Typology Random Thoughts

[Adam Strange]

Nice to see you again, @Rusal.

[Adam Strange]

Re ITR relations. Yes, Does Adam Strange feel i'm a benefactor at all? Good questions. Or other. I've yet to have SLI say we are duals here, or similar in that vein.

@Distance, I believe that inter-type-related feelings don't carry well over text, but there are some impressions which do come through in any text.

I can't say that I strongly felt you were a Benefactor from your writing; rather, I'd say that I agree with your self-typing and that causes me to attribute (amplify) ENFp characteristics to you. Some of those characteristics are those of a Benefactor, but they are a minor part of the image I have of you. Mostly, I picture you as a person who acts like a blend of the IEEs whom I know.

I don't feel Benefitted by them, but rather I admire how nice, and how much fun, they can be.

[godslave]

"Tell me what you want, so I can help you get it".

I've heard that phrase somewhere yesterday. I don't remember who said it and in which context but it stuck in my mind for some reason. It sounds like something LIE or SLE would say to their dual, and really mean it.

[Distance]

Fictional ENFJ ENFP romance interaction with Beebe model of functions.

[Enters Laughing]

If you can't describe and measure it via a checklist of properties, you don't know it.

[SacredKnowing]

If you can't describe and measure it via a checklist of properties, you don't know it.

You can't take a checklist of dichotomies of size 2^N, increase N, and then gain some knowledge. That's relying on the Narcissism of Small Differences. And it is impossible to use LSE or SLE methods to gain omniscience.

This is the reason why Big 5 can never be comprehensive BTW.

[Enters Laughing]

You can't take a checklist of dichotomies of size 2^N, increase N, and then gain some knowledge. That's relying on the Narcissism of Small Differences. And it is impossible to use LSE or SLE methods to gain omniscience.

This is the reason why Big 5 can never be comprehensive BTW.

There's no evidence that combinations of Jungian dichotomies increase precision. Rather, the opposite.

[SacredKnowing]

There's no evidence that combinations of Jungian dichotomies increase precision. Rather, the opposite.

Yes. That was my point precisely.

Combinations of Jungian dichotomies => 2^N as n -> infinity => piling on small differences => invoking narcissism of small differences.

And it is metaphysically impossible for any method that belongs to LSE or SLE to increase knowledge. That is why it is impossible for academia's favorite toy to tell you anything useful about personality.

[Enters Laughing]

Yes. That was my point precisely.

Combinations of Jungian dichotomies => 2^N as n -> infinity => piling on small differences => invoking narcissism of small differences.

And it is metaphysically impossible for any method that belongs to LSE or SLE to increase knowledge. That is why it is impossible for academia's favorite toy to tell you anything useful about personality.

You seemed to be arguing that Socionics has greater descriptive and explanatory power than the Big Five, yet at the same time, you say it's not capable of describing a "type". So I fail to understand your point, precisely or in any form.

[SacredKnowing]

You seemed to be arguing that Socionics has greater descriptive and explanatory power than the Big Five, yet at the same time, you say it's not capable of describing a "type". So I fail to understand your point, precisely or in any form.

Yes.

1. Socionics has greater explanatory power than B5.
2. B5 by design is not capable of describing a type.

Where's the contradiction?

[Rusal]

I interrupt my hibernation to bring the latest: it's happened. Either someone has been fiddling with Gulenko's domain or he has actually changed his typing for one of the personalities featured in "type of famous people". The way I envisioned it happened is that his study group brought this personality up to debate and Gulenko evaluated new evidence and conceded. Third possibility: this person was misplaced the whole time and no one bothered to reassign him until now.

[godslave]

I interrupt my hibernation to bring the latest: it's happened. Either someone has been fiddling with Gulenko's domain or he has actually changed his typing for one of the personalities featured in "type of famous people". The way I envisioned it happened is that his study group brought this personality up to debate and Gulenko evaluated new evidence and conceded. Third possibility: this person was misplaced the whole time and no one bothered to reassign him until now.

Who are you talking about ? In which version of Dr.G's site (Russian/Ukrainian / English ???) did "it" happened ??

