Self-Perception vs Group-Perception
How do you reconcile how someone perceives themselves with how you perceive them? Which is more important and why? Does it have anything to do with Socionics? Does anyone care? Does it even matter? Why do the fuck do people keep logging in to post about this stuff when they could be living their lives instead? And does it even matter? And should there be a poll for all the questions?
In reverse order - eh, if you want a poll, but I don't think it's necessary. It only matters insomuch as it affects the kinds of ideas you internalize about yourself and others. Those ideas can affect some people's lives to a rather great degree - beliefs can be very powerful in both positive and negative ways. Maybe sometimes it's useful for someone to have a false idea about themself - if it leads them to make positive changes or gives them greater confidence to achieve something or simply makes them happier, but it can as often be harmful, especially when it becomes an excuse or limits them or destroys their confidence, or changes how they relate to other people. Believing you have a bad intertype relationship with someone can cause you to focus on all the negative aspects and in effect sabotage the relationship. Likewise, imagining that you have positive intertype relationship with someone can cause you to overlook their negative qualities and put up with things that you shouldn't. But believing it's a positive relationship can also allow it to BECOME positive.Originally Posted by strangeling
In my opinion, the ideas and beliefs that people hold are the cause more often than the result of negative or positive things happening. In the end, truth is always preferable, and even if the result ends up being beneficial to believe an untruth, it's better imo to start from solid ground, from what is true, and not from a false belief.
As to how you reconcile how someone perceives themself with how you perceive them - generally they have more information than you do about themself, but sometimes they aren't able to compare themself with others very well - for example someone may say that they are far more honest/blunt than average, but your experience is quite different and you don't see them that way at all. In this case, it's more likely that their comparison group and yours differ - as in, they might spend a lot of time around particularly wishy-washy beat-around-the-bush sorts of people, and you spend more time around normal or particularly blunt people. If you're both in the same group of people (for instance a forum) and comparing amongst that group, then you're probably going to be a little more accurate in assessing them in observable measures than they are in assessing themself. You have the benefit of seeing both them and the comparison points from the same perspective. They can't. They still have the upper hand in the things you can't see from the outside however.
How do you reconcile how someone perceives themselves with how you perceive them?
Personality and psychology.
Which is more important and why?
It depends on the situation.
Does it have anything to do with Socionics?
Functions. Though, not every trait can be explained through it. But we can explain pattern preferences and attitudes through psychology and personality theories.
Does anyone care?
I do...not really.
Does it even matter?
I think.
Why do the fuck do people keep logging in to post about this stuff when they could be living their lives instead?
Different motivations: boredom, social and self validation, socialize, knowledge/information... mostly,guess.
And does it even matter?
You've asked it already.
And should there be a poll for all the questions?
Please, no.
first of all lets distinguish judgement from perception
in a strict sense irrational perception has no value attached to it without judgement hence its impossible to move on until we clarify that what we mean when we say "group-perception" is really prevailing group judgement (which is really comprised of individual judgements coming into some kind of sync--on the basis of shared valuing of the prevailing group "field")
from that point both forms (self v group) of judgement influence eachother
if you don't think it matters, or can't get out of hand, read The Gulag Archipelago which is basically Fe hell on earth (where group perception dominates everything including individual perception)
Last edited by Bertrand; 05-23-2017 at 07:21 PM.
So this begs the question, if someone sees themself a particular way for various reasons, but from their behavior you get a different perception, which one holds more weight in terms of truth? Where is the line drawn.
Let's even consider that Socionics relations are first formed and related based on a person's self-typing. Is this a problem if the self-typing is different from what other people see? What if the self-typing is honest and accurate, but around other people their behavior changes, making it not so. Is one more important and why?
So if I understand you right, a person is molded by others around them, but also by their own behavior. Then is personality an emergent phenomenom to you or is it something that can define someone's nature? Or do you consider nature and nurture two sides of the same thing then? And if so, why exactly?
Last edited by strangeling; 05-24-2017 at 02:39 AM.
How do you reconcile how someone perceives themselves with how you perceive them?
Most of the time, I trust someone's self perception enough to accept their self-typing especially if they're consistent with it. There are some people who have changed their types far too many times that I don't take their type seriously anymore. As for those people that have their self-typing questioned, I usually ignore it unless there is some very sound reasoning backing it up, but even then I still take it with a grain of salt.
Which is more important and why?
Depends on the situation. Most of the time self-typing is more important, but there is some instances where group typing is more important.
Does it have anything to do with Socionics?
The problem with Socionics is that it is an inexact science. It's our subjective take on people's personalities and while there is a basis of reality on it, to take it as complete truth to follow as a gospel would be as fool hardy as to ignore it completely. This is one reason why it is so easy for people to question other people's self-typings and that's because it is almost impossible to prove someone's type completely.
Does anyone care?
