Yes.. But unfortunately, socionics doesn't work that way.Originally Posted by Singu
It's all unproven theories.. ;/
It's like abstract = abstract
It's just merely all ideas for me.. Like more of abstractions tbfh...
Yes.. But unfortunately, socionics doesn't work that way.
It's all unproven theories.. ;/
It's like abstract = abstract
It's just merely all ideas for me.. Like more of abstractions tbfh...
If you have Ti PoLR, ask an ILI to explain. By the way, be a bit more careful with statements like that, that no one will understand you if you use a programming language.
Tbh, I'm not really a nerd. I won't do that.If you have Ti PoLR, ask an ILI to explain. By the way, be a bit more careful with statements like that, that no one will understand you if you use a programming language.
Here's some SEE descriptions if SLE really was too aggressive http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...e=SEE_subtypes
The Socionics approach is the Fact → Explanation approach above.
People just say you have Ti polr when you seem stupid or you don't understand something. Some people are pretty sly here and use typology as a tool for establishing themselves in the social hierarchy.
I'd suggest, if you really want a label, just choose out of the 4 dichotomies which fit you best and voilį
Tbh, i can relate on some part, but on some parts i don't..
That's the point. I don't even fit on gamma quadra 😑😑😑😑😑😑People just say you have Ti polr when you seem stupid or you don't understand something. Some people are pretty sly here and use typology as a tool for establishing themselves in the social hierarchy.
I'd suggest, if you really want a label, just choose out of the 4 dichotomies which fit you best and voilį
Yes that's right, people here thinks they're intelligent or something as if they know better than yourself
Well, i made a conclusion now..
I refused to be called any type. I don't even believe i have Ti polr. Like as if i don't have common sense or hard analysing stuffs.
Tbh, some people here just type people as if they're sure of what they're saying just solely basing on your reactions.
Okay. Gg socionics.
I give up.
Socionics is like a fucked up description and if you believe on it, you just set yourself to be a stupid non thinking sheep.
I'm more complex and complicated than these unproven theories.
And i will not anymore waste my time proving im not of a certain type.
I know myself more and it feel shitty tbh when people just describes you or label you as if they know you.
GG.
I just wanna learn tbh, but what is happening is i am not even learning..
I wanna learn to improve myself..
Not to feel shit about myself..
Tbh, saying I'm Ti-polr is insulting.
And just not agreeing on these bullshit consider as Ti polr is real plain bullshit tbh..
Omg.
Totally flawed.
And it's also stupid to ask stranger's opinion online about yourself. Lewl.
Nobody knows you more than yourself. Nobody knows your past, your culture, your problem.
So it's really really stupid to just accept everything just because someone says it..
I just process stuffs and i conclude..
Typing sucks.
Not gonna do it again.
Nope, what makes you think so?
Honestly, anyone who wants to establish themselves in a social hierarchy on a fringe russian typology forum has no life.People just say you have Ti polr when you seem stupid or you don't understand something. Some people are pretty sly here and use typology as a tool for establishing themselves in the social hierarchy.
I'd suggest, if you really want a label, just choose out of the 4 dichotomies which fit you best and voilį
I'm sorry for anyone who really types people out of such a motivation.
I do agree the dichotomies do work for determining type, though it's still good to understand at least the jungian principles of the dominant (Leading in Socionics) function and its opposing (Dual-seeking in Socionics) function.
Okay. I wish you luck on the journey of self-discovery.
I find SEEs have a lot of common sense. Common sense is mainly about seeing practically what's going to work in real life.
Sometimes people do have a hard time accepting some traits about themselves.And i will not anymore waste my time proving im not of a certain type.
Then don't start a type thread.I know myself more and it feel shitty tbh when people just describes you or label you as if they know you.
You didn't really put in the effort lolI just wanna learn tbh, but what is happening is i am not even learning..
To improve yourself, you will have to go through a (temporary) process of feeling a bit shit too about yourself.I wanna learn to improve myself..
Not to feel shit about myself..
Not my problem if you find it insulting that I suggested the SEE profile for a read too since you found SLE too aggressive. I've genuinely considered both types for you. I still didn't exclude SLE eitherTbh, saying I'm Ti-polr is insulting.
