Most easily distracted types?

[vesstheastralsilky]

Which type is the most easily distracted? I think Ti Ne types have the best focus but would it be their Conflictors or Duals who need this trait to remember the goal the most?

[Muddy]

prob ESE

[The Reality Denialist]

My focus and concentration are quite intimidating to some but I have huge attention issues.


Lots of sensing types have lots of problems with distraction but their attention seems to be very good.

[WinnieW]

Distracted by what?
I can get distracted by events happening around me... so my ability to focus on one thought or task is limited...
might be the reason for it.

[yeves]

Any type working a boring job and student subtypes that have homework

[Aeris]

I wouldn't link distractability or focus to types.
I think some people need some distractions going on to focus properly, perhaps that could be linked to functions, I don't know.
I can focus for hours on one thing, losing track of time and all that exists, though I can try to read something and be distracted by the walls because I cannot find interest in it.
My focus is very intense and obvious, it impresses people sometimes. It also sucks because reading to fall asleep... and the sun is rising! Anyhoo...
What I find impressive is people who can maintain a conversation while focusing on something because I cannot do that.

Grass seems greener kind of speech, yada yada, be glad of what you got, yada yada...

[Aster]

If I had to name a type, it would probably be ESE with 1D Ti & Ni, especially being Fe and Si valuing.

But, I agree that maybe this shouldn’t be exactly tied to type. People can be distracted for numerous reason. I can get pretty distracted myself, and the level I get distracted can vary. It can simply be a physical imbalance or the sign of a disorder. Even lack of sleep. I’d say the biggest draw back to an ESE getting distracted would be the loss of time, which might make it more noticeable for others (especially when you are the one waiting on them, lol).

[Sol]

it should be easier to be concentrated on what relates to your strong valued regions
in more common sense about a monotonous work - it's easier for rational types

nontypes factors also take part

[WVBRY]

I think Ti Ne types have the best focus

Focused on what?

Different types are focused on different things, if a person appears to be unable to concentrate, or have "ADD", it's likely to me that this person's mind is simply not where society wants it to be - but it is somewhere, and they are focused on something. They march to the beat of a different drummer.

Though I do think there is something like an awareness of where one's mind goes, without this awerness, one can easily be distracted by "trends", "current events", and anything that provides temporary entertainment while erasing the past. Forgetfulness of past orthodoxies is a tool used by advertisers and political campaigns.

Note that a person can be very aware of where their awareness goes and still be labelled ADD by society, simply because they do not fit the mold.

[Number 9 large]

EP

[Number 9 large]

Which type is the most easily distracted? I think Ti Ne types have the best focus but would it be their Conflictors or Duals who need this trait to remember the goal the most?

Ti ne arent goal focused. Gamma NTs and to an extent Delta STs are most goal focused. Its a Te thing, making something happen. Alpha NT is just useless brainstorming to get new ideas and then perfecting them with Ti

[Number 9 large]

Anyway its obviously EP temperaments that are most easily distracted because extraverted irrationals look for constant satiation of their leading function (constantly looking for new ideas/experiences)

[vesstheastralsilky]

Ti ne arent goal focused. Gamma NTs and to an extent Delta STs are most goal focused. Its a Te thing, making something happen. Alpha NT is just useless brainstorming to get new ideas and then perfecting them with Ti

You've got your alpha and gamma quadras swapped. I can't blame you since much literature on socionics does this also. But your definitions of the NT functions are swapped from what I learned to be true.

[Rebelondeck]

Barring ADD, Eps seem to be the ones most likely to go off on tangents or get bored and not fully complete what they had been doing; and of those, ENFps seem to edge out the others but not by much. This distractability is likely brought on by the Eps' exploratory natures and abilities to see entire environments all at once (including unrelated details). They often don't realize what information they've acquired until they start seriously rationalizing; however, their normal care-free (non-serious?) spirits often seem to cause them to seek futher stimulation rather than stopping to rationalize........

a.k.a. I/O

[idontgiveaf]

If I had to name a type, it would probably be ESE with 1D Ti & Ni, especially being Fe and Si valuing.

But, I agree that maybe this shouldn’t be exactly tied to type. People can be distracted for numerous reason. I can get pretty distracted myself, and the level I get distracted can vary. It can simply be a physical imbalance or the sign of a disorder. Even lack of sleep. I’d say the biggest draw back to an ESE getting distracted would be the loss of time, which might make it more noticeable for others (especially when you are the one waiting on them, lol).

Wtf this is true. I always complain my ese guy regarding time.

Like he has no sense of time management, it's fucking crazy.

I always wonder why this easy thing is the hardest for him. But then, seeing their weakness makes me understand him better.

[idontgiveaf]

And yeah the ESE dude have a hard time focusing as well. I mean, he complains he cannot focus.

I thought this is just only problem with the EP types.. but stereotypes is sooooo wrong.

[Exodus]

Typically related to high Ne and Fe. IEEs are often distractible.

[vesstheastralsilky]

Fwiw, I am one of those people who may seem to go off on tangents but always remembers the original topic of conversation/can trace it back. Usually I am thinking about multiple "conceptual ideals" simultaneously. As such, in real life I find it hard to express my thoughts linearly because internally I naturally maintain many irons in the fire, so to speak.

