Opposite temperaments - same quadra

[Ezra]

EPs perceive IJs as too predictable and boring, too unwilling to do things on the spur of the moment.

IJs see EPs as unreliable, and too unpredictable in their impulses and initiatives.

IPs see EJs as annoyingly pushy and insistent in their initiatives; they may respect their energy levels but also wonder if they don't see that a lot of that energy is spent wastefully to no good purpose.

EJs see IP as unpredictable, moody, as well as too passive and unreliable, especially if they are required to show initiative or even reciprocity.

If all this is true, how do mirrors work so well? For example, an ESE and an SEI should see each other as the latter two descriptions, which are negative, whereas the description of mirrors is almost entirely positive:

Partners can be themselves around each other without causing misunderstandings. Partners have a correct intuitive understanding of each other and are rarely surprised by anything the other does or says. Arguments are very rare. They always have things to say on the same topics and easily come to a consensus, but at the same time put opposite emphasis on things, creating a revisionary effect. These relations are highly verbally oriented, with partners discussing their hobby topics (and avoiding most others) and revising and adding to each other's views. Partners tire from the discussionary nature of the relationship and try to separate for work and rest. Partners immediately liven up when someone else shows up who is the dual of one and the activator of the other partner.

[Kristiina]

If all this is true, how do mirrors work so well?

in my experience, they don't. That's because I feel my mirror never quite gets what I'm saying. But we're similar enough to assume we're exactly the same.

[Ezra]

in my experience, they don't.

So you don't agree with the mirror description?

That's because I feel my mirror never quite gets what I'm saying.

Maybe you're not an EIE, then.

But we're similar enough to assume we're exactly the same.

But you're not, are you? You value and devalue the same functions, are as good and crap as each other at the same functions, but the ordering is different. Your ego blocks are switched around.

[Slacker]

Life is complicated. It's possible to generally get along with someone, despite seeing that person as unreliable, pushy, or whatever.

[Phaedrus]

If all this is true

It is all true.

how do mirrors work so well?

When they work well together, the main reason is that they communicate well. They understand each other's way of thinking, they accept the same arguments as valid, and they often come to the same conclusions. Related to the last point is that they share the same world outlook to some extent, but that aspect is slightly overrated (especially on this ridiculously quadra-focused forum).

[Phaedrus]

But at the same time, each share the same quadra values, etc. too and so there is common ground between the two as well (despite what Phaedrus says).

That was exactly what I said, so there is no "despite". They have a common ground in that they communicate well due to using the same functions in the ego block, and they have another kind of common ground in that they are both members of the same Socionics Club. The latter aspect is at least as important as the former.

[Phaedrus]

"No, the two types are completely different. You must see this. To not see this means that you do not have a sufficient understanding of socionics. I suggest that you go back to your study chamber and read the descriptions."

You know what I meant by that (if you don't you're an idiot). They are completely different in behaviour -- which is exactly what the temperaments are about. But they are similar in their thinking -- which is exactly what the functions are about. Even a kid should be able to understand this properly.

[Phaedrus]

And in my type thread I said that I LIKED both descriptions; I never said that I IDENTIFY with both. I said that I identify with the INTj one more (than the ENTp one --- in terms of identifying with the IJ temperament).

Who cares which description you happen to like? Such a comment is totally irrelevant, so you got what you deserved.

[Logos]

Who cares which description you happen to like? Such a comment is totally irrelevant, so you got what you deserved.

What did she get?

[Creepy-bg]

What did she get?

[Phaedrus]

What did she get?

A totally correct and true answer to a totally irrelevant statement. I have said that if you can't see the obvious differences in behaviour between two Mirrors, and if you can't determine which of two Mirror type descriptions is not you, then you don't understand the types -- and that is of course still completely true, despite whatever description you happen to like in those situations.

[Phaedrus]

Fuck you, Phaedrus. Unhealthy ISTj.

Another definite proof that you don't understand the types.

[Ezra]

Phaedrus, can I ask why you believe the type descriptions, clubs and temperaments are either equally as or more important than the functions?

[Phaedrus]

"Like both descriptions" means that I acknowledge the shared quadra values, etc. you dumb fuck. If you don't like my vocabulary, then get fucked because to suggest that your vocabulary:

"No, the two types are completely different. You must see this. To not see this means that you do not have a sufficient understanding of socionics. I suggest that you go back to your study chamber and read the descriptions."

is any better (in regards to acknowledging that mirror types share common ground) is nothing but an act of complete and utter ridiculousness and arrogance.

I am arrogant, and I am right. And you are spreading irrelevant comments around. Now, go back to your study chamber.

[Phaedrus]

Ha ha, you're an ISTj.

If laughing makes you happy, please laugh. Some people even think that might change the world. Maybe you can turn me into an ISTj by doing it.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, can I ask why you believe the type descriptions, clubs and temperaments are either equally as or more important than the functions?

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of knowledge. I know that they are equally important in the sense that those three aspects of the types can never ever contradict each other. They are always perfectly in line with each other in a correct typing.

[Brilliand]

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of knowledge. I know that they are equally important in the sense that those three aspects of the types can never ever contradict each other. They are always perfectly in line with each other in a correct typing.

Ermf... not true. Socionics doesn't describe behavior, it describes nature. If you have learned to behave in a way that isn't natural, you will display traits that do not match your type.

[Creepy-bg]

Ermf... not true. Socionics doesn't describe behavior, it describes nature. If you have learned to behave in a way that isn't natural, you will display traits that do not match your type.

!!!!!!!!!

+50004

[Phaedrus]

Irrelevant. This makes you sound like you Ne PoLR. Do you want to have Ne PoLR? I didn't think so.

Why not? It would be really interesting to experience the world from such a perspective for a change.

[Phaedrus]

Socionics doesn't describe behavior, it describes nature.

Every behaviour is a part of nature. There is no difference. Now, go back to your study chamber and read some type descriptions.

If you have learned to behave in a way that isn't natural, you will display traits that do not match your type.

No, that's impossible. Every possible behaviour is a natural consequence of what you are, even those that are not the most common for your type. If you understand them correctly, you will not make mistypings. It's all about how much you know about the types. Now, please learn some more about them before you make more false statments.

[Phaedrus]

Gordon is awesome:



Be more like Gordon, Phaedrus.

Yes, he is a good role model. He is almost always right, at least in his programs. But unfortunately he doesn't have Ne PoLR.

[Brilliand]

Every behaviour is a part of nature. There is no difference. Now, go back to your study chamber and read some type descriptions.

No, that's impossible. Every possible behaviour is a natural consequence of what you are, even those that are not the most common for your type. If you understand them correctly, you will not make mistypings. It's all about how much you know about the types. Now, please learn some more about them before you make more false statments.

Socionics is not the only thing that explains why you behave the way you do. Past experiences do as well, but past experiences must not affect typings.

The only way to understand something correctly is to understand its definition. The types are defined in terms of the element positions, not in terms of the descriptions.

[Phaedrus]

Socionics is not the only thing that explains why you behave the way you do. Past experiences do as well, but past experiences must not affect typings.

Correct. And I haven't disputed that. I said that you can't behave in a way that is not natural for your type, which contradicts your statement about natural behaviour. You always fit the type descriptions of your correct type.

The only way to understand something correctly is to understand its definition.

That is a completely false statement. Read some more semantics, some more philosophy, and perhaps some more psychology too. Your ignorance is embarrassing.

The types are defined in terms of the element positions, not in terms of the descriptions.

They are defined both in terms of the element positions and in terms of the descriptions. And the types exist in themselves independently of both too. Why can't you learn the basics of Socionics?

[Brilliand]

Correct. And I haven't disputed that. I said that you can't behave in a way that is not natural for your type, which contradicts your statement about natural behaviour. You always fit the type descriptions of your correct type.

No - a person's behavior can be distorted in any way by past experience. Types are tendencies, not absolutes - any given action can be performed by any type.

Now this is insane - what is an ILI doing telling an LII about absolutes?

That is a completely false statement. Read some more semantics, some more philosophy, and perhaps some more psychology too. Your ignorance is embarrassing.

The definition is the only thing that cannot be flawed. Anything else is subject to doubt, and is only appropriate when you're willing to sacrifice accuracy for efficiency.

They are defined both in terms of the element positions and in terms of the descriptions. And the types exist in themselves independently of both too. Why can't you learn the basics of Socionics?

The basis of socionics is the elements and functions. The descriptions are merely observations about those. A type cannot have multiple definitions - one will be the definition, and the rest will be descriptions.

[Brilliand]

(For the record, here I was just stirring him up. I don't have a strong opinion on what his type is. I don't care what type he is. He's too much like a broken record player to discuss it productively with.)

Baiting him? How could you?

I don't know, you were pretty convincing. I think I'll go ahead and be convinced even though you didn't mean it.

Now this is insane - what is an ILI doing telling an LII about absolutes?

I felt the same way arguing with an SLE pacifist.

[Brilliand]

Well if you must continue on with Phaedrus, you might want to borrow this:



* photo courtesy of Subterranean (I think)

That SLE was worse anyway. I'm starting to wonder if she's actually SEE. Or LSI or ESI or... well anyway, she's stubborn. Phaedrus is comforting in that he actually reads everything I type.

[Expat]

No - a person's behavior can be distorted in any way by past experience. Types are tendencies, not absolutes - any given action can be performed by any type.


The definition is the only thing that cannot be flawed. Anything else is subject to doubt, and is only appropriate when you're willing to sacrifice accuracy for efficiency.


The basis of socionics is the elements and functions. The descriptions are merely observations about those. A type cannot have multiple definitions - one will be the definition, and the rest will be descriptions.

Very well put.

If all this is true, how do mirrors work so well? For example, an ESE and an SEI should see each other as the latter two descriptions, which are negative, whereas the description of mirrors is almost entirely positive:

As Slacker Mom and others have said, things are complicated. Mirrors belong in the same quadra and are likely to have similar interests, or at least to understand each other's interests; in a world full of people of different quadras, interests, values, etc, a mirror is often a rare gem, and as you come to appreciate the person, the opposing temperaments are seen as a source of minor annoyance and bafflement, but not enough to ruin the relationship.

If you use to deconstruct every socionics relationship in order to find out reasons why they shouldn't work, you'll conclude that the only one that could possibly work is duality - and perhaps not even duality.

[Phaedrus]

No - a person's behavior can be distorted in any way by past experience.

Wrong. Your behaviour can only be distorted within certain limits that are determined by your inborn type -- unless your brain's structure is modified by severe brain damages, in which case it might be disputable if you are still the same type or not.

Types are tendencies, not absolutes - any given action can be performed by any type.

Wrong. Types are absolutes, because they are inborn structures of your brain, resulting in, for example, differences in body and facial structures that can be observed in V.I. And even though, in a very trivial sense, any action can be performed by any type, they don't perform it in the same way, and it is possible to spot those differences in performing the same action.

Now this is insane - what is an ILI doing telling an LII about absolutes?

It is a false myth that LIIs are more inclined to think in absolutes than ILIs. They simply don't, and that fact is supported with tons of observations. In the sense we talk about "absolutes" here, as in absolute truths, absolute structures of the world, inborn traits, etc., ILIs are definitely more of "absolutists" and LIIs are definitely more of "relativists". That phenomenon is recognized by every true LII and every true ILI on this forum. Check for yourself by asking them.

The definition is the only thing that cannot be flawed.

Wrong. Definitions are often flawed in many ways. You can even have definitions of certain concepts, like the concept "soul" or the concept "God", that are internally inconsistent, which means that the referent to the concept cannot exist, because something that is logically impossible cannot exist.

The basis of socionics is the elements and functions. The descriptions are merely observations about those.

Totally wrong. (I really hate that people have been brainwashed to believe in this myth.) The basis of Socionics (and the basis of any typology) is observations. And what we observe are differences and similarities in people's behaviours. Those differences and similarities form general patterns, and those patterns are put together to form what we call "types". The elements and functions, on the other hand, are merely attempts to explain the empirically observable types in a theoretical framework. The theoreitical framework is not necessarily true, because we can't observe the functions directly. What we can observe is outer behaviours. The functions are only theoretical postulates that we don't even know if they exist.

A type cannot have multiple definitions - one will be the definition, and the rest will be descriptions.

Wrong. The types are defined by their functions ordering in the psyche, they are defined by the four dichotomies, they are defined by the Reinin dichotomies, they are defined (or at least demarcated) by the type profiles, etc., and they exist independently of all of those dimensions in themselves as inborn brain structures in the people we can observe in the world today and in history.

[Brilliand]

Very well put.

Thank you.

Wrong. Your behaviour can only be distorted within certain limits that are determined by your inborn type -- unless your brain's structure is modified by severe brain damages, in which case it might be disputable if you are still the same type or not.

When presented with a situation, you make the response that you have learned to be correct, not necessarily the response that your type determines. You may not enjoy making this response, but it will take time with healthy, beneficial types to work off the habit.

Wrong. Types are absolutes, because they are inborn structures of your brain, resulting in, for example, differences in body and facial structures that can be observed in V.I. And even though, in a very trivial sense, any action can be performed by any type, they don't perform it in the same way, and it is possible to spot those differences in performing the same action.

How do you know that the inborn structures have an effect outside of information processing? This is an extraordinary claim. I can accept that certain types' behavioral tendencies will give them certain appearances, but there is no reason to assume that inborn brain structure is related to inborn body structure.

This "trivial sense" is really not limited in its impact. We try to catch these strange behaviors and allow for them, but some people do slip through the cracks. Typing works better when watching reactions to strange situations than when watching habitual behavior - provided the subject hasn't been trained to react to strange situations in a certain way.

It is a false myth that LIIs are more inclined to think in absolutes than ILIs. They simply don't, and that fact is supported with tons of observations. In the sense we talk about "absolutes" here, as in absolute truths, absolute structures of the world, inborn traits, etc., ILIs are definitely more of "absolutists" and LIIs are definitely more of "relativists". That phenomenon is recognized by every true LII and every true ILI on this forum. Check for yourself by asking them.

OK - so it's an Ne/Se issue rather than a Ti/Te one.

Perhaps LIIs will make absolute statements that others are allowed to dispute, whereas ILIs will make general observations and not allow disagreement. Does that make sense?

Wrong. Definitions are often flawed in many ways. You can even have definitions of certain concepts, like the concept "soul" or the concept "God", that are internally inconsistent, which means that the referent to the concept cannot exist, because something that is logically impossible cannot exist.

Definitions are true by definition. But you think the definitions of "soul" and "God" are internally inconsistent, I challenge you to show me the inconsistency - I have a special interest in those terms. But I think you will find from the outset that you are really complaining about descriptions.

God: Creator of the universe
Soul: Part of a human that is capable of consciousness after the body dies

If the definition is flawed, then there's no point in trying to describe it, as it isn't even clear what you're describing.

Totally wrong. (I really hate that people have been brainwashed to believe in this myth.) The basis of Socionics (and the basis of any typology) is observations. And what we observe are differences and similarities in people's behaviours. Those differences and similarities form general patterns, and those patterns are put together to form what we call "types". The elements and functions, on the other hand, are merely attempts to explain the empirically observable types in a theoretical framework. The theoreitical framework is not necessarily true, because we can't observe the functions directly. What we can observe is outer behaviours. The functions are only theoretical postulates that we don't even know if they exist.

Observations are a way to find a basis. They can't be a basis in themselves - they're too often inconsistent.

Like it or not, the theoretical framework is Socionics. The emperical types, not governed by this framework, are classical psychology with its random dichotomies and endless list of disorders.

Wrong. The types are defined by their functions ordering in the psyche, they are defined by the four dichotomies, they are defined by the Reinin dichotomies, they are defined (or at least demarcated) by the type profiles, etc., and they exist independently of all of those dimensions in themselves as inborn brain structures in the people we can observe in the world today and in history.

Now, defining them by the Jungian dichotomies works; the Jungian dichotomies are consistent with the functions, and vise-versa. The Reinin dichotomies are redundant, and so can contradict each other. Not an acceptable definition, although a great description. The type profiles are so repetitive as to be ridiculous.

However, Socionics is founded on the functions; that's where the intertype relationships come from, and why MBTI (with its Jungian dichotomy foundation) keeps getting the intertype relationships wrong.

The inborn brain structures are just an application of Socionics, they aren't part of the definition. The definition must stand on its own.

[schrödinger's cat]

What SlackerMom and Expat said. Plus: those differences can be stimulating and interesting.

[Expat]

The Reinin dichotomies are redundant, and so can contradict each other. Not an acceptable definition, although a great description.

The Reinin dichotomies do not define any type, except perhaps in Smilexian socionics; in classical socionics, what defines a type is the functional ordering.

[Brilliand]

God: Creator of the universe
Soul: Part of a human that is capable of consciousness after the body dies

Phaedrus, by the way, I'm not entirely sure these are the best definitions - I'm hoping for some discussion (as befits the Researcher club). Not that I believe these to be false, but some other definitions might be more appropriate.

The Reinin dichotomies do not define any type, except perhaps in Smilexian socionics; in classical socionics, what defines a type is the functional ordering.

Gotcha. So the Reinin dichotomies do work as a definition (because they can derive the functions), they just aren't normally used that way.

[Blaze]

just getting on this bandwagon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brilliand
The basis of socionics is the elements and functions. The descriptions are merely observations about those.

Totally wrong. (I really hate that people have been brainwashed to believe in this myth.) The basis of Socionics (and the basis of any typology) is observations. And what we observe are differences and similarities in people's behaviours. Those differences and similarities form general patterns, and those patterns are put together to form what we call "types". The elements and functions, on the other hand, are merely attempts to explain the empirically observable types in a theoretical framework. The theoreitical framework is not necessarily true, because we can't observe the functions directly. What we can observe is outer behaviours. The functions are only theoretical postulates that we don't even know if they exist.

i actually agree with ezra on this one. the world is inherently chaotic and disordered. we try to make sense of it. socionics is one way we do this.

[Ezra]

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of knowledge. I know that they are equally important in the sense that those three aspects of the types can never ever contradict each other. They are always perfectly in line with each other in a correct typing.

See, Phaedrus, this is why people think you have Te PoLR. You are so shit with the barebone facts. You construct elaborate bullshit to justify absolutely nothing, and you never answer the qiestion.

[Ezra]

just getting on this bandwagon.



i actually agree with ezra on this one. the world is inherently chaotic and disordered. we try to make sense of it. socionics is one way we do this.

What Brilliand said; what you quoted; that was totally right.

[Phaedrus]

How do you know that the inborn structures have an effect outside of information processing? This is an extraordinary claim.

It is much more extraordinary to assume that they don't have such an effect. That would be equivalent to a scientific revolution.

I can accept that certain types' behavioral tendencies will give them certain appearances, but there is no reason to assume that inborn brain structure is related to inborn body structure.

You are totally wrong about that too. It is extremely unlikely that your inborn brain structure is not related to your body structure. And the reason is that we have too few genes. But this is not the place to delve in depth into this. You seem to be rather uneducated in this area, so I suggest that you study some genetics and some neuro-biology.

OK - so it's an Ne/Se issue rather than a Ti/Te one.

No, it is certainly not.

Perhaps LIIs will make absolute statements that others are allowed to dispute, whereas ILIs will make general observations and not allow disagreement. Does that make sense?

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what exactly you have in mind. I suggest that you look at concrete real life examples of each type. Look at how LIIs behave, what they say, how they say it, etc. Compare them with ILIs, what attitudes they express etc. Do you have any clear examples of each type that we can discuss?

God: Creator of the universe
Soul: Part of a human that is capable of consciousness after the body dies

Are those your proposed definitions of the terms "God" and "soul"? Do you think that they are sufficient and that they capture exactly what you mean by those terms? Or do you want to add something to them?

The emperical types, not governed by this framework, are classical psychology with its random dichotomies and endless list of disorders.

Wrong. The socionic types are totally based on Jung's eight types. That is what we (or rather Augusta) started with. Those types were observed to exist by Jung, and Augusta observed them before she tried to explain their intertype relationsships.

However, Socionics is founded on the functions; that's where the intertype relationships come from

Do you really believe what you are saying here? How can you be so ignorant? How can you be so brainwashed? Don't you check if what others say to you is true? You are brainwashed. That's a fact.

Here is the truth again: Augusta observed the types in interaction. She thought that the Jungian framework was the best explanation for what she could observe. The functions are thus the explanation -- not the starting point. The intertype relations were observed first, then came the functional explanation. Why is that so hard to understand for you?

The inborn brain structures are just an application of Socionics, they aren't part of the definition. The definition must stand on its own.

Are you really that stupid? Brain structures can be observed by using brain scanners. They are totally independent of Socionics. And definitions is another thing too. Don't confuse definitions with brain structures.

[Ezra]

The intertype relations were observed first, then came the functional explanation. Why is that so hard to understand for you?

Intertype relations are the functions, dickhead.

[Phaedrus]

Intertype relations are the functions, dickhead.

... ... That is probably the most incredibly stupid thing you have said so far on this forum. Back to your study chamber. Now! Immediately!

[Ezra]

It's funny when you say that Phaedrus, because it means you have nothing worth saying.

[Brilliand]

... ... That is probably the most incredibly stupid thing you have said so far on this forum. Back to your study chamber. Now! Immediately!

Ezra, your statement is nonsense unless we read between the lines.

Phaedrus, I think what he meant was that the intertype relationships come from studying how the functions should work together, not from trying every possible combination of people and seeing what happens.

It is much more extraordinary to assume that they don't have such an effect. That would be equivalent to a scientific revolution.

It depends on what kind of effect we're talking about. The body type is not inborn - it is caused, over time, by the working of the brain type. I just meant that the body shape most likely isn't a genetic feature caused by the same genes that cause the brain type.

You are totally wrong about that too. It is extremely unlikely that your inborn brain structure is not related to your body structure. And the reason is that we have too few genes. But this is not the place to delve in depth into this. You seem to be rather uneducated in this area, so I suggest that you study some genetics and some neuro-biology.

We have how few genes? The number of genes we have is insane. I don't think it's time to start calling them limited yet. Current estimates are in the 20,000 to 25,000 range - based on brief research, so I'd be willing to consider another number, if you have a source.

Anyway, you aren't going to chase me off by saying I have to get two Ph.D's to earn the right to contradict you.

No, it is certainly not.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what exactly you have in mind. I suggest that you look at concrete real life examples of each type. Look at how LIIs behave, what they say, how they say it, etc. Compare them with ILIs, what attitudes they express etc. Do you have any clear examples of each type that we can discuss?

You consider yourself ILI, right? Let's take, for the sake of argument, me as the canonical LII and you as the canonical ILI.

In that case, you are completely unyielding and confident, while I am more in search of absolutes, sometimes rejecting things just because they don't seem absolute enough. on my part and on your part, perhaps? (Breaking things down to the functions will allow me to apply them to all types, in different ways)

Are those your proposed definitions of the terms "God" and "soul"? Do you think that they are sufficient and that they capture exactly what you mean by those terms? Or do you want to add something to them?

I consider them sufficient to differentiate "God" from "not God" and "soul" from "not soul." Anything beyond those definitions is a description, and can be disputed without disputing the existence of God or souls.

Wrong. The socionic types are totally based on Jung's eight types. That is what we (or rather Augusta) started with. Those types were observed to exist by Jung, and Augusta observed them before she tried to explain their intertype relationsships.

I'm not familiar with those, but from brief research, it looks like Jung's eight types are the eight functions.

Do you really believe what you are saying here? How can you be so ignorant? How can you be so brainwashed? Don't you check if what others say to you is true? You are brainwashed. That's a fact.

Here is the truth again: Augusta observed the types in interaction. She thought that the Jungian framework was the best explanation for what she could observe. The functions are thus the explanation -- not the starting point. The intertype relations were observed first, then came the functional explanation. Why is that so hard to understand for you?[/quote]

Ah - Ti/Ni conflict. By "basis," I mean the most thorough and concise explanation that resulted from the work, not the first step. Usually the first step is a horrible mess.

Are you really that stupid? Brain structures can be observed by using brain scanners. They are totally independent of Socionics. And definitions is another thing too. Don't confuse definitions with brain structures.

No, I'm not that stupid, you just agreed with me. Brain structures are not part of Socionics, it's just that most of us hope that they are related in some way.

However, my position is that Socionics stands on its own axioms, and may be useful or useless depending on how well it matches reality.