Something we can assume to be true to the degree it become a fact.
Those I can come up with:
Each individual have a singular type
A type can not be changed
Something we can assume to be true to the degree it become a fact.
Those I can come up with:
Each individual have a singular type
A type can not be changed
A good thread! Here's another one: Each individual metabolizes 8 information elements. Some are very strong, some intermediate, some weak. Some are valued, some are unvalued.
Youre likely going to get some reverb from the type cant be changed thing.
Axiom: Two Elements of the same orientation and direction (Pe, Pi, Ji, Je) cannot be used at the same time.
Axiom: Element strength grows from use.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I don't believe there are any axioms of Socionics that are not derived from psychology as a whole, e.g. that each individual has a personality. We may have a model that we hold to be true in the absence of empirical verification, but that is not something to be considered as undeniably correct and not needing testing.
Personality yes, yet Socionics is far not just personality. A personality can have a lot of traits and routines and such which is not necessary related directly to Socionics but might be in some cases a byproduct of how that person deal with the information elements. Socionics is something a bit more stiff, it is suppose to be used to calculate with and to explain dynamics between people and as such, it have a defined purpose and not just "personality" which can be far bigger, or smaller, and have millions of interpretation and takes on it.
Ya! People are always learning, changing and adjusting which makes it hard to get the exact same results two times in a row. They say supervision is one of those ITR which are almost visual. At some interactions we might find that the chemical cocktail, or what they call it, change after a while being in interaction with some types. Maybe if two people spend, lets say two weeks, closed from everything else but got each other, we might find out what is really happening in each ITR. Experiments have been done when they closed in people without contact with the outer world and find that the people synced towards a 25 hour circle of sleep/awake.
The only real axiom which is self evident I see in socionics is that informational order emerges in the same way as physical order and this is thru the laws of thermodynamics.
There are observations which take this premise into Model A such as unconscious/conscious, the information blocks, ego-super-ego-id-super-id, reinin+jung dichotomies and other parts that cannot be deduced entirely from this basic axiom. It requires viewing the IM as a 4 stage engine which behave like the carnot cycle as well. However the carnot cycle is only a "efficient" thermodynamic process, it does not define what is possible, but it does predict the more efficient a IM becomes the more pronounced the more it should emerge towards this processing model. This may not necessarily be true for undeveloped minds such as those of animals. It also requires viewing the IM as having both object/field characteristic which is another physics analogy.
However what is a axiom and what is a theorem is different based on what from where you're observing. Within Model A the axioms only valid based on the model, but they are merely theorems in relation to reality.
Type not being able to change is not a axiom as physical damage can alter brain physiology and psychology. And a individual having a single type is already hard to justify as disorders such as dissociative identity disorder and such make it possible for a person to develop different personalities or at the very least different fragment of personalities. These are also unneccessary assumptions as the information metabolism is not something intrinsic but something that develops and emerges.
Both axioms here are not neccessary imo.
It's possible and perhaps even probable that a Pe element can be used in one way and a different Pe element can be used in another way at the same time, but perhaps it's not possible for both elements to be used simultaneously in the same way.
Element strength is a hard thing to quantify and it's possible element strength may be reduced due to aversion or pain during use. Even elements that are preferred could become repressed due to conditioning despite the use being natural and with little effort.
This key hypothesis is based on the emergent properties of information elements as they differentiate akin to thermodynamic mechanism, and this differentiation also occurs between object and field characteristics of the elements. There is a particle wave duality here which is akin to physics and as such this observation is intrinsic the core hypothesis in socionics. The hypothesis is something inter-subjective, subjective in a sense but formed from much objective constructs.
The long and short of socionics is that, the psycho-dynamic becomes thermodynamic-like as it orders more fully and the entire basis comes from this, the decorations comes from psycho-dynamic/psychoanalytic psychology but this basis allows for the model to exist in a coherent model.
I say -like because there is no fully efficient thermodynamic engine and there is also from this analogy there is no fully efficient psycho dynamic engine and in this sense you have to distance the model from reality and theory from individuals.
Phineas Gage.
Im of the belief that type theoretically could change, but more than likely wont for the vast majority of people. If trauma is associated with an element, they may use the mirror element(ni -> si) in its stead, and over the course of many years, if youre not using an ego function whos to say that it fundamentally doesnt change your personality to a point where a seperate type would apply to you better. Axioms have to way more concrete than the arguments against it.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Socionics is not the same thing as MBTI.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
No. It is not the same. The guy who got a spear in his head and started to beat his wife? I believe we can look at this as which mu4 stated it was possible that the closer we function according to our type, the more effective we become. (something like this, the system works best when all elements sync as predicted by type, the less we work like that clockwork we lose grasp).
So would you suggest that Phineas Gage went from one type to an other? Maybe he became the SLE! O.o
1. Each person has a type, and their type does not change.
2. Types are either introverted or extroverted, intuitive or sensing, logical or ethical etc. (You can add more dichotomies so the number of types may change.)
3. Information is divided into different categories: either introverted or extroverted, rational or irrational, etc.
4. Each person has different innate abilities, tendencies, and preferences to process information of the different kinds, which is correlated with their type. They experience discomfort when confronted with information or demands that are not suited to their type.
5. Informational interchange, and the mismatches between people's preferred approaches to processing information, are responsible for some conflicts and misunderstandings that people experience, and their positive interactions as well (though not all).
That is pretty much the classical foundation as I see it. You also have to include the structure of the relationship group but it is a bit tedious to write down.
I also see the IM elements as being about goals but not everyone shares that view probably.
That type does not change probably is an axiom of Socionics in practice, in the same sense that psychology considers personality to be like climate, and moods to be like weather. But I would not consider it an axiom of essential importance in the sense that it is unique to Socionics and essential to its model.
Phineas Gage: 'non standard' type. It is obvious that major brain damage will damage your original type. Loosing your inhibitions? Your normal beta ST? Really? Obviously he lost lot of his rational capabilities.
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