Olimpia's alt, I see. lolOriginally Posted by The Idiot
Olimpia's alt, I see. lol
Someone took it down.
But here's a video of another ILE whom I have much in common with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3GYL8s78vM
She's known me for over 3 years.
That said, she could definitely be wrong. But probably less so than some people online that don't know me from Adam.
They're all too busy out there working to be doing something so unproductive as wasting time posting on some internet forum about some obscure ass personality theory.
Mmm, I'm pretty sure that is a top contender for my type here actually.
A little of it fits. I do seem to recall ILE fits better based on the descriptions and how they break down in Model A.
Well, there's a few ideas...
1. Socionics has a completely different understanding of Jung's functions than what he wrote (which is odd because Ne is basically the same in both systems, for example).
2. Videos are notoriously bad methods for typing people.
3. People on this forum are notoriously bad at determining someone's type.
Any combination of the above is likely.
Nah man it's all about the lulz. Seriously, I troll the fuck out of my coworkers all the time. It's INsane!
Anyway, long string of overdue replies aside, I'm confused why no one typed me as EII.
If I'm Se PoLR, I think that might make more sense due to valuing Fi and Te over Fe and Ti. I have deep feelz and I value being productive and efficient. And I'm fairly serious. Maybe not as much as 90% of this forum that is littered with Deltas, but IRL, I'm like Fe PoLR almost. I almost never smile and have been told by people I work with, I'm very hard to get to laugh. (I just don't think alpha LIIs are funny, personally... : /) So EII seems in some ways more fitting than LII for me.
you'd better returned the video, in case you want typing. people may watch it later to check previous impressions, to hear some places again
Base Fi types are smily as any F types. They show emotions to control yours.
I think I got enough typing. It was all I needed, thanks. Shows how misguided most socionics people are. Which is what I figured would occur.
Only ExFPs due to 4D Fe. Fi leads are rather dour looking at times. Jung himself also said the same, essentially.Base Fi types are smily as any F types. They show emotions to control yours.
This "news" follow from the average <20% match, what is known since 1999 year from mass typing experiment SRT-99.
Though, the experience helps. It's useful to gather opinions before own thinking about type.
I was typed correctly (through Internet) by 3 people in past, they were experienced. And to understand them it took about a year of own checkings. They were not perfect typers, as I saw their mistakes later, but in my case somehow they've done ok.
I hope you've taken something useful too.
I have. Socionics is bullshit and has nothing to do with Jung. lol
It is literally its own system that simply took Jungian function names and slapped its own labels on them. How anyone can find that useful, I'll never know, but it is what it is.
Kind of true, but also people put their own labels onto functions too.
This is a problem when a subject is over discussed, the simpler becomes less simple.
So type me as SEI then. What difference does it make? lol
You've moved from talking about socionics in general, to one (or more) persons perspective on you from a video. You remind me of Bertrand with your argument shifting. I think he's got the same problem as you said as well as likely being ILE (or LII).
Sure, whatever bro. Continue typing me as every function wrong. If you're fine being wrong, so be it.
Socionics is hardly taken seriously by anyone outside of its own circles anyway, so the echo chamber shall go on.
As someone that values Jungian theory over Augusta, this shit really isn't for me. Socionics is alpha NT mental masturbation fantasy material. I find it so utterly pointless and subjective...
The degree of baseless negativism may point to speculative mind of introverts.
The inclination for quarrels without adequate reasons rises the probability of F types.
As previously was seen N, then we are having the rised possibility of NFI type. Among which only INFP is possible.
If this dude is still interested in correct typing here, he should place normal typing material, what includes his video.
Also IR test may help him, in case he'll use it correctly.
@Retsu77 by Jungs descriptions, which function do you relate to most?
Last edited by Muddy; 12-16-2017 at 02:25 PM.
@Retsu77 Anyway, for some serious talk, you definitely strike me as some sort Se valuing extrovert bar SEE. Those LII/ILE suggestions are just based off stereotypes and not actually how your behavior relates to type/elements sorry to say.
The essence of Jung's theory about types does not controvert to Augustinavichute. She only have expanded it.
> Socionics is alpha NT mental masturbation fantasy material
Socionics is the working theory. While "mental masturbation fantasy" is your baseless opinion about it.
> I find it so utterly pointless and subjective...
It's not more subjective than Jung's texts. As it's evident and you don't get this, hence "utterly pointless and subjective" is your perception.
Expanded Jung's functions descriptions are lesser correct than in Socionics. The only good at Jung is his concepts of the functions.
The other problem is the understanding of himself is not perfect. Also he seems to have either thinking issues or instable/impulsive mind, as acts not reasonably during the discussion of own type - in both cases this makes the task as harder for him. He seems to prefer strong speculations leading to irrational negativism, so should tend to reject ANY thought which he will not like by ANY reason. For example, I suppose his disliked the opinions about his type and based on this have said baselessly that Socionics is wrong, while seems previously was typed by "jungians" or with Jung's bent texts to a type his likes more. This is irrational and capricious behavior. The most it's expressed at polr T types, though also can be caused by mental/psyche deviations.
His was typed by behavior like anyone, while typing is the relation of it to the type and elements. While a stereotype is common thought and classical theory, which are correct in most cases (also in my experience), unlike what controverts to this.
He looked as N type on the video. Also has good imagination and expresses it freely.
Last edited by Sol; 12-17-2017 at 10:08 AM.
@Sol what do you mean extended Jung descriptions? I go off Jungs own descriptions and that’s what I was asking him. I’ve never seen what you’re supposedly talking about, extended Jung descriptions are... socionics.
What is besides definitions of functions and E/I. His definitions are used in Socionics. But not his expanded descriptions, which are hypotetical derivative of lower level and not obligate to agree with.
Jung was not good as a practitioner in own typology as typed incorrectly even himself, so his secondary (and early!) interpretations of own theory and his experience are much lesser important.
> I go off Jungs own descriptions
You'd better used more modern, more checked, more correct and developed Socionics texts as the main. Jung is good only for core definitions and doubtful in the rest. He was not a "typologist", his main qualification was psychoanalysis and to notice own mistakes was hard for him. Also Socionics was developed and checked by many people, so it's more objective to trust.
> I’ve never seen what you’re supposedly talking about, extended Jung descriptions are... socionics.
Socionics is extended Jung's typology. More correct in expanded descriptions.
Socionics took the part out of jungs descriptions what actually makes a person human. Socionics descriptions are just extremely watered down versions imo. They miss the point. Jung does not.
It took core Jung's typology's theory - definitions. And took other sceptically, what was correct approach.
> Socionics descriptions are just extremely watered down versions imo. They miss the point. Jung does not.
With a lot of water (like all Jung's texts) and lesser correct (as it was early and more subjective) are Jung's functions descriptions. The point is in definitions. The one who could not understand even own type as Jung have made what he could.
They’re understandable to me and much more easier to apply to real life people than any socionics description I’ve seen. You just need to reread it a couple of times.
Both Jung and socionics are useful.
Socionics reduces the descriptions in an attempt to have a holistic structure (Ne with Ti), so you can have eg Si as sensing and Se as force.
Jung descriptions show a lot more of the behavioral contexts. You can read Jung Ne and see an Ne base type living their lives, but then the weakness of socionics is you can read that Ne is the 'intuition of possibilites', and it is, but with that alone it's too abstract - because anyone can come up with ideas, and ideas does not really mean Ne.
Both are there as a compliment, but, once you've grasped the concepts of socionics descriptions through empirical observation, then socionics becomes much more useful. Jungs descriptions attempt to encapsulate his own empirical observations, so they're great for someone who wants to compliment their own experience with his.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote