General Socionics Theory Discussion split from polikujm's "My Type" thread

[717495]

So wait, you ask people for their opinions of your type, then attack them for giving their opinion of your type?

I just don't want to hear about "socionix" and all the emotional baggage that goes along with it. So ashton's socionix typing is not respected in this thread. That also means your typing is not respected, because it's always the same as his.

I'd like to hear real comments though. If someone is going to type me INTj, they'd better have a good reason to stick me in a category with a bunch of people I don't relate to, and which is plainly obvious to others here I don't relate to.

[Galen]

I just don't want to hear about "socionix" and all the emotional baggage that goes along with it. So ashton's socionix typing is not respected in this thread. That also means your typing is not respected, because it's always the same as his.

I'd like to hear real comments though. If someone is going to type me INTj, they'd better have a good reason to stick me in a category with a bunch of people I don't relate to, and which is plainly obvious to others here I don't relate to.

And the things Ashton and I say aren't real comments? What does constitute real socionics to you, and if you already have your opinions set in stone then why would you bother to seek other people's opinions? If you don't consider socionix people to be implementing 'real' socionics, then why would you even post at all in socionix if you don't respect the people who post there or the methodologies people there use?

Something seems very wrong here, something more than socionics. This isn't adding up at all.

[717495]

And the things Ashton and I say aren't real comments?

What has ashton said: He's asbergers like niffweed, so he's INTj? Which I'm not. I've already illustrated the problems with ashton's conception of Socionics. Reread.

What does constitute real socionics to you, and if you already have your opinions set in stone then why would you bother to seek other people's opinions?

Real Socionics makes sense--it isn't excessively contradicted and isn't fishy sounding. It's something I've already found, but continue to question and change. Older posters who don't post here anymore knew about real Socionics. But the made-up subjective BS continues, and tons of conceptions have little relation to the more original writing(s). This is so obvious if you just read the forum's history, and attend to the mace of ownage Expat and others hath struck.

If you don't consider socionix people to be implementing 'real' socionics, then why would you even post at all in socionix if you don't respect the people who post there or the methodologies people there use?

It's called before and after. Cause and affect. Search and destroy.

[stanprollyright]

Real Socionics makes senses, and isn't contradicted and isn't fishy sounding. Older posters who don't post here anymore knew about real Socionics. But the made-up subjective BS continues, and tons of conceptions have little relation to the more original writing(s). This is so obvious if you just read the forum's history, and attend to the mace of ownage Expat and others hath placed.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? SOCIONICS IS SUBJECTIVE BY NATURE.

It's called before and after. Cause and affect. Search and destroy.

What?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[717495]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? SOCIONICS IS SUBJECTIVE BY NATURE.

The nature of the people understanding Socionics is subjective.

[Skeptic]

Real Socionics makes sense--it isn't excessively contradicted and isn't fishy sounding. It's something I've already found, but continue to question and change. Older posters who don't post here anymore knew about real Socionics. But the made-up subjective BS continues, and tons of conceptions have little relation to the more original writing(s). This is so obvious if you just read the forum's history, and attend to the mace of ownage Expat and others hath struck.
.

Hehe, real socionics doesn't really make sense. It points out situations that happen irl, but that doesn't make it really accurate. The explanation behind it all is really ambiguous.

As for your type, from what I've seen I think it's probably intuitive, but which one I cannot say.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If polikujm wants to be typed utilising Model A Socionics in a section dedicated to Model A Socionics, I think that's quite reasonable.

Ashton has made it quite clear that he doesn't utilise Model A Socionics.

[stanprollyright]

The nature of the people understanding Socionics is subjective.

There are no objective criteria for determining a person's type, nor is there any way to determine what facets of a personality or what factors in a relationship are "purely socionics related." Socionics is completely and unabashedly subjective.

[717495]

Hehe, real socionics doesn't really make sense. It points out situations that happen irl, but that doesn't make it really accurate. The explanation behind it all is really ambiguous.

As for your type, from what I've seen I think it's probably intuitive, but which one I cannot say.

I agree. My reference to sense was just in terms of an element I've read many people talk about and discuss in this forum, and the element which some have proven, and the element that some just don't have and who have been shunned prior for their lack of knowledge about. I just recommend reading the forum's history and getting a grasp on why most people here, who have been here for longer than a lot of new people, prefer Expat and Rick's translation of augusta's work--and how smaller more insignificant forces have come into conflict with their ideas and have not made good impressions on a number of our people.

