Paradox in typology

[krieger]

suppose that there is a classification system that assigns people certain strengths and weaknesses in a way that is almost entirely without basis. the theory might be right about certain things but it is equally likely wrong. it claims some things in a completely random way, gets certain things simply right and sometimes fucks up to the extent of classifying people opposite to how they should be. the system is basically socionics as we know it.

another thing the system says is that one's weaknesses are a matter of imbalance that should be corrected by paying attention to them. the system purports to be a means of developing oneself through self-discovery.

now suppose that a community of people takes the system seriously.

...

the funny thing that will happen is that people will start paying attention to the things that the system arbitrarily classifies as their weakness. they will work at improving these skills in the name of self-improvement. to varying extents, they will succeed at this.

what is the end result? paradoxically enough, you get a situation in which people now possess mainly the traits opposite to what the system initially claimed. people that were arbitrarily told they were poor speakers are now good speakers on account of having made an effort at improving said skill. likewise for all other traits. things that the system said were their strengths are now weaknesses because they were treated with complacency, etc.

food. for. thought.

[InvisibleJim]

Yes

[mfckr]

http://socionix.com/misc/hillman.htm

[Absurd]

the funny thing that will happen is that people will start paying attention to the things that the system arbitrarily classifies as their weakness. they will work at improving these skills in the name of self-improvement. to varying extents, they will succeed at this.

what is the end result? paradoxically enough, you get a situation in which people now possess mainly the traits opposite to what the system initially claimed. people that were arbitrarily told they were poor speakers are now good speakers on account of having made an effort at improving said skill. likewise for all other traits. things that the system said were their strengths are now weaknesses because they were treated with complacency, etc.

food. for. thought.

Wonder what are those weaknesses - Fi polr, Se polr, Ne polr, Si ignoring, Fe demostrative?

Seriously, if some 'system' claims you're not a whole and only way you can be is through meeting somebody who possess the right sort of tools to "fix" that, you're developing dependency, unless you want to develop some kind of extreme case of independence what is somewhat unhealthy in both cases and it goes to show you're opting for latter.

And who said those people are going to do that, do the same thing you want them to do, the same thing you expect them to do. It's like saying to a perfect stranger who never heard about Socionics "hey mate, you're going to do this and that, there is no way you're going to act differently, for you can't" - this statement actually defeats the entire premise, for you're unable to type any one, the moment you're going to give them freedom to work on their weaknesses. So, say, a Fi polr isn't a Fi polr anymore.

Furthermore, that means when a person actually starts to work on those weaknesses as you say and is successful he/she is no longer the type you initially slapped him\her with, which further means intertype relations would cease to operate and that person would exhibit every relation from those intertype relations available towards himself and others.

This is really funny, for, say Jim apparently starts to work on his weakness and let's say it is Fe polr - you don't have a clue what type he is going to end up after eliminating that given weakness. SEE maybe? LSE?
Problem is, those have weakness as well per Socionics, so that poor bastard is going to have work on them all his life and won't ever finish.

That means what you're good at and comes easy to you no longer applies according to you. It's like trying to separate yin and yang...

[Pa3s]

Hello ladies, look at your type, now back to mine, now back at your type, now back to mine. Sadly, it isn't mine, but if you stopped using my subdued functions and switched your quadra, your personality could look like it’s mine.

Look down, back up, where are you? You’re on the16types with the man your type could dualize with. What’s in your hand, back at me. I have it, it’s a type description with all of your weaknesses. Look again, your weaknesses are now your strengths. Anything is possible when you use Socionics and not MBTI. I’m on the internet.�

[Absurd]

Don't tell me you read those. Besides having not spent time on Socionics and mulling over, I don't know, functions, quadras and all of that stuff I don't really know how you arrived at your own self-typing, Pae3.

An angel told you in sleep? Like he(?) whispered coming from heaven in your ear with a faint voice "Pae3, you're SLI, wake up and spread the Word of your becoming, wake up"?

[Park]

Hello ladies, look at your type, now back to mine, now back at your type, now back to mine. Sadly, it isn't mine, but if you stopped using my subdued functions and switched your quadra, your personality could look like it’s mine.

