"Normal" type development

[griggerplease]

According to Jung one can develop functions. And according to MBTI and Socionics you can have a mental capacity above/at/under your physical age.

Jung:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics content 2

MBTI:
http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-p...evelopment.asp

Socionics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics content 4

This is a small system/synthesis of 8 years of private research

"Normal" function development (specific ordering of types from Chapter 10 Psychological Types):

ESTJ/ESTj:
Thinking - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X
Feeling - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
Sensing - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
Intuition - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
ENTJ/ENTj
Thinking - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X
Feeling - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
Sensing - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
Intuition - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
ESFJ/ESFj
Thinking - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
Feeling - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X
Sensing - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
Intuition - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
ENFJ/ENFj
Thinking - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
Feeling - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X
Sensing - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
Intuition - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
ESTP/ESTp
Thinking - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
Feeling - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
Sensing - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X
Intuition - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
ESFP/ESFp
Thinking - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
Feeling - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
Sensing - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X
Intuition - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
ENTP/ENTp
Thinking - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
Feeling - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
Sensing - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
Intuition - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X
ENFP/ENFp
Thinking - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
Feeling - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
Sensing - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
Intuition - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X
ISTP/ISTj
Thinking - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X
Feeling - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
Sensing - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
Intuition - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
INTP/INTj
Thinking - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X
Feeling - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
Sensing - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
Intuition - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
ISFP/ISFj
Thinking - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
Feeling - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X
Sensing - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
Intuition - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
INFP/INFj
Thinking - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
Feeling - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X
Sensing - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
Intuition - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
ISTJ/ISTp
Thinking - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
Feeling - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
Sensing - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X
Intuition - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
ISFJ/ISFp
Thinking - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
Feeling - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
Sensing - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X
Intuition - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
INTJ/INTp
Thinking - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
Feeling - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
Sensing - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
Intuition - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X
INFJ/INFp
Thinking - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
Feeling - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
Sensing - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
Intuition - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X

* X represents til the end, not physical death but spiritual death
*** hypothesis 1: collective consciousness, type and death are related - more on that later maybe. ***
*** hypothesis 2: age 6-20 are the golden years for now after reading a most likely self explanatory reason ***
*** hypothesis 3: psychosis is the prolonged (what is it 6 months for schizophrenia diagnosis?) or delayed awareness of tertiary(3rd) and inferior(4th) psychological function (Jung model) ***

Why types correlate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics content 4
http://www.socionics.com/articles/howto.htm

Which means that functions correlate, how that works:
Mental/Vital functions, Accepting/Producing functions, Inert/Contact, Valued/Unvalued or subdued functions, Evaluatory/Situational functions, Bold/Cautious functions, Conscious/Subconscious functions and Weak/Strong functions.

Jung model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics content 2

Socionics model:
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...d_and_cautious

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-of-the-Psyche

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/model_a/

http://identityandtype.wordpress.com.../09/socionics/

MBTI model:
http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/16Types/16Types.cfm

Function correlation (descriptions):
Jung:
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm
Socionics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics content 3
MBTI:
http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-p...-attitudes.asp

Merry Christmas!

[Beautiful sky]

Um, what is this? And, what is it's purpose?

[griggerplease]

Um, what is this? And, what is it's purpose?

do whatever you want with it

[Beautiful sky]

do whatever you want with it

Well, if I don't know what it is and why you're providing it then what can i do with it? it's like you handing me an odd object for which I have no standard memory recall of use and you expect me to hold on to it. Is it for a later time?

I'd tell you what I would do with an object I didn't know of, I'd put it on the shelf in the closet and hope that the subject comes up in the future, but for immediate use, I don't know what to do with it.

[Beautiful sky]

I would like to understand your analysis in terms of a real human being please...for myself, for instance you write:

INFJ/INFp
Thinking - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
Feeling - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
Sensing - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
Intuition - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X


So according to the above, my "thinking" function develops at the age of 30-49; however, I thought it developed earlier than that...but even though it develops in that age it's only conscious at age 6? how can that be?

[some chair]

How do you see a Se dominant's loss of touch with Ni as being psychosis? Psychosis seems to be a Ni/Ti process, and flattening of affect/anhedonia a Pi trait. (In your sauce there, Jung's description of Pi dominance as leading to inexpressiveness and a fruitless existence by his society's standards rings as the negative symptoms of the schizophrenic spectrum.)

So according to the above, my "thinking" function develops at the age of 30-49; however, I thought it developed earlier than that...but even though it develops in that age it's only conscious at age 6? how can that be?

Have you ever seen people parading their ability in some function in a way that shows they use it extremely simplistically? I imagine the dunning-krueger effect where someone's delusions of competence lead them to be loudly and self-confidently ignorant and short-sighted. I suspect this is the result of conscious but undeveloped function usage.

Just a thought though. Let's see what negern has to say

Disclaimer: if you buy into the system. I'm not offering assent or dissent here.

[griggerplease]

Well, if I don't know what it is and why you're providing it then what can i do with it? it's like you handing me an odd object for which I have no standard memory recall of use and you expect me to hold on to it. Is it for a later time?

I'd tell you what I would do with an object I didn't know of, I'd put it on the shelf in the closet and hope that the subject comes up in the future, but for immediate use, I don't know what to do with it.

Trust me you don't want to know if you don't get it. Not for now.

I would like to understand your analysis in terms of a real human being please...for myself, for instance you write:

INFJ/INFp
Thinking - developes from age 30-49 is conscious from age 6-20
Feeling - developes from age 8-20 is conscious from age 0-X
Sensing - developes from age 50-X is conscious from age 6-20
Intuition - developes from age 0-7 is conscious from age 0-X


So according to the above, my "thinking" function develops at the age of 30-49; however, I thought it developed earlier than that...but even though it develops in that age it's only conscious at age 6? how can that be?

This is in an "normal" individual according to theory.

How do you see a Se dominant's loss of touch with Ni as being psychosis? Psychosis seems to be a Ni/Ti process, and flattening of affect/anhedonia a Pi trait. (In your sauce there, Jung's description of Pi dominance as leading to inexpressiveness and a fruitless existence by his society's standards rings as the negative symptoms of the schizophrenic spectrum.)

Psychosis depend on type first of all, and secondly there are many different kinds of psychosis, the swedish schizophrenia article mentions it, I dont wanna peer through the whole english article right now but here it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

Edit:
Here is the swedish article, machine translate if you want to:
"Paul Eugen Bleuler, som myntade termen, pratade faktiskt i stället om "schizofrenierna" (plural)"
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizofreni

Have you ever seen people parading their ability in some function in a way that shows they use it extremely simplistically? I imagine the dunning-krueger effect where someone's delusions of competence lead them to be loudly and self-confidently ignorant and short-sighted. I suspect this is the result of conscious but undeveloped function usage.

Just a thought though. Let's see what negern has to say

Disclaimer: if you buy into the system. I'm not offering assent or dissent here.

This is weak and subconscious force (Se) through awareness that probably shouldnt be there if the individual is outside of the age range 6-20 y.o

Edit: I am sleep deprived I thought you asked me
Edit: Oh I am that tired, you wanted my response

[Beautiful sky]

Have you ever seen people parading their ability in some function in a way that shows they use it extremely simplistically?

No. Honestly I have not. And by this, I hope you don't mean someone showing off how smart they are and you equating that to T function.

I imagine the dunning-krueger effect where someone's delusions of competence lead them to be loudly and self-confidently ignorant and short-sighted. I suspect this is the result of conscious but undeveloped function usage.

I don't think Socionics functions work by choice or effort; they are what you do, or rather what your brain does with the information and how it exchanges it; for example, in my case, Te is related to external dynamics, an interest in watching other's actions; I just don't do that, I would have never considered doing that had I not know Socionics or what Te mean; I just go around doing what would be considered my base functions mostly; and whether or not I will develop Te or become more conscious of it, I have yet to learn, I'm currently 34.

[Beautiful sky]

Trust me you don't want to know if you don't get it. Not for now.



This is in an "normal" individual according to theory.

So, some function can become conscious before it starts to develop; perhaps the order in which you placed this made it confusing.

[griggerplease]

So, some function can become conscious before it starts to develop; perhaps the order in which you placed this made it confusing.

It is all Jung

[Kill4Me]

It is all Jung

You're evasive.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

OP: Please don't attempt to mix MBTI and Socionics like that. If you'd like to discuss type development in either system separately, complete with sources relevant to each specific system, that's fine and potentially quite interesting. Concerning Socionics, I've heard it put forth that it's difficult (if not impossible) to type someone before adulthood. I'm not entirely sure whether I agree with this myself.

[griggerplease]

You're evasive.

How is clearing things up by explaining the order evasive?

OP: Please don't attempt to mix MBTI and Socionics like that. If you'd like to discuss type development in either system separately, complete with sources relevant to each specific system, that's fine and potentially quite interesting. Concerning Socionics, I've heard it put forth that it's difficult (if not impossible) to type someone before adulthood. I'm not entirely sure whether I agree with this myself.

