Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Type Growth

  1. #1
    strangeling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,704
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Type Growth

    I'm bored and wanted to come up with a way to explain how a socionics type might grow.

    ILE

    Stage 1 - Strong Ego; the PoLR
    Ne+(Te->Ti)
    *Si and Fe are heavily repressed.
    *Ti is channeled through Te, creating Fi problems

    **Learns to appreciate Fe (Hidden Agenda)**

    Stage 2 - Loose Ego
    Ne+(Fe->Ti->Te)
    *Si heavily repressed
    *Fe takes care of Fi problems
    *Ne pursues ideas for the sake of doing so. Example: Nikola Tesla wanted to build Tesla Coils to transmit electricity and lost all his fortune trying to make it work, rather than accepting it was a fruitless endeavor.

    **Learns to appreciate the ability to let go of their ego**

    Stage 3 - Spiritual Growth (sense of equanimity with life)
    **No unhealthy repression
    **Developed introversion
    **Psyche is integrated and acts as a well-functioning whole with the world, fulfilling their needs, while fulfilling others needs at the same time.
    (Ne->Si)+(Fe->Ti->Si)



    Anyone got any other ideas they like?
    Last edited by strangeling; 12-22-2013 at 02:16 AM.

  2. #2
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    326
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tackk View Post
    I'm bored and wanted to come up with a way to explain how a socionics type might grow.

    ILE

    Stage 1 - Strong Ego; the PoLR
    Ne+(Te->Ti)
    *Si and Fe are heavily repressed.
    *Ti is channeled through Te, creating Fi problems

    **Learns to appreciate Fe (Hidden Agenda)**

    Stage 2 - Loose Ego
    Ne+(Fe->Ti->Te)
    *Si heavily repressed
    *Fe takes care of Fi problems
    *Ne pursues ideas for the sake of doing so. Example: Nikola Tesla wanted to build Tesla Coils to transmit electricity and lost all his fortune trying to make it work, rather than accepting it was a fruitless endeavor.

    **Learns to appreciate the ability to let go of their ego**

    Stage 3 - Spiritual Growth (sense of equanimity with life)
    **No unhealthy repression
    **Developed introversion
    **Psyche is integrated and acts as a well-functioning whole with the world, fulfilling their needs, while fulfilling others needs at the same time.
    (Ne->Si)+(Fe->Ti->Si)



    Anyone got any other ideas they like?
    You got this from MBTI isn't it?

  3. #3
    strangeling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,704
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    You got this from MBTI isn't it?
    Sure.

  4. #4
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    326
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tackk View Post
    Sure.
    I once accepted that through gullibility but the more I've learnt about myself and the dynamism of personality, the more I've seen the flaw in that point of view. That is because I actually have a very high EQ so I don't much of a problem with social issues, I believe the capacity for my EQ is innate nevertheless I understand the environment can augment such traits but having seen that others have horrible EQ, and now i'm talking pure Ethical types, I'm convinced that associating TIM with ability doesn't work at all. And conversely I've seen intuitors who aren't that clever plus since switching to socionics I realised that I mistyped smart SFs as NTs since I had been under the illusion that intelligence was a by product of intuition and thinking, though to be honest it was subconsciously since that is what MBTI says despite its political correctness that all people are equal lols when the definitions say otherwise.

    Bottom line:
    Hang around with real ISFPs and see if your notions of function skills/development make much sense? Plus the idea that EIE could be really intellectual was quite bewildering before I understood that Steve Jobs was EIE and very logical and intelligent even though he had moments of craziness were he wanted to abuse the power of not to seeing reality as it is. His magical reality out look, but as I'm an obstinate type EF-IT valuing, I really relate to the idea of ignoring objective judgement when it doesn't suit my interests. And I can be swayed by my desires and subvert my logic to it, ITs are different from ET-IFs if you really start to understand introversion and extroversion dual existance in a single Tim.