No one expected you to accept anything automatically.So it's really really stupid to just accept everything just because someone says it..
It kinda does suck yahTyping sucks.
Not gonna do it again.see above
I want to add that I had a certain self image of myself before I read about Socionics, but it was kind of fuzzy and based partly on what my parents expected me to be, and largely on trying to be in control of my life and not let anyone (my mother, specifically) dominate me.
When I read Strat’s description of LIE’s, I was amazed at how well the description fit me. Even the bad parts fit me, which was hard to accept. Especially hard to accept was the Victim label, but I have to admit that it does explain a lot of my behavior.
Regarding typing people in general, I’m not big on theory. I tend to watch people and go by how similar they are to other people whom I or others have previously typed as a particular type. This is kind of a Te/Ni approach, as opposed to @Myst’s Ti/Se approach. I collect facts and let them swirl around in my head until the pieces fall into place and I can match them to an overall pattern. At that point, I can make sense of them and begin to predict how they will behave.
Since I type by correlation and since I’m leaning toward SEE for you, it is only fair to tell you whom you remind me of and why. I get the impression that you want to know the truth of things and will do research until you find that truth. I think you care a lot about people and justice and doing the right thing and aren’t misled too often by bullshit, and when you find you have been misled, you want to get to the real explanation right away.
The people you remind me of are my party buddy, the PhD mathematics professor who is exploring group theory while looking for his ideal love.
Also, an on-line journalist named Kevin Drum at Mother Jones.
Also, a musician/lawyer friend of mine who actively supports social causes and women’s rights.
And of course, Mikhail Blomkvist, the social investigator in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.
All of these people share a need to know the truth, a concern for social justice, and an easy, accomplished approach to other people in social settings.
Anyway, I wish you good luck in getting to the truth of your own type.
Because you first make an observation, then you come up with an explanation on explaining that fact. But even within Socionics, how do you know that it's Ni and not Si? How do you know that it's Alpha and not Beta, etc? So if try hard enough, then you can make any description fit a fact, and that becomes a problem. And of course, there are explanations other than Socionics explanations.
If a person drops a ball, how should we explain that fact? Should we use physics, and calculate the rate of speed in which the ball drops? Or should we explain why the person dropped the ball, and hence becomes a psychological explanation? And so as you can see, we'd need a theory to tell us what we should be observing in the first place.
And so what is a "Personality theory" supposed to be observing? Should we observe the person's emotions? Should we observe his cognitive abilities? Should we observe his environmental influences, his history, his backgrounds, his culture?
Who said this explanation is not to be tested however?
Operationalize the definitions and use them as consistently as possible.But even within Socionics, how do you know that it's Ni and not Si?
Then don't try hard enough. Keep to consistency with operationalizing. No one said you have to do it in an inconsistent way.How do you know that it's Alpha and not Beta, etc? So if try hard enough, then you can make any description fit a fact
Yeah.And of course, there are explanations other than Socionics explanations.
The question ("If a person drops a ball, how should we explain that fact?") is not sufficiently defined.If a person drops a ball, how should we explain that fact? Should we use physics, and calculate the rate of speed in which the ball drops? Or should we explain why the person dropped the ball, and hence becomes a psychological explanation? And so as you can see, we'd need a theory to tell us what we should be observing in the first place.
Whatever it is that you want to observe and explain. I'm not sure I'm following your issue here?And so what is a "Personality theory" supposed to be observing? Should we observe the person's emotions? Should we observe his cognitive abilities? Should we observe his environmental influences, his history, his backgrounds, his culture?
Well of course you can test it, but you started off with an observation. So what exactly is there to test? You are trying to explain a fact that has already happened, i.e. an observation. You are by definition, trying to fit a description to a fact. You're not, and in fact you can't test something that has already happened.
It's not defined, because there's no theory telling us what we should be observing first (i.e. telling us what to test). If we go by physics, then we should calculate the initial acceleration/velocity, how far is the Earth from the ball, etc. And then we drop the ball to test if it's correct or not. And if we go by a psychological explanation, then we might want to psychologically explain why he is going to drop the ball (this would be much more difficult to "test").The question ("If a person drops a ball, how should we explain that fact?") is not sufficiently defined.
Whatever it is that you want to observe and explain. I'm not sure I'm following your issue here?
So what I'm saying is, we can either 1) Try to fit an explanation to a fact, or 2) Make a theory first, and see if the test proves us wrong or not. The first approach is not fruitful, because there are going to be many possible explanations that could fit the fact. The second approach is much easier, because if it doesn't work, then it's simply a matter of scrapping the theory and starting anew.
SEE in Asia is ILE in other continents cause all asians are nerds
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
its quite alot of people, its just pretty subtle often. people who have a need for that and dont succeed at it in real life will try and get it somewhere elseHonestly, anyone who wants to establish themselves in a social hierarchy on a fringe russian typology forum has no life.
I'm sorry for anyone who really types people out of such a motivation.
*not that I think you are or are not Ti Polr*
But I think of it as "do you generally give a shit about other people and your own feelings towards them" or "do you give a shit about how you rationalize other people and how you rationalize yourself". Ti types seem to like to rationalize other people over giving a shit about them. Ti vs Fi, you know? I don't think it has anything to do with being stupid, just thinking differently. Doesn't mean Fi couldn't learn logic or do science and stuff or that Ti couldn't learn to treat people well or get in touch with their feelings about people (lol). It's just not a first inclination. And for some people, you could maybe even say it isn't natural for them.Like the difference between an autistic being fe polr and a normal person being fe polr or an Fi polr being a psychopath versus a normal person with Fi polr, etc.
good bye
You start off with observations in science too, you don't just pull out ideas out of your ass. Nobody is forbidding you from testing hypotheses for Socionics too. Really who said you can't do that? Take the explanation and test it, who said you have to stop there.
Uh? You need to clearly define your question if you want to investigate anything at all. And you can observe anything you want, you don't need a theory first.It's not defined, because there's no theory telling us what we should be observing first (i.e. telling us what to test).
Well, 2) has the problem of having to test all those many possible explanations.So what I'm saying is, we can either 1) Try to fit an explanation to a fact, or 2) Make a theory first, and see if the test proves us wrong or not. The first approach is not fruitful, because there are going to be many possible explanations that could fit the fact. The second approach is much easier, because if it doesn't work, then it's simply a matter of scrapping the theory and starting anew.
I'd hate testing things in a hit-and-miss trial-and-error fashion. I'd especially hate starting completely anew each time retrying the test. Science doesn't do that either. As for myself, I just try to find consistencies in the observations and go by those when building the theory and then of course it has to work (i.e. test it). I can do this just fine with Socionics.
Of course, you will start off with some background "knowledge". But you do, indeed start with a theory first, because the theory tells us what to test and what to observe.
Well that's the problem, how do you test Socionics?
Okay, then what are you supposed to be observing? Again, do you focus on the ball, or do you focus on the person? That depends on which theory you want to test.
I don't think 2) has the problem of testing all possible explanations, because you're only testing the explanations of that theory.Well, 2) has the problem of having to test all those many possible explanations.
I'd hate testing things in a hit-and-miss trial-and-error fashion. I'd especially hate starting completely anew each time retrying the test. Science doesn't do that either. As for myself, I just try to find consistencies in the observations and go by those when building the theory and then of course it has to work (i.e. test it). I can do this just fine with Socionics.
Of course, you can try to revise the theory if it fails, I mean consistently fail again and again. So is Socionics willing to do that, even just to revise it? I don't see anyone revising from the basic concepts of Fi, etc. Rather they come up with ad hoc modifications, like "It was typed wrong", etc.
Would you like me to file you for a divorce with socionics?
that's funny cause I really want to be IEE and don't think Ti polr is anything but a strength since Ti is dumb
i'd much rather have a good heart than be good at accounting (not that they're mutually exclusive, but if they were)
Pick your poison.
Anyway, about the "good heart" part--
We've got some bad news for you.
Last edited by Chthonic Daydream; 04-26-2018 at 07:05 AM.
I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.
― Clarice Lispector
The day has finally arrived when cardiologist starts to make character judgments?!!?
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
For example you can test basic claims of ITR (duality).
I'm not this theory oriented you are, btw, I don't need a theory to observe. It helps but is not an absolute prerequisite.
I find the whole issue as brought up weird here.Okay, then what are you supposed to be observing? Again, do you focus on the ball, or do you focus on the person? That depends on which theory you want to test.