Attempt? I succeeded

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Attempt? I succeeded

That remains to be seen. For one thing, you are assuming that the mental processes bearing a certain label in both systems are completely equal and interchangeable, which they are not.

[griggerplease]

That remains to be seen. For one thing, you are assuming that the mental processes bearing a certain label in both systems are completely equal and interchangeable, which they are not.

No man, just no.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

No man, just no.

"No" what? You are not assuming they are interchangeable, or you think I am incorrect in saying they are not?

[griggerplease]

"No" what? You are not assuming they are interchangeable, or you think I am incorrect in saying they are not?

I am not assuming they are, no.

[Kill4Me]

How is clearing things up by explaining the order evasive?
:

It's not.

[Beautiful sky]

It is all Jung

oh, interesting.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I am not assuming they are, no.

Then why mention type and function correlations? Why list the types as ESTJ/ESTj, INFP/INFj, etc?

[griggerplease]

Then why mention type and function correlations? Why list the types as ESTJ/ESTj, INFP/INFj, etc?

I am talking about:
"Which means that functions correlate, how that works:
Mental/Vital functions, Accepting/Producing functions, Inert/Contact, Valued/Unvalued or subdued functions, Evaluatory/Situational functions, Bold/Cautious functions, Conscious/Subconscious functions and Weak/Strong functions."

What are you talking about?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I am talking about:
"Which means that functions correlate, how that works:
Mental/Vital functions, Accepting/Producing functions, Inert/Contact, Valued/Unvalued or subdued functions, Evaluatory/Situational functions, Bold/Cautious functions, Conscious/Subconscious functions and Weak/Strong functions."

What are you talking about?

Your citing of sources that talk about how to convert MBTI type to socionics type. Your listing of types as ESTJ/ESTj, INFP/INFj, which implies that you believe they're the exact same thing. Your listing Jung's functions, MBTI functions, and Socionics IE descriptions under the heading "function correlations".

[griggerplease]

Your citing of sources that talk about how to convert MBTI type to socionics type. Your listing of types as ESTJ/ESTj, INFP/INFj, which implies that you believe they're the exact same thing. Your listing Jung's functions, MBTI functions, and Socionics IE descriptions under the heading "function correlations".

The types correlate as explained with sources in the OP.

The functions correlate as explained with sources in the OP.

[Kill4Me]

The types correlate as explained with sources in the OP.

The functions correlate as explained with sources in the OP.

You're not making much sense.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

The types correlate as explained with sources in the OP.

The functions correlate as explained with sources in the OP.

And there is our disagreement, and much of my problem with your attempt to mix them.

[Beautiful sky]

Then why mention type and function correlations? Why list the types as ESTJ/ESTj, INFP/INFj, etc?

sometimes, they correlate perfectly but not always

[griggerplease]

You're not making any sense.

Neither do the sources make any sense for you then.

You're not making much sense.

Nice edit, you need to read it all again probably

And there is our disagreement, and much of my problem with your attempt to mix them.

Check the sources if you wanna get anywhere with this.

sometimes, they correlate perfectly but not always

They never correlate perfectly. Introverted types got a j/p switch (you heard this before I know). Check the sources!!

Edit: I am talking about the types, the function correlation is a tidy bit more complicated.

[griggerplease]

[Beautiful sky]

Neither do the sources make any sense for you then.



Nice edit, you need to read it all again probably

calm please........

you need sleep...this won't go anywhere, you should continue in the morning..

[Cuddly McFluffles]

sometimes, they correlate perfectly but not always

Some IM elements and functions come closer than others. Others are most definitely different. And then there is also the difference of type models between the systems. There's hardly enough similarity overall to justify a solid conversion formula.

[Kill4Me]

Nice edit, you need to read it all again probably.

I did. It's gibberish.

[griggerplease]

I did. It's gibberish.

Sources from Socionics link:
Information resources[edit]
the16Types.info, English speaking Socionics community
Socioniko.net, Multilingual Socionic Site
Wikisocion.org
Socionics.us, contains notes on Augustinaviciute's books
Socionics.com
Socionika.com, contains numerous articles from many authors
Socionic.info, International Institute of Socionics
Definitive-socionics.info
[8]
[9], School of System Socionics, English version
Tests[edit]
Socioniko.net, short test by Dmitri Lytov and Marianna Lytova
socionics.us, by Rick DeLong
Sociotype.com, by Ryan Valaas
Socionics.com, by Sergei Ganin
socionictest.net, 40-questions test
zhilkin.com/socio, Reinin traits ↔ sociotype

"gibberish"? bloody hell man, sod off *brtn*

Edit: Source of the source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics

Edit: special delivery for you, k4m I am showing that I am showing the sources.

