I have to wonder about this. I can see a child picking up an ego function to cover whatever their parents are unable to support them in. I kind of wonder how family dynamics interact with psychological temperament to form functions.
Parental PoLRs shaping children
I have to wonder about this. I can see a child picking up an ego function to cover whatever their parents are unable to support them in. I kind of wonder how family dynamics interact with psychological temperament to form functions.
I grew up with an ESI mother, ILI father and LSI brother.was not particularly featured in my upbringing. It took me a long time to realise I didn't actually have much (or any, in most cases) fear of the unknown, and that I could intuit the truth without necessarily requiring or having the concrete proof.
When I was a fair bit younger and did Jung/MBTI tests, I actually would get results like ISFP and ISFJ. I think turning 21 changed a lot for me, honestly.
Good topic.
Because type is "picked up" and when it is it is your parents PoLR. Making most common child-parent intertype conflictor, supervisor, super-ego and kindred. Thank god no.
Interesting topic. I'm not in any position to explain how this affects type formation, but I know that during my development, Te was lacking in my upbringing. It's something that I've had to improve in myself over the years to make up for this deficiency.
My Mum's father was her conflictor.Originally Posted by Esaman
In my family and in my upbringing, and
were probably the most devalued. However I´ve often admired what very strong Ne can do for you when used in a channeled way (not random brainstorming, as the cliche may go). For instance - how you can build stories and characters with it. It´s more complex and broader than Ni, if you ask me. I became captivated by its powers of divergent thinking later on through my Alpha NT and EII friends. You can stay ahead of a situation by tapping into what people don´t actively say, you can try to somehow "absorb" their personality (in NFs) and analyze as if from inside. It´s less stuck on the subject´s own frame somehow. I´ve also seen it used in very manipulative ways for the same reason, commonly in Ne dominants. The user can easily "borrow" the mannerisms and the mentality of others and act in a chameleonic way.
To answer the initial question : no, I think type formation has nothing to do with the parents´polr. I´ve wondered if one´s type genetically derives from the parents´ types or it´s just formed in early years. I don´t think there´s any scientific proof for that, but I´ve noticed Intuitives (who are more rare and stand out) often have a N parent. Just as an example, in my father´s family made up of LSI dad and IEI mom: him (TeNi), brother (FeNi), and 2 Si folks. Or my ILE friend´s family: out of LII dad and LSE mom > NeTi and SeFi. I´ve seen such a pattern often.
Last edited by Amber; 07-09-2014 at 03:12 PM.
I believe your temperament is inborn, and your base is the first thing you develop as a baby-toddler. Followed by Creative as a kid-pre-teen. A parent can shape your upbringing drastically and cause you to focus on certain elements in order to get by. However, i think how upbringing effects a kid is like a scattershot of possibilities as people react so wildly different to similar stimuli. It's never going to be a simple A to B connection.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I agree
That's what MBTI theories say. I don't know how Socionics approaches this. At least Gulenko claims that type is inborn. I opened a thread on a related topic a while ago when I joined the forum: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...40-Type-Change.
Last edited by Amber; 07-08-2014 at 08:15 PM.
I dont understand why people curr
I have been raised around kids, in cycles, basically my whole life. You see the base first, and eventually it rounds out as they get older. I just personally believe its a choice; (left or right / F or T/ S or N) what you use to make an impact(creative function). To say its concrete before birth dismisses the viewpoints and ideas people have that leads them to feel the way they do about their PolR. I believe almost everything is a choice we've made, and if we stick to it, it becomes habit.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
how do you feel about your polr. did you have any glimpse of it before getting into Socionics. I recall you were raised by Beta STs, makes sense lol.
I was actually raised by a Delta NF EII mother, and saw my LSx dad sparingly. ESI older sister, and younger siblings (ESE[7],SLE[4],SEI[10],IEE[13]) who i influenced more than they influenced me(debatably), type wise.
My PolR makes sense to me. I, of course, couldnt have put into words before having Te categorized what Te was and that i didnt really like it. But in hindsight it makes sense to me. I don't trust information or conclusions based from that type of packaging. Anyone can find data to give credence to some notion and represent it as fact. 9/10 doctors prefer colgate total, for instance. The link that this notion can be attributed to a bursty, and inconsistent type of productivity was news to me, but i would say that the prior is true, so the correlation seems accurate enough.