[godslave]

@Rick and I share at least this point of view :

I see a tendency for people here and elsewhere to assume that these three systems are all about the same thing, and that with a little bit of effort, they can be rephrased to arrive at a "common system" that combines all of them. People are saying MBTT is "wrong" because it doesn't take into consideration some things that socionics does. Socionics descriptions are "wrong" because they stray from Jung. Etc. etc.

This is incorrect. The systems appear similar, but they are not the same. It is incorrect to say that MBTT descriptions are "not quite accurate," and that by "helping them out" with some socionics concepts, we will somehow improve their system. Or that by sticking to Jung's functional descriptions, we will "help out" socionics.

Each typology is autonomous and stands on its own. The correctness of any assertion within any of these systems can only be judged from within that system.

Source : Jung, Meyers-Briggs, and Socionics Rant

I will add that the validation of a typing in a given system by comparing it to its alleged correlated type in another system is a nonsense. It's like saying Volleyball and soccer are equivalent because they are both team sports that use a ball. Therefore one can't be an outside Hitter in volleyball if one is a goalkeeper in soccer, therefore you are one of the two or neither...

Correlationism is tempting,it's seducing but one must resist it for it leads to the dark side of typology

[Distance]

@Rick and I share at least this point of view :

Source : Jung, Meyers-Briggs, and Socionics Rant

I will add that the validation of a typing in a given system by comparing it to its alleged correlated type in another system is a nonsense. It's like saying Volleyball and soccer are equivalent because they are both team sports that use a ball. Therefore one can't be an outside Hitter in volleyball if one is a goalkeeper in soccer, therefore you are one of the two or neither...

Correlationism is tempting,it's seducing but one must resist it for it leads to the dark side of typology

You two look alike in thinking, for sure. (I rummaged thru his threads before.)

You might share his sociotype gs, via that splay and display of processing things, and sentiments.

You once mentioned an affinity for the IEE member here, anndelise, too.

You look more IEE given this.

[godslave]

You two look alike in thinking, for sure. (I rummaged thru his threads before.)

You might share his sociotype gs, via that splay and display of processing things, and sentiments.

You once mentioned an affinity for the IEE member here, anndelise, too.

You look more IEE given this.

Yes, I agree there are indeed similarities.

You know what, I think IEE might be it (but that's just between you and me, sir ! )

[Distance]

Yes, I agree there are indeed similarities.

You know what, I think IEE might be it (but that's just between you and me, sir ! )

You'll have biases for it and against, as you say type images, embedded.

Adam will always give an introvert for you by his impression. You'll get IEI too, by others, and SEI by lavos. The sky is the limit. Almost.

We at ameutur express deliver it less than best: wrong 1/2 the time, at the best.

[Braingel]

@Rick and I share at least this point of view :

Source : Jung, Meyers-Briggs, and Socionics Rant

I will add that the validation of a typing in a given system by comparing it to its alleged correlated type in another system is a nonsense. It's like saying Volleyball and soccer are equivalent because they are both team sports that use a ball. Therefore one can't be an outside Hitter in volleyball if one is a goalkeeper in soccer, therefore you are one of the two or neither...

Correlationism is tempting,it's seducing but one must resist it for it leads to the dark side of typology

I agree with this to an extent, however, I would add to this, some systems have things within them that make absolutely minuscule sense or have a bias in how they see things. Judging the accuracy within the system is valid, but you also must judge the accuracy of whether the system is right or wrong. You also have a lot of biases in how others type; often someone has confirmative bias and goes by their own experience of people, and when you’ve a bug in the system, like me with my autism and traumatic history, people are quick to say, “oh you remind me of other extroverts I know” or whatnot.. This is generally seen in Si and Se types, Se trying to go on objective experience based on observation and Si their own subjective experience from observation, of how it evokes things in their own database of internalized impressions and memory, making Si arguably the least accurate way to approach a system unless they’d experience with every infinite possibility..