    The same applies for ES IN, the farsighted types, who are more spontaneous with regards to concrete matters since ES is valued, plus due to IN they create plans that disregard the available opportunities in their design.
    Last edited by Soupman; 12-26-2013 at 03:02 AM. Reason: probarbly errors I failed to correct but f it, its bed time

  5. #5
    strangeling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,704
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd agree that there are variations in personality within types, if that's what you mean. Some people also develop a strong super-ego, perhaps because they felt they needed to; but I do doubt their ability would make them feel very comfortable or sane because it would contradict their more innate inclinations. I didn't want to include this to start simple.

    But I guess I prefer the Jungian split between F and T and see the acceptance of the repressed as a healthy way to access and deal with the super-ego; because F has repressed T and T repressed F. But each stage deals with this repression until the last one where it's not a big problem anymore. Theoretically, if you have high EQ and consider yourself a T type, then you are either stage 2 or stage 3.

    But yeah, if you always had a high EQ, why do you think a T type fits you better than F, out of curiosity?

  6. #6
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    326
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tackk View Post
    I'd agree that there are variations in personality within types, if that's what you mean. Some people also develop a strong super-ego, perhaps because they felt they needed to; but I do doubt their ability would make them feel very comfortable or sane because it would contradict their more innate inclinations. I didn't want to include this to start simple.

    But I guess I prefer the Jungian split between F and T and see the acceptance of the repressed as a healthy way to access and deal with the super-ego; because F has repressed T and T repressed F. But each stage deals with this repression until the last one where it's not a big problem anymore. Theoretically, if you have high EQ and consider yourself a T type, then you are either stage 2 or stage 3.

    But yeah, if you always had a high EQ, why do you think a T type fits you better than F, out of curiosity?
    The logic and Ethics dichotomy is the one of the most complicated ones to understand, since its barely understood by most socionics schools. I apologize in advance for potentially seemingly beating around the bush here, but what I've learnt that Ethics is actually very rational and very difficult to understand as it has nothing to do with emotions at all as a pure reasoning mechanism (yet I do understand your point about EQ). I guess as you still have MBTI fresh in your vocab, you would be bewildered as to why someone as rational, sober minded and ''logical'' as Steve Jobs is formally typed as EIE by Gulenko.

    T is ''logic'' driven by a concrete perception of details reality, whilst F is ''logic'' driven by an abstract perception of details reality... you for lack of a better explanation my life is driven more by logical problem solving interests more than the ethics, yet I know that I easily turn into an SF when the situation calls for it naturally. This has made me feel that this typing theory is rubbish but the more I've learnt the more I've accepted that people are very dynamic and at most times difficult to categorize.

    Sorry for the half-assed explanation, I'm feeling slow to day

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    861
    Mentioned
    99 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    T is ''logic'' driven by a concrete perception of details reality, whilst F is ''logic'' driven by an abstract perception of details reality... you for lack of a better explanation my life is driven more by logical problem solving interests more than the ethics, yet I know that I easily turn into an SF when the situation calls for it naturally. This has made me feel that this typing theory is rubbish but the more I've learnt the more I've accepted that people are very dynamic and at most times difficult to categorize.
    I find it interesting what you said here. So basically what you're saying here is somewhat agreeing with @Tackk's statement that "Some people also develop a strong super-ego, perhaps because they felt they needed to"...? (ILI->SEI) or maybe you weren't talking about Super-ego and you still meant SF within the same quadra, so "going from" ILI to ESI?

    I think I sometimes act ILI-like (although tbh probably more IEI-like as my Te isn't too good) and am wondering how much "nurture" influences us... (SEI brought up by ILI here).

  8. #8
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    326
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aisa View Post
    I find it interesting what you said here. So basically what you're saying here is somewhat agreeing with @Tackk's statement that "Some people also develop a strong super-ego, perhaps because they felt they needed to"...? (ILI->SEI) or maybe you weren't talking about Super-ego and you still meant SF within the same quadra, so "going from" ILI to ESI?

