about E, I, S, N, T, F, P, and J
There is no such thing as E, I, S, N, T, F, P, or J in Socionics. It's Ne, Ni, Se, Si, Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi. The "E" and "I" and "p" and "j" are merely indicators of the order of the aforementioned functions. Similarly, in Socionics, people are not extroverted or introverted, functions are.
If your type acronym starts with an "E", it means that your first function is one of the extroverted functions (Ne, Se, Fe, Te). If it starts with an "I", it means your first function is an introverted function. If your type acronym ends with a "p", it means that your first function is either Ne, Ni, Se, or Si. If it ends with a "j", it means that your first function is either Fe, Fi, Te, or Ti. Thank you.
Re: about I, E, F, T, P, and J
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
. Similarly, in Socionics, people are not extroverted or introverted, functions are.
This is something I don't agree with, because it's circular. If someone has an extravered base function, he's an extravert, and since the base function is extravert, that means that the aformentioned base function is commonly associated with extraverted behavioural traits.
Re: about I, E, F, T, P, and J
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
. Similarly, in Socionics, people are not extroverted or introverted, functions are.
This is something I don't agree with, because it's circular. If someone has an extravered base function, he's an extravert, and since the base function is extravert, that means that the aformentioned base function is commonly associated with extraverted behavioural traits.
Yes, but when you call someone an introvert, the automatic association is that the person is shy. Calling someone an extrovert implies that they are outgoing. However, social behavior has nothing to do with whether one is an "introvert" or "extrovert" in Socionics.
Re: about I, E, F, T, P, and J
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
. Similarly, in Socionics, people are not extroverted or introverted, functions are.
This is something I don't agree with, because it's circular. If someone has an extravered base function, he's an extravert, and since the base function is extravert, that means that the aformentioned base function is commonly associated with extraverted behavioural traits.
Yeah, but having this viewpoint means that you must also consider unnecessarily stereotypical definitions for extroversion and introversion that may not only be actually disconnected to the actual functions, they introduce unnecessary variables that makes it more difficult to type people. That does not do any good, does it?
On the other hand, it is a more coherent view point to perceive people as disconnected from extrovertion and introvertion and seeing the functions as the only pure connection to introversion and extroversion, then you can just toss out all the stereotypical non-sense and enable yourself to have a more coherent and non-clouded perception of people and what is really going as opposed to confusion, which is usually what happens.
And I should probably mention that many of those who claim people themselves alone are introverts and extroverts usually come off like real dickheads or bigots when they try to type people. Atleast I find that to be the case.
Re: about I, E, F, T, P, and J
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmcnew
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
. Similarly, in Socionics, people are not extroverted or introverted, functions are.
This is something I don't agree with, because it's circular. If someone has an extravered base function, he's an extravert, and since the base function is extravert, that means that the aformentioned base function is commonly associated with extraverted behavioural traits.
Yeah, but having this viewpoint means that you must also consider unnecessarily stereotypical definitions for extroversion and introversion that may not only be actually disconnected to the actual functions, they introduce unnecessary variables that makes it more difficult to type people. That does not do any good, does it?
I think it is necessary, in order not to make the theory too far fetched.
Quote:
On the other hand, it is a more coherent view point to perceive people as disconnected from extrovertion and introvertion and seeing the functions as the only pure connection to introversion and extroversion
This changes nothing. The functions are named after their extraverted or introverted nature. Why does Jung named them this way? Clearly, because they were correlated with E and I behaviour.
Quote:
And I should probably mention that many of those who claim people themselves alone are introverts and extroverts usually come off like real dickheads or bigots when they try to type people. Atleast I find that to be the case.
Of course, in order to know whether a person is extroverted or introverted, you need to place the given person in a group of people, but this is rather obvious.
Re: about I, E, F, T, P, and J
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmcnew
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
. Similarly, in Socionics, people are not extroverted or introverted, functions are.
This is something I don't agree with, because it's circular. If someone has an extravered base function, he's an extravert, and since the base function is extravert, that means that the aformentioned base function is commonly associated with extraverted behavioural traits.
Yeah, but having this viewpoint means that you must also consider unnecessarily stereotypical definitions for extroversion and introversion that may not only be actually disconnected to the actual functions, they introduce unnecessary variables that makes it more difficult to type people. That does not do any good, does it?
I think it is necessary, in order not to make the theory too far fetched.
Stereotypical definitions are by nature far-fetched, and it is the reason that those who have decided not to consider people extroverted or introverted are not taking those definitions serious when some insist that the people themselves are introverts and extroverts. Of course, there may not be any actual advantage in viewing people as they relate to the functions in a direct or indirect way, actually it may make no diffrence. But, those who view the functions as passivelly relating to a person could have the upper hand, except in the objective sense unless things are looked at too objectivelly and then the stereotypical definitions keep popping up that can be put to doubt. So, they system fails in that regards.
Quote:
On the other hand, it is a more coherent view point to perceive people as disconnected from extrovertion and introvertion and seeing the functions as the only pure connection to introversion and extroversion
This changes nothing. The functions are named after their extraverted or introverted nature. Why does Jung named them this way? Clearly, because they were correlated with E and I behaviour.
It changes everything ... the problem with perceiving extrovertion and introversion as directly related to a person 'causes flaws in perception. It is like saying a twenty foot tall house is ten feet tall when standing so many feet away, you just can not rely on your senses in that way to say that it is porportional to reality, because it is not. Do you really want to follow a system that has contradictions?
Yet, if you look at it indirectly and undertstand that a persons behaviour may not actually be directly connected to the reality of the manifestations of functions, and that many behaviours you think might just be related to a function or specific functions are really just your own realitive perception based on stereotypical definitions and that other people have totally diffrent perceptions of the same behaviours, then you start realizing how silly it is to try to type people by directly connecting their behaviours to functions and that it is better to view it all passivelly and indirectly.
Quote:
Quote:
And I should probably mention that many of those who claim people themselves alone are introverts and extroverts usually come off like real dickheads or bigots when they try to type people. Atleast I find that to be the case.
Of course, in order to know whether a person is extroverted or introverted, you need to place the given person in a group of people, but this is rather obvious.
[/quote]
Same dilemma I wrote about above ...