Printable View
What do you make of people who don't fit any of the types? For example, those who seem to have a different pattern, such as SLEs with strong Fi, ILIs who value Si, or SEIs who poorly utilize Ethics.
Would socionics say this is not possible? And if so, why? Is there a reason, for instance, why someone must either value comfort or force, and either potential or time? What if someone doesn't value any of them?
I've wondered about this, too. If one assumes that there are 16 independent functions, then there are 16! ways to arrange them and among those 2.1 x 10^13 types, you would find every type that you described.
However, if you actually go out into the world and investigate the kinds of people out there, they really do seem to fall into 16 broad categories. Maybe more if you consider sub-types, and even more if you consider instinct stacks and enneagram points. But basically, there are 16 types of people. This means that most of the combinations are suppressed for some reason.
I/O (a poster here) treats the functions as information processing circuits, and I agree with him on this. Since the brain is a bandwidth-limited processor, it has a limited capacity for processing information, and it is quite likely (almost certain) that when a person is using one function, like Se, all or most of the other's are taken off-line. The brain uses this strategy frequently in its response to dealing with the world. If you are suddenly threatened by a snarling dog with a mouthful of teeth in your face, you aren't thinking about whether or not you remembered to take out the trash. The fact that the brain has very clever strategies for compensating for its limited bandwidth is shown in the example of the spatial resolution/response time of objects in the visual field. You get lots of detailed information right at the center of your vision, but the response of the rods and cones is relatively slow there. On the other hand, the amount of detail you can see in the rest of your visual field is very low, but the response from those areas is very, very fast. You can prove this by looking at something that flickers at about 30 Hz. if you look directly at it, it doesn't seem to flicker. If you look away and bring your peripheral vision to bear on the flickering object, its flickering is obvious. It's all about the limited bandwidth.
In processing information, you have Se/Si-sensing the world, Te/Ti-identifying the things you sense by name, Fe/Fi-assigning those named things some value or importance to you or the group, and Ne/Ni intuition, which is knowing what you can do with those valued, named objects you sense.
For whatever reason (nature or nurture), most people grow to become more proficient in some functions rather than others. This might be due to exercise, or a response to threats, or just being born that way. These functions become dominant in an individual.
Socionics claims that Thinking and Feeling are complementary pairs, as are Sensing and iNtuition, in the sense that if you are a strong Thinker you are a weaker Feeler, and if you are a strong Sensor, you have a poor sense of intuition, and vice-versa.
Why might this be true? Does using one function inhibit the complementary function? Are the two functions dependent on each other, perhaps using the same brain circuits, but for different purposes? As one's proficiency in one area grows by taking over neural circuits in brain-space, the number of circuits available for the complementary function has to decrease. Brain circuits can be re-purposed, but the number of circuits in your head is limited.
This inhibition of one function by another is the first stage of making some combinations unlikely. For example, according to Socionics, you are unlikely to find someone with a function stack of T-F-S-N, because the thinking and feeling functions somehow inhibit each other and therefore can't both be used in a strong way at the same time. However, thinking and sensing seem to be fine together, as are thinking and intuition.
Now, why an individual can't have a stack of T-N-F-S is a question that I don't have an answer to. It is possible that there are individuals who do have that particular stack, and they have been incorrectly classified as being T-N-S-F for the purpose of making the theory prettier, and no one is the wiser because both S and F are pretty weak in these individuals. I don't know.
I do know that you can make pretty theories all day long, but eventually they have to hold up to observation and evidence. In my experience, there really are at least sixteen fairly clearly identifiable types, and what is surprising to me is how much individuals of each type have in common. There may be many more types if you continue to split hairs, but if so, they become increasingly more difficult to distinguish from each other.
Ghosts! :eek:Quote:
People who don't fit any type
Lol. I dated one of those. Although I discovered he had poor Fi/Fe in some situations (cheating; flirting and calling it friendship; lining up one partner while with another), his Fi was extremely strong in most other situations. It doesn't justify his behavior, but after discovering socionics, I realized there are things that explain it.Quote:
SEIs who poorly utilize Ethics.
1) -Se asserting their own interests at the expense of others.
2) +Si prioritizing their own convenience and comfort. They're very giving, but sometimes they'll screw you over through #1 and blame it on you.
3) -Ne, especially in 1D makes people see ridiculous alternatives and chase them as genuine possibilities. Or they'll see negative potential sometimes and call it reality. They see negative potential in things that will eventually pass. But they feel the need to act on it right away when it's unnecessary or avoid acting on it when it's necessary, thus creating drama in the process. I have sympathy for the experience, but still, it's really difficult to be on the receiving end of it repeatedly.
Such things result in the receiver of the experiences believing that the SEI in question has "bad ethics functions," objectively speaking.
Similarly, with other types, you'll see that there are specific patterns in other functions (or other things) which explain the behavior you see. It can't be pinpointed to a singular function. Weaknesses are often a result of a combination of things. I know what you're getting at with SLE's "strong" Fi and ILI's "valued" Si, but I'm not in the mood to explain/analyze them right now. Maybe later.
this is like asking why can't 2+2=5. having a "stack" isn't like a ferrari, no one's saying you can't "have" something. its like saying you can't have a square circleQuote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
the reason you don't have an answer to that question is because its not a rational question, its predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the theory does
the fundamental issue is "why doesn't socionics explain behavior x" and its not that there's behavior that it can't explain its that its ambiguous because socionics can explain it in multiple possible ways, with no clear winner. In other words, 1d functions via experience can be "filled" with any kind of information, when you understand this it means the issue is not that socionics needs to account for 4d + 2d functions in the same dichotomy its more that it accounts for the mysterious behavioral patterns in too many possible ways, and that adding in "additional function stacks" would not actually do what people expect it to, which is make "things easier" it would only introduce an inconsistency into the system whereby one could prove more things (a contradiction can serve as the basis for any conclusion). it would only exacerbate the underlying problem which is too many interpretations, not not enough. to use a contradiction to power a solution cuts the system off at the knees, its why enneagram used to rationalize type is fundamentally incoherent, it gives you an "answer" but it renders all answers meaningless because it could prove anything. it rushes to a conclusion claiming victory without realizing its won nothing because it essentially cheated
the reason socionics has trouble fitting people into 16 categories is not because the categories are themselves somehow ill conceived, its because the dimension of experience makes anyone capable of exhibiting any behavior such that to reverse engineer their personality is fundamentally ambiguous based on behavior alone. this is a fundamental problem of any essentially rationalist theory and not necessarily an issue with the model in regard to its structure, because its the problem of how to account for human individuality itself, via the infinite possibilities inherent in experience, that is fundamentally incapable of being pinned down absent objective measurement. another way to put this is "the problem is you"-- i.e.: the subjective measurer. the only thing that determines the adequacy of a rationalist model is if its consistent and if its useful. the question of why not 2d + 4d is incoherent then based on those aims, because it would necessarily entail a breach of one or both of those requirements and thus its not as simple as positing such a thing as if it were a solution. what you're really asking is why isn't there a better theory that is more accurate and more useful, not that 2d+4d is at all meaningful otherwise. and the reason there isn't a better and more accurate theory is because it is difficult, not because they're committed to some arbitrary notion of "prettiness." there is a certain sort of irony though in demanding they do a better job in creatively realizing a solution when you can't even understand the current solution, by positing in the air essentially "it could be better"--its like yeah, its a quality of being itself though. lots of things could be better, it doesn't mean saying that means you understand one bit of things, as if you've captured the "problem." its like saying why don't we have faster than light travel, maybe we could get there if the theory allows for speeds beyond the constant (the analogy to 4d+2d). its like yeah thats a ostensible solution in words only, its actually far more difficult. that you don't realize that you only restated the problem is itself the problem
the entire point of socionics is not to nail down people's personality types anyway (as if this means anything) its to improve their lives, via self awareness that allows for better navigation of the world as a forum for action. the problem is people reverse that process and work from the assumption that if they can "determine" a type based on their own behavioral stereotypes they can "infer" strengths that they are imbued with based on an assbackwards process of "naming and claiming it" and proceed as if that determines their capacity. its backwards which is precisely why Jung never intended typology to ever be more than a therapeutic construct he utilized in therapy. in other words, its your ability to use the categories to resolve problems and develop understanding that makes it "accurate" or "true" and it does not function to pigeonhole people and thereby imbue them with traits. in other words, the theory is not telling you objectively about anything its informing your own subjective understanding of phenomena according to a rational structure that inasmuch as it helps it can be said to be real. the reason people don't fit any type is because you don't understand them, but it begs the question to say that is a problem with socionics. its like saying "why can't socionics bend over me and force understanding on me"--no theory can accomplish this, let alone one so ambitious as to set its sights on human personality, one of the most complex phenomena there is
anyway, to answer the question: the reason dichotomies add up to 5d not more not less is because its a property of the collective unconscious, which is the 5th dimension and the experience of that dynamic in its fullness is a phenomenlogical experience and we call that dynamic and articulate it as "5d" via Ti--the sum of the dichotomy is itself its own experience, which has a name with a meaning and it is 5d. it is inherently a reductive characterization (as all models are) but it is not entirely unempirical, it is empirical in the way Jung was empirical which was based on observation, just not the observations people think (in other words it was the pure deepest intuitions way underneath "behavior"). if you can understand this you can understand how crazy radical and genius Jung was because he saw things on a deeper level than most people can comprehend, even after its been explained to them, let alone come up with and articulate
the 5th dimension adds, just like it says, an additional dimension to a function and that is what the dichotomy itself "breaks out" in a way thats very hard to visualize or comprehend because at best we tend to think in 4d terms. in other words Fi adds an aspect to Te that expands and informs our notion of Te itself in a specific way that creates the phenomenological experience of 4d Te. in other words 4d Te is the experience of 1d Fi. its the psychic manifestation in the self of that exact dynamic birthed from the collective unconscious. its actually a very highly specific articulation on a very vague phenomenon. again, most people have the barest comprehension of Jung
anyway thanks for listening
Everybody fits into a type. Always
It's simply a fact that there are 16 types of IM.
But there are accents and there is DCNH. And other things in the mind unrelated to socionics
If you find a SLE with "strong Fi" it's either...
1) Not strong Fi at all but rather the SLE "talking about Fi" because his PoLR is itching him. People can mimic functional use by adaption and talking about it.
2) Fi-Normalizing subtype. Very common
EDIT: One big problem is that people when learning socionics are too focused on behaviour. I guess it is a general trend. But socionics is more about observing conscious processes directly.
EDIT II: There is also no guarantee that a persons type has been developed. The type is just what it is, a natural phenomenon, and functions can be undelveloped due to boring work etc. But usually the person can be typed anyway, especially if the environment is changed to the better.
I wish I could give you 5 likes Tallmo :love:
True. It's all about preferences
Sometimes i value Fi, but i still use Ti more.
In talking with people i use Fe more. Or maybe Fi or whatever the fuck that is.
Whatever I'm lazy to type now -_#
Because people thinks differently and i always wonder why can't they see this? 🤔
Like it's all about theories. XD It's theories for a reason. Not scientifically correct. XD
So it's not necessary to believe on theories
I'm the 17th type, because I don't fit one of the 16 predefined types... ...no, I'm just kidding. :lol:
But sometimes I feel like a walking contradiction. :confused2:
In addition to earlier replies in other threads:Quote:
Originally Posted by isptn
What Socionics basically boils down to, is that it is a theory about psychological 'immaturity' or 'incomplete development', for the lack of better terms. This does not necessarily mean that it is a theory about personality pathology. It is applicable to a lot of people, perhaps even the majority of people. But there is a number of people who outgrow the limitations of type, and it can be done by any type.
