Variety is NOT the spice of life. It is the excuse for wasting it.

[lapa83]

When you tell people they suck at something, they are more likely to do worse.
When you tell them they are good, they are more likely to do good.

There is limit to how much this effects performance, but it is obviously there. People always try to create some sense of self and identify with "who they are", thus work towards retaining and fully claiming their own identity. (I am a peaceful person. *works harder to never get violent, even if he/she has the same proclivity for violence as anyone else*)

This self identification, when done artificially in a closed room in front of a computer screen by reading a profile of our type, causes us to accept something that will in the future reduce our maximum potential.
Normally, this identification would have been done by experiencing life's trials and slowly, bit by bit figuring out where exactly you stand.
I've seen this exhibited among A LOT of people through common things like horoscopes, or when personally exposing them to MBTI and socionics over the years.

Unless you have some sense of self, can detach from this effect and you're not a person to seek safety and identity in the arms of personality typing, I strongly suggest YOU STAY AWAY FROM IT. I have come to believe it can only do you harm if you choose to go deep into it and identify with it.

On the other hand I find it a useful tool to observe and understand people's tendencies and patterns in personality and behavior, but one should never try to align with a pattern someone is suggesting for them personally. In my opinion, socionics should be a tool for detached, noncommittal/casual observation.
NEVER a firm lense of reality, or a tool for introspection.

This suggestion of mine is often rejected thanks to a feeling of safety and fulfillment people may get from identifying with a group, or from definitively claiming a particular set of personality traits as their own.


It's to say that there are uniform ways of best and most virtuous ways of approaching all facets of life and some people will simply be able to do more than other people when looking ALL the available areas. To say "everyone is different" as a justification for some people sucking at one, or many things is not to explain. It's simply to justify and make them feel good.

You're not "different", you suck. Work on it.

If you're "just different", you're gonna use it as an excuse to sit on your ass and "stay different".
Had you not had said excuse, your life would probably have been a lot better.


Thoughts?

[Alomoes]

Thank you, but South Park is on, and that's a pretty unique show.

I do agree that I need to get out more. The internet is how I do it right now though. It is probably the same for you too.

[lapa83]

The internet is how I do it right now though. It is probably the same for you too.

Right now it's not the same for me. It use to be, but over the past year I've come to change my mind into what you're reading above. ^^

[Roro]

You can be anything you want to be, if you simply be nothing. Would anybody really notice the difference? Well, maybe don't answer that question.

[Alomoes]

Thank you, but South Park is on, and that's a pretty unique show.

I do agree that I need to get out more. The internet is how I do it right now though. It is probably the same for you too.

Don't know about it not being a tool for introspection though. If I never did, I wouldn't be here talking to you. Well, my advice for you is to get out more. Find a new way to experience life. Help people. I'm doing that all the time now, or at least trying. To say variety is not the spice of life is to be saying everyone around you who isn't doing what you are doing is wrong. And that isn't right, I'm fairly certain, because some people can't.

Oh my goodness, another piece of plastic! Whoop! Similar tasks bring together similar people.

[Pookie]

I dont see how the post leads into the proposed moral, Variety is not the spice of life.

But yeah I guess I agree with you. Dont be an asshole and you wont suck at life.

[Alomoes]

Yeah. Doesn't matter how you do it, just don't bother me about it.

Pretty much the moral of the story. Interesting. I should be more blunt.

[lapa83]

To say variety is not the spice of life is to be saying everyone around you who isn't doing what you are doing is wrong.

No. It's to say that there are uniform ways of best and most virtuous ways of approaching all facets of life and some people will simply be able to do more than other people when looking ALL the available areas. To say "everyone is different" as a justification for some people sucking at one, or many things is not to explain. It's simply to justify and make them feel good.

You're not "different", you suck. Work on it.

If you're "just different", you're gonna use it as an excuse to sit on your ass and "stay different".
Had you not had said excuse, your life would probably have been a lot better.

[kopyk]

yup, I agree, socionics is a curse, a plague. It's just forer effect, an indoctrination process, a cult, a scam, a way for ppl to satisfy their own narcissism. Rick delong was right about a lot of what he said on his ex-socionist blog. In conclusion,: Dumbullshitionics. Dumbassionics. Doesntxistionics. Worthlessionics. Sucksionics. Suxdixionix. Fucktardionics. Whogivesashitionics. Whygiveashitionics. Brainwasheepionics. Foolishionics. Scamionics. Zoocionics. Zoosexionix. Trashionics. Drowninshitionics. Fullofshitionics.

[lapa83]

Rick delong was...

I like this man's blog. Thanks for telling me about it. I think I'll take my time reading it for a while in the next few days. =O

[Cerelict]

However the thread's message connects to the slogan in the image, it flew over my head.

When you tell people they suck at something, they are more likely to do worse.
When you tell them they are good, they are more likely to do good.

Usually works the opposite for me. When people congratulate me I feel like I'm wasting their time by putting on some big show with all my effort and I grow soft. I do better when I have something to prove wrong.

[lapa83]

However the thread's message connects to the slogan in the image, it flew over my head.

I replied to that here:

No. It's to say that there are uniform ways of best and most virtuous ways of approaching all facets of life and some people will simply be able to do more than other people when looking ALL the available areas. To say "everyone is different" as a justification for some people sucking at one, or many things is not to explain. It's simply to justify and make them feel good.

You're not "different", you suck. Work on it.

If you're "just different", you're gonna use it as an excuse to sit on your ass and "stay different".
Had you not had said excuse, your life would probably have been a lot better.

Usually works the opposite for me. When people congratulate me I feel like I'm wasting their time by putting on some big show with all my effort and I grow soft.
I do better when I have something to prove wrong.

You are misunderstanding. I am not talking about someone putting you down, or praising you.
I am talking about someone making you believe that you are good at this and bad at that other thing.
The moment you agree that this what is being described is your personality, that's where you accept their words and become most susceptible to indirect manipulation that can severely inhibit your growth.

[Pookie]

I firmly believe that someone who allows something to limit them or inhibit their growth will find something to fill that role. Socionics can fill that role, as can anything. Saying Socionics is bad (or whatever) is missing the forest for the trees. If their is a problem you gotta focus on yourself, not on the outside stimuli. You kill a weed by taking out the root.

The common factor in all of our failures is ourselves.

[Creepy-male]

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/...+spice+of+life

I have no idea what you are talking about in this thread when it comes to this idiom...but yeah self-empowerment is pretty cool.

[woofwoofl]

I see no good in being strictly defined by the containing shape of what's in your way. I've had self-"type" out of public sight for this reason, and because of Type Theater. These two reasons are intertwined. A handful of people have talked up the importance of intra-site type descriptions being made by that specific type's clearest exemplar/s. What follows are massed appeals to authority, these authorities being whoever puts up the most compelling argument for the existence of their own supposed limitations. Stunted people, stunted rationale, stunted typology.

[Skepsis]

What I've realized about Jungian typology is that no one has a dominant preference. We all sense, we all think, feel, and intuit. I can't understand why anyone thinks or would want to prefer one cognitive function through which to view the world. Such a person wouldn't resemble any human being I've ever seen. I've never looked at myself as someone who limits what I can learn or do, whether it be refining my logic, creating art, learning philosophy, an instrument, teaching myself life skills, or learning calculus. It has nothing to do with a cognitive functions, but with an inner drive. Different cognitive abilities allow these different interests to become skills, but the desire to build them must be there.

[Radio]

i completely disagree.

[krieger]

replace us with me (etc) in every sentence for accuracy.

[lapa83]

replace us with me (etc) in every sentence for accuracy.

That wouldn't work. I'm speaking for 3 friends, my brother and my mum as well. Not to mention all my girlfriends hooked on horoscopes.

[Aylen]

I think you're smart for realizing this after only being on the forum for a month. It took me a couple years to realize it. Some people here still don't realize it... I agree with what @Pookie said, I don't see how this relates to 'variety', but I agree that people need to have a self-image of their own besides socionics. That's why I advise new people to develop their own identity outside of socionics (if they haven't already), and to not worry too much what their type is. Your thoughts remind me of an 'infamous' Ni-ego on this forum also who stated he had a theory that confusion about your socionics type & switching types can actually be self-damaging. I'm wondering if this is related to Ni introspection, which enables you to see the formation of these thoughts over time more easily.

[Aylen]

If I tell someone, "you suck", I must really like them. I don't say that phrase lightly.

[Reginald FlaxSeed]

Your avatar is not "different", it sucks. Work on it.

If it's "just different", you're gonna use it as an excuse to sit on your ass and not change it to something less shitty than a fucking shitty ass cartoon.
Had you not had said excuse, your avatar would probably have been a lot better.

[mu4]

I'm not sure how anything is related in the first post. Seems like word salad gibberish mixing a lot of unrelated concepts. Sitting on your ass isn't really wasting your life any more than working your ass off for some faceless entity. Not really sure how it relates to typology either.

