What other types can a type resemble under stress?

[mirrorsoul]

There's an interesting question that doesn't seem to be answered by Socionic theory... how does a type behave when they're not allowed to express their natural behavior?

Do they behave like their Super-Ego, their Id, or their Dual, or does their natural behavior just get reinforced no matter what? Or does social programming just completely override preferences in this case?

For instance... let's assume a scenario in which a person of a particular type, let's say an Alpha Quadra type like ILE, grew up surrounded by Gamma Quadra types like SEE, ILI, ESI, and LIE... what would happen to them as their ego and creative functions were continually rejected and devalued by others? Would they "retreat into" another mode of operation in order to cope? What mode of operation would that likely be?

[stray]

Jung discussed the shadow aspects..which is applied to MBTI often (for a decent book on that, check out Naomi Quenk's "Was That Really Me?").. but yeah, I haven't seen anything like that in Socionics.

[Slacker]

I'm not sure if this would always go the same way. The one time I was under a great deal of stress, I became a super-organized neat freak, so very non-IEEish. But my husband was under a great deal of stress at one point and became even less social and more of a hedonist, so kind of a way over-the-top unhealthy version of his own type (SLI).

My mom is an LIE who was raised by Alphas. I think she's still pretty LIE. Oh, I thought of someone else - I have an SEE cousin whose parents are ILI/ESE, and she is very much SEE when away from her parents, but she just keeps quiet around them. It doesn't change her internal being but she's good at editing herself externally around them.

[stray]

I'm not sure if this would always go the same way. The one time I was under a great deal of stress, I became a super-organized neat freak, so very non-IEEish.

I could see that too. FWIW though, in that book I mentioned above (assuming you'd be ENFp/Ne-Fi in both systems), the shadow aspect of ENps sounds like an obsessive/negative version of some of the Si/body awareness descriptions on wikisocion, with a mix of unhealthy Te and Fe respectively. And yeah, it touches on the organizing and detail orientedness..

Many ENFPs report fanatically mowing the lawn or cleaning house and being unable to stop themselves, even though they typically view these activities as relatively unimportant and avoid them. The ISTJ husband of one ENFP reluctantly admitted that he rather liked it when his wife was highly stressed because it was the only time the house ever got thoroughly cleaned!

As for Si.

When effective dominant Introverted Sensing types describe the nuances of their internal sensory experiences, one can marvel at the exquisite, evocative images that emerge. When an Extraverted Intuitive type in the grip of inferior Introverted Sensing focuses on inner sensations and internal experiences, it often translates into exaggerated concern about physical symptoms, whose diagnostic meaning is always dire and extreme.

In the grip of their inferior function, ENTPs and ENFPs frequently Over-interpret real or imagined bodily sensations as indicative of illness. When they are in full command of their dominant and auxiliary functions, these types easily ignore or minimize messages from their bodies. So when they do focus on the body, it is done to the exclusion of everything else and with little experience of what is "normal" for them. A particular symptom can have only one cause, which must be life threatening or incurable: A pulled muscle is taken as a sign of heart disease; indigestion signifies an impending heart attack; and a headache is believed to be a brain tumor. It seems that when their Intuition isn't working, they react to messages from their bodies rigidly and absolutely. An ENTP had been in a rare bad mood for several days but was unable to identify any cause. One morning while shaving, he noticed that when he turned his eyes to the left, the white in his right eye crinkled. He had never noticed that before and was terrified that something was terribly wrong with his eyes. Before making an appointment with an eye doctor, however, he decided to observe other people's eyes to determine just how bad his were. To his relief (and chagrin), he found that everyone's eyes moved the same way his did. He had simply never bothered to look at eyes his own or other people's at all closely before.

[pianosinger]

The one time I was under a great deal of stress, I became a super-organized neat freak, so very non-IEEish.

Same here. I wanted everything to be perfect and was repeatedly frustrated in my efforts. Also, everything became about me, about what I wanted, about how things were not going according to my plans, about how I wished I could just run away and do what I wanted to do...I also at times became somewhat emotionally manipulative=too much emphasis on Demonstrative Fe.

I might've come across more like an ESTj or ESFj at this time, perhaps, since I seemed particularly focused on Te and Fe...However, looking back it was really me feeling deprived of my "Ego" and particularly wanting to do away with all the pressure on my Role and focus more on my Base. Only I wasn't going about it in a very healthy manner.

[Jarno]

oh boy...

type stays always the same. Your behaviour isn't all based on type. Type is just the way you perceive the world.