I don't care because in the end of the day person A is X type. Person B can think person A is Y type or person A can think he is a Y type, but he will always be X type. Poor self-awareness or poor awareness of others will never override reality, no matter how hard they try. This is why no one should care too much about being critiqued about their own type even though some do of course.
Does it even matter?
It matters in terms of that person being in peace with their type so they can get along with their life and focus on more important things. Socionics has value, but it is limited in understanding yourself. If someone thinks Socionics can answer everything about who they are then they are incredibly ignorant and misguided as Socionics is merely a piece of the puzzle of your personality. Enneagram and instinctual stacking are another piece to the puzzle, but even then there is more questions. You have to look at other aspects of psychology to find out more about yourself, but even that has its limits.
Why do the fuck do people keep logging in to post about this stuff when they could be living their lives instead?
They are still enamored with Socionics in the honey moon phase. Eventually, they will realize that while Socionics is interesting and useful for relationships and friendships, it is not this holy grail that will guarantee you a life partner as long as you find your dual. Afaik, duals can be horrible for you too if everything else about them psychologically is not in tune with you.
And should there be a poll for all the questions?
A simpler poll with one question could work well IMO.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Group perception isn't really a thing. Mob perception maybe, but that'd just be an overarching theme, not something everyone thinks. People are not a hivemind.
As to what's more important, this is really on the same topic of what I was saying with "a man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants". Sometimes people can mean different things when they say the same thing, and people can act different in different contexts based on their motivations and/or conditioning, but if people are telling you what you want and you don't want that, there is something up, whether it's error or malice. People are always right about what they perceive, even if their interpretation is wrong, and if one or more people are interpreting something wrong, at the very least they're starting from something that's right. That doesn't mean that the correct answer is automatically in the middle, like if someone says they'll charge $400 for a service and someone else says they won't pay a cent, that doesn't mean they should pay $200, but the person charging that much and the person saying they won't pay a cent both have real reasoning leading them to say those things, like "this normally costs $400" and "I think you screwed it up and I ought not to have to pay for it at all". If you're around yourself all the time, then you know yourself, but you could be in situations like what squark said where you're around wishy-washy people all the time and the other person is around normal or blunt people all the time so the actual perceptions are consistent, just not how people are framing it, and if someone tries to shove down your throat that you're wishy-washy without really explaining what makes them say that or being willing to negotiate then that's a red flag that they're basically using you to fill some sort of role for themselves, even if it isn't a particularly bad role, and you need to just stay away since that's bad itself.
i think its possible via involution to understand from a field the internal state of another better than than they themselves understand it but that is in the end judgement not perception, because they're actually perceiving two different things, but one is drawing a more accurate conclusion ironically about the one who should be closer to the thing but for whatever reason makes less sense of it
This sounds like something from an older children's book. Must be true.
Introspection is an illusion anyways, but the other person has more reference points so this couldn't be chronically true.
i was definitely considering using an adult with a child as an obvious example of this phenomenon
i also feels this plays out along quadral lines too
its why delta is always telling people "its because you're afraid" or whatever, they're probably not entirely wrong
I frankly just meant that it sounded like something from Alice in Wonderland or another of many books along those lines.
i get that, but I think its because children's literature is connected to this exact dynamic
Be careful or you'll be retyped from ILI to ILE
jokes on them I'm ESI
I know at least one person who I'm sure would type you ESIjokes on them I'm ESI
hopefully they're a shit person who types people out of spite
Those types tend to go extravert over introvert if they particularly don't like you.
hopes dashed
I dont think either matters.
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.
people are definitely a hivemind. an echo chamber of cold and hot reading tactics ft. an endless supply of projection and bias.
imagine that everyone you meet is a rorschach test. you see in them only what your mind is capable of deducing about them based on your own understanding and knowledge of the world. if you meet the same person twice - over the course of, let's say, 2 years - but your perception of them hasn't changed then it's safe to assume that you haven't changed in that stretch of time either. if you were to expose yourself to positive influences prior to meeting this person, then your perception of them would be more positive than if you were to expose yourself to negative influences beforehand. now imagine that they were to expose themselves to positive influences prior to meeting you, the manifestation of their traits would be more positive than if they were to expose themselves to negative influences beforehand. now imagine once more that you two were to meet under unfortunate circumstances - with prior knowledge as to what the other person is gonna be like (via rumors and the like) - you're more likely to leave that meeting with a negative impression of the other person. now let's throw even more people into the mix. imagine that your friends unanimously dislike the person - you don't think that's gonna influence your perception of them? social interactions are very much like chemical reactions.
long story short, your perception of them reveals a lot more about you than it does about them. i hate to use common platitudes to explain complex phenomena, but sometimes they ring true. notice how everyone in a group - no matter how small or large - eventually talks the same, dresses the same, acts the same. why do you think stereotypes exist? it's not so much that people are incapable of acting differently, it's that doing so means a certain social death, and sometimes it's because no one gives them a chance to act differently, that they continue to act the same.
everyone's simultaneously "right" and "wrong" so your best bet is to disregard both perceptions and just do your thing.