Look down, back up, where are you? You’re on the16types with the man your type could dualize with. What’s in your hand, back at me. I have it, it’s a type description with all of your weaknesses. Look again, your weaknesses are now your strengths. Anything is possible when you use Socionics and not MBTI. I’m on the internet.�

LOL. Excellent.

[MensSuperMateriam]

The op is so good I will hold back my natural impulses of commenting about minor details.

[Hays]

Of course.

& one doesn't need a system like Socionics to begin with either, just society in general.

Like I have mentioned many times before that since a young age I was told by mother, grandparents etc & especially teachers that I needed to include more emotion in my writings and interactions - so guess what - to succeed in society as a female this was a skill which I needed to require and still work on to this day.

[Absurd]

Yeah, I'll wait till of us improve and the same time talk about intertype relations to the point it won't even matter. Nah, I won't.

[Park]

The op is so good I will hold back my natural impulses of commenting about minor details.

Good work welcomes criticism. It makes it more valuable. Thus, I call bullshit on your comment.

[Absurd]

Yeah, it's already read more often than the Bible.

[strangeling]

Hey Lab,

how would you say persona ties into what you're talking about? Can you tell when you've developed personas from what is natural to you? And if you can, do you consider that changing type or adapting your natural type to the unnatural circumstances of reality? I personally think personas make people uncomfortable and that creates other problems; but socionics relations seem to show pretty well for me when "I" act "naturally". I can't say what natural means to you though; maybe type is less lineated for you and many others. I guess I hold the opinion that personas are superego and not really changing type so much, even if the acting is done well.

[krieger]

Hey Lab,

how would you say persona ties into what you're talking about? Can you tell when you've developed personas from what is natural to you? And if you can, do you consider that changing type or adapting your natural type to the unnatural circumstances of reality? I personally think personas make people uncomfortable and that creates other problems; but socionics relations seem to show pretty well for me when "I" act "naturally". I can't say what natural means to you though; maybe type is less lineated for you and many others. I guess I hold the opinion that personas are superego and not really changing type so much, even if the acting is done well.

i've read quite a few pieces of research saying that a really effective way to develop a certain skill or positive trait is to "fake it till you make it" by trying to behave like the stereotype of a person who is good at what you are trying to do. so i think an upheld persona can be a precursor to actual possession of the positive traits under consideration. my guess is that the persona is usually an overcompensated, exaggerated form of the true skillful state that one is trying to reach.

[MensSuperMateriam]

Good work welcomes criticism. It makes it more valuable. Thus, I call bullshit on your comment.

Generally speaking, I would say you're right. But not always a particular case has to fit in the general one.

Let's see. I understand (or I think I understand) the purpose of Labster's post. I agree with it, and also with the core of what he's saying. There are minor details that maybe I would point out, but I also think that if I'm too picky I could distract people about the core of what he's saying, invalidating its purpose. So in this particular case, I choose not to do it.

You know, that thing about the trees and the forest.

[thePirate]

another thing the system says is that one's weaknesses are a matter of imbalance that should be corrected by paying attention to them. the system purports to be a means of developing oneself through self-discovery.

now suppose that a community of people takes the system seriously.

...

the funny thing that will happen is that people will start paying attention to the things that the system arbitrarily classifies as their weakness. they will work at improving these skills in the name of self-improvement. to varying extents, they will succeed at this.

what is the end result? paradoxically enough, you get a situation in which people now possess mainly the traits opposite to what the system initially claimed. people that were arbitrarily told they were poor speakers are now good speakers on account of having made an effort at improving said skill. likewise for all other traits. things that the system said were their strengths are now weaknesses because they were treated with complacency, etc.

food. for. thought.

That's interesting but I don't really see it that way at all - how I interpret socionics is that it's advocating for you to avoid your weaknesses as much as possible so that you can maximize your strengths. I wouldn't use the speaker example but I see what you are getting at with it - in my experience though, people don't actually become adept as much as passable at their weak areas at the expense of strength in their stronger areas. This happens quite frequently just in general among people in their pursuits to become 'better people'. They trade in the idea of self acceptance for self improvement and get led astray. Enneagram 3 comes to mind. Also, the idea of talent vs working to be good at something comes to mind here. There's often the comparison of someone with talent, versus someone who has no natural ability for something but works hard to be competent in it. There's of course the less cited third example of someone with natural ability who works hard at something, and that third example contrasted with the second is the difference, in my opinion, of what makes someone good versus what makes someone great. Natural ability is the strength of your type and when fully developed it gets to an area where I don't believe people who have them as weak functions can match them even with years of 'practice'. I have seen people who have put on good shows and shown to do things in different areas of processing than their natural type well, but there is generally something off - something mechanical, strained, and contrived about it.

[Park]

@OP: No matter how much one tries to change or "improve" oneself, there's always going to be the same type of cognitive dissonance between certain people, and the same unwavering sense of psychological comfort and attraction between others. This is observable and empirically provable. I'm no neuroscientist nor have I done any scientific experiments to feed me statistics, so I can't really draw any firm conclusions.

[Park]

Generally speaking, I would say you're right. But not always a particular case has to fit in the general one.

Ok. So why am I not right here?

Let's see. I understand (or I think I understand) the purpose of Labster's post.

You can always ASK about the things you're not sure you understand. Simple solution, no reason for doubt.

I agree with it, and also with the core of what he's saying. There are minor details that maybe I would point out, but I also think that if I'm too picky I could distract people about the core of what he's saying, invalidating its purpose. So in this particular case, I choose not to do it.

The latter two sentences don't make any sense to me. Whether you "distract" people or not is not something you can or should try to influence. Well, unless you have an ulterior motive. Thinking you're important or powerful enough to be able to distract others and invalidate the purpose of what he wrote, as if this is some sort of an ability or "urge" that you can control so that you don't cause any unintentional "damage" is a huge bag of self-delusions, as far as I'm concerned.

You know, that thing about the trees and the forest.

No, I really don't.

[woofwoofl]

haha I never thought too much like w self improvement or shit maybs here's some shit

ILI - STOPS ME FROM GOING FULL RETARD
LIE - WE CAN RAISE SO MUCH HELL 2GETHER
IEI - AWESOME HUGS
ESI - like all of the above three
placate Ne peepz w food
give LSI peepz enthusiasm + smiles!
DON'T SPRAY LII DOWN W WATER HOSE
delta NF moral crusade = get out the way
ILE hugs = awesome!
lure Delta STs towards Delta NFs or vice versa this one works awesome like so much
plus minus functions is awesome map for values and piecing together the BATTLE PLANS

[FDG]

Typology somewhat assumes that those traits are fixed, so you can't really work on your weaknesses so much that you will be able to take on the skills and values of an "opposite" type, and that many "skills" are barely type-inherent (ex. speaking skills would not be so). If this assumption is dropped, then your point is correct.

Then there are variations such as smilingeyes' with the caveat however, that transition happens over decades so its observability in a stable environment is complex.

[Park]

Then there are variations such as smilingeyes' with the caveat however, that transition happens over decades so its observability in a stable environment is complex.

Amongst type changing bullshit of similar kind, the gradual transition between types within the same temperament is the only one that seems at least somewhat palpable. ThePirate's avatar rocks.

[MensSuperMateriam]

The latter two sentences don't make any sense to me. Whether you "distract" people or not is not something you can or should try to influence. Well, unless you have an ulterior motive. Thinking you're important or powerful enough to be able to distract others and invalidate the purpose of what he wrote, as if this is some sort of an ability or "urge" that you can control so that you don't cause any unintentional "damage" is a huge bag of self-delusions, as far as I'm concerned.

Good work twisting my words and "putting thoughts in my mind". I do not remember saying that my skills for influencing are better than any other poster. Anytime anyone interacts with others influences them in a way or other. If you've a picture and you paint over it, you're changing it. In this particular case I choose not doing it. I'm not stopping you if you want.

[mu4]

I think most people will fail to actually develop a sufficient level of skill in their weakness, and it's not just "weakness" in socionics, it's a area of fear and paranoia.