Generally it’s Si more. In all honesty, I haven’t really been mistyped by that many Se bases.. XSI’s I have though, maybe because they’re 4D Si? SEI, LSI, ESI and SLI have been the least accurate in typing me, now that I recall…
@Muira ^

I feel like Se base can be more objective because they aren’t going by a subjective introversive process, but I have seen Se bases take VI too far. (My boyfriend, for instance. But he goes by data of VI schools and is objective in his typings from that, it isn’t his own subjective way, that you see in some Si bases on this forum, present and banned)…

I have actually noticed a seeming pattern that Je bases are the most accurate typists (Fe and Te), and also ILI, maybe because ILI is not only acute with patterns, but they have the Te to be objective (Se and Te present are most objective).

These systems develop overtime and no system is with 100% accuracy as of now, it is in its formation to one day place into all the accurate parts. It is of importance to discern of whether something aligns with natural psychological processes, or if they are incongruent.. And also of how much bias an author has within their formation of a system and why.

Si just may be the least compatible function with typology, aside from Te in the current form of typology (but not one day when it gets to a stage of collective application).. Si will always be the least compatible function with type, because without every known possibility through contact of its subjective, internalized experience, it will make assumptions to this experience of where someone falls within it. People aren’t rigid configurations you can break down to experience, and someone’s experience can delude them from being able to see someone’s actual type if that person equates in their own memory, that person to someone or something else they “remind” them of…

All introverted functions are subjective, but I would dare say that Si is the most. It is literally based upon the most individualistic premise; one’s own compilation of experiences and sensoric impressions. Feelings, laws and logic and imagery and patterns can have their own subjectivity, but experience would fill the waters most deep.. This is how you get Si doms who completely bias in their own view of things with how they were conditioned.. It’s about how they see, hear, smell, and register these things, to a stored database of past internalized data that have deeply affected their memory and evoke conscious re-enactions of these.

You can generally recognize an Si predominant in how they will drag on, “You remind me of X”, “You aren’t X like these people”, etc.. But it is SEI’s who would base on their own feelings and vibe of the person more than SLI, because the SLI will try and also look at data. They won’t ignore factual info, such as paperwork or the history of a person.. That would be the SEI that would.. And they’d freeze up when confronted on. They would replace their own mood and emotions evoked from a a stimulus with data, and would mistake that as “fact”. They would use their own emotions and Ti mob systemization to categorize the person, with no source or data or facts of the person. The IEI would base on raw patterns, not a subjective experiences. Whilst patterns derive from experience, they are more big-picture focused, and because Ni concerns time, they wouldn’t ignore history.

[Braingel]

I’ve actually never really had an Se base that didn’t type me as a western IEI.. My boyfriend initially did EII, but he admits now that was mostly for aushura and he was being too pan jungian. It’s actually Se bases that have fought for me as IEI the most and SLE have even caught I’m their “dual” from VI. Like Leo, a guy named Ashton Martin you wouldn’t know, Tachi, this other guy from here, etc.

[necrosebud]

I agree with/can see where you’re coming from, for everything but I don’t think you understand Te

it’s not this paperwork or this or that facts really it’s a gestalt, a whole amalgamation of things that add up to information, whether it “makes sense” and maybe to a degree logic in general

one paperwork is not the same as what a Te lead migjt necessarily consider rational. It is a fact that it exists and it says what it says yeah, but it’s one data point

[Muira]

I agree with this to an extent, however, I would add to this, some systems have things within them that make absolutely minuscule sense or have a bias in how they see things. Judging the accuracy within the system is valid, but you also must judge the accuracy of whether the system is right or wrong. You also have a lot of biases in how others type; often someone has confirmative bias and goes by their own experience of people, and when you’ve a bug in the system, like me with my autism and traumatic history, people are quick to say, “oh you remind me of other extroverts I know” or whatnot.. This is generally seen in Si and Se types, Se trying to go on objective experience based on observation and Si their own subjective experience from observation, of how it evokes things in their own database of internalized impressions and memory, making Si arguably the least accurate way to approach a system unless they’d experience with every infinite possibility..


Generally it’s Si more. In all honesty, I haven’t really been mistyped by that many Se bases.. XSI’s I have though, maybe because they’re 4D Si? SEI, LSI, ESI and SLI have been the least accurate in typing me, now that I recall…
@Muira ^

While I understand what you are going. I think a better analogy would be sects of religion. For example, how Islam and Judaism seem the most similar, yet Christianity still bares its similarities as well in holy text and the order of conduct in beliefs and holy law. And even sects differ in ambiguity, some systems close enough to be considered the same, while others may be considered cousins in similarities in function. But the similarities stand by a large margin to which they may be grouped in as the same thing.
Even most census of Jews see Muslims as heretics but not idolaters (and believing in the same concept of god, and rejection of the trinity besides modern day Unitarian Christians and 1-3rd century Christians), and Christians as both.


From what I've seen, LSIs and SLIs can be generally better at typing than other 4D Si types, but it comes in hand with being more inclined to study the original source material. And I've seen most "ISTx" on this and other sites as mistyped. I know a genuinely good SLI typer, and he did go from typing me ESE, LSI, SEE, ILE, and to SLE, but the first 4 were purely just speculations and "vibe" checks and overall similarities and not official typings. However, he knew the proper methods of typing and was mostly way less blinded by arrogant judgements than most people. Which may go along with your belief in 4D Si types being bad at typing with low Te/Ti.

I feel like Se base can be more objective because they aren’t going by a subjective introversive process, but I have seen Se bases take VI too far. (My boyfriend, for instance. But he goes by data of VI schools and is objective in his typings from that, it isn’t his own subjective way, that you see in some Si bases on this forum, present and banned)…


I have actually noticed a seeming pattern that Je bases are the most accurate typists (Fe and Te), and also ILI, maybe because ILI is not only acute with patterns, but they have the Te to be objective (Se and Te present are most objective).

The mistake many people make is that genetic appearance doesn't really correlate to one's TIM, at most sensors and extroverts having a more tense face due to perhaps potentially different hormone levels. However that too isn't a strong indication either. Even still, Aushura has stated that a TIM type can look vastly different basing upon different cultures mentioned in her Personality v Personality type article. So I maybe friendlier than other SLE's, etc, coming from my region which is known to be the friendliest region in one of the most stereotypically arrogant yet friendly country. And still, I am much less open and tolerant than my peers in general, though.


Ej types are generally speaking accurate in judgement perhaps to their willingness to conform to the objective world, data, and consensus of the group, more so with Te bases, but EJ, overall.


But please, let's now forget that good experience and critical thinking can counter low dimensionality.

Generally, those who have an easier time taking in things, as they are more inclined to have more grounded or pragmatic judgements. And the ability to see things for what they are can be developed, just like pragmatism.

These systems develop overtime and no system is with 100% accuracy as of now, it is in its formation to one day place into all the accurate parts. It is of importance to discern of whether something aligns with natural psychological processes, or if they are incongruent.. And also of how much bias an author has within their formation of a system and why.


Si just may be the least compatible function with typology, aside from Te in the current form of typology (but not one day when it gets to a stage of collective application).. Si will always be the least compatible function with type, because without every known possibility through contact of its subjective, internalized experience, it will make assumptions to this experience of where someone falls within it. People aren’t rigid configurations you can break down to experience, and someone’s experience can delude them from being able to see someone’s actual type if that person equates in their own memory, that person to someone or something else they “remind” them of…

I think this ties to how socionics is still considered a proto-science, and it's only until now with the revival and reconstruction of classical socionics is socionics getting any more accurate and serious, with an actual effort to standardize socionics.

All introverted functions are subjective, but I would dare say that Si is the most. It is literally based upon the most individualistic premise; one’s own compilation of experiences and sensoric impressions. Feelings, laws and logic and imagery and patterns can have their own subjectivity, but experience would fill the waters most deep.. This is how you get Si doms who completely bias in their own view of things with how they were conditioned.. It’s about how they see, hear, smell, and register these things, to a stored database of past internalized data that have deeply affected their memory and evoke conscious re-enactions of these.