I was commenting on how you think it's so easy to just scrap it all and start anew all the time, like it's easier than dealing with many possible explanations... It's still about dealing with many possible explanations.I don't think 2) has the problem of testing all possible explanations, because you're only testing the explanations of that theory.
Socionics isn't a person. Are you willing to do it? Simple as that.Of course, you can try to revise the theory if it fails, I mean consistently fail again and again. So is Socionics willing to do that, even just to revise it?
I revise.I don't see anyone revising from the basic concepts of Fi, etc. Rather they come up with ad hoc modifications, like "It was typed wrong", etc.
I find the theory of ITR to be incoherent, because it's not actually explaining anything. It says that people get along or conflict, yes, but that much is obvious as saying that people have emotions or logic in general. ITR only says that people get along or conflict in general. But what is it actually explaining? How do people get along or conflict?
I'm sure that these are all very abstract points, that most people still find it difficult to wrap their heads around. It requires the knowledge of how a system based on observations ultimately doesn't work, and how science is actually about explaining things.
Well you're still not answering the question, what are you supposed to be observing?
Socionics lacks explanations in the first place. I don't think there's much to revise. It needs to create explanations.
That's not what ITR says. I suggest you read up on it. It says more definite statements than this. X people get along with Y people and do not get along with Z people and so on. This is way more definite than what you are saying here. And these statements are testable after operationalizing.
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the point here. What do you even mean by "system based on observations"? Science has models (systems) based on observations too...I'm sure that these are all very abstract points, that most people still find it difficult to wrap their heads around. It requires the knowledge of how a system based on observations ultimately doesn't work, and how science is actually about explaining things.
Your question makes no sense. "Supposed"? Seriously? Who places expectations on this? You are giving me zero real context, as well.Well you're still not answering the question, what are you supposed to be observing?
What do you even call an "explanation" now? I find Socionics has many that I did need to check and then reject or accept or build on it further.Socionics lacks explanations in the first place. I don't think there's much to revise. It needs to create explanations.
Yes, well it's good enough to say that there are relations that conflict and relations that get along. But we're not interested in that, what we're interested in is, why did the relationship conflict? Does it matter to say that logic and emotions conflict in general? Does it matter to say that there are relations that get along? The answer is no. We are interested in the question of why.
In science, you come up with a "what if?" scenario first. You start with a hypothetical, such as "suppose that..." "imagine..." "what if...". Then you'd want to see if that hypothetical scenario matches with reality. Basically, you start off with a theory about how something might possibly work, first. Then you observe things, as in you test the theory to see if the hypothetical was correct or not.
Else, how are you supposed to test a theory? What is the meaning of doing a test?
Well of course the question makes no sense, and this was your entire question. You said, "Observe first!" - but what are you supposed to observe first? If you tell me to observe something, what am I supposed to be observing? If you tell me to observe some human behaviors, then that is because you have some theories about people, even if they're vague and hazy.
An explanation is something that answers the question of why.
Why did type X and Y conflict? You say it's because of a conflictor relation, but that's not the explanation! Are you to tell me, that the reason why John and Paul is conflicting, is because of their emotions and logic? You may think that's absurd, but that's exactly what Socionics is saying!
ITR does provide explanations for the "why". I'm not saying I agree with all of it, I found some of it doesn't check out and I understand why it doesn't when it doesn't, but it sounds like you never read up on the Socionics model itself. Or even my previous sentence where I showed you how ITR specifies statements that are ready for operationalizing and testing. It was more than just "there are relations that conflict and relations that get along", it was providing specific conditions under which they conflict and conditions udner which they get along, how come you keep missing this? And these conditions are part of the model and its explanations.
That's not really my approach. I don't start with a "whatif" before any kind of observation. Even afterwards not really... I instead want to test defined statements from explanations. That's not really a "whatif" to me.In science, you come up with a "what if?" scenario first. You start with a hypothetical, such as "suppose that..." "imagine..." "what if...". Then you'd want to see if that hypothetical scenario matches with reality. Basically, you start off with a theory about how something might possibly work, first. Then you observe things, as in you test the theory to see if the hypothetical was correct or not.
"The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in "Why is the sky blue?" but can also be open-ended, as in "How can I design a drug to cure this particular disease?" This stage frequently involves finding and evaluating evidence from previous experiments, personal scientific observations or assertions, as well as the work of other scientists. If the answer is already known, a different question that builds on the evidence can be posed. When applying the scientific method to research, determining a good question can be very difficult and it will affect the outcome of the investigation." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Process)
This (bolded) is more my approach. Observe then see what's going on, find the regularities and the explanation and test statements following from that.
Let me know if the above didn't clarify enough.Else, how are you supposed to test a theory? What is the meaning of doing a test?
You observe whatever you want... As for me personally, a topic interests me for whatever reason then I observe stuff about that topic and every time I find something that isn't explained already, or it conflicts with the explanation, that's when I want to find further explanations. You seem more like you like theorizing with whatifs and then you want to see if it's really that way in reality and make sense of that somehow yeah? I, on the other hand, don't need to follow vague and hazy theories (that'd just hurt my head) to make observations, I just use my two eyes.Well of course the question makes no sense, and this was your entire question. You said, "Observe first!" - but what are you supposed to observe first? If you tell me to observe something, what am I supposed to be observing? If you tell me to observe some human behaviors, then that is because you have some theories about people, even if they're vague and hazy.
Your version is okay too of course, some scientists definitely work from vague ideas and insights like that lol. It's just different approaches... so I wasn't making sense of yours initially.
That's not what Socionics is saying. You really didn't really read up on much of Socionics, it seems.An explanation is something that answers the question of why.
Why did type X and Y conflict? You say it's because of a conflictor relation, but that's not the explanation! Are you to tell me, that the reason why John and Paul is conflicting, is because of their emotions and logic? You may think that's absurd, but that's exactly what Socionics is saying!
I'll give you an example. So I conflict with some people when we are both hung up about our own frameworks for how things are to be and are unreceptive to another framework that does not follow the same type of reasoning. Because one type of reasoning works with distinct definitions and ignores the subjectivity of feelings, and the other type of reasoning is exactly about the latter. Socionics calls it a Ti vs Fi conflict. Going on from this example, when someone gives me input about emotional reactions, I'm able to redirect my attention and build this into my framework. This is called Ti-Fe duality by Socionics. All this says way more than "John and Paul is conflicting because of their emotions and logic". It is way more specific and provides a deep explanation on cognitive aspects of types of reasonings.
Alright, well it's like this. If you were asked the question, "Why did the building fall?", would you answer, "The building fell because of gravity"? Well evidently not, because the gravity didn't cause the building to fall. It was caused by something else, maybe the support for the building collapsed or something.
In the same way, would you say, "X and Y are conflicting, because they're Conflictor relations"? Well no, because it was not caused by Conflictor relations. Let's say that it's because X said an irritating opinion that annoyed Y. Let's say that X is a Fi type. Did this "Fi" in his brain, somehow caused him to blurt out an irritating opinion? Again, evidently not, as it was presumably done out of X's choice. What did, then cause X to utter this irritating opinion?
Is there a such thing as an "objectively irritating opinion"? Was it the moralistic tone of X that irritated Y? Does Y have a history of becoming irritated by moralistic tones? Or would the moralistic opinion of X irritate just about anyone? Why did Y get irritated? Was Y simply having a bad day? We would need to investigate further into these situations, before we come up with a conclusion. Else, they would simply be assumptions.
In short, gravity can describe, in great details, how a building falls. The description of a Conflictor relation can also, describe in great details, how a relationship unfolds. But neither explains the why.
Last edited by Singu; 04-29-2018 at 04:36 PM.
I would answer the question in terms of what's being actually asked.
Gravity was definitely part of the cause btw. If gravity didn't exist then the collapse of the support would also not cause the building to fall. Gravity is simply required but not sufficient on its own for this event to happen.
The examples I gave are about the "why".In the same way, would you say, "X and Y are conflicting, because they're Conflictor relations"? Well no, because it was not caused by Conflictor relations. Let's say that it's because X said an irritating opinion that annoyed Y. Let's say that X is a Fi type. Did this "Fi" in his brain, somehow caused him to blurt out an irritating opinion? Again, evidently not, as it was presumably done out of X's choice. What did, then cause X to utter this irritating opinion?