I feel i handle my PolR well in comparison to me peers, but it's just something i kind of roll my eyes at when i hear about it. Seems as though it lacks the ability to judge value.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
My father is an LSE and my mom is an EII. When I was young I decided I could shape myself and that I didn't need my parents to shape me (obviously that was an immature thought). I think this may have been a reaction to realizing how different my dad is from me. That said, we are actually very similar in other ways than type. Definitely some epigenetic manifestations. The question itself is bound to get nowhere.
I used to get INFP in MBTI or at least always borderline between "E" and "I", until I learned more what "E" and "I" mean in MBTI and realized I really am "E". With my ESI Mom and SLI Dad, we were raised to be introverts, basically. I saw myself then as an "E" raised to be an "I", or at least, to value an "I" lifestyle. Going off to college and out from my parents rule helped bring out the "E" in me.I grew up with an ESI mother, ILI father and LSI brother.
When I was a fair bit younger and did Jung/MBTI tests, I actually would get results like ISFP and ISFJ. I think turning 21 changed a lot for me, honestly.
It really depends on the interaction. Two identicals may transmit their PoLR neurosis or even amplify them, but it could also be a teaching experience to over come them. There's a lot of variables.
Hm...
How do you, personally, differentiate Intuition from general intelligence? From experience, how many Sensors are there in University past the first year? How many low IQ Intuitives do you know? Theoretically, what would an Intuitive look like if they were < 85 IQ?
Many Intuitives have high IQs, but there are lots of sensors in Universities (as academics included). From my experience I wouldn't necessarily relate how well one does in higher education to Socionics functions. Intuition for me is rather fast, holistic perception than actual intelligence (or a guarantee of genius or something). For instance, as a Intuitive child I learned to read and write at 3 -4 years old. My brain had to process stuff that was more complex than common games that usually catch children's attention. But I'm sure it also mattered that I had parents who actually saw that and didn't let me chill out and play with dolls only, like someone else would have maybe done.
I don't actually know low IQ Intuitors. Most "deficiencies" I've seen in Intuitives had to do rather with maladjustment to daily requirements/chores and a form of absent-mindedness (lack of practicality). I would say sensors are better at memorizing things and approaching knowledge top-down, while Intuitors are better at conceptualization and speculative thinking.
The reason I asked about University wasn't due to performance, but because there's a certain level of intelligence below which you're unlikely to succeed or persist with higher education. So, a noticeable bias towards intuitives over sensors in University would be indicative of "intelligence" and "intuition" being related in one's interpretation of Socionics. I'm just trying to get a handle on how correlated intuition and intelligence actually are in your model, in practice, since it seemed suggestive that you stated that "intuiters are rare and noticeable". (High verbal IQ is also rare and noticeable...)
As an interesting thought, heritability of IQ is low in childhood, but, depending on socioeconomic background, can rise to fairly high in adolescence (if I'm reading the wikipedia page correctly). If there is significant overlap in your model, then this could explain why your intuiters tend to raise intuiter children.
Note that I'm not putting forward my own model or interpretation here. I think intuiters are probably just more intelligent, and Rick's statement that intuition and intelligence are orthogonal is a motte-and-bailey doctrine.
What model? I had a model about type and genetics? I didn't know that, thanks for extrapolating. Or are you just rambling? I just brought on the table what I noticed in people I've met. I'm not a specialist in Socionics&genetics and I haven't investigated how they correlate. It's a well-known fact that there are way fewer intuitives than sensors. I think 20% of my students have been intuitives. And for me as an intuitive type, they stand out. I always know very fast when someone is a N type. Your theory about why intuitors could be raising intuitive children contradicts the basic claim by Socionists that type is innate. You'd have to kind of be able to prove that it's not.
Last edited by Amber; 07-09-2014 at 01:59 AM.
Ok, perhaps "model" isn't the right word. What's the actual issue here? If you're just using facts, then perhaps socionics in practice doesn't distinguish between Intuition and intelligence.
Maybe Socionics's claim that type is innate is wrong. I don't particularly have to disprove it, I can just fail to see evidence for it... but anyway my position so far is agnostic. (Coloured +/- by the fact I think Socionics is outdated and full of bad and weird assumptions.)
Anyway, none of my post was trying to put words in your mouth or thoughts in your head. I'm sorry if you got that impression.
I just had the impression you're developing a model about the origin of type for me.
In my opinion Socionics doesn't frame Intuition as intelligence, but rather Thinking. I would say it devalues Intuition in contrast to MBTI. In Socionics Intuitors are "Victims" and "Infantiles" (sure, obviously Gulenko was aiming at romantic/erotic behavior, but the terminology is quite mocking and telling). Intuitive types are often represented as helpless, confused, or directionless, needing Sensors to anchor them in their lives.
Last edited by Amber; 07-09-2014 at 04:17 PM.
you saying so suggests that you value Te... weak and valued, perhaps?
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Well.. I don't know how much you know about IQ tests or what they test for, but if you've seen the type of questions IQ tests use it's easy to see that IQ is likely not type related. If it is, my guess is that it's linked with Ti, but that's a shaky proposition at best. As Im sure you know, IQ tests should not be thought of as some sort of definitive test for intelligence. They definitely test for certain cognitive skills, but not necessarily the whole of what could be thought of as intelligence. As an example, I can think well abstractly and philosophically, yet I've never heard of an IQ test that covers those skills.
As another example, I think one of the most classically intelligent people I've met was an EIE. She was in one of the hardest intro lab sciences at my university and would not only be one of the first people done out of a class of 300, but she would also have one of the highest grades. And she didn't study that hard at all or pretty much ever come to class. Most of the people I know who seem to have the highest IQs value Ti, even if they aren't strong with it.
Well, the Weschler IQ test has a scale for abstract verbal reasoning. Given intuiters are more abstract and less concrete, there are at least grounds for verbal intelligence and intuition overlapping, at least in the way Socionics seems to be practiced. It's even more suggestive if Intuiters are rarer than Sensors...
As for your abstract thinking not being measured, at least in the WAIS, there is one subscale exactly dedicated to verbal reasoning. Whether it performs that role or not, I don't know.
Just to jump in on this, I've been reading lately about intuitions, and I imagine that an intuitive type, particularly an Ni type, would have intuitive biases that s/he would have trouble overcoming, biasing him/her towards wrong answers. Also there's the simple issue of memory---if you don't have a particularly strong short-term memory then it's difficult to do, say, lengthy math problems that require you to keep many variables and even numbers (at least their relative values) inside your head at once. A low IQ intuitive might be a person who has difficulty understanding systems external to themselves, but might have a very complex internal or mystical way of thinking.
I will say that the current way that school is taught, in addition to biasing strong short-term memory (which correlates strongly to IQ scores, according to a book I read recently), does bias towards auditory learners. And intuitive types might have a natural inclination towards language, simply because language is so abstract and un-physical. It might be clearer to say that sensors have less natural inclination towards language. So that might be one reason why intuitive types seem or tend to learn better. But it's important to remember that basically any IE can be applied to virtually any situation, you just have to do so creatively. My favorite example is my grandfather, who I strongly suspect is some variety of Ni ego. He's a very, very good driver, which is something you'd tend to associate with Se: strong understanding of the spatial world around you, spatial imagination, if the car is in location x and going roughly this fast, then when will it be in location y (not in the abstract sense, but in an immediate perception, an immediate extension of the sensory perception that is not mentally 'worked out" but spontaneously arrived-at). But he approaches it from another angle, with lots of planning in advance, and rules, and psychological speculations about the driver of each car ("oh, he's a hot-head, he's gonna try to force his way into my lane. I could just let him hit me, but I guess I'll slow down and let him in"). And it works just as well, or better, than a sensor who also makes an effort to be a good driver. So there is almost certainly an analogous mental process whereby Fi and Fe egos might be fantastic at math or analytic philosophy, or an Se ego become a great poet or a Ti/Te ego become a great actor or actress. There are lots of ways to skin cats!
This is pretty far afield from the original topic, but it's an idea that I've always been really interested in. I mean, it's basically "how can socionics be not super biased and limiting, and be a system of understanding how rather than dictating what a person does/can do/might do/will do.
re: Parental polrs affecting childhood type, yes, I strongly agree with the developmental model. I imagine you settle in on a base function very very very early in life (although it would be interesting to think about how you settle on a base function. Do you start with the judging or perceiving/rational or irrational bias? Do you start with introverted or extroverted?). It is not a conscious choice, but rather something that evolves as you are forced to specialize in order to solve problems, achieve goals, attain desires, etc. I can't attack this from every angle, so let's try this one. Oh hey, I get a favorable response every time I approach it this way. Oh now I'm really good at approaching things this way, and not only that, it is more mentally comfortable for me, so I enjoy it more, it is how my mind "prefers" to work (which could really be true on a physical level, in terms of how the neurons are connected what connections are myelinated, etc.) And so you develop a base type. And then a little older, you settle on a second cognitive mode, one that relates either to the world outside yourself or the world inside yourself. This arises not due to any particular law or necessity, but rather because it is the most likely outcome By analogy: gold and other precious metals do not become stores of value because they are inherently valuable. But almost every culture will eventually choose precious metals as stores of value because they are portable, scarce, and aesthetically pleasing. And as precision in counting and portability begin to trump all other factors (and the notion of value has been firmly settled in by precious metals), most societies will eventually turn to paper money. So too do most humans settle on two primary ways of interacting with the world, not because of any firm necessity or inborn imprint, but because eventually it is not practical to do anything else (even though the conscious mind is not aware of this and would not put it in those terms). And the two primary ways of interacting with the world that you settle on dictate the rest of Model A.
I would also note that the emergence of the second type may be more subject to conscious control, as it occurs when you're a little older. Or perhaps babies do have more will over how they shape their subconscious than we think. Who knows? (are babies capable of repression? denial? sublimation?)
But hkkmr is very right in saying that you can't really predict how the parents' type might influence the child's. I honestly have given up on reaching a satisfactory typing of my parents/immediate family. I'm most confident in my dad being LSI and my brother being SEE. But I have no idea what to do with my mom, who I still have not landed on between IEE and EIE. My stepmother I used to type as LSE but I think that was purely because I didn't like her and didn't get along with her. There's definitely still some natural conflict there (natural as in, rooted in who we are, rather than merely the situation of "I am your new parent." "No I don't want a new parent!"), but it seems that we have too many commonalities for me to completely by into the conflictor notion. She's definitely some kind of Fi/Te, but probably gamma rather than delta. All that's to say, I have no clue how I ended up with Te polr. I imagine that being surrounded by a fair amount of Se is part of the reason that I am a fairly externally active-in-the-world IEI (although I am hesitant to ascribe so large a part of my personality to an intertype relationship in a theory that I still consider tenuous and doubtful, at least insofar as its actual manifestation in reality or its use or adequacy to experience). But that has to do with how types interacted once they were solidified. Certainly I grew up in a heavily Fe valuing environment, so it's conceivable that being aware that the ability to influence the emotional atmosphere was hugely valuable influenced the development of my type. And I did value and respect that environment. But I could just as easily have repudiated that environment as "too emotional." But perhaps that would have required me to have had more bad experiences with warm, vibrant emotionality earlier on? I don't know how I reacted to my father's lack of Ne, how that might have been an influence. Sigh. It's tough to unravel, especially because you can't think back to a moment when you were like "Ah yes! I shall choose Fe over Te as my secondary function!"
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
Not necessarily something I value. More something I feel is needed from me, or else everything breaks down. I often feel the need to organise other members of my close family, make sure they're getting things done, staying efficent, etc. I'm always worried about timing, which doesn't sound IP at all. (In fact, I feel like an EJ in many ways). It's not a mode I can maintain for long, though. I have creative matters to attend to
Does this sound like Te-Role to you?
1. Still more than half the student body is sensors.
2. 1
3. Stubborn
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
could you expand on why you'd relate Ti to high IQ?
Speaking for myself: I (IEE) grew up with an ESI mother and an LSI stephfather. What I learned to do at home was to keep everything I had to offer under the blankets and walk on eggshells. My family and relatives considered me a shy and introverted person. At school, however, I was pretty much the life of the classroom and very extroverted, which even increased when I went to university (more like-minded persons). One evening at Parent-Teachers night at high school, my mother elaborated to my teacher about my shyness and introvertedness. To which my teacher replied: "Ma'm, are we talking about the same person here?" Besides high school, I took weekend jobs and delivered newspapers every morning, which in effects were environments to interact with people that could appreciate the person I was. I already had quite a high income as a teenager!
But to make a long story short: if you caretaker's PoLRs are out of sync with your Socionics type, the most likely effect it has it that it will make you passive to some extent in their presence (which you often can not escape), and amplifies your use of your Mobilizing Function (which is your acceptance- and recognition seeking function) in other environments (which you can actually choose yourself). Or to put it differently: there is no true escape from your true type.
http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...-function.html
http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...t-you-are.html
Last edited by consentingadult; 07-09-2014 at 12:46 PM.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Did your relationship with your parents go by Socionics intertype? Did they actually criticize you and stifled your Ne as you grew up or they simply didn't encourage it in the upbringing program they had for you?
I think I already answered that by implication. But to answer it anyway: they did everything they could to stifle it, especially my stephfather, who took my Ne-ness as a form of homosexuality.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
If you meant that literally, not metaphorically than i've had the same experience, a lot of people ask me "are you gay?" usually only when i display my Ne side.
On intuitives and intelligence and/or sensors in academics;
Most students in holland would be more sensor than me (or less intuitive). I don't meet many intuitives like they are being described in socionics nor like they are here on the forums. When I meet them they stand out like ugly ducklings in a sea of ducks. There are quite a few genius level sensors in my surroundings and only one genius level intuitive, but he's head and shoulders above the rest. Incidentely he's also a terrible underarchiever. I've yet to meet a dumb intuitive... dumb sensors fit the definition of dumb, dumb intuitives probably will exhude a different sort of retardation.
I've always felt that the sensors have to work harder, regardless of IQ for the same grades as intuitives. There's something about academics that massively favours me as intuitive since the answers are usualy implied in tests. Most sensors i've studied with need more time and effort to get to the same result.
On N and heriditation/solcialization, at least one of my parents is intuitive, the other one is very much a sensor. I modeled after the intuitive one, my brother took the sensor as role model. We've both become more extreme in both regards than our parents where. This could be explained by heridatity or socialization equally well so it's inconclusive.
I'm saddened to hear your story, @consentingadult...
I had an acceptable relationship with my mother, who I think is ESI. The issue is that nobody in my life has ever been able to offer me practical support for any of my problems or worries. Why I started this thread is because I see a pattern of relying onbecause nobody has ever been able to provide these things for me. I have a (slowly lessening) superman complex that I have to learn, do and figure out everything for myself...
It's not so much in reaction to Ne, it is in reaction to things they don't understand and thus must be disapproved of. And to corner you and make you toe the line, they revert to ad hominem attacks. My stephfather is, so to speak, from a macho culture, and thus accusing someone of being homosexual (we are talking about the seventies and eighties here!) is in line with such cultural dispositions. People from other cultural dispositions would, perhaps, have used other types of ad hominem attacks.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Actually, I think many of the people you consider sensors, are really intuitives in the Socionics sense. However, one needs to realize there are also other social aspects that are not Socionics related that influence people's personality. The effect you are describing here, I believe is often the result of less then ideal circumstances in which people grow up. E.g. I know many IEEs who are pretty common people. Those who are often had very beneficial circumstances during their upbringing. E.g. a cousin of mine (SLI) is married to an IEE woman, whose father is SLI and mother is IEE as well. And this woman is pretty plain and not really convincing as an IEE behavioral-wise (see the thread about 'normal people'). It is only under some circumstance that it becomes clear that she doesn't only look like an IEE, but also thinks and acts like one. So why is this? Simple: if you are comfortable with yourself, you don't have to make a lot of fuss in your life to get the things you genuinely need!
To give examples between healthy and more neurotic IEEs: Queen Máxima (healthy, ego using), versus Rob Wijnberg (Te-using, son of psychologist Jeffrey Wijnberg, LIE) and Tinkebell (possibly SEE, but also very much leaning on Te).
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
that's fairly typical LSI mentality, dunno how much cultural dispositions have a say. As a type they usually divide the world into macho/"gay" and strong/weak and from the position of a parent I can see them trying to impose their own notions of masculinity on the child.
That makes sense, but if you are truly IEE, I think the use of Ne is simply your natural inclination, not so much a reaction to the needs dictated by circumstances. Te, in turn, might be in reaction to circumstances in combination to it being your Mobilizing, as I described in my articles.I'm saddened to hear your story, @consentingadult...
I had an acceptable relationship with my mother, who I think is ESI. The issue is that nobody in my life has ever been able to offer me practical support for any of my problems or worries. Why I started this thread is because I see a pattern of relying on
How do you feel about your usage of these function and the origins of that yourself?
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
