Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: associating behavior with type

  1. #1
    rahmyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    TIM
    IEI-Ni, 4-5-9
    Posts
    76
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default associating behavior with type

    This topic addresses an issue I see underlying many threads, most recently the Tag Cloud one.

    It seems that the general trend among many forum members (most especially those who've been here a while and probably know more about socionics) is to avoid or reject discussion around a trait or behavior being associated with a particular type.

    I think we all understand the dangers of stereotyping and how it can impoverish our understanding. I think there is another danger lurking here, and that is denying an exploratory understanding of how the various ways of thinking and processing information can or even tends to manifest into specific behavior, and why. I am very interested in the process of thought-into-behavior. I very much appreciate the deviations from what is expected or common. And, I don't find it harmful to discuss what is common.

    And the reason I don't find it harmful is that I am not trying to gain any absolutes about types through talking about this.

    I also hold this likely controversial opinion: People that are new to socionics and are grappling with understanding the basics may actually benefit from dealing in 'stereotypes' initially. Understanding is a process. One of the initial stages seems to be gaining a hold of an oversimplified interpretation of things. My guess is that most people here were brought to socionics through MBTI, and were first inspired to learn more after reading their type description, full of stereotypes of traits and behaviors. And then most of us opted to refine that initial understanding. And hopefully most of us continue to do this.

    As we are in different places as far as refining that understanding, I can see why there is much bickering and nit-picking. However, I don't think it is helpful to write off discussion surrounding behavior and traits. Instead of rejecting it, why not approach with caution, and throw in all the caveats you feel you need to in order to avoid the rigidity of fixed absolutes?

    Obviously, not all discussions on this will prompt your interest or care, or are necessarily worth engaging. I just see a general trend on this forum that is worth pointing out. Often someone asks a question out of genuine interest and desire to know more, and it gets shut down out of the starting gate with "not type related" (with no explanation). Yet, the topics about 'who wants to fuck who', or 'what are the weirdest fetishes', or 'what is the essence of masculinity (which seems to be an ok place to discuss stereotypes?)' gets a ton of responses. Seems lazy.

  2. #2

    Default

    So from what I understand you say that even through the kiddy ladder seems childish for the big boys us kiddies need em?


    And could you put a link to the tag cloud thread you are referring to. I for example missed it and had no idea what you were referring to.

  3. #3
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,606
    Mentioned
    631 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    i agree with you.

    for me and maybe some other people i think there's frustration from having type-associated behaviors presumed on them or having their behavior interpreted through an incorrect lens which can be hurtful and frustrating in a community for which the social element is such a big and important thing. and i think some of the immediate clamp-down comes from that. i feel kind of torn sometimes between not wanting to get caught up in a false image and dealing with the "type-related" bullshit but also wishing people would talk about socionics in a more down-to-earth and less meta way - because good conversations have come out of that even if not always the best information, lol. i think the forum kinda plops along a lot of the time because it is mostly social and kinda lacks that unifying element.

  4. #4
    rahmyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    TIM
    IEI-Ni, 4-5-9
    Posts
    76
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tropski Bolest View Post
    And could you put a link to the tag cloud thread you are referring to. I for example missed it and had no idea what you were referring to.
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ype-tag-clouds

    I don't mean to target this particular thread. It is just what pushed some things over the edge enough for me to write the OP.

  5. #5
    rahmyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    TIM
    IEI-Ni, 4-5-9
    Posts
    76
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Typically though, someone will say, "is this behavior related to XYZ type?", and the typical answer for that is Not Type Related. Certainly taking a few seconds to think about the reasons why a behavior might be more COMMON for a certain type would be reasonable.
    Yeah, agreed. I have noticed that kind of question. If someone asks a question like that, I think it would be helpful if people offered more information that could help expand the asker's view on the topic.

    If someone says, "is being good at math related to being IEI?" one could answer:

    "Being good at math is not type related. All types can be good at math. In my experience, these types have been more commonly good at math, and perhaps this is why...."

    -OR-

    "Being good at math is not type related. All types can be good at math. An IEI has strong , and here are some ways that this could possibly play into being good at math..."

    -OR-

    "Being good at math is not type related. All types can be good at math. The reason this is not type related is...."