The difference between trying to develop your Creative vs your PoLR is the difference between normal perfectionism and neurotic perfectionism. You can do it, but I would say it comes at a psychological price.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfectionism_(psychology)

And in this sense this is why the Creative function is a contact function while the PoLR is inert. Socionics doesn't state that it's impossible to develop the superego functions, but that it can come at a price.

Neurotic perfectionism can produce incredible results, so it can be a price worth paying.

[Dionysus]

suppose that there is a classification system that assigns people certain strengths and weaknesses in a way that is almost entirely without basis.

The basis for the theory is this http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ological_Types and this http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ion_Metabolism

Now you could critique the actual theories being developed here, but you don't have much of an argument.

the theory might be right about certain things but it is equally likely wrong.

No offense, but this is a worthless statement - it doesn't really say anything.

it claims some things in a completely random way, gets certain things simply right and sometimes fucks up to the extent of classifying people opposite to how they should be.

a) What is claimed in a random way?
b) How can a classification system fuck up to the extent of classifying something wrongly? Certainly the user of a classification system could "fuck up" - but somebody can't be classified by the system opposite to how they should be. . . because that would just mean that they should have been classified differently in the first place- which would mean the system still retains consistency.

another thing the system says is that one's weaknesses are a matter of imbalance that should be corrected by paying attention to them. the system purports to be a means of developing oneself through self-discovery.

By saying that the weaknesses are a "matter of imbalance" you connotate a different meaning than what was intended. Psychological weaknesses aren't "imbalances" in the same way that some people have a sodium imbalance, or a vitamin C deficiency. They are inborn traits much like being brown eyed or blue eyed - and they aren't an "imbalance" because there is no such thing as the "balance."

The system also limits self improvement in a way - channeling energy through the super-ego is supposed to be seen as something that can never really produce the true or healthy results that we wanted. The super-id is also not seen as something that we can supply for ourselves.

the funny thing that will happen is that people will start paying attention to the things that the system arbitrarily classifies as their weakness. they will work at improving these skills in the name of self-improvement. to varying extents, they will succeed at this.

food. for. thought.

My thoughts have enough food as is. I need to put them on a diet if anything.

[krieger]

The basis for the theory is this http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ological_Types and this http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ion_Metabolism

Now you could critique the actual theories being developed here, but you don't have much of an argument.No offense, but this is a worthless statement - it doesn't really say anything. a) What is claimed in a random way?
b) How can a classification system fuck up to the extent of classifying something wrongly? Certainly the user of a classification system could "fuck up" - but somebody can't be classified by the system opposite to how they should be. . . because that would just mean that they should have been classified differently in the first place- which would mean the system still retains consistency.

By saying that the weaknesses are a "matter of imbalance" you connotate a different meaning than what was intended. Psychological weaknesses aren't "imbalances" in the same way that some people have a sodium imbalance, or a vitamin C deficiency. They are inborn traits much like being brown eyed or blue eyed - and they aren't an "imbalance" because there is no such thing as the "balance."

The system also limits self improvement in a way - channeling energy through the super-ego is supposed to be seen as something that can never really produce the true or healthy results that we wanted. The super-id is also not seen as something that we can supply for ourselves.




My thoughts have enough food as is. I need to put them on a diet if anything.

[Absurd]

I have seen people who have put on good shows and shown to do things in different areas of processing than their natural type well, but there is generally something off - something mechanical, strained, and contrived about it.

They're dead-alive walking on two feet, that's what is off, as if they're at war with themselves. Dante wrote about it a long time ago.

Amongst type changing bullshit of similar kind, the gradual transition between types within the same temperament is the only one that seems at least somewhat palpable. ThePirate's avatar rocks.

Type changing bullshit treats Model A as dynamic, in other words, treats types as dynamic and as long one wants to understand certain traits under the definition of types, they're not palpable. The "manifestation" produced, that is, having some kind of impact on the surrounding environment could, for nothing is going to happen if one doesn't act on something.

One could just as well, say, the transition between different temperaments is possible, different quadras and so on, and not only limit oneself to the same temperament rule(?).

Even if you set life expectancy at 100 years of age and divide it between 4 quadras/4 the same temperaments, you're getting 25 years of age each which means:

First period you're SLI(?),
Second period you're SEI(?),
Third period you're ILI(?),
Fourth period you're IEI(?)

