Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 58

Thread: Where Socionics doesn't apply

  1. #1
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Where Socionics doesn't apply

    This post is long and boring, so if anything, just read the very last paragraph. That's what's important about my point.

    There is alot of information in Socionics on the way people perceive certain situations and how they think them through. Te uses known facts to argue a point, and Ti uses speculation. A person with dominant Fi acts as a moral policeman within arguments and social events. Ne is very interested in crazy theories and people's inherent abilities. Si is interested in comfort.

    But does anyone else feel like this all falls apart when you try to grasp the entire personality and not just how they process information in very limited settings? I find Socionics to focus on two main things: perception and judgment (and thus I would agree with the other thread about the importance of J/P in Socionics.) We perceive things in the environment and make judgments on them. We may look for innovative ideas or just for straight-up details. We may examine our perceptions from a logical standpoint or a moral standpoint.

    Sorry, folks, but this is not how people work. Over a century of research in psychology has shown this. What about classical conditioning? Or operant conditioning? Or social cognitive learning? Or cognitive psychology? Or neuroscience? Or, hell, even non-Jung psychoanalysis? If anything, these fields have shown us that people are both quite complex and strangely uniform.

    It seems to me that one large factor that is missing in Socionics is a theory of action. It's not enough to process information; one must be able to use it, and that's the important part of personality theory. Relational theory in Socionics does take this into account to some extent, and good for it, but this is not the only place action should apply. Try examining the ENFp and his relations to other people in general: how he initiates interaction, how he reacts to their varied actions, and how he creates, maintains, and destroys his social networks. Research on this stuff does exist, but the explanations of the "why's" of action given by Socionics is quite lacking. The function descriptions focus on things that no one really, actually, truly does or cares about.

    Let me give an example of what I think would be a good start in the direction of research I am proposing. Take the INTj: normally described in Socionics as a philosopher and a knight for truth, a person who builds logical systems around innovative ideas. In all actuality, that is about the bulk of how Socionics describes the INTj. Sure, there are the Stratiyevskaya descriptions that list mounds and mounds of information about INTjs, but they only take each function description and stretch it into around ten paragraphs of redundancy. And what's worse is that same functional approach: we know plenty about the details of one type, but little about what this type is really about. What's stopping us from pinning people down to one type based on behavior that is not mutually exclusive amongst differing types?

    From a social/behavioral standpoint, the INTj is someone in search of an organization for an environment that constantly threatens his well-being. As is common for all NTs, he treats the world and himself as two separate, distinct things. He tries to be organized and rational, and may only become less so in places where he feels safe and unobligated. The problem with the INTj, though, is that there is nothing definite for him. The life of the INTj is marked by the struggle of trying to make sense out of a disorganized, irrational world. The INTj is closely related to his immediate introverted partners, the ISTj, INFj, and INTp. Only here, the ISTj assumes regularity in some part of his life (usually his experience) and thus is able to be much more directed and organized than the INTj. The INFj is less concerned about the world as a separate, impersonal thing and more concerned about his own relation to the environment and other people. The INTp is quite like the INTj in that he is always trying to escape a dangerous world, but instead of coming at it in an attempt to subdue it by organization, the INTp finds it easier to simply avoid conflict situations and attack life in a very roundabout way.

    The above description may or may not be entirely correct, but it shows at least the direction I want to go with personality theory. Note that the description focuses on the type's relation to the environment. I find this to be the single most important thing when analyzing a type. Sure there are elements of classical Socionics intermixed in there, but they only serve as a portion of the description, not the whole thing.

    Hmm, I really didn't plan on this being an all-out criticism of Socionics. Really, my goal was to explain that Socionics doesn't seem to apply in many parts of real life. E.g. my two best friends are also my cousins, their types being INTj and INTp. That gives us a group of three pure INTs. One would expect us to be one big geekfest, talking about particle physics to neuroscience to historical figures, the INTj getting agitated with the two INTps and their reliance on Te, the INTps ganging up on the INTj and his Ti. Very, very far from the truth. While we do talk about some intellectual topics, it is mostly just an exchange of information, no arguing at all. What we mostly do is play games and run around like idiots and go to the mall and bullshit at the library and in general act like anyone else would. Another example would be my INFj friend. To describe him in terms of just Fi and Ne would miss so much of his personality, I wouldn't know where to begin on listing it.
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  2. #2
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Very nice, Cone. So many theories, so little time.