  6. #6
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,329
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A better question than "is this behavior related to XYZ type" would be 'HOW might each type approach P subject or R activity?' Or, if you're insistent on a particular behavior, then 'HOW or under what conditions might XYZ type behave that way?' Of course, beware mindreading the behavior. Just because you as an observer interpret someone else's actions one way...doesn't mean that your interpretation is accurate to what was/is really going on.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  7. #7
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,329
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rahmyn View Post
    Yeah, agreed. I have noticed that kind of question. If someone asks a question like that, I think it would be helpful if people offered more information that could help expand the asker's view on the topic.

    If someone says, "is being good at math related to being IEI?" one could answer:

    "Being good at math is not type related. All types can be good at math. In my experience, these types have been more commonly good at math, and perhaps this is why...."

    -OR-

    "Being good at math is not type related. All types can be good at math. An IEI has strong , and here are some ways that this could possibly play into being good at math..."

    -OR-

    "Being good at math is not type related. All types can be good at math. The reason this is not type related is...."
    Or mentioning that there are many kinds of maths, and that math is, at least in the usa, taught for up to 12 years of schooling. There are also different approaches to math...such as memorizing by rote, memorizing formulas, using calculators, using reference books, etc.

    And what defines "good in math"? Ability to do multiplication tables to 12 is different from creating 3d or 4d mental models which include measurements of space/time. Geometry, algebra, set theory, etc. each have their own styles. Doing trial and error method is different from doing calculated formulating.

    And so on.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  8. #8
    So fluffeh. Cuddly McFluffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Or mentioning that there are many kinds of maths, and that math is, at least in the usa, taught for up to 12 years of schooling. There are also different approaches to math...such as memorizing by rote, memorizing formulas, using calculators, using reference books, etc.

    And what defines "good in math"? Ability to do multiplication tables to 12 is different from creating 3d or 4d mental models which include measurements of space/time. Geometry, algebra, set theory, etc. each have their own styles. Doing trial and error method is different from doing calculated formulating.

    And so on.
    Agreed. I've always thought little of my abilities in math. To be sure, it is my weakest subject. However, I do have a bit of a math focus that comes into play, typically related to my perfectionism/possibly my attention to detail. Calculating and balancing certain things, particularly in my hobbies, is definitely something toward which I am oriented. For example, while crafting supplies for my characters in an MMORPG, I looked up the prices per component, calculated the total cost per stack of items, and divided if necessary to determine the appropriate monetary contribution. (I don't always do this; this particular profession is just gets really pricy after a while, so it seemed fair to pull in contributions.) However, I did the majority of my calculations on a calculator, as I suck at mental math. And that is why math was always my worst subject; before college (or maybe some of the more advanced high school maths, which I never pursued), they don't let you use calculators.
    Johari/Nohari

    "Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."

    Fruit, the fluffy kitty.

  9. #9
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,329
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis View Post
    Agreed. I've always thought little of my abilities in math. To be sure, it is my weakest subject. However, I do have a bit of a math focus that comes into play, typically related to my perfectionism/possibly my attention to detail. Calculating and balancing certain things, particularly in my hobbies, is definitely something toward which I am oriented. For example, while crafting supplies for my characters in an MMORPG, I looked up the prices per component, calculated the total cost per stack of items, and divided if necessary to determine the appropriate monetary contribution. (I don't always do this; this particular profession is just gets really pricy after a while, so it seemed fair to pull in contributions.) However, I did the majority of my calculations on a calculator, as I suck at mental math. And that is why math was always my worst subject; before college (or maybe some of the more advanced high school maths, which I never pursued), they don't let you use calculators.
    Games..that's another area where someone can use certain math aspects, and be considered proficient at it in comparison to another player, yet the other player can calculate torque, pressure, rpm, etc at the blink of an eye.

    For myself, over 20 years ago, when I was in grade school up to high school, I was always in honors math. Their term back then for advanced placement. No calculators allowed. I even helped tutor fellow students in algebra. This gave the impression that I was good at math. But...the students I tutored were all students of one particular senile old man who should have retired years before. One time, after he gave his students bad scores on a test he'd created for them, I took the paper to him and asked him how he had gotten the answer he claimed was right. He worked the problem out, showing me step by step, and arrived at a different answer than he had as the right answer. So he did it again, and got yet a different answer. I showed him how the book said to do the problem, and i got the right answer. He had to redo the entire test scores.