Society offers a very similar bucket list of choices to any sort of typology, police officer, fire man, fast food worker, technician, artist, Christian, Muslim, Confucian, Buddhist these are very sticky choices for people as well.

Identity is as much a social construct as anything can be called a social construct, but why are people so similar even from across the world, why do people come to similar conclusions about life, the universe, everything? Is there some sort of regularity in the expressions of identity? These are the questions that socionics attempts to answer. From casual observation, one can see that there are regularities in how people's personalities express, but why and how do these regularities arise? Socionics provides a modern exploration of the "why". Information processing, metabolism, preference. It gives a model of the "how", Model A, and it gives many predictions and conclusions from this model, such as inter-type relations.

Anyways in regard to the sitting on ass, I make money essentially so I can sit on my ass and do what I really want. That's as much to freedom as I can imagine, it even seems like the most not wasting of my life I can do, but sometimes I can get off my ass and do something too usually due to external pressure/stimulus of some sort, such as shiny thing or whatever.

[wacey]

Bravo.

[Suz]

When you tell people they suck at something, they are more likely to do worse.
When you tell them they are good, they are more likely to do good.
....
Unless you have some sense of self, can detach from this effect and you're not a person to seek safety and identity in the arms of personality typing, I strongly suggest YOU STAY AWAY FROM IT. I have come to believe it can only do you harm if you choose to go deep into it and identify with it.

On the other hand I find it a useful tool to observe and understand people's tendencies and patterns in personality and behavior, but one should never try to align with a pattern someone is suggesting for them personally. In my opinion, socionics should be a tool for detached, noncommittal/casual observation.
NEVER a firm lense of reality, or a tool for introspection.


Thoughts?

I actually agree with you to some extent. You made some important points here. (I'm not totally sure though where the "variety is not the spice for life, excuse for wasting it" fits in all this... I strongly disagree with that part. Variety makes life beautiful.)

To add to what you said though, one other thing to keep in mind is that how the IEs manifest in the different positions may be very much misinterpreted by people who have developed some sorts of stereotyped "type traits" in their minds whether from just the way they happened to conceptualize certain types (I've fallen into this trap many times and have had to often revise my erroneous understandings), or from taking NTR traits from people they suspect are a certain type in their lives and assigning those NTR traits as a "type trait".

These kinds of mistakes lead to people thinking certain types suck at certain things when that does not have to be the case, and also to mistypings, which pretty much serves to invalidate the model unnecessarily, because with the mistypes, socionic patterns then do not play out as expected.

For example, I've heard SEIs' Te-POLR described as them not being able to perform any task unless they get a set of instructions on how to do it. That's ridiculous. How retarded does any normal adult have to be to not be able to perform any task without instructions??? Does that mean all SEIs (or IEIs for that matter) are mentally handicapped retards?? Is that truly what Te-POLR represents? (it isn't ). I've also heard it said Te-POLRs can't be good students or successful in an info-heavy career; i've heard that kind of thing even being expressed by an SEI--that's pretty unfortunate to be using typology as an excuse for their own academic listlissness (or specific NTR difficulties, learning disability, etc), especially when that's not what Te-POLR mandates. In fact, at least one of the SEI descriptions states clearly that SEIs can be diligent students and enjoy science and do well in it (Meged & Ovcharov, i believe. EDIT: it's the Beskova Female SEI portrait..last paragraph ). The fact is, ANYONE can be a diligent student. ANYONE. It's how you study that is socionically relevant, how you absorb information, how you communicate it. Not whether you can. this is such a pet-peeve of mine!!!!

I've also heard various types described as sluts (IEEs, SEIs, ILEs, EIEs are some that I recall being referenced that way). I think describing any type that way is completely beyond ridiculous. Sluttiness (or chasteness) is a very NTR characteristic that is influenced by many outside factors -- culture, religion, societal pressures/freedoms, role models, having been abused in the past, psychiatric conditions, altered mental status (i.e. under the influence of drugs/addiction), the list can go on and on.

[Aylen]

Usually, when I have told someone they suck it is because they might have done something awesome that I can't top. It can happen in a debate when I am left without argument, or in various other situations where I am at a loss for words. I think most of them get that though and don't take it as an insult or suffer lowered self-esteem as a result. It is all in the delivery.

In general I am always encouraging people to do what they want to do even if I don't think they do it particularly well. I won't tell them they are bad at it unless they ask and I felt it would save them a humiliating experience.