Is there a such thing as an "objectively irritating opinion"? Was it the moralistic tone of X that irritated Y? Does Y have a history of becoming irritated by moralistic tones? Or would the moralistic opinion of X irritate just about anyone? Why did Y get irritated? Was Y simply having a bad day? We would need to investigate further into these situations, before we come up with a conclusion. Else, they would simply be assumptions.
In short, gravity can describe, in great details, how a building falls. The description of a Conflictor relation can also, describe in great details, how a relationship unfolds. But neither explains the why.
I agree that we need to know what exactly irritated Y in this interaction, instead of just assuming, and Socionics does aim to provide an explanation for this. While there are other possible causes too, Socionics points out some causes too and explains them. You have to check of course if it was a Socionics cause or another cause or both.
As for why X uttered an opinion that irritated Y, it's not a well-defined question. Will need more information and context than this.
When you say that X voiced their opinion out of their own choice, that does not mean it was not a Fi opinion. But the Socionics model does not state that simply the person being Fi caused them to say this opinion specifically. I don't see the problem here. Are you expecting Socionics to explain EVERYTHING about people?
hey look it's this thread again
But the point is this. There must be an initial cause for something. The opinion uttered by X may indeed be Fi, but why did X utter his opinion? I don't think it matters whether the opinion was Fi or not, what matters is why did X say that particular opinion? Is there simply something in X's brain, like "Fi", that makes him able to say only Fi opinions? I think that view is obviously absurd. If we can't take a certain reasoning seriously, then there must be another reason.
In the same way, there must be an initial cause for Y being irritated by X's opinion. Is it because there is something in Y's brain, like "Fi PoLR", that always get irritated by Fi opinions?
Then maybe we say that it's probabilistic. Sometimes X blurt out these opinions, sometimes not. Sometimes Y get irritated, sometimes not. But why? There must be a mechanism for that, which is not explained. But on further investigation, we might for instance see that the "probabilities" was due to the fact that Y get irritated on his bad days, but he does not get irritated when he's in a good mood, or something like that.
We are interested in the question of "why". Why did X utter that particular opinion, and why was Y irritated by his opinion?
Do you not agree, that a type description is a particular observation of a particular person(s) at a particular time?
Do you also not agree, that the description of a Conflictor relation is a particular observation of a particular relationship(s) at a particular time?
So do these fixed and limited patterns, continue into the future? Do these patterns occur again and again, in the future? Well evidently, not. If they did, then people would be acting in predictable ways, over and over again, like a robot. And yet that's what the entirety of what Socionics is. It's a system based on particular observations of particular individuals at a particular time. It's only true in that particular moment, but it's not true universally, at all times, at all places, in all individuals.
The problem of Socionics is its parochialism. It's a very narrow and limited system.
I just continue to be amazed by how you simplify and miss a lot of what the Socionics model says. The model doesn't ever state this, that someone is only able to say Fi opinions. That's just crazy. Where did you get this idea from?
As for initial causes: nah, no initial cause. The start of this whole universe can be that initial cause, good luck with that.
Again, oversimplification.In the same way, there must be an initial cause for Y being irritated by X's opinion. Is it because there is something in Y's brain, like "Fi PoLR", that always get irritated by Fi opinions?
As an example for this specific topic, @Sol actually had a decent description of Fi PoLR reacting to Fi btw: "SLE do not like to see antipathy or blame on their face, sometimes short words of deprecation, to see how they become colder and discharged to them to express the personal aversion, etc."
(I'd like to add that of course no one likes this but Fi PoLR has an additionally hard time processing this stuff.)
Yes, it's ultimately probabilistic because there are other mechanisms and causes going on at the same time. This is perfectly normal. Like the example of the building earlier with gravity being part of the things that caused it to fall. Though in that case, gravity is a very big part of the causes, so when something falls (on this Earth) you can always say gravity caused it to fall.Then maybe we say that it's probabilistic. Sometimes X blurt out these opinions, sometimes not. Sometimes Y get irritated, sometimes not. But why? There must be a mechanism for that, which is not explained. But on further investigation, we might for instance see that the "probabilities" was due to the fact that Y get irritated on his bad days, but he does not get irritated when he's in a good mood, or something like that.