That just means it is pretty fleeting and fragmentary as long one understands the same under gradual transition.

[Raver]

Knowing about Socionics has enabled me to improve on my weaknesses and become a more balanced person overall. However, despite this the core personality traits that comprise who I am have not changed. Imo our abilities and character are subject to change, which is perhaps the more flexible outer part of our personality. Though, our deeper more fixed personality traits are likely to remain unchanged despite any effort to change them except possibly in extreme circumstances.

[mu4]

My view on this supposed paradox is that there are actually two interrelated factors being measured, preference and strength.

What labster is talking about ignores preference and only concerns strength and weakness.

The question of whether strength can change preference is uncertain, especially once one is set in one's development.

I will not speculate on how strength and preference are related but I will say it's likely not a causal relationship but a correlated relationship and the cause of both preference and strength are many and likely influenced by the enviroment. I do believe as many individuals develop, strength and preference converge.

Socionics is imo primarily concerned with preference and not strength, strength does not determine intertype relationships or whether nor does it determine whether a individual is conscious of that ability. Socionics is also not only concerned about ability but communication as the ego is the mechanism by which one communicates one's strongest abilities, and regardless of ability, the communication may not occur.

I think Labster's example is a weakness of many other typologies.

One simple experiment that you can try is try to verbalize about something on TV using your PoLR or even worse your Dual-seeking function. You will find it very quickly that you will encounter problems in this area, and have to go look it up probably by someone who is adept at that function. You can repeat this back in the future but when asked to spontaneously verbalize using your PoLR or Dual seeking function, there will be major problems.

Also you can look for examples of individuals crumbling under the pressure of the work. I currently have co-worker who is crumbling under the pressure of having to use his PoLR function constantly and without aid from others. It is causing a great deal of stress, worsening his performance and making him physically ill. Is this individual somehow stupid or incapable of what he is doing? That is far from the case, he has the ability and skills but the demand on his PoLR is creating so much stress, he's unable to use that ability. I am working to bring in another worker so this individual doesn't totally collapse. If you pay attention, you will see this sort of thing happening constantly as people are put under pressure and despite ability, they are incapable of performance.

[Korpsy Knievel]

The old company song.

[yeves]

the funny thing that will happen is that people will start paying attention to the things that the system arbitrarily classifies as their weakness. they will work at improving these skills in the name of self-improvement. to varying extents, they will succeed at this.

Are functions something that could be improved in the first place? From what I've read on this site, weak functions have only 1 or 2 dimensions, experience and norms, and don't grow or improve any further to become a genuine strength.

[aisa]

Are functions something that could be improved in the first place? From what I've read on this site, weak functions have only 1 or 2 dimensions, experience and norms, and don't grow or improve any further to become a genuine strength.

"You fake it till you make it" like mentioned above. But in the long run it's draining and if you catch yourself looking at other people's performance that comes to them with ease and you want to do the same and superficially can... but catch yourself thinking "why on earth is this so hard"? Well, if it feels like pulling teeth, then you're likely in your weak area trying to overcompensate. It can be done and even on the outside "look" similar, but it's more conscious, less natural than in types with a given function in ego.
That's how I personally see it.

[yeves]

"You fake it till you make it" like mentioned above.

This post by @ConcreteButterfly is what I had in mind when bumping the op - http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...it-can-process What I've heard from introductions to socionics and mbti is that functions aren't masks, attitudes, behaviors, aptitudes to be faked to make it into being another type. Instead they are information passageways or channels. How would you go about faking "the volume of an information channel"? This is the question that arose when @krieger's paradox is applied to socionics.

But in the long run it's draining and if you catch yourself looking at other people's performance that comes to them with ease and you want to do the same and superficially can... but catch yourself thinking "why on earth is this so hard"? Well, if it feels like pulling teeth, then you're likely in your weak area trying to overcompensate. It can be done and even on the outside "look" similar, but it's more conscious, less natural than in types with a given function in ego.
That's how I personally see it.

Isn't something being too hard a result of being unskilled and inexperienced rather than socionics type? If you have the same level of interest, experience, and aptitude in the same subject as another person of a different socionics type, wouldn't the only difference be not how difficult it is but how you proceed and how you think about it?