    I think I sometimes act ILI-like (although tbh probably more IEI-like as my Te isn't too good) and am wondering how much "nurture" influences us... (SEI brought up by ILI here).
    The quadra system is fundamentally broken tbh, regardless my SF persona is actually SEI not ESI, due to the fact that fundamentally I value irrationality. It's one of the reasons why I get along with ILE, well, some ILE's more than others subtype kinda matter here. Also I'm an ILI Ne, so I have the infantile romance traits gulenko talks about plus generally that distorts my quadra values making me more ''alpha'' than gamma, being into comfort and new ideas creativity.

    Also ILI are NiTi more so than ''NiTe'' this is what the energomodel says, the theory stuff gets a lot messier, but its actually much closer to observing socionics in reality as opposed to wallowing with wikisocion's theory.

  9. #9
    InvisibleJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Si vis pacem
    TIM
    para bellum
    Posts
    4,832
    Mentioned
    202 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    type type type type type

  10. #10
    A man chooses, a slave obeys MensSuperMateriam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    345
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    The logic and Ethics dichotomy is the one of the most complicated ones to understand, since its barely understood by most socionics schools.
    Does it mean your god is the only true god? Just an analogy, but useful for making my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    I apologize in advance for potentially seemingly beating around the bush here, but what I've learnt that Ethics is actually very rational and very difficult to understand as it has nothing to do with emotions at all as a pure reasoning mechanism (yet I do understand your point about EQ). I guess as you still have MBTI fresh in your vocab, you would be bewildered as to why someone as rational, sober minded and ''logical'' as Steve Jobs is formally typed as EIE by Gulenko.
    There's no such thing as "pure reasoning", because fuctions do to exist per ser and cannot be isolated. That would be a reification fallacy. The psyche is a whole, although you can always observe an aspect of it, carry it to its extreme (the limit case) and call it "function X".

    Ethics are not emotions, but have to do with them. The same way T does not equal to logic, but has to do with it. Although every type has emotions the mindset of ethical ones are specially suitable for them (producing and understanding). Every type can understand and use zeroth-order logic, but their principles are more easily derived if the tool you have is Ti (for example). If ethics represents reasonings where people (and specially the same user) are the reference point of a certain evaluation, it implies a bigger user of the empath pathway of the brain. Probably they have a stronger connection between the frontal lobe and the limbic system, although I'm speculating due to my insufficient knowledge in neurosciences. Or maybe an enhaced activity (compared with logic users) of mirror neurons. A support for this could be asperger children, who could be seen as extreme cases for T users. By the other hand, logic users treats every concept (people included) as "equally important" at first (they're not biased, or inclined if you want, to people) hence their "objectivity".

    About Steve Jobs, you cannot use one subject as a proof for your point, because a particular case is just that, a particular case. You would need to compare the statistically average user of X (ethics) versus Y (logic). And by the way, Jobs does not seem to me specially logic, only very intelligent, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME. But as soon as "objective" logic conflicted with "subjective" ethics, the guy was usually inclined to the last. The best example were his last days; when first facing his illness, instead going to the doctor he tried "alternative" medicine until it was too late. I'm not mocking him, only making a point. His intuition reinforced his subjectivity making the guy prone to magical thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    T is ''logic'' driven by a concrete perception of details reality, whilst F is ''logic'' driven by an abstract perception of details reality... you for lack of a better explanation my life is driven more by logical problem solving interests more than the ethics, yet I know that I easily turn into an SF when the situation calls for it naturally. This has made me feel that this typing theory is rubbish but the more I've learnt the more I've accepted that people are very dynamic and at most times difficult to categorize.
    You are if not swapping at least partially mixing ethics with intuition. I'm not sure if you're trying to "rise up" ethicals or something like that (do they they need it?). Comparing SFs with STs, for example, I do not see SFs more "abstract" (neither less) than STs, only more subjective in their way of thinking. More prone to accept or reject the validity of an idea according to "like/dislike" or "good/bad".
    Last edited by MensSuperMateriam; 02-28-2014 at 10:16 AM.