We are interested in the question of "why". Why did X utter that particular opinion, and why was Y irritated by his opinion?
Where you say there must be "a" mechanism, wrong. There is usually not just "a" mechanism. There is a complex compound of mechanisms every time for psychological processes going on for people and as a result, for their behaviour.
As for why X uttered that opinion, this question is still very ill-defined.
Definitely *not*. The whole model is about trends, overall, pervasive trends throughout the person's life. The same criteria is required for making (scientific) psychiatric personality disorder diagnoses btw.Do you not agree, that a type description is a particular observation of a particular person(s) at a particular time?
No, see aboveDo you also not agree, that the description of a Conflictor relation is a particular observation of a particular relationship(s) at a particular time?
They do occur into the future, yes.So do these fixed and limited patterns, continue into the future? Do these patterns occur again and again, in the future? Well evidently, not. And yet that's what the entirety of what Socionics is. It's a system based on particular observations of particular individuals at a particular time. It's only true in that particular moment, but it's not true universally, at all times, at all places, with all individuals.
You really missed the point of the model.
So you really *did* want it to explain EVERYTHING lol. That's your problem right there.The problem of Socionics is its parochialism. It's a very narrow and limited system.
No, they do not, because "the future does not resemble the past". Is the future just the repeating patterns of the past? Obviously, not. You may experience some repeating patterns, then suddenly that pattern can change. We experience things in future that we have never even experienced or seen before. And yet we can even predict those things, even if they are not repeating patterns. How? I'll tell you in a minute.
Let's say that Y does get irritated by moralistic opinions. Would you answer, it's because of his Fi PoLR? But is not the real answer something like, "Because Y thinks that moralistic people are total hypocrites, and he thinks that morals are relative, and there's no such thing as morality, and it's just a way for those people to put something over him to control him" (it doesn't matter if that's actually true or not, that's just what he believes). And even then, does Socionics answer, "Sure, but all of those beliefs and opinions originate from Fi PoLR"? But how? None of that is actually explained. How does Fi PoLR cause his opinions and beliefs? Without a coherent explanation, it originated from nothing.
So do we have to rely on past patterns and observations, like "Fi PoLR types always act in such predictable ways"? No, because explaining why that is the case, is the superior option in predicting things.
Hey @Myst, I liked that @Sol description of Fi polr too. I have this friend I think is SLE or ILE (maybe even LSI) and I have this instructor of a mysterious type, but who I really like. The instructor has this thing where her facial expressions are really strong, but they're not under her control, so it's not like Fe Si like ESE, where they lead people with their expressions and generally maintain a positive demeanor. She has like zero poker face and everything she's feeling is written all over her face and its kind of like she doesn't know when its happening, but at the same time she will admit she has no ability to conceal what she's sensing/feeling/thinking etc. But even though she knows that, in the moment it comes through. I find it amazingly cute because its so genuine, its kind of the opposite of ESE in fact. The problem is the friend I mentioned hates this about her because she will immediately give him a gross out face every time he tries to start up a debate in class or something, and like everyone can see it, and its basically that kind of polr hit Sol describes where the antipathy is like super obvious. At the same time it doesn't seem "targetted" like I don't think she's consciously trying to shut him down, I think she's trying to be a good teacher and humor him but at the same time she like can't. It drives him nuts because his primary mode of interacting which is like debating or opening up controversies, not in a hostile way but in a "Fe debate me" kind of way immediately gets shut down on a level that pre-empts the Ti discussion, so he feels unappreciated and unable to express himself. He has a very conspicuous need for Fe I'd associate with HA (although I hate to use that term), so this just destroys him. He's like yeah I just checked out from that class. Which blows my mind because shes such a good instructor and I love her overall demeanor because it just tells you all sorts of useful things and its never meant to be degrading, but he can't help but take it that way. My question is what type do you think she is. I kind of think gamma, but I can't put my finger on it. Maybe SLI too because it has Fe polr elements to it, but I don't think its Fe polr, although maybe it is, its got a strong sensing aspect to it too. Its really weird and adorable and I'm not sure I've seen it before. What type do you think my instructor is?