  3. #3
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You cannot construct personalities from Jungian functions. You have the wrong approach. Socionics is good in it's emphasis on Jungian functions being just parts of psyche and not personality.

  4. #4
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think someone would be stunted if they were very close to a particular type description. Statistically with how many people are in the world, some people will be like that normally. I wasn't aware that Socionics thought that people used their first two functions 95% of the time? That isn't how I interpreted it anyway. Just that we prefer some to others and use the functions in different ways and to different extents.

    But it seems like we are our functions AND our backgrounds, beliefs, ideals, education, experiences, etc. I see Socionics as being "real" but simplistic. The real world is complicated.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  5. #5
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dynamicism
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    You cannot construct personalities from Jungian functions. You have the wrong approach. Socionics is good in it's emphasis on Jungian functions being just parts of psyche and not personality.
    I think you can - it's what I've always done and it works uncannily well if you know what you're supposed to look for. It's trivially easy to see people's dominant functions. And then the personality structure is more about how the various functional components interact with eachother in a holistic way.
    I know a Ni dominant that is a hardcore extrovert by modern day standards. I know she is Ni dominant because she is my identical.
    I have consistently found that Jungian functions do not determine behaviour.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you strip type from a person, there is still a lot of mechanisms left. A looot, Socionics is a top down Ne, approach to dig deeper and deeper into those mechanisms. We aren't there yet however. And people are capable of putting their egos asside at time and rely on other commonalities. When neuroscience meets socionics we will have a nice clear picture, but this will never happen sooo.... Just know the limitations and process and purpose and this won't be an issue. Also, descriptions aren't models, make your own descriptions don't rely on someone elses bias and limited observations/calculations. Do your own and youll be fine.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i like that, slava

    that is interesting you said Top down in connection with Ne though. or are you being consistent in saying "extraverted functions are top down"

  8. #8
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    When neuroscience meets socionics we will have a nice clear picture, but this will never happen
    Why not? Just because connections cannot be found now does not mean that do not exist.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I forgot about socionics for about four months, I did just fine without it.

    That is just my personal expeirence though.

    Psychology is really just simple, or at least that is how I see it, and socionics is really just that, it is a clever way of dividing differenet thought and awareness processes, or functions, and finding patterns that turn up along the way.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
    --Theodore Roosevelt

    "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
    -- Mark Twain

    "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
    -- Confucius

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
    i like that, slava

    that is interesting you said Top down in connection with Ne though. or are you being consistent in saying "extraverted functions are top down"
    I'm being both consistent with extraverted functions being top down, and i see it as being top down too because it starts with something complex that gets divided into more details. If I saw it as being inconsistent with either, I would stop myself and work out the discrepency before posting. but thats the beauty of something that works, it makes sense no matter how you look at it.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Maybe cone is right and you can't describe all of people actions with socionics, or maybe there just a big midunderstanding of socioncs. My thought is that people do not truely understand the functions and how they affect a person based on their position. It seems to me that everyone associates many functions with the enviroment if not all of them. Call Fi ethics is setting the scope in way to general of a manner. We need to be more specific, like saying Fi is Personal Ethics, something that associates it with the being and not enviroment the being exists in since a person can exists even without the current enviroment.
    Remember, the effect the enviroment has on the functions is simply the data they have to work with. And yes, this means that you may have to have a deep and very thorough anyalsis of any person you are trying to type. On top of that you must have a complete understanding of all the relationships you shall observe including your own with that person. I'm not going to say that socionics does not need any work though, but we have to damn well make sure that our current model is completely false before we try out new ones like some have done, or shove it to the side or parts of it in favor of some other ideas.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think I mentioned this before somewhere but it all boils down to the perception of....

    extraverted intuition = internal statics of objects
    extraverted sensing = external statics of objects
    extraverted logic = external dynamics of objects
    extraverted ethics = internal dynamics of objects
    introverted intuition = internal dynamics of fields
    introverted sensing = external dynamics of fields
    introverted logic = external statics of fields
    introverted ethics = internal statics of fields

    any thought process you perform involves thinking about or visualizing models that include some or many of these. Personality is a partition or preference to certain ones, some clash with others and make it hard to work out problems. If you are very well ballanced you can visualize them all but wont be able to perform high level calculations as easily on any one specific type of model. Think of it as a picture that is incomplete.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  13. #13
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am thinking that maybe someone needs to perform an in-depth analysis of Socionics and what it really rests upon. It seems that we all have only ambiguous, uncertain ideas of Socionics, and that's why these discussions never get anywhere.