  11. #11
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    326
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You really ought to have a conversation with Socionics Britannica whenever he publishes his theory. And on a equally separate hilarious thought people think I'm posing as him, since I seem to be so eager to mention him, which really makes it seem like I'm a walking advertizing drone lols. Never the less his vision of what Socionics ''should be or not be'', is purely his school's challenge as he takes the burden of creating a scientific field out of this. As in science one of the most important thing is the objective falsifiability of claims, that is what is leading his epistemology in that direction as he starts establishing a foundation of knowledge that is to be challenged and critique; all claims brought fourth are to be challenged fundamentally through numerous perspectives by many researchers so at the end of the day, so claims are not supposed to be ''he said that so its true end of story'', you know like how typology is online.

    From what he's been saying one of the fundamentals of his School's Socionics borrows from the late David Keirsey's fundamental idea, with regards to this studying ''cognition(what ever you want to call it)'' you should only focus on what can be objectively observed. As opposed to speculating about the mechanisms in the mind which you have no proof of what so ever, it just makes you look silly. You know Keirsey never attempted to create a science out of his work but that was not his intention, yet his point rings true. This is the fundamental idea behind Socionics Britannica school's theory currently under development.

    Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
    Does it mean your god is the only true god? Just an analogy, but useful for making my point.
    With science one of the most important thing is making sure that your claims can be independently verified and challenged by any researcher and the claims made are supposed to stand under deductive reasoning so any error or lack of falsifiability, strictly invalidates the whole claim, the theory. This is a gross concatenation, a crude summary of the scientific methodology, so mind any error but the fundamental point there is that if a claim is true its must be able to stand under intellectual attack, so baseless, evidence-lacking claims are already redundant in their capacity to bring any truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
    There's no such thing as "pure reasoning", because fuctions do to exist per ser and cannot be isolated. That would be a reification fallacy. The psyche is a whole, although you can always observe an aspect of it, carry it to its extreme (the limit case) and call it "function X".
    This has been indirectly answered above, but to put it succinctly, the theory being formulated there is not about speculations over the nature of ''mental processes'' but rather strict evidence of the observable display of reasoning we observe people displaying, for example through the use of language fundamentally looking at the outward display. Through observing people, abstractions of various styles of reasoning can be formed and through this, patterns emerge, and those are the ones he has been taking ages to refine in their identification since once you establish an observation, other researchers are supposed to be able to indepently observe your claims and challenge them. If you look at their facebook page, the guy writing a book for academics that lays out the construct of his theory for people to challenge.

    The bottom line is that when studying people variations of styles of reasoning an be observed and through that patterns can be abstracted and the classification of various styles of reasoning can emerge. ''Model X'' is currently in development as the Facebook page says.
    Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
    Ethics are not emotions, but have to do with them. The same way T does not equal to logic, but has to do with it. Although every type has emotions the mindset of ethical ones are specially suitable for them (producing and understanding). Every type can understand and use zeroth-order logic, but their principles are more easily derived if the tool you have is Ti (for example). If ethics represents reasonings where people (and specially the same user) are the reference point of a certain evaluation, it implies a bigger user of the empath pathway of the brain. Probably they have a stronger connection between the frontal lobe and the limbic system, although I'm speculating due to my insufficient knowledge in neurosciences. Or maybe an enhaced activity (compared with logic users) of mirror neurons. A support for this could be asperger children, who could be seen as extreme cases for T users. By the other hand, logic users treats every concept (people included) as "equally important" at first (they're not biased, or inclined if you want, to people) hence their "objectivity".
    His research fundamentally challenges this as he starts to frame what he is calling the difference between concrete-logic and abstract-logic (his version of T & F, which is different from classic socionics; also in russia different schools have diverging definitions too). Its stems from his research where he has spoken to various ethical types as he looked at the reasoning they seem to have. His research isolates emotions as a separate entity that is able to influence either concrete-logic or abstract-logic, the gory details behind these claims are what he's in the midst of writing, attempting to clarify explicitly what that is actually supposed to mean and crucially how that claim exactly can be observed and challenged.