I like my friend, so I feel bad saying this but everytime the instructor calls on me she lights up and it makes me feel awesome, whereas she looks like shes in visible pain when he starts in... maybe it is targetted but its super brutal. I think its a subconscious thing and her and I are just in a better ITR. When I look at her face its like we have a kind of weird telepathy, I think it may even be duality. The reason I ask is because it sounds like you know what Sol is talking about and maybe have some experience with this sort of thing. The funny thing is I've heard other faculty say she may have a light autism thing going on, but I don't detect that at all. I think she's turned some other people off similarly, but the weird thing is it never comes across negatively to me and everything I have entirely different associations to "autistic" behavior. At the same time I feel like she's got something that rubs some people super wrong, but I personally love it. like a lot
I wasn't intending to claim that literally everything happens the same way. But again, going back to the scientific reference, personality disorders in psychiatry have this criteria too for diagnosis, that features of them be repeating patterns, into the future too. Unless of course treated, but that kind of maladaptive inflexibility is hard to treat - these are even more inflexibly pervasive patterns than sociotype patterns.
I thought you wanted the "why" and not the "how"? You keep mixing these ideas of "why" and "how".Let's say that Y does get irritated by moralistic opinions. Would you answer, it's because of his Fi PoLR? But is not the real answer something like, "Because Y thinks that moralistic people are total hypocrites, and he thinks that morals are relative, and there's no such thing as morality, and it's just a way for those people to put something over him to control him" (it doesn't matter if that's actually true or not, that's just what he believes). And even then, does Socionics answer, "Sure, but all of those beliefs and opinions originate from Fi PoLR"? But how? None of that is actually explained. How does Fi PoLR cause his opinions and beliefs? Without a coherent explanation, it originated from nothing.
If you wish to see each little "step" of the psychological processes and not just speculate about them, well, that currently is hard to do with our currently available tools and understanding about the brain/mind in general. Maybe one day.
Until then, to see more on cognition for me what works is get as much data as possible (mental facts for my own discovery of my own cognition - harder to get this from others, less of it can be had for obvious reasons, though some is possible, sure) and see what that is like, but I can't really do more than that, and no one can at the moment.
As for your example, no, I don't just want to say "it's Fi PoLR", I'd want to add specifics. Keeping in mind all the constraints as above (noted in this post and earlier). The Socionics model gives you these trends, one of which would be this Fi PoLR concept (of course this is a bit more complicated than just "Fi PoLR trend" because the concept of Fi PoLR goes beyond just a few letters, it's only a shorthand so to speak), but I do want to go beyond that and I do so by paying attention to other understanding of people too and reconciling-integrating some Socionics ideas into that.
Please go back to my earlier post where I already described a "why". You completely ignored it. Here:So do we have to rely on past patterns and observations, like "Fi PoLR types always act in such predictable ways"? No, because explaining why that is the case, is the superior option in predicting things.
Also, you conveniently ignored the importance of trends. Do not shift the goalposts.
Sorry but I do not enjoy arguing with people who do this.
Hmm, interesting. She sounds like a Fi type, yeah. ESI, EII, ILI, SLI are all okay options (with valued and stronger Fi than Fe) - with the autism and mystery thing maybe ILI. They can get inadvertently expressive about their sympathies and antipathies. ESI and EII would be a bit more in control of it. I find the Fi-expressions of ILI decently visceral, e.g. compared to EII, which is what you could've meant by it seeming like sensing. ESI's expressions for Fi are of the same sharp and visceral style, just even more strongly visceral and at the same time more controlled than ILI's. EII's expressions are really detached compared to that. If this helps with deciding. Which of these seems to fit her? Also, your friend sounds like ILE (or LII?) with all that controversies debating. So she'd be devaluing Ne or Ti or both.
PS: if you are ESI, then you could be experiencing the quick "click" of interest with an ILI Activity partner. But this gets speculative here.
PS2: Oh and yeah I observed and analyzed this Fi stuff before, yes. The ILI's Fi HA/Fe PoLR when inadvertently displaying their dislike towards something can be quite jarring to me too like to your friend, but with the ILI friend I really like I always remind myself that it's probably not targeted at me, just something else she happens to dislike. So I don't shut down entirely like your friend but I can understand how it bothers him heh
Wtf spammed
^ Welcome back.
good bye
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