    Sure, we can put labels on behaviors and call them "ethics" or "processing of inherent possibilities relevant to logical deductions", but is that really getting us anywhere? I mean, did anyone ever sit down and ask "why" of functions?
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    I mean, did anyone ever sit down and ask "why" of functions?
    I did and it hurt my head and almost made me loose touch with reality. god doesn't like it.

    http://socionics.us/theory/information.shtml
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That is what I am talking about cone. What I said was merely an example of how to properly describe something. I find that not enough details are used at times.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What exactly does "internal dynamics of objects" mean? What kind of explanation would you give? On the surface that does not really mean much. Good for text books, but not very good for relating an idea. Lets see what I can come up with. Lets look at what we're dealing with here, something internal to an object. This reads to me as if we are dealing with something of physical properties, but we are not. This is an example of bringing the enviroment into the equation. It has been done eloquently, but it requires knowledge of socionics to a certain extent to know what you're getting at. The object is the world, the internal is events. I looked up the definition of dynamics and I feel that you are using this particular deffinition: "Of or relating to energy or to objects in motion." Concentrating on the first half "Of or relating to energy..." We are not dealing with objects in motion per se as dynamics is concerned but I think I know how you could associate it with but that needn't be concerned here. From what I read deals with energy, but how so? types tend to be enthusiastic and outwordly expressive. This does not sound very internal to me, how would other people see this? Making the safe assumption that most people are not very bright (called average intelligence) they may not and probably will not understand. To sum up this long winded post this read to me that = Energy directed towards events or processes (peoples ideas, sococial situations, ect ect) of an object. I still feel like I've not explained myself enough here but I'm tired of typing.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tov
    What exactly does "internal dynamics of objects" mean?
    it means exactly what it says, nothing more nothing less, this is the essence of the functions. So if these descriptions don't answer your question then you just don't graps them... What internal dynamics means is... things that happen inside of an object. External statics means the external surface of an object which does not change. Internal statics is the internal structure of the object which doesnt move. Its like possition vector and velocity vector....

    Ne people always want to know whats inside of things. Se people only care about the image, or external appearance, not substance. When you combine Se and Ne you get the statics of the entire object. When you combine Fe with Te you get the internal algorithms of an object and its external algorithms. When you combine Ne Se Fe and Te you can totally own anyone! But yeah, its as simple as that. Fields have to do with your center of consciousness vs things outside of you. attraction/repulsion cause/effect...


    Ne people can interpolate the internal structures of things using Ne. Religeon is an interpolation, top down, of something that is unknown, aka, internal statics of reality. Te is world systems, or what algorithms/logic external objects exude. They can predict an objects path if its exuding a pattern in its algorithm. its all about modeling it in your head. Social interactions and your relationship with the environment limit what you look at however, people divy up tasks and roles.


    My Ti would be my internal dynamics. which is why Fe and Ti go together well. and why Ne (internal staics) goe stogether well with Si, which has to do with health and comfort, which is internal....
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  18. #18
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    I am thinking that maybe someone needs to perform an in-depth analysis of Socionics and what it really rests upon. It seems that we all have only ambiguous, uncertain ideas of Socionics, and that's why these discussions never get anywhere.

    Sure, we can put labels on behaviors and call them "ethics" or "processing of inherent possibilities relevant to logical deductions", but is that really getting us anywhere? I mean, did anyone ever sit down and ask "why" of functions?

    Yes but I quit because it makes me sound negative and people get pissy :/

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Like I said I wasn't being clear enough. Like I said those descriptions of the "essence of the functions" as you call it are good for a maybe text book isn't the right word/phrase, (I'm thinking along the lines of something that only other "Scholars" in the same particular field would read.) We have to stop and think of the common interpretations of words before we combine them to convey ideas. I'm not picking on you, I'm just using something you wrote as an example of how the current study of socionics is being conducted by most people if not all. I have a tendancy to put people in the spot light in order to make a point about something, never usually means to include them into the discussion

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's all good, but if you learn to see socionics with just those essences and couple it with experience, you will be able to understand all of socionics, since these are the building blocks.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, that is what I said. In order to understand the essences and to use them you must have knowledge (experience as you say) in socioncs. What about someone who does not though? Where do they start?

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why is that that people either A. Completely misunderstand what I'm saying B. Read half way into the first sentence and decide that they know what I said, or C. Repeat exactly what I am trying to say back to me thinking that I misunderstand something

  23. #23
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hmm, I really didn't plan on this being an all-out criticism of Socionics. Really, my goal was to explain that Socionics doesn't seem to apply in many parts of real life. E.g. my two best friends are also my cousins, their types being INTj and INTp. That gives us a group of three pure INTs. One would expect us to be one big geekfest, talking about particle physics to neuroscience to historical figures, the INTj getting agitated with the two INTps and their reliance on Te, the INTps ganging up on the INTj and his Ti. Very, very far from the truth. While we do talk about some intellectual topics, it is mostly just an exchange of information, no arguing at all. What we mostly do is play games and run around like idiots and go to the mall and bullshit at the library and in general act like anyone else would. Another example would be my INFj friend. To describe him in terms of just Fi and Ne would miss so much of his personality, I wouldn't know where to begin on listing it.
    I wouldn't expect any of your friends to act like prototypical manifestations of their psychological type when it's just you guys fooling around.

    None of my cousins know I'm really INTj, or the thoughts and anlysis that goes on in my head. They see me as reserved, but a lot of fun. They don't know that I am on this site, for example, or what I think about the world.

    I'm just a relative to them. Having history, confidence, and ease in a relationship generally doesn't seem to be ideal conditions for someone to act like their psych type. I mean, I make all sorts of crude yo'mamma jokes to one of my friends. I've written passionate emotional stuff when I was in such situations - but does that mean I don't have an INTj pysch type? No. It does point out that I am human, though. (something I used to, as an INT, deny vehemently. But I came to an understanding...)


    But yeah, I just read that last paragraph. I'll read the whole post
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  24. #24
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    But does anyone else feel like this all falls apart when you try to grasp the entire personality...?
    100% hands down yes. Of course.

    But I don't think socionics was intended to do that.


    I can see how, as an INTp, you'd want an empirical, organized forumla for everything... even though it might seem contradictory to what you said here.
    he INTp is quite like the INTj in that he is always trying to escape a dangerous world, but instead of coming at it in an attempt to subdue it by organization, the INTp finds it easier to simply avoid conflict situations and attack life in a very roundabout way.
    I think that there is a much more precise formula for eveyrthing, but that would involved a lot more detailed and specific things for each psych or even the collection of psychs (or basically, as what is said in the 4rth paragraph of the original post). Socionics is a general frame or structure base thoughts from or opperate out of. But not the exact science of determining why people do everything that they do. That would be like micro-socionics... or something (again, or what was said in the 4rth paragraph of the original post)... Well, no, I don't even think that would be socionics. Socionics is about the socion, right? Not how people act in every instance and why. Furthermore, I can see how some might even consider such immense detail as extraneous (for the original purpose of socionics, concerning the socion).

    That's the way I see it, at least.



    PS: The "Introduction to Socionics -- What is Socionics" on Rick's site essentially describes how I use and view socionics.
    "A socionic type (there are 16 of them) is a description of some very fundamental ways in which a person's psyche works.", emphasis on very fundemental. Trying to make it too much more than that doesn't seem like a good idea, as it wasn't designed for such specifications.

    But, I can see how that would be irratating, in the same way vauge astrological profiles of zodiac signs would be irratating.
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  25. #25
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    Take the INTj: normally described in Socionics as a philosopher and a knight for truth, a person who builds logical systems around innovative ideas.
    I like that
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another example of internal statics and external statics....


    External statics: Body
    Internal statics: Mind

    "The body cannot live without the mind" -Morpheus -> There can be no Se without Ne :-)

    Se people care more about bodily proportions, Ne people care more about achieving highest mental perfection

    Se is like the scale of something while Ne are the vertecies. Ne people know the concepts, but Se people know the right proportions. An Ne person would know that you need air and fuel to make a combustion in an engine, but an Se person would be aware that there are correct proportions necessary for it to work.

    If you ever watch an ESFp or ESTp walk around a room and possition themselves, you will notice that they move very gracefully and put themselves in purposefull poses. Its really interesting to watch them do this. They know exactly what they look like from every angle. When they drive they transform their sensoric information and visualize the vehicle from above it. They do not rely on their senses as much as N people, which is ironic. They have a better ability to visualize things. They only use their senses to collect information but their mind can assemble 3D environments from the info they collect. They can see an extra spatial dimension that N people cannot. They experience depth better in the form of a tunnel almost. They don;t have wide periferal vision like N people do. Their pupils are usually very tightly focused, unlike N people whose pupils are much more dialted esp when intuiting. Se people order their perceptions in a similar fasion as Te people order priorities. If an Se person gets hurt or something smells bad, they can readjust their perception to ignore it. Ne people have scattered focus and cannot tune it out. Ne people have wide blurry perception and strive to make it more details and keep it wide. Se people have narrow sharp perception and strive to widen it but keep it as sharp.......
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  27. #27
    six turnin', four burnin' stevENTj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    DC area, US
    TIM
    Te-INTp (ILI)
    Posts
    807
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I find Socionics useful for trying to understand people's general behavior patterns, why they might act the way they act, and ultimately how to understand, work with, and/or appreciate them better. If you're trying to analyze what exactly different types would talk about when hanging out together then you're going waaaaaay too far. Obviously it wasn't meant to cover that.

    And some of you need to get out more.
    Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
    16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tov
    What exactly does "internal dynamics of objects" mean?
    It means precisly nothing, is contradictory, and illogical. Ask Ganin or Rick what it means, and they'll give you a complete BS answer like Slava did without any justification for it. Dumbest scale ever.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    External statics: Body
    Internal statics: Mind

    "The body cannot live without the mind" -Morpheus -> There can be no Se without Ne :-)

    Se people care more about bodily proportions, Ne people care more about achieving highest mental perfection
    BULLSHIT


    Maybe try and hear yourself think for once, and try and explain what you are saying, and you'll realize there is no rationalization for it. Geez... is this what socionics has come down to?
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well of course you cannot know exactly what two people are going to talk about, and now that I think about it I think cone was saying something along those lines.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    External statics: Body
    Internal statics: Mind

    "The body cannot live without the mind" -Morpheus -> There can be no Se without Ne :-)

    Se people care more about bodily proportions, Ne people care more about achieving highest mental perfection
    BULLSHIT


    Maybe try and hear yourself think for once, and try and explain what you are saying, and you'll realize there is no rationalization for it. Geez... is this what socionics has come down to?
    Just because I can't type my expriences with types and pattern I noticed doesn't mean it's not true. Ne people are all about trying to develope their minds as much as possible, and Se people are very critical of how people treat their bodies. This is very obvious. you can ask around if you would like. The morpheus quote was intended to be a joke with some truth to it.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The mind is a part of the body, for one thing. And I think most people would be insulted if you tried to seperate them.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  33. #33
    oyburger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    somewhere overthere
    Posts
    2,528
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    The mind is a part of the body, for one thing. And I think most people would be insulted if you tried to seperate them.
    I've found that the belief in this is 50/50.
    All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The mind and the brain are two different things. you have to be N to have a first hand feel for what the mind is.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stevENTj
    I find Socionics useful for trying to understand people's general behavior patterns, why they might act the way they act, and ultimately how to understand, work with, and/or appreciate them better. If you're trying to analyze what exactly different types would talk about when hanging out together then you're going waaaaaay too far. Obviously it wasn't meant to cover that.

    And some of you need to get out more.
    haha. nooo some of us are just extremely articulate.

  36. #36
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  37. #37
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    When it is made to sound like an absolute statement, you can't help but speculate if the reverse is true.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana
    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    you have to be N to have a first hand feel for what the mind is.
    oh boy!! Just for fun, because this is soooo um, something. I give my notice now. I am an S. I am no longer an N. (Just because I feel like being mindless for awhile) Anyway, anyone who makes a comment like the one you just made immediately leads me to believe the opposite is true. I do hope you were joking.
    the mind is a coneptual construct of the brains activity, its an intuitive model, its not concrete, the brain is not the mind. I'm not sure how else to put it.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  39. #39
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your joke is true, and not a joke. You do have to be Fi to have first hand experience of what the heart is (asside from an internal organ), otherwise you feel cold and empty when everyone else is warm and close.

    When you spend your entire life giving your heart away and having it broken you kind of loose a sense of what it felt like to actually have one.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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