Edit: Yet again, the sources are the sources I used to make the system that is presented in the OP. The hypotheses I made come from my own understanding I never claimed it to be anything but a hypothesis.

[Kill4Me]

Sources from Socionics link:
Information resources[edit]
the16Types.info, English speaking Socionics community
Socioniko.net, Multilingual Socionic Site
Wikisocion.org
Socionics.us, contains notes on Augustinaviciute's books
Socionics.com
Socionika.com, contains numerous articles from many authors
Socionic.info, International Institute of Socionics
Definitive-socionics.info
[8]
[9], School of System Socionics, English version
Tests[edit]
Socioniko.net, short test by Dmitri Lytov and Marianna Lytova
socionics.us, by Rick DeLong
Sociotype.com, by Ryan Valaas
Socionics.com, by Sergei Ganin
socionictest.net, 40-questions test
zhilkin.com/socio, Reinin traits ↔ sociotype

"gibberish"? bloody hell man, sod off *brtn*

Edit: Source of the source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics

your sources are so general as to be laughable.

[Kill4Me]

those sources don't give any substance to your so-called 'private research' or hypotheses,

furthermore, when you present 'findings' and want them taken seriously, it's first of all a good idea not to be evasive.

Today, 08:56 PMMaritsa
Um, what is this? And, what is it's purpose?

do whatever you want with it

Well, if I don't know what it is and why you're providing it then what can i do with it?

Trust me you don't want to know if you don't get it. Not for now.

For christ sake, YOU don't even seem to know nor get what you're presenting.

[Beautiful sky]

those sources don't give any substance to your so-called 'private research' or hypotheses,

furthermore, when you present 'findings' and want them taken seriously, it's first of all a good idea not to be evasive.


For christ sake, YOU don't even seem to know nor get what you're presenting.

He/She is sleep deprived. I would say that causes irritability, inability to assess their information or accurately decipher the information they're asked for, misdirect anger, frustration...other things too, inability to concentrate.

[griggerplease]

your sources are so general as to be laughable.

There is nothing wrong with the sources. General is good, it is synonymous with public.

those sources don't give any substance to your so-called 'private research' or hypotheses,

You want 8 years worth of sources? Are you crazy? I wrote that it is a small system/synthesis of what I have learned within that time frame, not that it is an synthesis of everything I learned.

Edit: I never claimed to have sources for my own hypotheses, they are original hypotheses. Now, the system is sourced for so to speak.

furthermore, when you present 'findings' and want them taken seriously, it's first of all a good idea not to be evasive.

Evasive? Still? You need to understand the "facts" you use before you use them.
Evasive means:

in English

Adjective

1. evasive (comparative more evasive, superlative most evasive)
Tending to avoid speaking openly or making revelations about oneself.
2. Directed towards avoidance or escape; evasive action.

Source:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evasive

For christ sake, YOU don't even seem to know nor get what you're presenting.

It is all layed out there for you guys I am not looking for profit. I made this system for fun, do what you want with it.

I've answered pretty much the same question twice now so please leave room for other people to reply k4m.

[DaftPunk]

Can't wait till i am 50 and my intuition finally starts to develop. At least at 30 my feeling starts to develop but's just a quantum of solace.

[griggerplease]

[Absurd]

Cool bollocks.

[griggerplease]

Hi negern. @Ryene Astraelis is correct, that the types aren't necessarily a direct correlation between MBTI & Socionics as was implied by the original post. For socionics, I'd suggest thinking of it as a different system completely, although the same/similar terminology and acronyms for the types are deceptively used. Although it seems you are somewhat aware of this, as you see they aren't "perfectly correlated".

Would you be so kind and link the source that is backing you up on that claim?

And don't worry about Kill4Me, as he is the latest troll it seems.

k4m was probably trying to learn.

I take the timelines for development as being very general and suggestive. Why such a high range for each one? The age gap between 30 & 49 is very large and relative to maturity, imho. Surely someone who is more 'mature' or attains more life experiences would be able to develop faster, imho.

It is not based of my own theory, it is MBTI and Socionics. The system is my creation, you know us LSE Inventors.

Edit: I edited.. still diden't sleep
Edit: It was a real bad edit aswell...
Edit:
Source on LSE inventor:
"ILE and LSE make good inventors and innovators. ILI and LSI finalizers and explotationists."^
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ng-and-Renewal