[FarDraft]

You've got your alpha and gamma quadras swapped. I can't blame you since much literature on socionics does this also. But your definitions of the NT functions are swapped from what I learned to be true.

So you learned that Ni is about brainstorming, possibilities, inter-system connections etc, Ne is about foresight, vision, subjective meaning, etc, Ti is about methods, goals, empiricism, etc, and Te is about internal consistency, theoretical modelling, principles/laws, etc? Where did you learn this?

While you're free to define the functions however you like, this isn't the accepted standard so your typings are going to be completely opposite to what is determined by others. Not to mention that these definitions don't make much sense to their namesake: vision is inherently introverted, possibilities are inherently extraverted, internal consistency is inherently introverted, and empiricism is inherently extraverted. I'll admit that some premises could belong to more than one function; for example, laws could be internal or external. Following internal laws is Ti (abiding by what makes sense to you) whereas following external laws is Te (abiding by the standard presented). However, since all NTs are strong in all intuitive and thinking functions, their mentality is subject to vary. For example, an INTp won't just blindly follow the law of the land if they think it will lead to worse consequences.

If you want us to abide by your standard of quadra descriptions or function definitions, then you have to explain, thoroughly, why you think that the definitions should be the way you want them to be. Otherwise, I'm going to listen (with scrutiny and skepticism, of course) to the established standards and tweak them to form my own model if necessary, essentially getting rid of the stuff that doesn't make sense.

[vesstheastralsilky]

So you learned that Ni is about brainstorming, possibilities, inter-system connections etc, Ne is about foresight, vision, subjective meaning, etc, Ti is about methods, goals, empiricism, etc, and Te is about internal consistency, theoretical modelling, principles/laws, etc? Where did you learn this?

While you're free to define the functions however you like, this isn't the accepted standard so your typings are going to be completely opposite to what is determined by others. Not to mention that these definitions don't make much sense to their namesake: vision is inherently introverted, possibilities are inherently extraverted, internal consistency is inherently introverted, and empiricism is inherently extraverted. I'll admit that some premises could belong to more than one function; for example, laws could be internal or external. Following internal laws is Ti (abiding by what makes sense to you) whereas following external laws is Te (abiding by the standard presented). However, since all NTs are strong in all intuitive and thinking functions, their mentality is subject to vary. For example, an INTp won't just blindly follow the law of the land if they think it will lead to worse consequences.

If you want us to abide by your standard of quadra descriptions or function definitions, then you have to explain, thoroughly, why you think that the definitions should be the way you want them to be. Otherwise, I'm going to listen (with scrutiny and skepticism, of course) to the established standards and tweak them to form my own model if necessary, essentially getting rid of the stuff that doesn't make sense.

The hotelsmbush sent me a link to his standard references and I completely agreed with them. I was simply letting you know contradictions exist among theorists and I couldn't make Gulenko's ideas for example for for me in real life application. I don't care how eloquent ideas sound - they must hold up to reality. That is what Sensing has to contribute to the stage. The ideas I came to accept are blogged. And for example I agree with Sol's Self typing so he must be in my camp more as well.

[FarDraft]

The hotelsmbush sent me a link to his standard references and I completely agreed with them. I was simply letting you know contradictions exist among theorists and I couldn't make Gulenko's ideas for example for for me in real life application. I don't care how eloquent ideas sound - they must hold up to reality. That is what Sensing has to contribute to the stage. The ideas I came to accept are blogged. And for example I agree with Sol's Self typing so he must be in my camp more as well.

Real life application is an idea that must be considered very precisely since socionics is unempirical. You can define the theory in almost any way that you want (assuming it still relates to humans and their thought process, of course) and it would still be applicable in real life since people's types are defined by the theory rather than the other way around. There is no "comparing my thoughts against reality" since people don't have types unless you have thoughts. Saying that "[the ideas] must hold up to reality" only works when we're talking about higher level ideas that are derived from function definitions. If they lead to something inconsistent, then it's problematic. For example, maybe we type someone TiNe since they're very focused on coming up with ideas and perfecting them (following the definition of TiNe). If we then conclude that TiNe also hates thinking about ideas because of role Si, then we have a contradiction and have to give one idea up. Notice that I never changed the definition of Ti, Ne, or Si but rather that I connected the dots incorrectly. This is because the definitions fundamentally don't matter as long as they're connected to people's thought processes. Of course, we want to choose definitions that make sense to the name of the function, but that's an added constraint for utility's sake. The definitions of socionics are not precise enough to where problematic ideas can't just be avoided by ignoring the particular line of reasoning that lead to the problematic idea in the first place. So, redefining functions from their established state is almost useless.

I'm aware that contradictions exist among theorists. I personally buy into some of the definitions that Gulenko uses since they're more consistent with the definitions of the functions in MBTI and Jungian theory and having a centralized theory is always more useful. Interestingly, I find that I agree with thehotelambush's ideas and typings more often than not like you. I disagree with some of Sol's ideas, though I haven't read enough of them to completely determine my position on his interpretation of socionics.

I'll read your blog posts and critique them accordingly. Maybe I'll change my mind, but at the moment I think that your definitions don't live up to the namesake of the functions, making them useless.