myself, I may lack those qualities, setting up a vicious cycle.

    Luckily, socionoics is science! It will def save us.
    Last edited by golden; 03-23-2012 at 09:13 PM.

  17. #17
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,624
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think mariano and confimed make good points.

    I think the problem this lays out for the more ontological typers is that the things they measure are way too prone to change over time. and the biggest problem I have with them is when humans become too difficult to classify and inconvenient for them they throw it on the humans instead of acknowledging the truth that they're trying to stuff a cloud into a jar. like esc saying I'm not the same, that I have teeth, like I didn't have any before and I just grew them or slapped in a set of plastic ones from the Halloween store. people will not avoid adaptation and mood and growth just to make things more convenient for you. if you can't work with that its a problem of your system or your mind not them.

    The problem for the more, what's it called? phenomenoligical? approach is that I end up faced with questions like how firmly do I visualize concepts and are my internal frameworks more implicit or explicit. what the fuck. I think anyone who can confidently answer questions like this is either good at mind fucking themselves or lying. this is just not the kind of shit people know about themselves or can honestly compare to other peoples experiences.

    I guess I'm just ranting about socionics again (I thought I wouldn't do this!) but I think the concept outlined in the article is self-evident and is the thread that ties all this crap together. we don't really know ourselves in a way that can be articulately described. and if we think we do, its just temporary.

    I think some people can find important patterns in people like is needed for typing but honestly I think its just a skill of insightful people and socionics just gets in the way and there are very few people with that capability here.

  18. #18
    ■■■■■■ Radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,574
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kassie View Post
    The problem for the more, what's it called? phenomenoligical? approach is that I end up faced with questions like how firmly do I visualize concepts and are my internal frameworks more implicit or explicit. what the fuck. I think anyone who can confidently answer questions like this is either good at mind fucking themselves or lying. this is just not the kind of shit people know about themselves or can honestly compare to other peoples experiences.
    oh hello there polr, looking chipper today i see

  19. #19
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,624
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    :| no

  20. #20
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The article
    Complete this statement five times: “I am _____________.”
    1. Logical
    2. Not a dragon
    3. Human
    4. Male
    5. Bored

    Quote Originally Posted by The article
    If you were given this same test tomorrow or a few years from now or in a different place, do you think your answers would be the same?
    No way. For example, I would probably not even mention that I was human, and the fact that I am not a grapefruit will probably eventually place if I am asked this question enough times.

    ...

    While a single moment of introspection may be (okay, is) suspect, many instances of introspection over time (basically, a large sample size) can do a great job of predicting what is always going to come up in a "status report". And what is always true of you at any given moment... is who you are.

    I went back and re-read just the parts that are direct quotes from Sommers, and they seem to be quite reasonable and to actually make the point that I just made. However, I think the journalist doesn't really get it.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  21. #21
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kassie
    The problem for the more, what's it called? phenomenoligical? approach is that I end up faced with questions like how firmly do I visualize concepts and are my internal frameworks more implicit or explicit. what the fuck. I think anyone who can confidently answer questions like this is either good at mind fucking themselves or lying. this is just not the kind of shit people know about themselves or can honestly compare to other peoples experiences.
    it seems to me that this kind of self-report is exactly what the article is criticizing. its actually harder to argue that the criticism applies to the opposite approach since it explicitly mentions introspection and self-report. if you'd want to take the article maximally seriously you'd have to ignore what people say about themselves entirely and focus just on what you can observe about their actions, making inferences as to what happens on a behind-the-scenes level on that basis only. but as you mention this has it's own set of challenges and imperfections.

    anyway i think this thread gets at another one of those things that make socionics complicated but don't strictly debunk it. the general lesson being to adjust your priors for diminished trust in the accuracy of typings. there's no shame in typing a person as IxFj every once in a while.

  22. #22
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kassie View Post
    I think the problem this lays out for the more ontological typers...

    The problem for the more, what's it called? phenomenoligical?...
    Some people don't realise that Socionics has nothing in common with phenomenology because Socionics does not describe consciousness, nor do the functions. Model A, and information metabolism are a model and a theory, and by definition are excluded from consideration as "consciousness".

    The problem is with Socionics claiming to be a science, when it is actually an ontological system. Contemporary science dismisses metaphysics and ontology, so Socionics is therefore unscientific. Some people are just better than others at trying to stuff a cloud into a jar, and seeing patterns in the midst of chaos.

    The forum should therefore be a place to practice, and get feedback while perhaps successfully self-typing along the way.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Neither intaking information or generating influence is better or worse, you should do both and it is situational when to do either. Every information form has its flaws when it's applied wrongly. So the article, by proclaiming a person is an introvert, is prescribing a single information form to a persons whole reality, and that is a misapplication. Then the article goes on to report that an error exists in introversion, when they made the error. Doing socionics is a waste of time; learning psychology and reading these allegedly scientific articles is a waste of time.

  24. #24
    ■■■■■■ Radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,574
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Anyone who has any ego-consciousness at all takes it for granted that he knows himself. But the ego knows only its own contents, not the unconscious and its contents. People measure their self-knowledge by what the average person in their social environment knows of himself, but not by the real psychic facts which are for the most part hidden from them. In this respect the psyche behaves like the body, of whose physiological and anatomical structure the average person knows very little too. ["The Undiscovered Self," CW 10, par. 491.]
    — Jung

  25. #25
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,624
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    i.e., coming up with an explanation on the spot for why you think you liked a pair of socks, probably doesn't have a lot to do with knowing your own personality tendencies; these are two very different natures of intrapersonal knowledge IMO.
    i just saw this added on. i agree for some circumstances and disagree for others. like if somebody displays traits characteristic of heavy introversion and describes themselves as an introvert, okay, thats pretty trustworthy. generally. but if somebody is asked the kinds of questions that come up in type determination then its not any different from the sock thing at all.

    i mean anything from "do you prefer someone in your life to worry about your physical welfare or to provide you with logic?" to "do you experience sensory input in a more subjective or objective fashion?" lol nobody KNOWS this shit, it doesn't cross anybodys minds to entertain these kinds of dichotomies until theyre ASKED. and then they're going to just make something up, EXACTLY like the sock thing. and if they're already inclined toward a certain type you can guess what kind of answer they'll probably come up with. because theyre just human.

  26. #26
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,624
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    also by "asked" i don't necessarily mean literally asked, not always. i mean, at the least, prompted to consider those kinds of questions because they're here in the first place.

  27. #27
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well yeah those questions are pretty lame, but tests are designed by humans, they are by no means perfect.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  28. #28
    Fuck-up NewBorn STAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    TIM
    me>> Augusta whore
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  29. #29
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Some people don't realise that Socionics has nothing in common with phenomenology because Socionics does not describe consciousness, nor do the functions. Model A, and information metabolism are a model and a theory, and by definition are excluded from consideration as "consciousness".

    The problem is with Socionics claiming to be a science, when it is actually an ontological system. Contemporary science dismisses metaphysics and ontology, so Socionics is therefore unscientific. Some people are just better than others at trying to stuff a cloud into a jar, and seeing patterns in the midst of chaos.

    The forum should therefore be a place to practice, and get feedback while perhaps successfully self-typing along the way.
    Socionics is heterophenomenology. I think people have moved on. Socionics is about others as well as ourselves, and our relations with others.

    One could also say it's Hermeneutic Anthropology but imo Socionics is in tune with the advancements in continental and analytically philosophy.

  30. #30
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    Socionics is heterophenomenology. I think people have moved on. Socionics is about others as well as ourselves, and our relations with others.

    One could also say it's Hermeneutic Anthropology but imo Socionics is in tune with the advancements in continental and analytically philosophy.
    Good thing I know a little about Plato then, otherwise these footnotes might be confusing.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  31. #31
    Generator of Irony HandiAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Massachusetts
    TIM
    Irrelevant
    Posts
    484
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have exercised the theory that I indeed do NOT know who I am and so look at other people to see who I want to be because I am ashamed of myself.

    I mean, I'm not attracted to people that are cold and unwelcoming whatsoever. Quite the opposite. Does this mean that I was predisposed to be a cold and unapproachable person and to dislike those other kinds of people which are actually a reflection of myself?

  32. #32
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sommers doesn’t think so. He says that how we view ourselves actually changes over time and location. Even small changes in context can affect our responses in a big way.
    I feel this way most of the time. It's often why I feel my identity is in shambles. I don't see a constant in there. But I can't really disbelieve there is one exactly. I don't think it's all just a relative soup. Perhaps I think of it as looking for the click or feeling where all aspects of me click. That doesn't mean I remain the same or that those aspects don't change, or even that I respond the same way to everything... but it's the feeling of an integrated "I" that I think is largely demonstrated by the psychology healthy. I don't have to be constant--that's fine. I think it's a question of internal cohesion more than what is cohesively linked together... the what can change, but cohesion can be largely retained throughout all changes. It's also about when one reflects themself back upon themself does the image create a problem or disconnect, is it seen as inadequate or disliked, or is it accepted and understood.

    Regarding typology, I think this plays in with not being able to pin down my own type to any degree. I often feel they're all just models and I can try to fit myself into one or the other.

Posting Permissions

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