nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooo
we had some intriguing speculations on this back in the days... or at least i did.
the double type gives you the ability to identify traits in terms of a gradual spectrum. for example, a person can be double intuitive (both types have intuition), intuition overlooking sensing (top type has intuition, bottom has sensing), sensing overlooking intuition (you get the picture) and double sensing (i'm going to take pains explaining).
you could even do this with reinin traits, i.e. double Result or Emotivist overlooking Constructivist. same with clubs, temperaments, etc.
the next implication then, was that the reason why reinin traits (and other traits) at varying points can alternatingly seem easy and hard to detect was because most people are a mixture of the two extremities and only some (1/4?) people possessed a trait "double".
i was always somewhere in between thinking socionics wasn't powerful and descriptive enough with just one type on one hand, and thinking the extra type made things excessively complicated on the other. and meanwhile there isn't much of an a-priori reason to postulate yet another type, no matter how much gulenko will struggle to make it sound like there is. the best reason i think is to postulate fractal patterns in psychology much like they appear in nature. not idiotic an idea, but a stretch.
as a brain-game, though, it served its purpose.
edit: ok, now allow me to wax philosophical.
suppose instead of declaring "there are two types", you hypothesize there are just multiple, indiscriminate as to how many.
everything i describe above then, regardless of how many types there are, still holds. you'd just vary the number of intermediate measures of each trait as you vary the number of types.
i think this is is the lesson learned from the endeavor. the non-distinction between quantifying the number of types, and simply typing in terms of graduations...
Last edited by krieger; 11-19-2013 at 09:49 PM.
lets makke sum progres shal we
I have something to say, but can't b/c not good reception here so takng 4eever to load pages, but will respond later, don't let me forget @jadeeart
I have been speaking to the Socionics Britannica guy and all his been mentioning is some bizarre theory about the personality existing in multiple dimensions which makes people very inconsistent he says. From what he's told me he isn't ready to present anything yet and currently he simply calls his theory model x.
https://www.facebook.com/SocionicsBritannicaSchool
Last edited by Soupman; 11-20-2013 at 03:54 PM.
You know I really think there is a lot of truth in this so I can easily see why gulenko has created the energomodel since his research stems from this. Plus he's been talking lately about how various socionics schools have been mocking him and his latest socionics experiments into subtypes, whilst additionally attacking the sacred cow attitude other schools have towards model a.
Last edited by Soupman; 01-24-2014 at 04:06 PM.
The energy type defines motivations and fixations, and is meant either to replace or supplement model A.
itt: I'm double process and double irrational according to this scheme.
just 1 more dichotomy and we can solve socionicz guize!
R1, R2, L1, L2, up, left, down, right, up, left, down, right for Duality cheat code.
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 find this theory both plausible and interesting. I have been thinking about the possibility for some time now. We already have the idea of a shadow personality, that which takes over in times of great stress for example. Why would it then not be reasonable to talk about having other types come to the forefront of our conciousness in different situations/environments/emotional states.
I also think the suggestiong of multi dimensional personality is not as far fetched as it would at first appear, I suppose it depends on how free flowing your mind is. People who live and die by rules and accept those and do not wish for anything or acknowledge/allow the possibility for new ideas will have the greatest difficulty stretching to to it.
It amuses me when people start to laugh at newcommers who research and suggest 'out there' new theories or theory extensions since those same mocking people would seem to forget what socionics was built upon. I'm not talking about someone waxing lyrical about how they just know or intuit everything and everyone must believe them but more on ideas that can link into things we already explore with some kind of semblance of a theoretical plan.
Now this is a story all about how, my type got changed, turned upside down. Just wait for a minute and watch chatbox right there, & I'll tell how Gem became the moderator with blue hair.
In typology central friended and praised, on the picture thread was where she spent most her days. Chilling out, selfies, relaxing all cool, And all typing some people and getting them schooled.
When a couple of girls who were up to no good, Started annoying her & her friends in the forumhood, She got in one little flame war & got pissed off & said 'I'm moving in with that exboyfriend in the forum with the socionics toffs.
So Gem pulls up to the forum for a year without being a hater, And yells to typocentral 'Yo creeps! Smell Ya later', Became a mod in her kingdom she was finally there, To sit on her throne as the mod with blue hair.
InvisibruJim
ftr, jung strongly abhorred the notion of systematizing his typology and the creation of discrete types: applies to model A as well as mbti.
then he shouldn't have dichotomized it himself.
As for dual-types, I got myself at SEE-SLI. Double Sensor, double Irrational, double Obstinate, double Strategic, double Serious, double Positivist, double Asking. It was between SEE-SLI and SEE-LSE; ran through the Reinins and thought about whether double Irrational or double Extrotim worked better, went with the former. I got a shit ton of other reasons but it sure is hard to write them out, let alone piece them together in the first place.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that his dichotomies were very fluid and not meant to classify people into hard-coded intra-psychic interactions.Originally Posted by labcoat
Sounds kinda like what I've been going through on this forum
i'll save us all a lot of trouble
socionics is nonsense.
you're welcome.
You are el wrongo
i'd invoke the burden of proof on you but i don't want to waste anyone's time
Right, because the proof is in the pudding
exactly, you right.Sounds kinda like what I've been going through on this forum
@Zero11s and I have also been speculating about this being an extroversion cognition issue, basing on the rationale of extroversion being the unconscious motivation to seek stability in external ideas. This is based on the theory that the first function is conservative, thus slow to adapt as the individual is quite stubborn on it, Grigory Reinin has talked about this in his book.
Whereas introverts who don't satiate external information are easily open to it, so they use it to test how they model they create best matches reality. With introversion defined as a theme of analysis that colours a person's worldview, introverts quasi similarly desire stability in their lead introverted function, so they have a conservative attitude to the information inline with their model of analysis. Therefore the need to work with fledged ideas, that have sense and credibility to them, before they decide to test how they best apply to the objective world.
Extroverts only care about fledged objective information so they don't care about starting with a model, like introverts.
This makes introverts irritated about having their models arbitrarily dismissed without much thought and it offends us. @Zero11 were talking about how we were feeling very annoyed with @hkkmrr when he shot down the idea we had about critically analyzing model a vs mbti/podlair. We weren't satisfied with his argument that just because there is already information out there, we should ditch the idea, that simply misunderstood the critical analysis of the given models we desired.
//I lost my thought process when writing and explaining this, I hope it still makes some kind of sense
#feeling lazy right_now
Interesting. One of my consistent justifications has been "these ideas correlate with things that I have perceived".
Doesn't every type have its own "coloring" effect on a person's worldview? Isn't each type "stained" with a different set of inks?
hkkmrr is a moron. Forget about him.
It all made sense to me, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of it//I lost my thought process when writing and explaining this, I hope it still makes some kind of sense
#feeling lazy right_now
This is the core surprise I learnt about the introversion/extroversion dichotomy when attempting to extract the core fundamental fact that seem to support it. Sociability doesn't really work, other dichotomies like its internal or external... are rather subjective rationalizations that don't seem to make much sense when closely critiquing them. Overall the trouble I observed is the sheer dynamism of people which can easily break whatever hypothesis I create.
I've noticed that others don't have a core model, a theme of analysis that colours their worldview so when expressing their ideas, they present their ideas as simply the most important details that are viable for the given situation. I know everyone does demonstrate this objectivity, important details for the given situation they analyse, but the peculiar thing I've noticed is that for some people, their intellectual world largely has no ''colouring theme'' of context, but rather they just have a library of important details than govern the understanding of a particular issue, situation; they never have a consistent ''coloured themes'' but rather they create many to appease what ever situation they have.
@hkkmrr and @Jack Oliver Aaron both ILE, are both like this, you notice this in others like them when you have a prolonged 1 on 1 conversation that leads you to see how their intellectual world has a perculior structure for the idiosyncratic details they have.
@Zero11s and I don't even have the same version of socionics yet we enjoy talking and discussing the different interpretations of the same facts we have, as well as our several speculative theories we always create. I respect a thinking man rather than an idiot who merely agrees with me, my surprise was to learn that in life unfortunately most people aren't like me in these regards.It all made sense to me, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of it
Using my undeveloped theory, I'd speculate that its introversion since you seem to display interest in objective details for their own sake, which results in an internally incoherent theme (lack of a colouring theme) that is largely composed of what ever details are regarded as relevant. You simply use the objective facts to test the viability of your model you create. Whereas extroverts would then arbitrarily create many coloured themes for their objective data so they seem to be creative is making so many theoretical explanations, though ofcourse their limitation are that they have to be confined to the library of objective details they possess.
There is something strange about extroverts and I haven't got a truly satisfactory theory for their different way they architect their information
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote