so who did you bully into writing this for you? typical SLE move :8*
Printable View
so who did you bully into writing this for you? typical SLE move :8*
i hope you wouldn't claim that all, or even most people do some of these things (though it obviously varies by individual).
:lol: yeah, whose lunch money did you steal? (;Quote:
Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
Generally I liked this post, but I have a question about this section:
How can you figure out which characteristics are due to situational events, upbringing, or social influence so you can separate them out when trying to type someone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Herzy
alright cool, I understand what you're getting at
but then are you assuming that we are born with a type?
then maybe characteristics due to upbringing (as distinct from situational influences) shouldn't be dismissed
yep fair enoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Herzy
i think you're wasting your time in trying to tell people about it regardless. honestly, is dee going to listen to anything you have to say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Herzy
Bravo, Herzy. UDP - this sums up what I wanted to say to you when you asked me just what I thought was wrong with your "Dinner with IEI" thread.
Dee is a real person, and that is what terrifies me. He also lives very close to me, apparently. I remember we were actually about to set up a Socionics meet type thing near Toronto or Mississauga ... I wonder what would happen if we actually did meet. I could inform you all if he is as crazy as he comes off here.
Is that even possible? With people like Dio and stuff, I really have to wonder just what they are as REAL life people ... *shudders*
Dee might not, but people who might listen to and get confused by dee and others like him can benefit from this.Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
Good job, Herzy! :D If I think of more specific comments I'll be sure to post them, but for now it looks good! (It's good writing, too - I like the numbered points...)
well, isn't it rather obvious that some people do shit like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Minde
/me gives Carla half my sandwich and a juicebox. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Carla
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...t/23038955.jpghttp://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...JuiceLarge.jpg
It's probably not obvious to people who are new to the theory or this forum. Sometimes, it's not even obvious to people who have been here awhile. And, sometimes, people just forget.Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
I'm sure you already know this, but not everyone is as smart or intelligent as you, niffweed.
well i don't even think she did a very good job of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphin
Dee is a good example for this thread but there are more than just him who will go into a thread and pretty much make their case about something and not even listen to others views or opinions. This makes it almost seem like they have to be correct (to a Noob in socionics or someone similar) in what they are saying and that nobody will ever change whatever views those are. Not constructively that is... It pretty much takes 10 people saying: "you are totally wrong" for some people to even think that what they're saying may actually not be correct. Even then, they'll blame it on the "stupid masses" that make up the rest of this forum outside of their little bubble. This is just sad really.:(
u want a juice box? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by cracka
....you guys need to step outside and get some fresh air and um, hang out with some people
I've been around people all day at work... I'm trying not to go out and get drunk tonight... don't screw that up by making me think I have no life...lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by LokiVanguard
*shoots self in head*
You should copyright that for a t-shirt.Quote:
Originally Posted by glamourama
Offing myself is never gonna happen... but thanks. You're all just gonna be stuck with me.:pQuote:
Originally Posted by dolphin
Go out and get drunk goddamit
I'm tempted to say that this is mostly kindof over-obvious, and pretty pointless to point out to most of the people who actually make these mistakes, but thanks for at least putting it all in one place :o
still,Quote:
Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
LOL
d00d.
I enjoyed reading this a lot, Herzy.
Just made a much shorter comment along these lines in some other thread, and now I feel like "D'oh! It just got said- and better!"
Not a bad thing, at all ...
You just sound bitter b/c you didn't think of it first.Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
Doesn't matter that it's obvious--it's still always the elephant in the room that stomps around and is rarely addressed directly. I might be still considered a n00b @ Socionics and generally lurking on the periphery of this forum, but even I can see that anyone who assumes they're not capable of this at some point in time is a blasted hypocrite.
Even you who believe yourselves Socionics scholars fall into this trap and make incorrect assumptions once in a while.
lol i've been saying that certain people are braindead idiots on this forum for two years now.Quote:
Originally Posted by aka-kitsune
not that herzy hasn't periodically done that as well, but take a step back and think about that comparison.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by ScarlettLux
I don't have much to add to this thread other than I agree 100% with everything Herzy has said. It's everything I've been thinking for awhile now. I don't come here to read up on socionics anymore...frankly I find it pointless. I only come here because I enjoy the forum. More people need to read this thread and take it to heart.
herzy makes some very good points about the tendency to get sucked into a socionics vortex which limits one's thinking....esp early on in understanding this theory.
we are organisms that exist in an environment and that grow and change over time. trying to say that socionics explains everything simply isn't logical since it would fail to take into consideration the facts and details of a person's life and experiences.
like you could have an LSI who had to endure a Nazi concentration camp and one that lived free and clear in the USA. these different situations and the experiences that would accompany them are going to have a profound impact on the person.
my personal pet peeve about socionics is that it does not do a very good job of explaining how people change, grow, develop and balance themselves as they get older.
to me, socionics is kind of like a skeleton of personality....it can kind of inform the shape or structure of a person, but without the skin, muscles, blood, brain, and a changing environment to place the person in, it's less than half the overall picture.
I think that I make all of these mistakes (not always certain of the frequency or degree), but I’m aware of them and my aim is to reduce them over time. I allow myself to make them, because I perceive it as necessary to learning.
I think that in a way they all may reflect a single underlying problem.
Consider this lovely image:
http://www.toxiclab.org/img/20061233_img15.jpg
Say that the ball in the center is like the essence of an IM element in a particular function, e.g. :Se: PoLR. The spikes represent all of the different ways that :Se: PoLR can manifest itself in individuals (just assume the number of ways is finite for the sake of the example). What I think “we’re” often trying to do (or at least I often am) is get at the central ball—the essence so as to better see what is of it and what is not... AND how it relates to people and things in real life and how it does not. In some ways this is an impossible task because no IM element stands alone, but in other ways I think it can be helpful.
So as we go from an understanding of :Se: PoLR (in general... imagine a flat plane with 3d spikes emerging from it... the flat plane being the "in general" thing that connects all the spikes... couldn't find an image) to trying to apply it to individuals, we might say something like, “well in general :Se: PoLR types aren’t as good at managing confrontations as, say, :Se: ego types.” Then Mariano Rajoy comes along and says, “hey my job involves managing confrontation and I do a great job of it.” This can then appear to contradict the “in essence”/“in general” understanding of :Se: PoLR. (i.e. the translation of the essence of :Se: PoLR into words didn't work so well, OR the understanding of the essence of :Se: PoLR itself is somewhat off)
But if we had approached it from the other direction… Say that one of the spikes represents how :Se: PoLR manifests itself specifically in Mariano Rajoy. Then we might be able to make note of that and see that it does flow back into the essence of :Se: PoLR (or stems from it), while at the same time noticing that in this case :Se: PoLR doesn’t manifest itself in not knowing how to effectively manage confrontations. If approached from this direction, we’re less likely to try to generalize everyone into a single group, and can more easily see this:
Of course then you can still do things like notice a particular behavior in someone and say, “I wonder if that stems from their Xy PoLR,” when really it’s just an individual quirk that has little or nothing to do with information metabolism. In that case, it might help to look at it from the central ball again... noticing perhaps that in essence it doesn't quite connect up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Herzy
Reality is of course the outside helpful thing that can confirm or deny particular patterns of abstract thought... both in the form of individual actions and intertype relations. And "reality" is the thing that I need to pay more attention to perhaps.
(By the way, I’m not trying to imply that the PoLR represents a crippling disability.)
I sort of see mistakes as necessary to fine tune one’s perception of these sorts of things. And actually having these things listed out neatly (as Herzy has done) is nice and easy to read.
Anyway, I think there are a few problems logically with what I just said... but it's a work in progress, as always.
Yes, but your criticism always has a certain personal quality of correcting what you see as errors in understanding socionics. And you also have somewhat of a zero tolerance policy for differing opinions, IMO ("I will not debate this with you because you are an idiot"). Herzy is instead pointing out that the overall application of socionics "typology" can be fundamentally flawed by forgetting that people are people, different, not a type, and prone to act unpredictably at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
Not convenient for those who like their behavior predictable, have clear unshakable standards for any personality type and relegate people to a convenient box from which they are not allowed to stray beyond.
We can all readily see that certain people are idiots. But everyone falls prey to the tendency to try to boil things down to lowest common denominator in a stab at taking a short cut to understanding.
Herzy, right now I wuv you. This has been a problem of mine for awhile now, since it seems that a number of individuals are blaming/projecting their dislikes and hates of individuals onto types and functions. "They rubbed my sense of Ti the wrong way." or "How could those LSIs and LIIs possibly be like that!" People are forgetting that Socionics is supposed to be about being aware of and productively improving relations and not as a means of creating more differences with which we can try and objectify others.
Herzy, what always surprises me about you is the way you can rapidly morph out of Se-orientated mode into Ti. Good skill to have.
A lot of things can centre around reasons for not being good at things, negativity, something i've been looking at is ways an understanding of socionics can impove weak points someone sees in themselves, and group interaction.
I don't really have anything to contribute but I'd like to say I think this is a good thread. I know I've been guilty in the past of what's been mentioned on there, although I think I've more or less gotten past that now (I hope so anyway, or else I think it would bring my intelligence into question given how long I've been studying this now). I think even if this is common knowledge to most people, it doesn't hurt to occasionally make a thread like this since, if nothing else, it's a refresher and it can help people who might be (unwittingly) falling into bad habits. Obviously you'll always have forum idiots and you'll get people who are new to the theory and might be making these mistakes, etc. etc., but things like this can always help those who have the potential to grow past this. I think the best thing to remember is that nobody can ever have a truly complete understanding of Socionics and that even the experts can make mistakes. If people remember this, then perhaps we can continue to develop and mature our understanding. But I'm probably just regurgitating what people have already said.. I'll stop now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Good analogy. If the "central ball" is the essence of the function, what "dominance" or "weakness" really says about that individual would be, in this analogy, a combination of the area of the ball that is covered in spikes
and, perhaps, the length or sharpness of them as well For example, a balanced LII or EII might be able to deal with most matters of Se sufficiently to not have them bother him or her significantly in every-day matters, but if one area is pressed to hard, something is bound to get through; another LII, like Mariano, may have refined one particular aspect of Se, but is therefore probably lacking significantly in another.
Anyways, I like this approach.
A little :Te: goes a long way.
:lol: Why on earth would I bother reading all of that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Herzy
We are talking eight information aspects which are supposed to cover all of information processing of reality. If the whole PoLR and Role functions are as weak as people sometimes make them out to be, then we would all be walking around blind it would seem. Perhaps we are, but not quite to the extent that some would have us be.
I will say that I do my duties as a bouncer in a very alpha way. I am mostly on the lookout for people that are impolite or in a bad mood or get an attitude when I speak to them. Definite red flag, and I feel completely justified in showing them the door.
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
A good distinction between the Enneagram and socionics is that while socionics gives a reason for why we do what we do, the Enneagram shows us how we can improve upon ourselves. What I think it lacks is the specific, detailed nature of socionics, but it actually offers what socionics doesn't appear to offer; improvement. In my eyes, socionics basically proclaims that we do y for x reason, and because we like z, we should move towards it, and because we don't like a, we should avoid it. It shows that we're inept in certain ways, and we can't change this, no matter how hard we try (hence the notion of an individual 'concentrating' too much on their PoLR e.g. an LIE who makes a conscious effort to dress exceedingly well, and who goes overboard in some way). The Enneagram shows that we're damaged as opposed to naturally inept, and it is based around the idea of one's being able to repair the damage and transcend any problems we might encounter. And this is why I prefer socionics. I just don't think one can possibly perfect oneself to the level that the Enneagram thinks we can. I think socionics, far from allowing us to be selfish and lazy and not work on our flaws, actually shows reality as it is; that humans are crap and always will be crap at certain things, and, likewise, other humans will also be shit at the things you're good at. That's why there's a theory of intertype relations; people compliment each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
You're acting like Joy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
Should that worry me? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by discojoe
This topic is so Fe.
There's a word for what you're talking about. Complacency. I am not naturally complacent, so I don't want to limit my experience of life and just cede it to someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezra
Jung's original conception of typology included his (call-it-crazy) notion that people should strive to actually develop the neglected parts of their personality rather than living them out vicariously through others. He viewed the desire that someone could "complete" you (ie: duals) as resisting self-development.
Not really responding to you directly so much as a similar concept I've seen floating about here and there in various places, but something I thought I'd mention while I thought of it. I've heard people before now saying (and whether this is mere speculation or based on their experiences I honestly don't know) that if you were with your dual constantly, you'd never develop your weak areas. While I can see where they're coming from on this (I wish I had specific examples of people saying this, but it was too long ago and I'm too lazy to do a search for something so trivial), I think whether that would happen in reality is all down to the individual. I'm not denying that having someone cover your weak areas could make one complacent, but I think that it isn't necessarily detrimental to self-development since, if an individual is so inclined, they could actually learn from their dual and improve themselves in that way. Basically what I'm trying to say is that, while I understand where people are coming from in saying that duality can be detrimental to self-development, it doesn't mean it will be. I think it's down to the individual rather than the people around them. Gah I dunno, I just wanted to try and inject a differing view into the sea of self-development concepts. Feel free to ignore it.Quote:
Originally Posted by aka-kitsune
"No IEE would ever major in mathematics."
I agree with you there, Herzy (on how that's not true). My mother, who is probably IEE, not only majored in it, she was partway into a PhD for it and taught basic math at the college level. She also has a math-related side hobby; watching her at it blows my mind.
Well done, Herzy. Much of this tends to be left unsaid for much of the time, with deleterious results on many newcomers which may regard nonsense as good information.
I don't think most people are very vulnerable to regarding nonsense as good information when they come here. In other words, I think most people are pretty effective at filtering nonsense from non-nonsense.
Personally as a complete newbie I've had a lot of trouble in certain fields to understand which sources were reliable and which weren't. People may be good at detecting bullshit said with the intention of lying, but genuine nonsense is hard to distinguish from accurate information when you have next to zero experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
yeah; if you have no experience or prior knowledge in a subject you could easily get confused.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
Fi has spokenQuote:
Originally Posted by discojoe
So, contrary to what many here believe (and to what Salawa points out constantly), Myers-Briggs does offer something; a chance to develop one's functions by pinpointing what one is inefficient in.Quote:
Originally Posted by aka-kitsune
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
I don't know why this doesn't resonate with me. Oh well.Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
@Herzy
Your words are what my thoughts would look like all organized. I love this. Seems like perfect timing for a bump. <3
Hell yes it needs a bump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
And what cracka says here too. History repeats itself, just with different people filling the roles it seems.Quote:
Originally Posted by cracka
hah true though. my friend made a funny comparison between social environments and professional wrestling. you see, the new crew may replace the old crew, but members of the new crew merely fill in the "tropes" that members of the old crew left open. same personas, different faces.Quote:
Originally Posted by squark
This is such gold. Should be pinned/stickied.