After Socionics, can you look at this the same way?
Last edited by jason_m; 11-16-2015 at 05:12 AM.
Lol. I read that in junior high. Yes the same
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Do you mean to restart this thread? http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...rave-New-World
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
It's a good book. I posted a video about it awhile back in another thread but I was being a little facetious. I highly doubt socionics would ever make it to this level but if it did there would probably be reason for concern. I don't ever see it going mainstream like MBTI though. I don't think MBTI is taken seriously in the professional world. I wonder if companies even use it anymore. It seems a waste of money for a company to use personality typing anyway. It would lead to discrimination and there are supposed to be laws preventing that. Just imagine how people talk about other people's types here on the forum and then imagine it wide scale. Scary right???
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
In BNW was other system than Jung's types.
Changes perception of "Gods Themselves" by Asimov.
Last edited by Sol; 11-16-2015 at 09:04 AM.
In that system "emotional soft one" is the type to be. The rest are lame.Originally Posted by Sol
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I'll make a spoiler, if there are who did not read.The rest are lame.
...
There as lame appeard to be all three types, while 1 adult individual was created from those 3. This fits to Socionics and Jung's understanding of types - types are not full-grown psycho for individuals. Jung offered to rise weak functions in consciousness, Socionics offers to be with a dual.
I would like to understand what you are trying to convey here but I am finding it difficult which is probably due to language differences. I am assuming you are saying that the complete person would have the rational, emotional and the parental side? I agree with that. I do not believe I need a dual or anyone else to complete me. I am a whole person but I still want to interact with other people of like mind or even people of different mind. The world would be boring for me if I could only interact with people of my quadra or any quadra. I like diversity. I like feeling unique too and I do resist attempts, by others, to categorize me even though I will categorize myself. I have no strict definition of who or what I am and it annoys me when others try to tell me who I am. I like the idea of the soft emotional because of another typing system I actually relate to. I am pretty sure most people on this forum have never heard of it unless I linked them to it and it has nothing to do with the book even though there are some similarities such as:
The inhabitants are divided into dominant "hard ones" and subject "soft ones". The latter have three sexes with fixed roles for each sex:
- Rationals (or "lefts") are the logical and scientific sex; identified with masculine pronouns and producing a form of sperm. They have limited ability to pass through other bodies.
- Emotionals (or "mids") are the intuitive sex; identified with the feminine pronouns and provide the energy needed for reproduction. Emotionals can pass freely in and out of solid material, including rock.
- Parentals (or "rights") bear and raise the offspring, but are identified with masculine pronouns. Parentals have almost no ability to blend their bodies with others, except when helped by one or both of the other sexes.
The personality system I am talking about would not appeal to most forum members though and it is more of a fringe system than socionics although it may have way more believers in it.
Edit: I may be a socionics irrational but I am very capable of rational thought. I do not idealize any one system but I do have those that I find more or less appealing. If I find them useful I will use them but there are aspects of socionics, and other systems, that I personally do not find useful. Duality might be one of the things I find least useful, although I do not discount that there is something to it.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I don't think that there's much to be said here. Huxley just wanted to slot people into categories of ability, though if we did take socionics to its logical conclusion it would essentially represent the ultimate victory of Alpha/Beta Quadras over their oppositional forces. Alphas hate Gammas, and Betas hate Deltas, but everyone needs someone worse off than them to maintain sanity so they made the Epsilons, so at least nobody in any quadra had it as bad as an epsilon and thus could endure their subservience/justify their rule over others (and epsilon is too damn dumb to rise up like they ought to in that hellish situation).
Also, @Ellyan, that's quite the interesting theory you've got going. Though I think the "parental" type would be referred to by both masculine and feminine pronouns. I mean, moms matter a lot in the raising of offspring. For several reasons (some of which are very dark but hey, can't change the past/present) they were/are the primary caregivers. I mean, daddy don't have the milk jugs to feed that baby, mommy does though. Without mommy, and before baby formula, the baby didn't make it unless mommy was around. Thus, there would probably be some weight given to mothers and to the feminine in the parental sphere. But this is me just blabbering, would like to hear more about your theory however as it does sound interesting.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