I don't. There is no reason why you have to accept the validity of someone's self-perception. In my experience self-perception is often wrong, and sometimes embarrassingly so. You can try to explain where this comes from but you don't have to.
However, if there are a bunch of people (people who don't know about socionics preferably) that view someone in a certain way that doesn't make sense with your typing of them, then you should probably consider why this is the case. I'm talking about actual observations, not seeing them as a particular type.
My perception of them could be wrong too but ultimately my typing is based on my own perception.Which is more important and why?
Yes...the way someone sees himself can give information on his type.Does it have anything to do with Socionics?
I care. Some people take self-perception for granted but if you're looking for a deeper understanding you can't limit yourself to it (see question #1).Does anyone care? Does it even matter?
Because they are interested in learning about themselves I guess.Why do the fuck do people keep logging in to post about this stuff when they could be living their lives instead?
Arguably knowing about socionics isn't so important in the grand scheme of things. I believe it can help with spiritual development but for most people it doesn't.And does it even matter?
Maybe the more straightforward ones.And should there be a poll for all the questions?
This idea that people can change their behavior somehow to obscure their type simply isn't true in my experience.
Based on what I know about socionics nature seems way more important to me, though obviously there is an element of both. Personality is like 90% nature/immutable, even including non-socionic aspects (intratype variation).So if I understand you right, a person is molded by others around them, but also by their own behavior. Then is personality an emergent phenomenom to you or is it something that can define someone's nature? Or do you consider nature and nurture two sides of the same thing then? And if so, why exactly?
That is only an issue if you're typing by behavior, and ideally you shouldn't be. You should instead imo be looking at their cognition, which will ofc influence their behavior, but it comes first. How is this person thinking? How are they viewing the world - through what fxns? You see this in how they talk, how they explain themselves, the way they talk about topics rather than the topics themselves. Ask two people of two different types to explain the same thing, and watch how the approach they take varies. For example, in the Jordan Peterson thread I suggested that people compare him to Ben Shapiro on the topics where the two share the same viewpoint. That way people won't be influenced by the stance taken, and instead look at the way they each approach defending that stance, which imo makes it very clear that Ben is Te ego, and Jordan is Ti ego. There should be clear things you can point out in how they express themselves that demonstrate their type, and if there isn't, then you have to wait and see if that's revealed in time.
Due to my job and life experiences I get into contact with loads of different people and I've had extremely different feedback regarding myself from different people. Honestly I have no clue, I just do whatever I think it's okay and mostly ignore feedback (yes not optimal but there's just too much variation).
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
So does culture then have an impact on say Socionics? Does or should it factor into someone's typing? And I suppose Quadras are an attempt at classifying each type into cultures. But given that culture can be pretty vast, wouldn't different cultures have mixtures of different quadras then? And if so, why is this not considered?
I've heard this one a lot, but usually from big introverts. So out of curiosity, what would the 10% look like? And when you say personality is 90% nature/immutable, what leads you to think so? (I guess these are kind of the same question)
But if someone is capable (and I would hope most people are) of thinking in different ways, how does this approach describe the individual on a personal level, rather than describing how they express themselves? I would imagine some people, if not most, can develop different styles for different people. I've done this sort of thing depending on what work I'm doing and who I'm talking to, to give the question real significance.
...i hate to use common platitudes to explain complex phenomena, but sometimes they ring true. notice how everyone in a group - no matter how small or large - eventually talks the same, dresses the same, acts the same. why do you think stereotypes exist? it's not so much that people are incapable of acting differently, it's that doing so means a certain social death...
Well first of all I have never seen someone's sociotype change. So that alone is a big part of someone's personality. But then even with intratype differences, like say if one ESE is more relaxed or introverted, these things rarely change either. People do seem to grow and mature as they get older but once they are ~20ish this usually happens very slowly if at all.
Things that might cause people to change:
-traumatic experiences
-deep introspection and religious practice (aka intentional effort towards changing)
-brain damage (lol)
-drug use/addiction
thehotelambush thinks that everything you value, work towards, and dream about is not really part of you, and also thinks that this is embarrassing to you, but he doesn't have to tell you because you wouldn't listen or understand anyways. Especially given his tendency to type basically everyone EIE or occasionally IEI.
Prove me wrong, or my perception of you is better than your self-perception.
Huh? That's not what I meant.
1. All of those things are very much a part of you but it doesn't mean that you know how to interpret them in terms of socionics.
2. It's the lack of self-understanding that is embarrassing.
3. I have told and will tell people about my interpretations of their behavior, if they ask and are willing to listen rather than just trying to justify their self-image.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote