Why you're not who you think you are

[Ryan]

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...think-you-are/

What does this mean as far as typology is concerned? what about analyzing what people report about themselves for type?

The study seems to be describing an irrational perception of reality, according to what I have understood from this page.

http://www.socionics.us/theory/rat_irr.shtml

I'm not sure what's the point she is making anyway. All I could make of it is that she encourages growth and an awareness of what that entails.

Another interesting entry from the same author. I'm guessing she is IEE, from the things she write about or reference.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...ouse-yourself/

[FDG]

There's no reason to believe what a random professor says about such a complex topic.

[Absurd]

I think I am who I am. Does that mean I don't think I am who I am, anymore?

[ashlesha]

It wasn't about trust lol. anybody who has spent more than a few days on this forum should see its just obvious. if I didn't bring type into this you guys would have responded way differently.

Lame.

[Brilliand]

Complete this statement five times: “I am _____________.”

1. Logical
2. Not a dragon
3. Human
4. Male
5. Bored

If you were given this same test tomorrow or a few years from now or in a different place, do you think your answers would be the same?

No way. For example, I would probably not even mention that I was human, and the fact that I am not a grapefruit will probably eventually place if I am asked this question enough times.

...

While a single moment of introspection may be (okay, is) suspect, many instances of introspection over time (basically, a large sample size) can do a great job of predicting what is always going to come up in a "status report". And what is always true of you at any given moment... is who you are.

I went back and re-read just the parts that are direct quotes from Sommers, and they seem to be quite reasonable and to actually make the point that I just made. However, I think the journalist doesn't really get it.

[krieger]

The problem for the more, what's it called? phenomenoligical? approach is that I end up faced with questions like how firmly do I visualize concepts and are my internal frameworks more implicit or explicit. what the fuck. I think anyone who can confidently answer questions like this is either good at mind fucking themselves or lying. this is just not the kind of shit people know about themselves or can honestly compare to other peoples experiences.

it seems to me that this kind of self-report is exactly what the article is criticizing. its actually harder to argue that the criticism applies to the opposite approach since it explicitly mentions introspection and self-report. if you'd want to take the article maximally seriously you'd have to ignore what people say about themselves entirely and focus just on what you can observe about their actions, making inferences as to what happens on a behind-the-scenes level on that basis only. but as you mention this has it's own set of challenges and imperfections.

anyway i think this thread gets at another one of those things that make socionics complicated but don't strictly debunk it. the general lesson being to adjust your priors for diminished trust in the accuracy of typings. there's no shame in typing a person as IxFj every once in a while.

[ashlesha]

I'm not sure what's the point she is making anyway. All I could make of it is that she encourages growth and an awareness of what that entails.

No, not really. Theres nothing to "encourage." growth happens.

[FDG]

Psychology is a (very) soft science, "studies say" is kinda meaningless...

[ashlesha]

Finally. somebody actually gets it.

I think there are certain core things in our self concept that are pretty static yeah. but when somebody is asked to describe themselves at any given point in time whatever they have to say in general probably isn't a description of Who They Are.

I want to say more but I'm not sure how to articulate and I have to finish getting ready for work which is probably for the best lol

Edit. this is re: Ashtons post

[golden]

Finally. somebody actually gets it.

I think there are certain core things in our self concept that are pretty static yeah. but when somebody is asked to describe themselves at any given point in time whatever they have to say in general probably isn't a description of Who They Are.

I want to say more but I'm not sure how to articulate and I have to finish getting ready for work which is probably for the best lol

Edit. this is re: Ashtons post

It seems like I am just as likely, when prompted to consider my own personality, to see things that are currently troubling or unintegrated, or things that I have been habitually told about myself but that are untrue (something that can happen in circumstances of oppression), as to recognize constant core qualities. After all, the core is something I'm apt to take for granted because it feels natural. So if I were feeling very optimistic about socionics and other personality theories, I could say that maybe one way they can benefit me is by helping me, over time, sort this out by seeing what core traits I might be ignoring, and understanding that some of my self-concepts are off-base--identifying potential strengths and weaknesses.

But I did say "if." For that to work, clarity, precision, and insight would all be required, and to the extent that I don't know myself, I may lack those qualities, setting up a vicious cycle.

Luckily, socionoics is science! It will def save us.

[ashlesha]

I think mariano and confimed make good points.

I think the problem this lays out for the more ontological typers is that the things they measure are way too prone to change over time. and the biggest problem I have with them is when humans become too difficult to classify and inconvenient for them they throw it on the humans instead of acknowledging the truth that they're trying to stuff a cloud into a jar. like esc saying I'm not the same, that I have teeth, like I didn't have any before and I just grew them or slapped in a set of plastic ones from the Halloween store. people will not avoid adaptation and mood and growth just to make things more convenient for you. if you can't work with that its a problem of your system or your mind not them.

The problem for the more, what's it called? phenomenoligical? approach is that I end up faced with questions like how firmly do I visualize concepts and are my internal frameworks more implicit or explicit. what the fuck. I think anyone who can confidently answer questions like this is either good at mind fucking themselves or lying. this is just not the kind of shit people know about themselves or can honestly compare to other peoples experiences.

I guess I'm just ranting about socionics again (I thought I wouldn't do this!) but I think the concept outlined in the article is self-evident and is the thread that ties all this crap together. we don't really know ourselves in a way that can be articulately described. and if we think we do, its just temporary.

I think some people can find important patterns in people like is needed for typing but honestly I think its just a skill of insightful people and socionics just gets in the way and there are very few people with that capability here.

[Radio]

The problem for the more, what's it called? phenomenoligical? approach is that I end up faced with questions like how firmly do I visualize concepts and are my internal frameworks more implicit or explicit. what the fuck. I think anyone who can confidently answer questions like this is either good at mind fucking themselves or lying. this is just not the kind of shit people know about themselves or can honestly compare to other peoples experiences.

oh hello there polr, looking chipper today i see

[ashlesha]

:| no

[Mariano Rajoy]

I think the problem this lays out for the more ontological typers...

The problem for the more, what's it called? phenomenoligical?...

Some people don't realise that Socionics has nothing in common with phenomenology because Socionics does not describe consciousness, nor do the functions. Model A, and information metabolism are a model and a theory, and by definition are excluded from consideration as "consciousness".

The problem is with Socionics claiming to be a science, when it is actually an ontological system. Contemporary science dismisses metaphysics and ontology, so Socionics is therefore unscientific. Some people are just better than others at trying to stuff a cloud into a jar, and seeing patterns in the midst of chaos.

The forum should therefore be a place to practice, and get feedback while perhaps successfully self-typing along the way.

[rat1]

Neither intaking information or generating influence is better or worse, you should do both and it is situational when to do either. Every information form has its flaws when it's applied wrongly. So the article, by proclaiming a person is an introvert, is prescribing a single information form to a persons whole reality, and that is a misapplication. Then the article goes on to report that an error exists in introversion, when they made the error. Doing socionics is a waste of time; learning psychology and reading these allegedly scientific articles is a waste of time.

[mu4]

Some people don't realise that Socionics has nothing in common with phenomenology because Socionics does not describe consciousness, nor do the functions. Model A, and information metabolism are a model and a theory, and by definition are excluded from consideration as "consciousness".

The problem is with Socionics claiming to be a science, when it is actually an ontological system. Contemporary science dismisses metaphysics and ontology, so Socionics is therefore unscientific. Some people are just better than others at trying to stuff a cloud into a jar, and seeing patterns in the midst of chaos.

The forum should therefore be a place to practice, and get feedback while perhaps successfully self-typing along the way.

Socionics is heterophenomenology. I think people have moved on. Socionics is about others as well as ourselves, and our relations with others.

One could also say it's Hermeneutic Anthropology but imo Socionics is in tune with the advancements in continental and analytically philosophy.

[NewBorn STAR]

http://psychcentral.com/cgi-bin/romance2.cgi