You can generally recognize an Si predominant in how they will drag on, “You remind me of X”, “You aren’t X like these people”, etc.. But it is SEI’s who would base on their own feelings and vibe of the person more than SLI, because the SLI will try and also look at data. They won’t ignore factual info, such as paperwork or the history of a person.. That would be the SEI that would.. And they’d freeze up when confronted on. They would replace their own mood and emotions evoked from a a stimulus with data, and would mistake that as “fact”. They would use their own emotions and Ti mob systemization to categorize the person, with no source or data or facts of the person. The IEI would base on raw patterns, not a subjective experiences. Whilst patterns derive from experience, they are more big-picture focused, and because Ni concerns time, they wouldn’t ignore history.

Seems like it would suck to make judgements and be SEI, are SEIs to SCS as EIE is to model G?


Jokes aside, it makes sense as general inclinations, but it only happens with SEIs that haven't self-actualized or gained experience with their lower functions, etc. We should refrain from grouping experienced SEIs that break the pattern from pure theoretical SEIs and reality examples that fallow, especially since self-actualization and the breakdown of the neurosis causes the breakdown of mental barriers. Which I think can be individually done without a dual, or with conversations with multiple TIM times.

[Braingel]

While I understand what you are going. I think a better analogy would be sects of religion. For example, how Islam and Judaism seem the most similar, yet Christianity still bares its similarities as well in holy text and the order of conduct in beliefs and holy law. And even sects differ in ambiguity, some systems close enough to be considered the same, while others may be considered cousins in similarities in function. But the similarities stand by a large margin to which they may be grouped in as the same thing.
Even most census of Jews see Muslims as heretics but not idolaters (and believing in the same concept of god, and rejection of the trinity besides modern day Unitarian Christians and 1-3rd century Christians), and Christians as both.


From what I've seen, LSIs and SLIs can be generally better at typing than other 4D Si types, but it comes in hand with being more inclined to study the original source material. And I've seen most "ISTx" on this and other sites as mistyped. I know a genuinely good SLI typer, and he did go from typing me ESE, LSI, SEE, ILE, and to SLE, but the first 4 were purely just speculations and "vibe" checks and overall similarities and not official typings. However, he knew the proper methods of typing and was mostly way less blinded by arrogant judgements than most people. Which may go along with your belief in 4D Si types being bad at typing with low Te/Ti.







The mistake many people make is that genetic appearance doesn't really correlate to one's TIM, at most sensors and extroverts having a more tense face due to perhaps potentially different hormone levels. However that too isn't a strong indication either. Even still, Aushura has stated that a TIM type can look vastly different basing upon different cultures mentioned in her Personality v Personality type article. So I maybe friendlier than other SLE's, etc, coming from my region which is known to be the friendliest region in one of the most stereotypically arrogant yet friendly country. And still, I am much less open and tolerant than my peers in general, though.


Ej types are generally speaking accurate in judgement perhaps to their willingness to conform to the objective world, data, and consensus of the group, more so with Te bases, but EJ, overall.


But please, let's now forget that good experience and critical thinking can counter low dimensionality.

Generally, those who have an easier time taking in things, as they are more inclined to have more grounded or pragmatic judgements. And the ability to see things for what they are can be developed, just like pragmatism.





I think this ties to how socionics is still considered a proto-science, and it's only until now with the revival and reconstruction of classical socionics is socionics getting any more accurate and serious, with an actual effort to standardize socionics.





Seems like it would suck to make judgements and be SEI, are SEIs to SCS as EIE is to model G?


Jokes aside, it makes sense as general inclinations, but it only happens with SEIs that haven't self-actualized or gained experience with their lower functions, etc. We should refrain from grouping experienced SEIs that break the pattern from pure theoretical SEIs and reality examples that fallow, especially since self-actualization and the breakdown of the neurosis causes the breakdown of mental barriers. Which I think can be individually done without a dual, or with conversations with multiple TIM times.

Well, SEI has Te in a super egoic placement and super Id Ti and ESI Ti super ego and Te super I’d, but SEI has Ti in the show off placement of super ID and Te perfection polr, so it would indeed be the most arrogant of the 4D Si types in classification. The SEI serves its self for the Ti, it is for independent and unconscious use.

