People persons

[Tigerfadder]

I find that people persons vs persons is that people persons see people more clearly. Actually many people persons have some kind of abstract idea of functions already in their mind. Probably Jung and Aušra were people persons. There is about 20% of the population or so that are people persons. It is kind of rare but many of them. Probably many of the people here at 16types are people persons.

Do you think, that a people person have grasp of the function even when not knowing socionics? Do you think that a none peope person would be more people person than a people-person when knowing socionics? What are the dynamics?

[Glare]

I find that people persons vs persons is that people persons see people more clearly. Actually many people persons have some kind of abstract idea of functions already in their mind. Probably Jung and Aušra were people persons. There is about 20% of the population or so that are people persons. It is kind of rare but many of them. Probably many of the people here at 16types are people persons.

Do you think, that a people person have grasp of the function even when not knowing socionics? Do you think that a none peope person would be more people person than a people-person when knowing socionics? What are the dynamics?

I don't necessarily think an interest in socionics makes you a "people person", some people just like to examine the inner workings of people and how that manifests in relation to others/ the world. Knowing what makes yourself & others "tick" I think.
I tend to think of people-people in three different categories: the host, the energetic pro-active extrovert, one that brings lots of people together. The overly empathetic person who is too involved in other peoples troubles. Or the classic bubbly extrovert. These people persons aren't necessarily observant of the inner working of people, which is what socionics is about.
Knowing socionics doesn't necessarily give advantage, there are probably many people that know socionics but aren't good at typing or understanding others.

[powerrainbowcrystal]

yeah i think like 'people persons' see people more clearly but in an extro way kinda like knowing the exact physical pressure the china cabinet would crush your skull so to speak..... just worldly and cool and jock ish or something. A non people person can still see you very clearly, but they get too mentally attached to some Fi thing about you that they personally disagree with. They are not with you in the world enough and it kinda comes off unhealthy/weird/autistic..... but in reverse you might say something they really like again, and they then get too attached to that. This is why honestly that being used as an object/tool is very underrated lol.

[Tigerfadder]

It seem to be some kind of motivation meaning its not Fe-lead for example. Its not type related really. Some people just have it and they might not even be F types at all. I do agree that they are less inclined to hold one set of rigid opinions that which make them reject. Its a open minded thing for people.

[Exodus]

Do you think that a none peope person would be more people person than a people-person when knowing socionics? What are the dynamics?

I have little interest in many or most people. But if you see them as something to be understood and analyzed, they can be very interesting.

[Tigerfadder]

I have little interest in many or most people. But if you see them as something to be understood and analyzed, they can be very interesting.

I think people persons see people with the same premise as in Socionics. All are pretty equal and each human have a place where they have their purpose. From that POV analyze people. People persons does seem to have grasp of types in their own abstract way. Based on similar variabels as socionics is founded in.

[Exodus]

I think people persons see people with the same premise as in Socionics. All are pretty equal and each human have a place where they have their purpose. From that POV analyze people. People persons does seem to have grasp of types in their own abstract way. Based on similar variabels as socionics is founded in.

This is true if you're talking about an ESE or an IEE. Not so much for an EIE or an SEE.

[Tigerfadder]

This is true if you're talking about an ESE or an IEE. Not so much for an EIE or an SEE.

What you mean? There is like empath people person that analize which I suggested to be more people persons and view people equally and in a way where everyone have a place with their own strength. Those who put people against each other, this person is better than that one etc is not really people persons.

[Exodus]

What you mean? There is like empath people person that analize which I suggested to be more people persons and view people equally and in a way where everyone have a place with their own strength. Those who put people against each other, this person is better than that one etc is not really people persons.

I don't agree. If you look at EIEs for example, they are very much people persons but they do often view people as being in fundamental opposite to one another, based on their beliefs. This is FeNi (along with the corresponding TiSe) as opposed to FeSi which is conciliatory and "purely" about unifying people in general. In other words you're projecting Alpha values onto people.

[Tigerfadder]

I don't agree. If you look at EIEs for example, they are very much people persons but they do often view people as being in fundamental opposite to one another, based on their beliefs. This is FeNi (along with the corresponding TiSe) as opposed to FeSi which is conciliatory and "purely" about unifying people in general. In other words you're projecting Alpha values onto people.

Actually I think there are both close minded EIE when it come to people and open minded. First whom see people more as objects and limited and the other one.

[idontgiveaf]

Nah. It just naturally come out with practice.

Deprive a people person socialization and he'll be depressed and when went out, he doesn't know what to do. (because of depression, awkwardness, anxiety) but with practice, he can come back and be healthy again.

[at sirac son of sirac]

I find that people persons vs persons is that people persons see people more clearly. Actually many people persons have some kind of abstract idea of functions already in their mind. Probably Jung and Aušra were people persons. There is about 20% of the population or so that are people persons. It is kind of rare but many of them. Probably many of the people here at 16types are people persons.

Do you think, that a people person have grasp of the function even when not knowing socionics? Do you think that a none peope person would be more people person than a people-person when knowing socionics? What are the dynamics?

This might be seasoned with my own perspective, but I think people persons are people who have qualities like patience, tolerance, some degree of tact and approachability, which can *kind of* be socionics related, but it's skills and qualities that people can learn, irrespective of, or, despite type.

[Tigerfadder]

This might be seasoned with my own perspective, but I think people persons are people who have qualities like patience, tolerance, some degree of tact and approachability, which can *kind of* be socionics related, but it's skills and qualities that people can learn, irrespective of, or, despite type.

What I am getting at is that there is maybe an attitude. A dichotomy of preference.