If for example a person is mute, would there be less likelihood of compatibility problems.
Also, would the power of duality be diminished if the dual partner was disabled.
Disabilty and socionics compatibility
If for example a person is mute, would there be less likelihood of compatibility problems.
Also, would the power of duality be diminished if the dual partner was disabled.
What I am saying is:
Is the Socionics relationship dynamic diminished when at least one person in the relationship is disabled?
"Is the Socionics relationship dynamic diminished when at least one person in the relationship is disabled?"
The SOCIONIC relationship dynamic may be diminished if the particular data associated with a particular function that is essential to the Socionic compatibility of that particular relationship is unable to be processed by one of the individuals within the relationship, but in relation to disabilities that don't interfere with the transference of socionic data, only the NET compatibility is decreased.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Now, there's a $25 sentence!Originally Posted by MysticSonic
Entp
ILE
LOLNow, there's a $25 sentence!
I have actually pondered this in my off-times. I have come to the conclusion that Socionics "dynamics" will be obscured if there is nothing there to support a relationship. The factors that inspire a relationship are the prerequisite - not Socionic type. I am probably not making any sense...
"I have actually pondered this in my off-times. I have come to the conclusion that Socionics "dynamics" will be obscured if there is nothing there to support a relationship. The factors that inspire a relationship are the prerequisite - not Socionic type. I am probably not making any sense..."
No, you're making complete sense, although you're generalizing the situation a bit; one's Socionic type may help actually DEVELOP the prerequisites needed for a relationship, with one's socionic type actually being one of those prerequisites if the particular prerequisitie can only be fulfilled by having a particular type, though I doubt such a "prerequisitie" exists.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
True, true. I hadn't thought about it that way. So, if we were to take into account disability, it might actually work in the same way as Socionics type. For example, if you and a dual shared a common disability, that might be meet another prerequisite for a relationship. (BTW, you're the most eloquent 16-year-old I've ever come across.)
"True, true. I hadn't thought about it that way. So, if we were to take into account disability, it might actually work in the same way as Socionics type. For example, if you and a dual shared a common disability, that might be meet another prerequisite for a relationship."
Wait, so what you're saying here is that possession of certain, immuteable, traits could be interpreted the same manner in relation to the compatibility of a relationship as the possession of a particular socionic type? If so, then I think think you misinterpreted my statement in some way.
And I appologize for being so wordy, I just don't know how else to express my thoughts. >.>
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
What I meant is that Socionic "dynamics" represent only one part of the equation in a relationship - that is, how one takes in information and how one expresses oneself. (A disability can certainly prevent certain information from being taken in/expressed.) However, even if these aspects were to jive well with each other, there is still not sufficient "chemistry" if you will for a relationship to form. I believe Socionics is simplistic at best. It really is a minimalist theory. Even with the representations of the functions, we are nowhere near close to predicting how a relationship will work. Relationships develop under all sorts of circumstances for all sorts of reasons - we can attribute type theory to that on a superficial level. But if one was to delve into the matter, there would be deeper themes at hand - each friend we make is a case study in our psychological condition.
I meant that as a compliment.
"What I meant is that Socionic "dynamics" represent only one part of the equation in a relationship - that is, how one takes in information and how one expresses oneself. (A disability can certainly prevent certain information from being taken in/expressed.) However, even if these aspects were to jive well with each other, there is still not sufficient "chemistry" if you will for a relationship to form. I believe Socionics is simplistic at best. It really is a minimalist theory. Even with the representations of the functions, we are nowhere near close to predicting how a relationship will work. Relationships develop under all sorts of circumstances for all sorts of reasons - we can attribute type theory to that on a superficial level. But if one was to delve into the matter, there would be deeper themes at hand - each friend we make is a case study in our psychological condition. "
I understand what you're saying, I'm simply saying that those "prerequisities", those OTHER sort of factors that contribute the the compatibility between individuals might actually neccessitate one be a certain type, or at least have one's type being a significant factor in the development of those "prerequisites." Of course, whatever factors that are developed in such a way are, at the moment, unkown, and hence the matter would need to be investigated in order to achieve a more developed sociological theory in comparison to this "minimalistic" one.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Yes, and that's what I gathered from your previous post but couldn't express in my response.And of course, there is no guarantee that being of a certain type will precipitate in certain prerequisites, but they may make it more likely that you will acquire them. So, in essence, what you are saying is that type entails much more than the mere metabolism of information but everything that is affected by that metabolism - the experiences we have, and how we experience them, and the conclusions we draw. And many of these things are prerequisite to a good relationship.
Exactly, though as you said, "there is no guarantee that being of a certain type will precipitate in certain prerequisities."
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote