do you still act the same way as before?
now that you have a clearer picture of yourself by exposure to personality theories, do you act more like or less like the way you used to act?
or more like / less like your socionics/enneagram/mbti/big5 type <- if you want to answer that question instead
no
I think I've become more aware of what I do and how I operate, but I haven't necessarily changed. If anything, it's enabled me to try and understand myself and others based on how differently we may be hardwired.
And if God cares so wonderfully for flowers that are here today and gone tomorrow, won't he more surely care for you?- Matthew 6:30
No
For the confident No sayers - Can you say how you behave differently?
I do believe socionics made enough difference for me, but to track to actual difference in behavior would be too much work.
Yeah I do, I'm still the same person and that is the reason I find myself comfortable to spend time with, type or no type.
Sorry, I should have said yes. By no I meant it has not changed the way I behave or think. It has had absolutely zero net effect on me as a person.Originally Posted by Esaman
It hasn't changed who I am or what I want, but it has changed how I treat others.
This could also be due to aging/gaining more experience as well.
zactly.
Real life still shapes me more than any abstract theory. Sometimes it's just been a tool amongst many others in terms of changing awareness. I've not made any decisions based on it solely that I can recall.
Heh, I don't really know what's to think about here. Typology is some Ti stuff socionics-wise anyway and to think the more information one soaks in is going to change how the person behaves around people or that it has some kind of emotional impact on one is absurd!
Not unless one counts in the number of sociotypes one self-typed and is going to adjusting to every single one every time. Hobbies may change over time, your skill set, etc., but how you handle it, is still you.
Last edited by Absurd; 08-19-2013 at 09:54 PM.
I'm not at all convinced that all these personality typologies are able to present a "clearer picture" - taking socionics as an example, there is no way that one can get a "clearer picture of oneself" from a typology that crudely bundles everyone alongside 400+ million of other individuals by means of vaguely and confusedly hand-waving at some generic traits, half of which have little to do with the said typology and half of which peak in behaviorist absurdity, and then proceeding to call all these millions of individuals "identicals" - if anything this is liable to make things only more confusing and muddled.
Throw in the fact that some typology devotees proceed to adopt certain typology conjured stereotypes that fit their idealized image of the self, and/or enable them feel liked and socially accepted, and that do not represent their authentic self, and then go around playing into these false stereotypes thus subjecting themselves (and others) to copious amounts of derealization and egregious self-deception that lasts for years - and it becomes completely hair-raising.
In discussions elsewhere it has been mentioned that socionics doesn't extend to more than a third of manifestations of a personality, which is true of most of the other personality typologies, in which case, provided that a person has been able to avoid the trap of self-delusion, there is really not much that can be glimpsed from these typing schemes - I think many people realize this at some point or another, so learning about these typologies doesn't significantly change their usual behavioral patterns. And my own reply is that no, it hasn't really altered my behavior.
Wonder what would happen if I were to visit some people I know now and started acting apeshit. Most of them have some kind of fixed view of me, so it would be pretty funneh hearing "what happened to you?"
And if that's not what Socionics is trying to catch, I don't know what else it is.
yeah.now i know that it's not me.it's their functions. D=
Functions you use yourself for and against. You're like a sinking ship firing at the rescuers, the16types. No surrender!
Let's type some people, together...
That is a gross misrepresentation of what socionics as a theory. It is very much the opposite of behaviorism and centrism on superficial traits. The abstract metabolism is dubiously simplified to traits for two reasons. Socionicists trying to make tests and the other is limitations of intelligence/laziness. Table of traits and stereotypes is so much easier than working on insight in to minds of people. Do not judge a theory by the lowest common denominator of the community.
As for usefulness. Exploration of different priorities, perspectives and values is valuable even if the particular system that allegedly exist between them is false, which I don't believe it is.
The only good way to protect mind from bad ideas is creating a system of better ones. There is no backpedaling on concepts of systematic differences in personality, because they exist.
Nice rant.
You are IEE, right?
I've always been changing the way I act/see the world/etc, so typology is pretty incidental in the process. It's likely to have had some effect, I'll grant that.
"perceived" clearer picture was implied. it wouldn't do any good to ask about the effects on a non-believer. i liked your point though
the same
my mother would notice the difference and point it out to me if there is a personality difference from me now and 10 years ago. She's very keen on what emotional and physical things go on with me.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Yeah, I don't see that it's changed me.
I've always loosely 'typed' people anyway, well before I knew about typology theories.
How did you type them?
Not in any formal capacity. Just as one goes thru life paying attention to people, you start noticing certain similar qualities and recurring patterns among them—in their mentalities and approaches to life. Eventually you develop a sense to estimate where an interaction will go with someone, predict what they're likely to do, etc. because you've encountered 'their' type of person before.
Pretty sure everyone does this to some extent (hence why I don't understand the freak-outs some have over typology sometimes, given it's something everyone naturally does anyway).
Oh I see. Something akin to this forum after eliminating Socionics out of the scope, although I'm not sure how far one's predictions are going to differentiate between a mass of, at times, same speaking subjects - lump them in same type?
Enneagram was useful for me. I was able to see my attitudes and behavior in the past in light of that, and the awareness alone of those patterns has helped me in some cases from falling into them again. It's not that I didn't know how I was, but without the whys and mechanism of how it works - I felt justified in my actions, so continued them before looking at E-types.
As for socionics . . . if someone would have described me at 5 years old, or 10 or 15, they would have described a pretty stereotypical LSI. I went through the whole trying to change my personality thing though, and tried to become something different, but type isn't the outward personality stuff you show (though it can help indicate it.) It's about the channels through which you direct everything that comes in - it's how you see and think about things, not what you see or learn.
When people talk about themselves, a lot of times they talk from ideas of themselves, a concept that leaves out some information and overfocuses on other information, whatever they're geared towards seeing right then, which is why some people switch types several times and each time they say it's out of a new understanding of either themself or the theory. They become convinced that NOW they have it right and it will all make sense. You or I might change in a lot of ways, and we might change what we focus on, but I don't think we can change the how of it. How we think about things.
It's kind of like when people do linguistic analysis to determine the author of something. There are word choices and order, certain phrases and particular cadences to the speech of individuals that is very hard to disguise. The author might write comedy, drama, a personal essay or a non-fiction book, and still you can see them in it. Type I think is like that. You can have all kinds of variety and different actions and attempts to be one thing or another, but the individual and their particular way of thinking is behind all of it. And that way of thinking might be able to be classified into type. And sometimes it shows up in stereotypical ways of acting or doing things. But it's the how and the why, not the what.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