[stray]

oh boy...

type stays always the same. Your behaviour isn't all based on type. Type is just the way you perceive the world.

Since it's all based on Jung though, it'd be fair to incorporate/explore his other theories on repressed "shadow" behavior then. Or, there'd have to be a good reason why we should acknowledge one, and discount the other.

[pianosinger]

oh boy...

type stays always the same. Your behaviour isn't all based on type. Type is just the way you perceive the world.

Sure. But behaviors can give clues about a person's type...They just may not always point to the right type, as an unhealthy focus on non-Ego functions can cause confusion.

[Slacker]

I've re-read mirrorsoul's post a couple of times now and don't see where she said anything about types changing. She asked if you could resemble a different type, which seems like it assumes your type remains the same.

[stray]

I've re-read mirrorsoul's post a couple of times now and don't see where she said anything about types changing. She asked if you could resemble a different type, which seems like it assumes your type remains the same.

I latched on to "under stress", which entailed a negative form of some other type. Which is why I went into the shadow.

He also wrote a lot about "individuation", which is mostly positive.. "the true self".. (one that had a healthy acknowledgement of repressed aspects). Type would never remain the same in this case.

[Exodus]

Instead of asking "what types would someone resemble when under stress?" I would ask "what information elements would someone use when under stress?" Personally, I find that people tend to use their Id elements when they are pissed off.

[krieger]

i think every type has their own characteristic way of getting stressed out. the idea that you would end up "resembling" another type is not meaningfully pertinent in my experience.

this ties in with the fallacy that types would in some more-than-trivial way "possess functions" other than their ego functions.

[mirrorsoul]

Instead of asking "what types would someone resemble when under stress?" I would ask "what information elements would someone use when under stress?" Personally, I find that people tend to use their Id elements when they are pissed off.

Yeah, that sounds logical to me... I've definitely seen instances of that.

And I probably should have said "information elements," because the use of them would clearly not be the same as that of a type that was comfortable with them.

[crazedrat]

The type doesnt behave like another type, it just reveals its shadow functions at times.

[krieger]

there is no distinction between the two claims. saying "the type uses his ID functions" conveys the exact same information as "the type behaves like his Contrary".

non-ego functions are the typical kind of naked emperor constructs that make a person believe they have uncovered new layers of complexity when in fact they have imposed an artificial layer of complexity where there is none in reality.

[crazedrat]

You are wrong. The functions are qualitatively different.

[krieger]

the difference is that one exists whereas the other doesn't.

[Creepy-male]

An SEI is an ESI who frames things in the opposite way, with opposing emphasis. An SEI will form judgements and understand people from the inside out, but hold back on those judgements and use their understanding to mediate.

Am I right in saying a pissed-off SEI will look vaguely like an ESI, but still act well within the bounds of defined SEI behaviour?

[The Ineffable]

I never made an investigation, but I recall I was behaving like an EIE after breaking up with my gf some years ago. I lost my interest in what I was previously doing - for instance I was helping people with technical things on a forum - I became extremely social, emotional, warm (eg hugging my friends) and somehow caring, could not stay home, frequenting clubs at least once a week, I made my best musical compositions. I was feeling constant need for rush, thrill and excitement, words can't even describe the parallel underground life I was living at night that period, however, I managed to keep away from promiscuity, drugs, accidents and brawls. Somehow .

[Beautiful sky]

An SEI is an ESI who frames things in the opposite way, with opposing emphasis. An SEI will form judgements and understand people from the inside out, but hold back on those judgements and use their understanding to mediate.

Am I right in saying a pissed-off SEI will look vaguely like an ESI, but still act well within the bounds of defined SEI behaviour?

That's exactly what mirrorsoul did in my case; especially as it is observed in the "Dj and I" thread...she mediated between craze and I...or others.

[ashlesha]

Am I right in saying a pissed-off SEI will look vaguely like an ESI, but still act well within the bounds of defined SEI behaviour?

i want someone to answer this.

if its true that we show our id functions more under stress...is there a reason why? i do think there might be something to it but i'm not sure and some explanation would be nice.

The type doesnt behave like another type, it just reveals its shadow functions at times.

which functions does the shadow correspond to?

[Beautiful sky]

I resemble an INFp under stress...attracting attention, like acting.

[EyeSeeCold]

i want someone to answer this.

if its true that we show our id functions more under stress...is there a reason why? i do think there might be something to it but i'm not sure and some explanation would be nice.

Yes, when you're Ego isn't working e.g. my latest thread. Instead of dictating my observations I had to reason and explain concepts.