[godslave]

I've often said in this forum that I see my personality as a sort of chimera. It's like an amalgamation of all the people I admired in my life. I see myself a bit like Kakashi Sensei in that regard, a copy Ninja. I mean there are character traits and skills that I borrowed from people I admired over the years by imitating them and integrating them to my personality. These people are my heroes, the best teachers I had in my life from my childhood up to my 30's.

I think that it's true for everybody to some extent, our influences are expressed through our personality. Maybe that's where inspiration comes from. To take a Jungian view of that phenomenon, I would say that I have integrated some archetypes already and that's maybe the reason why I easily connect with people. There is always a part of me that can see the perspective of the other and connect in a weird unconscious way. Indeed, I've noticed that adapting to other point of views, that accommodating thing happens automatically, I'm really not conscious of it.

"Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit"

Back in the days when I was less of a hikikomori that I am now, people would assume that I was thinking like them, that I had the same opinions, the same worldview at the end of a conversation. In reality most of the time I was not of the same opinion but that's what happens when you don't oppose to people on the ideological level. When you go with the flow, they assume that you agree with them.

However, I would consciously try to not directly oppose people's worldview because it's their comfort zone. It's how they cope with the reality of the world, the one they perceive that is. Questioning the fundamentals of their worldview (which more often than is derived from an adherence to a belief system) is imho a form of gaslighting and a great danger for their mental sanity.

Anyway, when we learn through the process of imitation we integrate some influences we are not even conscious about . For instance if you imitate Roger Federer style of playing tennis, you are not aware that his style is also an amalgamation or a construct made of different influences, different techniques he borrowed from Tennis players he admired. That is a form unconscious transmission/integration. If you are let's say a guitar player and you like Joe Satriani and learn how to play his songs, you are also learning stuff from Jimi Hendrix because Jimi had a great influence on Joe's playing. That's a form unconscious transmission/integration.

Allow me to share with you the way I used to be like in my youth :

 

[Rusal]

Who are you talking about ? In which version of Dr.G's site (Russian/Ukrainian / English ???) did "it" happened ??

Pavel Durov was formerly typed as EIE and he's now in the LSI category. And I'm positive not only about him being typed EIE previously but because since I got sort of back to Socionics after a some time being away I actually opened a few related tabs a few days ago and he was still there with the EIEs… only to be changed to LSI literally over this past weekend.

Like I wrote, it could just be that he was always meant to be there and was sitting in the wrong category until Gulenko or someone insisted it be corrected when they finally got a hold of their webmaster.

The addition changed the layout of the images so that Brad Pitt's pic now closes the gallery parallel to the row above. Which I bring up as an unofficial addendum that somewhat supports Gulenko's typing for him because one of his children came out rather harshly against him for ‘making his kids tremble in fear’ and ‘making their life a constant hell’. It’s all pointing not to an outburst but rather a prolonged subjection to traumatizing experiences and coincidentally LSIs tend to excel at that over any other type. Because they go from cold to dangerous anger in a second you never know what's coming and, insidiously, the paralyzing trauma of ‘not knowing what to expect’ eats away at a person's sanity, creating self-flagellation like victim-blaming in more extreme cases etc. Imagine what it's like for children. That's how LSI maintain the reins over their territory: by unconsciously regulating the peace of mind of ‘those below him’. The rest works itself out: the weaker parts will censor themselves, ultimately not deviate from the LSI's line of command. The fact that his kid topped it off with an accusation that Pitt, a 60 year old man, will never understand the damage he caused in his children because he doesn't care meaning: he's incapable of putting himself in other people's shoes and that points to (worst case, more apparent in LSI-Se maybe) Beta ST self-serving preset that he's gained no knowledge, no insight into other people's needs or workings even with 60 years under the belt.

[qaz00]

Pavel Durov was formerly typed as EIE and he's now in the LSI category.

EIE is possible, but I think IEE. LSI for him is idiotic.