There are no objective criteria for determining a person's type, nor is there any way to determine what facets of a personality or what factors in a relationship are "purely socionics related." Socionics is completely and unabashedly subjective.

Get a grip, man.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Galen]

Real Socionics makes sense--it isn't excessively contradicted and isn't fishy sounding. It's something I've already found, but continue to question and change. Older posters who don't post here anymore knew about real Socionics. But the made-up subjective BS continues, and tons of conceptions have little relation to the more original writing(s). This is so obvious if you just read the forum's history, and attend to the mace of ownage Expat and others hath struck.

Okay. So, what is it?

[717495]

Okay. So, what is it?

Please, just read.

[Galen]

Please, just read.

:|

[stanprollyright]

Yes there are, there are no accurate testing methods yet, but that's a different thing.

Like what? The elements don't exist, they aren't even well-defined. The model doesn't either, it is precisely that: a model. It symbolically represents the processes by which we "metabolize" information.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Like what? The elements don't exist, they aren't even well-defined. The model doesn't either, it is precisely that: a model. It symbolically represents the processes by which we "metabolize" information.

Well-defined compared to what?
How does being a model mean that the model doesn't exist?
What processes are you talking of?

[stanprollyright]

Well-defined compared to what?

Anything you can consider objective. For example: you can tell the difference between a fruit and a vegetable because there are objective and observable traits that define them.

How does being a model mean that the model doesn't exist?

There isn't a little Model A of stacked elements in everyone's brain - it's simply something to aid our understanding our the human psyche.

What processes are you talking of?

Processes within the brain that are too complex to be understood without a nice little model that simplifies things.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Anything you can consider objective. For example: you can tell the difference between a fruit and a vegetable because there are objective and observable traits that define them.



There isn't a little Model A of stacked elements in everyone's brain - it's simply something to aid our understanding our the human psyche.



Processes within the brain that are too complex to be understood without a nice little model that simplifies things.

How do you know it aids our understanding of the human psyche?

[stanprollyright]

How do you know it aids our understanding of the human psyche?

Maybe it hinders it, but its purpose is to aid.

[Marie84]

hmm...I don't know enough about Poli to type him/her, but this seems like a fairly insubstantial argument, Marie (aka other people type Poli as ILI hence he's ILI...). Sorry to point that out.

I'm not stating any certainties here, rather it's something that holds weight, IMO of course, when you have people who have shown themselves to have credibility with their understanding of a subject, in this case classical Model A, provide an opinion or/and analysis for the very subject you're seeking information for

Also, i really don't see how that particular quote from Poli points towards Te > Ti - all he's stating is he *trusts*, for lack of a better word, certain members and not others...

I see that statement as showing more of a concern about the content of the information over the revised versions of Socionics that are implemented here, particularly by many of the Betas who often rewrite content to fit with their own subjective understanding.
They're only a few who do this, and they're pariahs to many on this board, particularly the few Gammas

[Not A Communist Shill]

Maybe it hinders it, but its purpose is to aid.

...and yet if it's purpose was to attempt to be objective through various means, it somehow becomes completely subjective in your view?

[stanprollyright]

...and yet if it's purpose was to attempt to be objective through various means, it somehow becomes completely subjective in your view?

That's my point: I don't think socionics even attempts to be objective.

[Skeptic]

That's my point: I don't think socionics even attempts to be objective.

Eh, socionics does attempt to be objective. It has objectively defined elements, ego blocks, types etc. It's just in our application of trying to identify those elements in other people does it then become subjective, right? I mean, I could give you a definition of Te and we would all agree?

[stanprollyright]

Eh, socionics does attempt to be objective. It has objectively defined elements, ego blocks, types etc. It's just in our application of trying to identify those elements in other people does it then become subjective, right? I mean, I could give you a definition of Te and we would all agree?

No, that's the problem, we wouldn't all agree on the definition of Te. And even if we did, we wouldn't all agree on how it manifests. There are no behaviors that we can define as only Te behaviors. The model, the elements, the blocks, the types, they are all defined relative to themselves, but only vaguely defined in terms of actual observable people and behavior.

[Skeptic]

No, that's the problem, we wouldn't all agree on the definition of Te. And even if we did, we wouldn't all agree on how it manifests. There are no behaviors that we can define as only Te behaviors. The model, the elements, the blocks, the types, they are all defined relative to themselves, but only vaguely defined in terms of actual observable people and behavior.

You're right about some things, like how no behavior is solely one function and how you can't say for certain what behaviors are perfectly indicative of a certain type; every behavior is due to a combination of functions working together/an independent person making that behavior.

However, I still think there is a standard to which we are all held when identifying IEs in other people. While that standard may not be wikisocion or Rick or any one definition, we can obtain a grasp of the informational elements through contact with all types and by making the connections to various tentative defintions. Our learning and application is subjective, but the IEs and types exist as objective elements that we can learn to understand subjectively.

[stanprollyright]

However, I still think there is a standard to which we are all held when identifying IEs in other people. While that standard may not be wikisocion or Rick or any one definition, we can obtain a grasp of the informational elements through contact with all types and by making the connections to various tentative defintions. Our learning and application is subjective, but the IEs and types exist as objective elements that we can learn to understand subjectively.

The elements are not objective things that we understand subjectively, they ARE the subjective understanding. They are the lens through which we view the mind, not part of the mind itself.

I do agree that the elements need better definitions that are more precise and distinct, leaving less room for interpretation and more for consensus. But this wouldn't make socionics objective, just collectively subjective.

[Skeptic]

The elements are not objective things that we understand subjectively, they ARE the subjective understanding. They are the lens through which we view the mind, not part of the mind itself.

I do agree that the elements need better definitions that are more precise and distinct, leaving less room for interpretation and more for consensus. But this wouldn't make socionics objective, just collectively subjective.

Through the different IE colored lenses we can begin to understand other IE colors as they relate to us, and though different people/types look one way to us and another to a different IE lense, it is called by the same name. In this way we can have a subjective understanding through our type (our IE lenses) but still achieve consensus. The definitions, in this case, would have to pay special care to be a objective, unbias and unemotional as possible to prevent an IE working its way into the description.

That is to say that to an ILI, the EIE is one way, and to the LSI, the EIE is another. they are two seperate interpretations and POVs, yet both call the EIE an EIE.

Idk how abstract you want to get; if you suppose the IEs exist, you suppose that they are the same in each type though their emphasis and use differ from person to person; i.e. Te shows itself differently in the LSE than the LIE, and also differently in John and Jack who are two LSEs, but individual people, but it is still Te.

[Gilly]

I see that statement as showing more of a concern about the content of the information over the revised versions of Socionics that are implemented here, particularly by many of the Betas who often rewrite content to fit with their own subjective understanding.
They're only a few who do this, and they're pariahs to many on this board, particularly the few Gammas

Ok so who are these "pariahs"

Seriously I don't see it, you seem to be projecting high school-esque cliquishness onto an online forum that is a pretty loose social amalgam.

[717495]

Jung, Kepinski, Aushra, Gulenko… >>> Niffweed, Expat, et al.…

Jung isn't the same thing as Socionics, but you like to use his types in terms of defending your Socionics type. There's a poll on this forum where members vote for who their favorite Socionicist is. And you didn't score many votes. Expat, Rick, and Aushra tied for highest. Diana was pretty high in votes too.

Don't just preach it. Prove it.

This should be your signature, so maybe it will remind you to delete all the things you post.

[717495]

I also think the fact that Niffweed sees you as a probable ILI (and I think Expat and Rick too?) certainly gives a substantial amount of weight to the credibility of that typing

I do agree. I think those curious about any of this should refer to these people and their analyses. Or else continue to mindlessly play your words around the forum not have them stand for anything in this forum's past--lest you know what I'm talking about. I see the same ridiculous things being reinvented by those who care to read and learn.

They're only a few who do this, and they're pariahs to many on this board, particularly the few Gammas

I'm honestly not planning on staying on this forum much longer, due to vast majority of irrelevant subjective opinions that many beta TI valuers who rely on their own systems have and defy true authority on the topic. After a while, it's just sort of pointless trying to defend yourself in this type of environment, hearing all the attempts to contradict the facts with layman's logic. Obvious ignorance to my ears. It was better back when we had some Gamma socionicists, and I've had to mostly live parallel to their time and stay true to the old discussions. I'm not the best at clarifying these, which is why I don't really see myself as a value to this forum, but I have been known to make some excellent points last year that showed my understanding about it.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[717495]

Jung is integral to the very core foundations of Socionics, whether you like it or not. Aushra derived Socionics from her understandings of the 8 Jungian functions, and she makes no great mystery of this fact. She never claimed to make them up herself nor have I seen it said that she made radical departures from them. Which is the usual trend—knowledge advances by gradually building upon previous knowledge, not thrown it out and drastically reinventing something entirely new in its place. And nowhere am I aware of it actually written that "Jungian functions ≠ Socionics functions" or that two must be considered as fundamentally different theoretical constructs pertaining to the understanding of IEs.