    Nowadays I have no use for the formulas the books gave, and I totally suck at estimating distance, doing geometry, etc etc. though I can do basic add/sub/multiplication...and very simple division in my head. Mostly I do a trial and error method and then ask R to check it over for me...and usually I didn't include something important.

    Meanwhile R, who had gotten low scores during his school years, can calculate more complex numbers, and figure out what info needs to be included and which not when calculting for building something or putting something together, or even taking something down. His is a more geometry oriented mind that I totally admire and respect. He also plays minature war games and is great at calculating tactile advantages, movement, speed, etc. He doesn't consider himself to be so good at maths, though, because of his low school scores.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  10. #10
    malna's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Poland
    TIM
    Ne EII
    Posts
    332
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rahmyn View Post
    I think we all understand the dangers of stereotyping and how it can impoverish our understanding. I think there is another danger lurking here, and that is denying an exploratory understanding of how the various ways of thinking and processing information can or even tends to manifest into specific behavior, and why.
    Absolutely. I also believe there may be something even stronger than mere tendencies to discover in sociotypes if we look at traits a bit differently, more from Model A standpoint.
    I'll follow the maths example. People who are just starting out with socionics often say things like: "I don't believe that I suffer from PoLR Ti. I study informatics.", which we all know is not the right approach but with time I've learned that it's worth it to dig deeper. The connection between - in this case - Tx and science is not to be discarded; it's there. And what we've come to consider a deviation from that ceases to exist at a closer look. Weak Tx always shows, just in many different ways, depending on various factors.
    I myself excelled at maths at times. In high school I chose maths for my finals and graduated with honors, collected a prize. I passed the entrance examination (physics) for a tech university, again with a very good score. And so the nightmare began. I hated it there. Take the diversity of school subjects away and the endless hours of maths alone were torture. It felt dry, I lost all interest in it and for whatever the reason, suddenly maths became difficult. I couldn't bring myself to even open a notebook, so of course it got even worse. I did pass the first year somehow but decided to change specialization. I chose something distinctly more abstract while still science, so it got better (Ne ego) but in the end not by much. I withstood four more years of that and eventually I got seriously ill. Spent half a year in surgeries, on various medical examinations and consultations. It turned out I had extremely high level of auto aggressive antibodies in my blood and was checked for all the worst diseases, one by one. Some doctors maintain it all probably began with my psyche.
    Today it looks like I'm going to get out of this, relatively easy, though I'll probably carry with eyesight disorders.
    I'm not planning to finish my degree. No way.

    Thing is, I'm good at maths, always have been. I enjoy it, on occasion. But my heart was never really in it. And I don't believe it comes as naturally to me as I imagine to some people of logical types it does, either. I've had my moments of brilliance when confronted with mathematical or logical problems but I guess they're mostly Ne related. I have a strong Ne subtype and that enhances my role significantly. Last but not least, I was a really smart kid. But super-ego will be super-ego and weak functions will be weak.

    Of course, there are many people who overcome this. IEI IT specialists or SEI mathematicians. But that's what I think it is, at least partly - overcoming. And I'm quite sure those people stumble upon similar problems, to some extent.

    So I'd say that whereas there are a lot of things that need to be factor in reasonably connecting traits to sociotypes, the connections exist. Always and every time.
    As for the factors - subtype would be among most important. Parental influence, especially if nobody in the family values one or any of the two aspects from the ego block of a person typed. Intelligence and other general abilities - I find it really important to keep in mind that strength of a function needs to be evaluated in comparison to other functions in the same person rather than the same function in others. For example, an intuitive may be much better at sports than a person of sensory type, just as I'm better at maths than some people of logical types, and so on, but their Nx will be even more capable than that.

    To post it or not to post... hm.

  11. #11
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,329
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by malna View Post
    Absolutely. I also believe there may be something even stronger than mere tendencies to discover in sociotypes if we look at traits a bit differently, more from Model A standpoint.
    ...[]...
    As for the factors - subtype would be among most important. Parental influence, especially if nobody in the family values one or any of the two aspects from the ego block of a person typed. Intelligence and other general abilities - I find it really important to keep in mind that strength of a function needs to be evaluated in comparison to other functions in the same person rather than the same function in others. For example, an intuitive may be much better at sports than a person of sensory type, just as I'm better at maths than some people of logical types, and so on, but their Nx will be even more capable than that.

    To post it or not to post... hm.
    Agreed, especially of the bolded type.
    Glad you posted.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  12. #12
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by malna View Post
    Absolutely. I also believe there may be something even stronger than mere tendencies to discover in sociotypes if we look at traits a bit differently, more from Model A standpoint.
    I'll follow the maths example. People who are just starting out with socionics often say things like: "I don't believe that I suffer from PoLR Ti. I study informatics.", which we all know is not the right approach but with time I've learned that it's worth it to dig deeper. The connection between - in this case - Tx and science is not to be discarded; it's there. And what we've come to consider a deviation from that ceases to exist at a closer look. Weak Tx always shows, just in many different ways, depending on various factors.
    I myself excelled at maths at times. In high school I chose maths for my finals and graduated with honors, collected a prize. I passed the entrance examination (physics) for a tech university, again with a very good score. And so the nightmare began. I hated it there. Take the diversity of school subjects away and the endless hours of maths alone were torture. It felt dry, I lost all interest in it and for whatever the reason, suddenly maths became difficult. I couldn't bring myself to even open a notebook, so of course it got even worse. I did pass the first year somehow but decided to change specialization. I chose something distinctly more abstract while still science, so it got better (Ne ego) but in the end not by much. I withstood four more years of that and eventually I got seriously ill. Spent half a year in surgeries, on various medical examinations and consultations. It turned out I had extremely high level of auto aggressive antibodies in my blood and was checked for all the worst diseases, one by one. Some doctors maintain it all probably began with my psyche.
    Today it looks like I'm going to get out of this, relatively easy, though I'll probably carry with eyesight disorders.
    I'm not planning to finish my degree. No way.

    Thing is, I'm good at maths, always have been. I enjoy it, on occasion. But my heart was never really in it. And I don't believe it comes as naturally to me as I imagine to some people of logical types it does, either. I've had my moments of brilliance when confronted with mathematical or logical problems but I guess they're mostly Ne related. I have a strong Ne subtype and that enhances my role significantly. Last but not least, I was a really smart kid. But super-ego will be super-ego and weak functions will be weak.

    Of course, there are many people who overcome this. IEI IT specialists or SEI mathematicians. But that's what I think it is, at least partly - overcoming. And I'm quite sure those people stumble upon similar problems, to some extent.

    So I'd say that whereas there are a lot of things that need to be factor in reasonably connecting traits to sociotypes, the connections exist. Always and every time.
    As for the factors - subtype would be among most important. Parental influence, especially if nobody in the family values one or any of the two aspects from the ego block of a person typed. Intelligence and other general abilities - I find it really important to keep in mind that strength of a function needs to be evaluated in comparison to other functions in the same person rather than the same function in others. For example, an intuitive may be much better at sports than a person of sensory type, just as I'm better at maths than some people of logical types, and so on, but their Nx will be even more capable than that.

    To post it or not to post... hm.
    How do other functions compare in you?

  13. #13
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I doubt anyone rejects the notion that observable signs exist which could [in principle] be correlated into reliable type indices—problem is no one knows what those observables might be, nor is anyone in any position to demonstrably figure out what they might be. Ergo making typological inferences from construals of ostensible 'behavior' will be futilely stupid as there are no consistent operationalizations with which to discuss such speculations.



    Most of us here have attained post-socionical transcendence, and lost interest awhile ago in socionics as having much useful relevance to our lives. Only Maritsa remains as last faithful champion of the One True Power.
    Because I use socionics almost everyday in real life with my interaction with people and talking about their relationships.

  14. #14
    malna's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Poland
    TIM
    Ne EII
    Posts
    332
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    How do other functions compare in you?
    How is that relevant? I flashed some ankle, that's more than I'm comfortable with already.

Posting Permissions

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