[Skepsis]

What is interesting about the paradox is that once the weaker functions become observably stronger, you can actually be typed completely different from those who think your weaker functions are now your strongest. Then it's like, wtf, I was just trying to improve myself. This can cause one to revert to a previous personality model that feels safe once again.

This is where VI becomes even more useless and self-reporting is more reliable.

[aisa]

This post by @ConcreteButterfly is what I had in mind when bumping the op - http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...it-can-process What I've heard from introductions to socionics and mbti is that functions aren't masks, attitudes, behaviors, aptitudes to be faked to make it into being another type. Instead they are information passageways or channels. How would you go about faking "the volume of an information channel"? This is the question that arose when @krieger's paradox is applied to socionics.

Well, yes from strictly theoretical pov this would be true. What I was referring to are the behavioural patterns - these can be learned/"faked", not the processes that stand behind them.

Isn't something being too hard a result of being unskilled and inexperienced rather than socionics type? If you have the same level of interest, experience, and aptitude in the same subject as another person of a different socionics type, wouldn't the only difference be not how difficult it is but how you proceed and how you think about it?

This can be perceived from at least two povs imo.
First of them being that skill has nothing to do with socionics type all things being equal. They might process things differently, but get the same quality of results.
The other being that it's impossible for all things to be equal when people are of different sociotypes (set aside other real life factors). In some areas two individuals might be successfull, but one will instinctively breeze through while the other will need to put more effort, cause they process things a different way. I mean we can argue things being non-type related to a point, but I'm yet to see an extremely successfull EII athlete in competetive group sports settings, while SLE I have no problem picturing (and actually know one who's an example of a "natural" and I'm inclined to argue that no amount of practise will make Se PoLR as good at the stuff that Se-lead girl does)...

What is interesting about the paradox is that once the weaker functions become observably stronger, you can actually be typed completely different from those who think your weaker functions are now your strongest. Then it's like, wtf, I was just trying to improve myself. This can cause one to revert to a previous personality model that feels safe once again.

This is where VI becomes even more useless and self-reporting is more reliable.

While I agree to a point with what you write in the first part of your statement, I disagree on VI account. I actually think that VI can confirm smn's type rather than complicate the typing.
Typing from written interaction is much more misleading than seeing smn with regard to both looks and mannerisms. And while smn can have surgery and alter their looks (hence why while typing celebrities it's good to get hold of their young photos pre-alterations), it's much more difficult to alter one's natural mannerisms. I mean politicans try to do this, but it does seem "off" in a way...

[krieger]

lol'd hard at "the system is basically socionics as we know it"

my old self cracks me up

[aisa]

lol'd hard at "the system is basically socionics as we know it"

my old self cracks me up

though arguable in multiple ways, this phrase is brilliant in itself and just adds character to the OP, makes for a good read

[Skepsis]

While I agree to a point with what you write in the first part of your statement, I disagree on VI account. I actually think that VI can confirm smn's type rather than complicate the typing.
Typing from written interaction is much more misleading than seeing smn with regard to both looks and mannerisms. And while smn can have surgery and alter their looks (hence why while typing celebrities it's good to get hold of their young photos pre-alterations), it's much more difficult to alter one's natural mannerisms. I mean politicans try to do this, but it does seem "off" in a way...

While I think VI has some merit, I don't agree with how I often see it being used. Short video clips, photographs, or even one hour long interviews can be skewed by many factors and only offer how a person is behaving at that moment in time. VI assumes that these snippets represent the totality of the person, and due to this error they can only be said to have a person's approximate type at a particular point in time. Besides that, just because someone is using a function at any given moment does not mean that they prefer it more than other functions in other circumstances. After all we do use all eight functions. It is not uncommon to see someone being visually typed quite differently than through questionnaires or self-assessment. I am often unsure which would be correct or more accurate.

[aisa]

It is not uncommon to see someone being visually typed quite differently than through questionnaires or self-assessment. I am often unsure which would be correct or more accurate.

Personally I think those two approaches should be combined for best results. And when giving contradicting results - they ought to be investigated until solution presents itself.