[crazedrat]

the difference is that one exists whereas the other doesn't.

Nope. The superid functions exist in the unconscious.

[Trevor]

Nope. The superid functions exist in the unconscious.

Yeah, of course. Whatever does not exist in reality, exists in unconscious. this is how psychoanalysis works. anything can be said of anyone is its motto. if what you say is true - then it's true, fine. if it's not true then just say it's unconscious.

[DirectorAbbie]

I can resemble an SLX under stress. My favorite roleplay characters are LSI, SEI, and LSE.

[Galen]

I resemble myself under stress, whatever type that may externally look like.

[Exodus]

there is no distinction between the two claims. saying "the type uses his ID functions" conveys the exact same information as "the type behaves like his Contrary".

This is silly. The point of information elements is that information exists objectively and is thus accessible to all types through the corresponding function. For example, it's possible to identify information in anonymous sources where the type of the creator is unknown, or where there are multiple creators. Plus, if I'm using am I "behaving like an EII" or "behaving like an ESI"? It seems simpler and more accurate to say I'm using .

[krieger]

The point of information elements is that information exists objectively and is thus accessible to all types through the corresponding function. For example, it's possible to identify information in anonymous sources where the type of the creator is unknown, or where there are multiple creators.

an empty fiction that is not based on any foundation of quantifyable and empirically solid data. the tendency to embrace such "naked emperor constructs" is what brings about the state of dereliction that socionics is in these days.

Plus, if I'm using am I "behaving like an EII" or "behaving like an ESI"? It seems simpler and more accurate to say I'm using .

the least epistemically problematic interpretation of Fi is "the set of behaviors commonly manifested between the types INFj and ISFj". the types are easier to perceive and register in a direct way than the functions, and the behavior of the types encompasses everything that can be observed about the types in question.

any other interpretation merits being viewed with extreme suspicion.

[krieger]

my point is this: anything without rock solid empirical support is not fact, but speculation. it's OK to engage in speculation. it's just not right to call it fact. so go on and speculate about objectively existing floating balls of "information" that you can't proove to exist out there, just don't expect people to accept these views as a reality. behavior is the only thing in socionics that warrants this treatment.

[Exodus]

an empty fiction that is not based on any foundation of quantifyable and empirically solid data. the tendency to embrace such "naked emperor constructs" is what brings about the state of dereliction that socionics is in these days.

As far as I'm concerned, that's one of the foundational assumptions of socionics (i.e. Model A) and is very well confirmed by my experience. Intertype relations are completely based on the fact that everyone has quadra values, weak functions, etc.

the least epistemically problematic interpretation of Fi is "the set of behaviors commonly manifested between the types INFj and ISFj".

But there are plenty of other behaviors common to EXIs, e.g. dual-seeking, Role, etc. It's very hard to account for this without something resembling Model A.

the types are easier to perceive and register in a direct way than the functions, and the behavior of the types encompasses everything that can be observed about the types in question.

I disagree with the first part. Types' behavior is widely variable. Often I meet someone who is behaviorally unlike anyone I've met before. Should I immediately assume that socionics doesn't apply to them, or try to identify how they use the information elements?

And while obviously you can adopt an instrumentalist view of any scientific theory, it doesn't mean you should throw away all theoretical constructs that aren't immediately observable.

any other interpretation merits being viewed with extreme suspicion.

Ok, but you're making a big deviation from classical socionics here.

[krieger]

As far as I'm concerned, that's one of the foundational assumptions of socionics (i.e. Model A) and is very well confirmed by my experience. Intertype relations are completely based on the fact that everyone has quadra values, weak functions, etc.

Quadra values and notions of "function weakness" derive from the measurable and quantifyable intertype relations, not the other way around. The latter are less problematically "real" and therefore the vessel of choice where formulating an understanding of socionics is concerned. wherever the former can be made redundant, we can suffice with not mentioning them at all. this is a good thing, because the risk of error increases with every postulate raised.

But there are plenty of other behaviors common to EXIs, e.g. dual-seeking, Role, etc. It's very hard to account for this without something resembling Model A.

Again, model A is the redundancy, as is the distinction between dual-seeking and role function. we can process the intertype relations and behaviors independently and it is preferable to do so on account of being safer and less likely to seed controversy. in its current state, the socionics community suffers from a profligate excess of controversy, so a move in this direction can not reasonably be passed up.

I disagree with the first part. Types' behavior is widely variable. Often I meet someone who is behaviorally unlike anyone I've met before. Should I immediately assume that socionics doesn't apply to them, or try to identify how they use the information elements?

you should admit to yourself that you have no basis for claiming that the two people are of the same type in this case. the idea that you can type "using information elements" without employing an analysis of behavior is faulty. it is incoherent thinking.

And while obviously you can adopt an instrumentalist view of any scientific theory, it doesn't mean you should throw away all theoretical constructs that aren't immediately observable.

they are not thrown away. they are just exposed for what they are: speculative sludge until clearly demonstrated to be otherwise.

Ok, but you're making a big deviation from classical socionics here.

i'm taking socionics to an even further "classical" stage and out of the territory of a religious cult. if classical socionics is as empirically sound as proponents might imply, there is no loss from applying my methods. the results yielded would be exactly the same.

[Exodus]

Quadra values and notions of "function weakness" derive from the measurable and quantifyable intertype relations, not the other way around.

observation -> theory -> prediction

Your point?

The latter are less problematically "real" and therefore the vessel of choice where formulating an understanding of socionics is concerned. wherever the former can be made redundant, we can suffice with not mentioning them at all. this is a good thing, because the risk of error increases with every postulate raised.

It's not really a postulate so much as a convenient way of organizing observations.

in its current state, the socionics community suffers from a profligate excess of controversy, so a move in this direction can not reasonably be passed up.

IMO this has nothing to do with the "controversy" about socionics. On the contrary, I would argue that "controversy" arises primarily from people not understanding what the information elements really are about.

you should admit to yourself that you have no basis for claiming that the two people are of the same type in this case. the idea that you can type "using information elements" without employing an analysis of behavior is faulty. it is incoherent thinking.

To me this reads like "You are wrong, therefore you are wrong"

Obviously I will analyze their behavior, but I must do so using the categories of information elements. It's possible to wait until I know more about their relationships with other people, but that is hardly the fastest or easiest way to type someone.

i'm taking socionics to an even further "classical" stage and out of the territory of a religious cult.

lol, if you think socionics is a "religious cult" that's your problem.

if classical socionics is as empirically sound as proponents might imply, there is no loss from applying my methods. the results yielded would be exactly the same.

Basically you're reduced to comparing people's behavior to people of known types (or possibly using their relationships, if you happen to know anything about them). While obviously everybody uses this method, it's completely useless for demonstrating your typings objectively, e.g. on a public forum. Whereas I can say so-and-so is using information elements in a certain way, therefore is type X.

Not to mention, what you're talking about destroys any individuality a type may have. How does one establish what a type X is if all that exists are relationships? I could come up with an equally coherent system as yours that switches each type with its conflictor, if there is no objective meaning to the information elements.

[krieger]

observation -> theory -> prediction

Your point?

my point is that a lot of the terms used in socionics, including conventionally used ones, add another, redundant step to the process: observation -> theory -> mythical narration -> prediction. the additional step is a source of a lot of erroneous thinking, because it removes the vital property of tractability from the process, which ordinarily allows for the correction of the reasoning steps involved by outside parties.

It's not really a postulate so much as a convenient way of organizing observations.

its not convenient when its full of redundancies and obfuscationisms.

IMO this has nothing to do with the "controversy" about socionics. On the contrary, I would argue that "controversy" arises primarily from people not understanding what the information elements really are about.

everybody accuses everybody else of "not understanding" these mythical terms you like to use. this is exactly the source the controversy. you are demonstrating my point by engaging in this primitive way of thinking.

To me this reads like "You are wrong, therefore you are wrong"

Obviously I will analyze their behavior, but I must do so using the categories of information elements. It's possible to wait until I know more about their relationships with other people, but that is hardly the fastest or easiest way to type someone.

like you say, the information elements are used as catagories of behavior. you are expressing an alternative formulation of my initial point. this remark is effectively a concession of said point.

lol, if you think socionics is a "religious cult" that's your problem.

there is not currently enough empirical support for classical socionics to label the field otherwise. this has nothing to do with my opinion of the practice.

Basically you're reduced to comparing people's behavior to people of known types (or possibly using their relationships, if you happen to know anything about them). While obviously everybody uses this method, it's completely useless for demonstrating your typings objectively, e.g. on a public forum. Whereas I can say so-and-so is using information elements in a certain way, therefore is type X.

you're being incoherent. "so-and-so is using information elements in a certain way" is a statement that requires justification, i.e. it begs the question of "what makes you infer this" or "how do you know", to which the answer is always some cited instance of behavior. "usage of information elements" is something that happens behind the scenes. it is not something directly perceivable, except through the perception of behavior. this brings me back to the point that behavior, rather than claims about obscure technical processes occurring within the "black box" of a person's psyche, are the less problematically real characteristics of types, and therefore the ones that are better suited to being used as a foundation for attaining knowledge of the types.

your remark about behavior being a useless means of establishing typings is to an even worse extent impossible to take seriously. at the start of the building of any personality database, perceived behavior is the only thing you have. to say you can not build a personality data base from categorizations and separations of these behavioral classes is to condemn the practice of personality categorization in its entirety.

Not to mention, what you're talking about destroys any individuality a type may have. How does one establish what a type X is if all that exists are relationships? I could come up with an equally coherent system as yours that switches each type with its conflictor, if there is no objective meaning to the information elements.

the individuality consists in the behavior. please stop misrepresenting my position on these issues.

[Exodus]

everybody accuses everybody else of "not understanding" these mythical terms you like to use. this is exactly the source the controversy. you are demonstrating my point by engaging in this primitive way of thinking.

Actually, I think talking about socionics on an online forum makes things appear unnecessarily "controversial", because there is so much more information available in person and inaccurate views can be exposed more easily.

like you say, the information elements are used as catagories of behavior. you are expressing an alternative formulation of my initial point. this remark is effectively a concession of said point.

Yes, I think we agree somewhat.

there is not currently enough empirical support for classical socionics to label the field otherwise. this has nothing to do with my opinion of the practice.

This is obviously your own opinion. I have seen plenty of empirical support for socionics in my daily life, but perhaps you haven't.

your remark about behavior being a useless means of establishing typings is to an even worse extent impossible to take seriously. at the start of the building of any personality database, perceived behavior is the only thing you have. to say you can not build a personality data base from categorizations and separations of these behavioral classes is to condemn the practice of personality categorization in its entirety.

At the start, yes, but the obvious benefit of having a theory of personality in the first place is so that you don't have to do this.

[glam]

Instead of asking "what types would someone resemble when under stress?" I would ask "what information elements would someone use when under stress?" Personally, I find that people tend to use their Id elements when they are pissed off.

actually i think people rely a lot on their Ego when they're angry and have to defend themselves and/or go on the attack. the Ego is how you most confidently communicate and deal with the world, so in a stressful, confrontational situation i think it only makes sense that people would rely on using these elements first and foremost.

[Exodus]

actually i think people rely a lot on their Ego when they're angry and have to defend themselves and/or go on the attack. the Ego is how you most confidently communicate and deal with the world, so in a stressful, confrontational situation i think it only makes sense that people would rely on using these elements first and foremost.

Yes, that too. The strong functions mostly.

[Amber]

their Dual

[ConcreteButterfly]

They'd look a bit like their contrary partner, that is ENFj if you're an INFj, ENTp if you're an INTp. The demonstrative function in particular acts self consciously during stress, it is consciously monitored so as not to provoke a POLR attack. For example, when secure an ESxj doesn't worry about their appearance or their willfulness (Se demonstrative), they just act willful, allowing their body instincts to take over. Under stress, they restrain their Se a lot to within whatever parameters their Ni POLR function allows (which has only personal experience to go on). Another example, IxTps when secure take a firm position in space, in the framework of other people's logic (Ti demonstrative), when insecure they waver in their logical position, or physically shift in space. The demonstrative function is a reliable indicator of how safe a person feels within a given context. If it is expressed spontaneously and confidently, the person feels safe, calm. If there is some hesitation, some holding back of its natural outward energy, the person is stressed out and is seeking social approval of it (in the language of their POLR function).

[ConcreteButterfly]

That makes a lot of sense. Do you have a link where someone could read more about this/examples by any chance?

I don't, I loosely based it on the socioniko.net articles though: http://www.socioniko.net/rus/index.p...mak-roslankina

And it might be more accurate to say the demonstrative function's energy gets displaced during stress, rather than repressed entirely, allowing them to maintain some autonomy over their POLR function (since the two are linked).
So an ESxj will hold back their willpower and influence in one situation, and then overexpress their will in another, to the point where they can once again control the sequence and interval of time between events (Ni polr). A stressed IxTp will concede their Ti position in one situation, and then enforce it even more strongly in another, to the point where they can once again influence the emotional atmosphere (Fe POLR). Probably if there are no suitable safe channels for the demonstrative function's energy, it continues to build up and up, at some point is released involuntarily in the most inadequate way.