Why you're not who you think you are

[ashlesha]

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

Much of the information that introspection generates is fleeting, on-the-fly construction at a particular point in time: how we think we feel, why we guess we’ve made the choices we have. By looking inward, we don’t gain access to a stable set of impressions regarding an unwavering, authentic self. We produce a temporary status report.

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

[mu4]

Nothing, typology pretty much tells you that you don't really know who you are.

Socionics basically says, you are how you process information and communicate with others.

[Galen]

The trouble I've found with "who am I" is that it's almost entirely dependent on my current mood. If I'm in a pissy mood, then I'll describe myself as pissy; if I've achieved some great accomplishment, I'll think of myself in reference to how great I think I am at the moment.

[Creepy-bg]

this is why I gave up on taking personality tests. depending on my mood, and what context I want to think about or timeframe, I can answer anywhere from agree to disagree on a significant number of questions.

[Gilly]

189: My answers to various questions can vary greatly based on my mood

Disagree|--------|--------|Agree

[ashlesha]

I think its more than "mood."

If people don't know stuff about themselves they're likely to just make it up.

styles of thinking and taking in information from the world are pretty fluffy things. the sort of things people would have to make up lol.

I'm curious if anyone even clicked the link.

[Gilly]

That website carries ads for Abilify

do not trust

[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.

[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...

[Mariano Rajoy]

As far as typology is concerned, the article does not necessarily negate personality typing.

While there is a flexible, changeable, and contextual aspect to personality, there is also a universal and unchanging aspect to personality. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Underneath the personality changes over a period of time there is a constant theme, or "information metabolism" that can be identified. The context is approached in a similar manner in each instance, even if that approach is more refined over time.

While individuals may report themselves to be "this" or "that" depending on context, it is important for type tests to ask a series of questions which help the test interpreter to identify the consistent themes which underlay the answers. Think of typology as time-lapse photography of people.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Radio]

Anyone who has any ego-consciousness at all takes it for granted that he knows himself. But the ego knows only its own contents, not the unconscious and its contents. People measure their self-knowledge by what the average person in their social environment knows of himself, but not by the real psychic facts which are for the most part hidden from them. In this respect the psyche behaves like the body, of whose physiological and anatomical structure the average person knows very little too. ["The Undiscovered Self," CW 10, par. 491.]

— Jung

[ashlesha]

i.e., coming up with an explanation on the spot for why you think you liked a pair of socks, probably doesn't have a lot to do with knowing your own personality tendencies; these are two very different natures of intrapersonal knowledge IMO.

i just saw this added on. i agree for some circumstances and disagree for others. like if somebody displays traits characteristic of heavy introversion and describes themselves as an introvert, okay, thats pretty trustworthy. generally. but if somebody is asked the kinds of questions that come up in type determination then its not any different from the sock thing at all.

i mean anything from "do you prefer someone in your life to worry about your physical welfare or to provide you with logic?" to "do you experience sensory input in a more subjective or objective fashion?" lol nobody KNOWS this shit, it doesn't cross anybodys minds to entertain these kinds of dichotomies until theyre ASKED. and then they're going to just make something up, EXACTLY like the sock thing. and if they're already inclined toward a certain type you can guess what kind of answer they'll probably come up with. because theyre just human.

[ashlesha]

also by "asked" i don't necessarily mean literally asked, not always. i mean, at the least, prompted to consider those kinds of questions because they're here in the first place.

[FDG]

Well yeah those questions are pretty lame, but tests are designed by humans, they are by no means perfect.

[NewBorn STAR]

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

[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.

[Mariano Rajoy]

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.

Good thing I know a little about Plato then, otherwise these footnotes might be confusing.

[HandiAce]

I have exercised the theory that I indeed do NOT know who I am and so look at other people to see who I want to be because I am ashamed of myself.

I mean, I'm not attracted to people that are cold and unwelcoming whatsoever. Quite the opposite. Does this mean that I was predisposed to be a cold and unapproachable person and to dislike those other kinds of people which are actually a reflection of myself?

[marooned]

Sommers doesn’t think so. He says that how we view ourselves actually changes over time and location. Even small changes in context can affect our responses in a big way.

I feel this way most of the time. It's often why I feel my identity is in shambles. I don't see a constant in there. But I can't really disbelieve there is one exactly. I don't think it's all just a relative soup. Perhaps I think of it as looking for the click or feeling where all aspects of me click. That doesn't mean I remain the same or that those aspects don't change, or even that I respond the same way to everything... but it's the feeling of an integrated "I" that I think is largely demonstrated by the psychology healthy. I don't have to be constant--that's fine. I think it's a question of internal cohesion more than what is cohesively linked together... the what can change, but cohesion can be largely retained throughout all changes. It's also about when one reflects themself back upon themself does the image create a problem or disconnect, is it seen as inadequate or disliked, or is it accepted and understood.

Regarding typology, I think this plays in with not being able to pin down my own type to any degree. I often feel they're all just models and I can try to fit myself into one or the other.