    In this theory ''emotional reasoning'' is further refined and has a more clarified definition of it being made so as to remove ambiguity about what exactly that supposed to be in addition to clarifying the illusive concrete-logic and abstract-logic, that he has been saying most schools fail to understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
    About Steve Jobs, you cannot use one subject as a proof for your point, because a particular case is just that, a particular case. You would need to compare the statistically average user of X (ethics) versus Y (logic). And by the way, Jobs does not seem to me specially logic, only very intelligent, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME. But as soon as "objective" logic conflicted with "subjective" ethics, the guy was usually inclined to the last. The best example were his last days; when first facing his illness, instead going to the doctor he tried "alternative" medicine until it was too late. I'm not mocking him, only making a point. His intuition reinforced his subjectivity making the guy prone to magical thinking.
    Steve Jobs is officially diagnosed as ENFJ by Gulenko as you know and if you study Socionics you'd know that ''intelligence'' has nothing to do with the information elements. I've read Walter Issacson's book by the way and I love it, what a read. There Socionic's Britannica's has various models to explain the various and above all dynamic styles of reasoning that can even be observed in the same individual, even though his theory is becoming more complex leading to far more than 16types as well as multiple types existing in the same individual, he also says that there are still several unknown layers which add various dimensions to reasoning that his all encompassing theory can't explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
    You are if not swapping at least partially mixing ethics with intuition. I'm not sure if you're trying to "rise up" ethicals or something like that (do they they need it?). Comparing SFs with STs, for example, I do not see SFs more "abstract" (neither less) than STs, only more subjective in their way of thinking. More prone to accept or reject the validity of an idea according to "like/dislike" or "good/bad".
    This is where I've even observed this myself SF logic is different from ST logic, in the vary same way that NT logic is different from NF logic, again understanding exactly what concrete-logic and abstract-logic is key to identifying the two different styles of logic. You may even be failing to diagnose ST and SF ''properly'' even though its likely that we aren't even thinking exactly about the same concepts as we discuss this. Also this is the exact reason why he is saying the academic book is taking ages to write since the hardest part is making sure other researchers can explicitly identify his claim without any ambiguity so as to make the falsification of the claims possible. What you are thinking of as F and T is likely not even the same thing I have in mind so discussions about this would prove futile. Diagnosis is another important and critical part of the academic book since he says that both the claims and theory must mutually align, thus the diagnosis model must explicitly come from the theory and vice verse being both objective and internally consistent.

    NTs and STs both have concrete-logic whilst NF and SF both have abstract-logic. In this the most important point is understanding exactly what concrete and abstract is supposed to me, so far in his preliminary theory ''concrete'' has a lot of so called exclusively ''abstract'' properties since both points are regarded as abstractions from reality. The difference between ''concrete'' and ''abstract'' abstractions is that concrete abstractions are more anaL about explicit references of their claims whilst, abstract abstractions are not as they are more concerned with the idea being crafted more so above explicit references being inherently implicit.

    S and N are simply called concrete-details and abstract-details in his preliminary theory as discusses what exactly their difference is, which mutually follow with the idea of abstractions behind abstract-logic and concrete-logic. This is where his school diverges from other Socionics schools and I've been noticing this as I've observed sensing types realizing that I mistyped some of them.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    398
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Soupman you'll find this interesting. They're also trying to ground Jung in science.

    And on a equally separate hilarious thought people think I'm posing as him, since I seem to be so eager to mention him, which really makes it seem like I'm a walking advertizing drone lols. Also this is the exact reason why he is saying the academic book is taking ages to write
    You should read 1st paragraph here. Also astroturfing is a thing. What makes you sure this guy you're promoting isn't just riding the coattails of socionics' popularity? Where there's success there's imitators and opportunists. Is he profiting somehow while he's writing this book? Also sounds like he's moving away from the original, Jung source material. Is the book being written in english? What methods will he use to ground it in science - EEG scans? MRI scans? Genetics correlations and testing? Will his credentials be taken seriously by respected scientists?

    concrete-logic and abstract-logic, that he has been saying most schools fail to understand.
    Any basis in philosophy, psychology, etc? Cognitive styles ain't sth Gulenko invented you know. Besides, what makes this guy so special? Why is it that he managed to see what others couldn't?

    if you study Socionics you'd know that ''intelligence'' has nothing to do with the information elements.
    Some old topic had statistics saying INTs had the highest IQ. Been a long time since I saw that tho.

    I've observed sensing types realizing that I mistyped some of them.
    How long you've been at this? In another topic you said you support the enneagram - do you have the slightest understanding of how nonscientific it is? Or are you perhaps astroturfing for it?

  13. #13
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,125
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    People grow in all sorts of ways that are so different from each other. If you think a particular path of development makes sense in the context of you, it's probably reasonably accurate.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If it’s a disease, it’s nobody’s fault. Yay empiricism.

  14. #14
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    326
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ath View Post
    @Soupman you'll find this interesting. They're also trying to ground Jung in science.
    You should read 1st paragraph here. Also stroturfinga is a thing. What makes you sure this guy you're promoting isn't just riding the coattails of socionics' popularity? Where there's success there's imitators and opportunists. Is he profiting somehow while he's writing this book? Also sounds like he's moving away from the original, Jung source material. Is the book being written in english? What methods will he use to ground it in science - EEG scans? MRI scans? Genetics correlations and testing? Will his credentials be taken seriously by respected scientists?

    Any basis in philosophy, psychology, etc? Cognitive styles ain't sth Gulenko invented you know. Besides, what makes this guy so special? Why is it that he managed to see what others couldn't?
    The proof will be in the pudding he may turn out to be another british con like Spencer Stern to be honest, maybe I'm being naive to be honest. I'm feeling shitty at the moment, you are quite right indeed, psychology is far aheard of socionics. You know I never took psychology seriously at all and I accidentally got into this via MBTI when I randomly took some test that would suggest my career direction. You've uncovered my ignorance here, what does psychology really focus on? Also is there any more information on cognitive styles? Please can you link it to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ath View Post

    Some old topic had statistics saying INTs had the highest IQ. Been a long time since I saw that tho.
    I've briefly glossed over this from Celebrity Types who had that listed on their page.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ath View Post
    How long you've been at this? In another topic you said you support the enneagram - do you have the slightest understanding of how nonscientific it is? Or are you perhaps astroturfing for it?
    Enneagram is somewhat filled with half-truths to be honest, I can not take it fully seriously yet neither can I ignore the fact that sometimes its insightful. I want to believe that there is hope in enneagram which is why I've been putting a bit more faith in it. Similar minds is the guy that kind of gave me a little bit of hope that this could be taken seriously eventually. http://research.similarminds.com/the...-enneagram/807

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    398
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I accidentally got into this via MBTI when I randomly took some test that would suggest my career direction.
    @Soupman I discovered MBTI first time in 9th grade when I found a MBTI test which gave me INTJ. Also discovered Nietzsche around that time. But didn't look deeply into either. Took the MBTI tests once in a while the following years. Discovered MBTI for real and rediscovered Nietzsche in 12th grade or so? I was obesessed with philosophy and read a lot on ilovephilosophy. A discussion "are all philosophers the same" concerning typology and its relation to famous philosophers led me to EIDB and MBTI forums. One of the users from over there, @Sauwelios has an account on this site by the same name. Eventually I ended up here.
    Also is there any more information on cognitive styles?
    There's this of course. Other than that, a lot can be found by googling.
    I've briefly glossed over this from Celebrity Types who had that listed on their page.
    I meant IQ as it relates to socionics type.
    I want to believe that there is hope in enneagram
    Once I finish a post I've been preparing, that hope will be crushed. I'll mention you when that time comes so you don't miss it

Posting Permissions

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