More of your pointless arguments.

Okay… ? Why is this at all relevant to bring up? It's not useful as evidence for proving any of your outstanding arguments on whether my Socionics POVs are valid or not. It adds nothing logical to your argument whatsoever and appeals to consensus are generally not an accepted form of proof in most disciplines, except perhaps in marketing or politics, etc.

Because it's obvious that you don't use Socionics. Yes it's also obvious that barely anyone agrees with who you say are duals and in the same quadra, but that's still not the point.

[Absurd]

Because it's obvious that you don't use Socionics.

What does he use ?

[717495]

What does he use ?

He'll tell you all about it (or will he?) See if you can get anything out of him, even if it's not Model A related, doesn't matter. As long as you can get some sort of learning experience from him. It's not even worth talking about anymore for me. Any more questions about ashton, model x, or impressions of jung, direct to ashton.

[Absurd]

See if you can get anything out of him...

... even if it's not Model A related, doesn't matter. As long as you can get some sort of learning experience from him. It's not even worth talking about anymore for me. Any more questions about ashton, direct to ashton.

Alright.

[crazedrat]

Too many people use the argument 'it's not classical socionics' by default when they know nothing about it. Maybe if the statement was accompanied by some minor attempt to refute the claims then it would be semi meaningful.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[crazedrat]

I don't really care whether something is from Augusta or Tcaud as long as it makes sense. I see no reason to hold onto the past..

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[stanprollyright]

Damnit people, I'm not dissing your precious little theory. All I'm saying is that it is interpretive by nature! That doesn't discount its relevance or accuracy, and it doesn't need you to defend it.

Dude, what world are you living in? You can tell the difference between sin and cos, between happiness and depression, between accepted behavior and delinquency, and a lot of other things that are not as simple as vegetables and fruits, still, by objective meanings. What you could probably say is that Socionics is very complex, not enough explained, not very clear, etc. This subjectivism is people's, this is why we have arguments, because each one has his own version, but not that each one is correct in his own way.

Sine and Cosine are objective truths in math, correct. Socionics is not math.

Happiness is completely subjective. The only way to know if someone is happy is to interpret their emotional signals (or believe them when they tell you). There is no objective qualifying definition for happiness. The IM elements are defined in a similar manner to happiness.

Depression, on the other hand, is a condition that has actual symptoms, many of them observable to a third party. The symptoms are still subjective, but since they are well-defined there is a great deal of consensus about what is and isn't depression. Socionics needs to be this well-defined.

Accepted behavior and delinquency is also completely subjective, hence why we need a judicial branch of government to interpret what is and isn't lawbreaking.

As for everyone being correct in their own way...that's not what I'm saying at all. A person is like a scatterplot of behaviors and thoughts, and socionics type is the trend line. There is almost definitely one trend line that best fits the data, the trick is to find which one it is while not being able to see the entire data set.

Through the different IE colored lenses we can begin to understand other IE colors as they relate to us, and though different people/types look one way to us and another to a different IE lense, it is called by the same name. In this way we can have a subjective understanding through our type (our IE lenses) but still achieve consensus. The definitions, in this case, would have to pay special care to be a objective, unbias and unemotional as possible to prevent an IE working its way into the description.

Consensus is very important, but it does not produce objectivity. And I don't mean that our own IEs are the lens with which we view the world (obviously this is true, but not what I was referring to), I mean that the theory itself, looking at behavior and saying "this is Se, this is Ti" is the lens. Since there is no behavior that is inherently linked to one element, we must INTERPRET this behavior to fit it into one of our IM element boxes.

Okay… ? Why is this at all relevant to bring up? It's not useful as evidence for proving any of your outstanding arguments on whether my Socionics POVs are valid or not. It adds nothing logical to your argument whatsoever and appeals to consensus are generally not an accepted form of proof in most disciplines, except perhaps in marketing or politics, etc.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia