Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Type Description and Quadra Bias

  1. #1
    Rhaegar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    55
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Type Description and Quadra Bias

    I recently read an article regarding bias in type perception and have become curious about the perceptions of the different type descriptions based on author and how individual types relate with them.

    Here is the article: http://rickdelong.com/socionics/wiki...ocionics.shtml

    For example, in the article the author mentions Stratievskaya having a noted Gamma bias, whereas Aushra and Gulenko likely have an Alpha bias. Between theirs and Reinin's descriptions (found in his book) I am curious to know which description or author different members like best and to see if there is a trend. Also curious who Beta and Delta types feel describe them best since I am not aware of authors from those quadras (please post them if you have them).

    Post your most preferred type description author and why you like or relate with that one.

  2. #2
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,129
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I like Gulenko and Reinin.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

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

  3. #3
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,421
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I found myself appreciating Filatova over other authors. I don't know her type. Anyone?
    Gulenko is neutral enough , not biased , but I feel a lot is schematic perhaps . Like erotic attitudes and stuff.
    Stratievskaya is itchy. I wonder if she's psychotic some times or she went through very hard periods in her life.
    Aushra rubs me the wrong way. Mby bcause she's Fi POLR.


  4. #4
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I prefer Gulenko and Filatova.

    Strateveskaya seems rather off.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  5. #5
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,421
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I read some on Wikisocionics. Filatova self types EII. It makes sense why I find her the most balanced and sane in her writings . If you want to talk about Quadra influence , you can .

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,489
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    If I were to choose I prefer Gulenko's descriptions, but ultimately I prefer my own.

  7. #7
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,421
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
    If I were to choose I prefer Gulenko's descriptions, but ultimately I prefer my own.
    and where can I read it ? and what's your type ?

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,489
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by morningthaw View Post
    and where can I read it ? and what's your type ?
    LSE it appears to be.

    Oh you can't read them as I haven't wrote them lol.

    What I mean is that there isn't really anything objective in socionics to base as common understanding and agreement. The closest to an authority imho is Jung's descriptions of the functions. With all this in mind I tend to go with Jung and base my own type perceptions on that which I have experienced IRL.

    As for writing descriptions of types, it's really tricky imo as how to fit millions and millions of people into a description? So from that perspective I don't envy those who've taken the time to write them down.... to me it seems like a pointless exercise? But people are always going to write type descriptions so the established socionics people may as well write them anyway as they will be continually asked for them

  9. #9
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,895
    Mentioned
    732 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    On an intuitive level I find this description more appealing than some of the others but it seems dated and probably mistranslated.

    http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...atievskaya_IEI

    Overall I like Jung's descriptions of the functions. They really are appealing to me. Mostly the stuff on Ni though.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







Posting Permissions

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