When is one's Socionics type set?
I was pondering this just a few moments ago, and I suddenly came to the realization at the time at which one's information metabolism is most likely set.
As we all know, one only needs to know the dominant and auxilary functions of one's psyche to know the entire functional order of it. This leads me to believe that the time at which one begins to develop their auxilary is the time at which one's informational metabolism is crystalized, or at least, this is the time at which one can actuallly beging to identitfy it.
Sergei once commented on this aspect of Socionics and stated that one's qudral values are instilled at birth, or shortly thereafter. This is a rather perplexing contradiction into the theory, but the validity of both, although mine is only a mere hypotheses, are far from "proven."
How this statement contradicts my own is that mine is generally stating that up to the point of adolescence you are in one of either two neighboring quadras. Thus, one would need to act in such a way that could be mistakeable for one or two psyche's, with the relation between these two functions the comparative one.
I'd be very interested in other's commentry about this subject.
I think that I understand you, but when can you tell that your dominant and auxiliary are set? In other words, how can you tell that you are ready to look into personality?
Obviously, you seem to think of the answer as adolescence. What do you mean by adolescence? Do you mean it as in a specific age, or when puberty begins etc?
I don't have the liberty at the moment to say the exact age, but I believe it occurs with the development of our "abstract" thinking abilities, which is usually around 11-13, although I tend to believe it is merely the broadening of one's information bandwith. This would account for those who don't seem to have a very well developed abstract thinking ability.
Also, Jung claimed that the auxilary function develops around then, and since the Socionic model is based on Jung's work, I merely applied it with knowledge of the previously stated fact above.
Sergei's explanation does seem logical, but then the question still remains: at what age does it crystalize?
My life supports this explanation. Before adolescence, I was extroverted. I think that I may have been an ESFj or ENTp. But then I introverted.
Originally Posted by Pedro
Again, my life supports this explanation, but to a lesser degree than Pedro's. I showed signs of the Delta and Beta quadras - notably ESTj, INFj, ENFj and ISTj before adolesence.
Originally Posted by MysticSonic
In short, I was an ExFj, before adolesence. Both of your descriptions seem to apply to me, but MysticSonic's seems better.
Re: Crystalization of personality.
This is of course just my opinion but I am inclined to believe that the type is either inborn or crystalized very early in our childhood, by the age of five or six at latest. This is largely based on my vivid recollections of my early years. My basic personality type was set from very early on. In kindergarten my best friend was an ESTP girl, and I still remember how she descriped me as calm and friendly "not at all like the other boys". :wink: Later we were in the same class till we were sixteen and though we "grew apart" I could still clearly see that she, as well as many of my other childhood friends, retained many of the basic personality features of their early years. Of course you have to take into account that types in children appear quite different than in adults and not to confuse sociability with introversion/extoversion etc.
Originally Posted by MysticSonic
My childhood friend, whom I initially typed as an ESTP largely base on VI, (resemblance to one of Filatova's pictures), was actually probably an ESTJ... There was a female ESTJ on the Russian Forums, and other things as well, starting from her comment that I quoted...
PS It is always worth reading the older threads. :wink:
I don't think crystalization is necessarily what happens. I think if anything we crystalize away from our information metabolism and more into our social function. Enneagram typology says that we become "fixated" however enneagram typology describes more of our social function, the encrustation of social conditioning. Socionics I think is very powerful because it describes a natural condition, not a socially adapted one.
[Setting: Restaurant. Maestro and Elaine are talking)
WAITER: Are you ready to order?
ELAINE: Oh God. What are you getting Bob?
(Maestro looks at Elaine with an annoyed look on his face)
MAESTRO: Good question. (to waiter) We'll need a few minutes.
(Maestro puts his head in his hand. He is visibly upset)
MAESTRO: You know, I'm sorry but, I didn't mention it earlier but actually I
preferred to be called Maestro.
ELAINE: Excuse me?
MAESTRO: Well, ya know I am a conductor.
ELAINE: Yeah, so?
MAESTRO: Oh I suppose it's O.K. for Leonard Burnstein to be called Maestro because
he conducted the New York Philharmonic. So he gets to be called Maestro and I don't.
ELAINE: Well, I mean don't you think that he was probably called Maestro while he
was conducting, not in social situations. I mean his friends probably just called
MAESTRO: I happen to know for a fact, that he was called Maestro in social
situations. I once saw him at a bar and someone came up to him and said
"Hello Maestro, how about a beer". O.K. So that's a fact.
ELAINE: Maestro huh? O.K. (laughing)
Who is the man coming down your block
Itís me you see with the funk in my walk
ícause Iím doiní just what I like to
Today is my day and Iím a get nice too
You gotta keep moviní and you canít say nothing
Iím a keep bounciní and bumpiní and stuffiní
One thing you ought to know---i am the MAESTRO
So, Maestro, are you saying that the informational metabolism is fixed at birth? You should know that the information I presented earlier would indicate that this is most certainly not the case.
I thought each block was set to start to develop at certain times, eg first 1-7 second 8-14 etc etc etc, not sure where I read that, but that could certainly account for changes in inversion/extraversion. what about correlating grof's perinatal matrices with type? your type is determined by yourself by your reaction to the birth process....
Yes MysticSonic, that is what I am saying. It's an interesting point, and I have not been in a position to observe enough infants to make the unconditional assertion, but I haven't known of someone making such a drastic transition through adolescence. I guess it's feasible we are so tabula rasa in the first few years of infancy some funky stuff could go down, but during adolescence? That is exactly the time social conditioning really kicks in, so yes we change, but as artifice. The observation that the more relaxed and at ease someone is with themselves the easier it is for me to type them leads me to the conclusion that socionics is descriptive on a very fundamental though fragile level.
I don't think it's a coincidence that socionics was popularized in a country without a long history of culturization. Americans are so lost to themselves at this stage in history it's a little scary. You don't find yourself when you're trying so hard to be someone else, which is the norm during adolescence.
To the hoop baby!
Tags for this Thread