To start better understanding this, read about the theory of positive disintegration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_disintegration
Now to understand where Socionics is at in the perspective of Positive Disintegration: is is about people whose personality are functioning at Level I, the level where behavior is controlled by instinct, social programming and rote.
I came today to say, in effect, that even xIIs are capable of mature Se, and the even xLEs are capable of mature Fi, etc.etc. All it takes is a Level II crisis, and trancending to Level III, after which the lid is off the can...
I think the idea is that anybody is typable if you squint hard enough.
Once you get that SLE typed you'll eventually come to see how bad his Fi really is - thereby understanding him better. :red:
I like this a lot:Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnieW
https://i.imgur.com/Wg1Fizl.jpg
But I don't know what a socionics type is if not your thoughts.
Think about their types further.Quote:
Originally Posted by isptn
> For example, those who seem to have a different pattern, such as SLEs with strong Fi
The important is what function is stronger/dominate in the consciousness. The difference is significant and can be noticed.
Generally, we may say, that any weak function is below social norms. But it's possibly to have particular good skills there.
> ILIs who value Si
not from types point. anyone likes pleasant sensations, but it's other
> or SEIs who poorly utilize Ethics
Non-types factors like autism or getting sedutive meds may supress emotionality, but it can be seen what is stronger, anyway.
> Would socionics say this is not possible?
Initially, Socionics is about what is stronger in the concrete human.
Socionics admits that a human with T type may to have F developed better than social average or some human with F type. People with uncommon behavior would be harder to type.
> Is there a reason, for instance, why someone must either value comfort or force, and either potential or time?
It's about what he more thinks about and wishes. The difference is significant and stable.
> What if someone doesn't value any of them?
that someone does not understand himself and the typology
Mb your type is other. Also types are abstract and people with a concrete type may differ in some behavior from average. Like me LSE messing with obscure psychology (Ne) and even esoterics (Ni) a little.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnieW
Yeah. This is a problem I have with Socionics. I feel like I have 8 PoLRs and zero strengths lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by isptn
IR effects may be noticed in short relations too. They start with intuitive impressions from nonverbal. From several 1st minutes you are getting them. The more informal and close relations are, the more you need to cooperate on equal with other human, - the clearer the effects will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas
Well what would people make of this? I don't seem to value any of the perception IEs much at all.
Si: I don't seem to care for comfort or sensory pleasures. It's hard to even motivate myself to seek them. At the same time, I hardly notice discomfort and even when I do I'll tend to ignore it for long periods.
Se: I don't seem to have any interest in influencing the environment or other people. I'm not blunt, forceful, or pushy at all. I have no concept of force.
Ni: I don't notice trends or patterns. I don't make predictions or think about the future.
Ne: I don't easily see the big picture or essence of phenomena. It's easier to see the details.
Surely I must have strong & valued of at least one of them. Maybe I can twist definitions to make one of them sort of fit? But the question is, should I? If I have to twist, is it still socionics?
Thats why I think the term "value" do not belong in socionics really.Quote:
Originally Posted by isptn
This is partly me. I tend to oscillate between don't caring about my own comfort and hypochondry.Quote:
Originally Posted by isptn
This is so my younger self.Quote:
Originally Posted by isptn
Not believing that using physical force in my environment can improve anything. Violence does make a lot of things worse.
This is not me, for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by isptn
I'm confidend I developed :Ne: first, because I didn't use any other extraverted function to a large extend. And I'm also confident that I use :Fe: as my extroverted judgement function.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
Means: I use :Ne: as extroverted perception function and :Fe: as extroverted jugdement function. I don't value :Te: or :Se: that much.
Conclusion: The alpha quadra is my home. Because of my strong appreciation of :Ne: and :Fe: I'm an alpha NT.
Now, please point out logical flaws of my argumentation.
I don't have any kind of philosophy about it. I have nothing against force, it's just not something I recognize in myself. It doesn't seem relevant to me since I don't really have any desires in the first place for which to consider force or acquisition. When I'm around others I'll usually pretty much go along with what they want as I don't have a preference either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnieW
For me it is that :Ne: can see that every state has it's positive and negative sides. Change something is only a redistrubution of positive and negative aspects of a situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by isptn
So in most cases I interfere physically only when I'm forced to.
I kind of agree. I tend to see all sides in that way, like an Ne type. I might be closest to Ne, since I'm always aware of possibilities and alternatives and easily generate ideas. But in order to be an Ne type, I would have to be an Intuitive, which I'm not.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnieW
I had no intention to derail this thread. I guess my :Ne: just build up abstract connections.
What I can think of. The effect or result of upbringing and your enviroment. You had to surpress the use of functions you would use but are not valued in your social environment.
Functions need time to develop and opportunities to get mature.
ok, so this is the real question.Quote:
Originally Posted by isptn
This certainly sounds like weak or unvalued Se, vulnerable or ignoring or suggestive.Quote:
Originally Posted by isptn
Why aren't you "intuitive"? Because "always aware of possibilities and alternatives and easily generate ideas" is pretty much what strong Ne is about.Quote:
Originally Posted by isptn
For example this guy (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds) is all about:
I'm not a visionary
I'm the pragmatist
I want to fix issues in front of me
While IRL...
Upbringing definitely could have impacted my Se development. In my family it's not okay to be assertive, aggressive, or defend oneself. My family is also really frugal. I don't think any of the other IEs were affected.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnieW
True, but the same could be said of all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
I don't notice trends or patterns and don't easily see the big picture or essence. I'm skeptical of people who claim to see these things because often when you zoom in closer, the details show that phenomena are too distinct to be lumped into a single idea. It's easy for me to take a microscopic view of the details, but much harder for me to zoom out. I don't tend to think in abstraction. When I look at things I mainly see what they literally are, it doesn't trigger any imaginative processes for me. I could imagine things if I wanted to, but it's not my default mode.Quote:
Why aren't you "intuitive"? Because "always aware of possibilities and alternatives and easily generate ideas" is pretty much what strong Ne is about.
My awareness of possibilities and generating ideas is probably coming from something else, rather than Ne.
@Troll Nr 007
Linus Torvalds is alpha NT for sure; most likely ILE; he is a stereotypical nerd.
But yes, he is right. He didn't re-invent the wheel – some guys at NASA did this.
He turned a expensive product into a free one. (An operating system for computers)
Linus in happy mood:
https://www.linux.com/sites/lcom/fil...Beer%20Use.jpg
Linus in angry mood:
http://media.breitbart.com/media/201...63-640x435.png
@isptn do a questionnaire (if you haven't already). In my experience this kind of back and forth will not help you find your type.
I think Torvalds may be EIE (or another Beta, perhaps). He's something of a posterboy for egotistical self-promotion and having a bad (often extremely vulgar) attitude, which he admits openly and proudly. He likes to cause unnecessary drama; notably, an epic flamewar with THE Andrew Tanenbaum where he compared his own intelligence to Einstein's. [full text of flame war]
Being a good techie doesn't necessarily make you ILE (or NT, for that matter).
I see your point, xerx. He values :Fe:, for sure.
Writing a lot of program code having weak thinking functions? Hmm. Doable, but I guess it would be quite draining.
I find it more useful (for me) to ask specific questions for my own understanding, than to ask others what type they see me as. I always ask myself what is it I really want to happen, what is my actual goal? So far, that goal has not been for someone to give their impression of my type, it has always been to have clarification of aspects of the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
That being said, I'm reaching the point where some of my questions may be more appropriate in a typing thread than general discussion.
That's fair and I completely understand. I tend to assume people are just looking for an opinion but I can see what you are getting at.Quote:
Originally Posted by isptn
I was thinking LIE or maybe SLE but EIE is definitely a plausible suggestion.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
Viewed a video and husband and I agreed that Linus and I are likely the same type so should I be moving to another quadra soon :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnieW
I typed him alpha NT based on following video interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8NPllzkFhE
^ Yes that’s the video we viewed.
Unfortunately I wasn’t born with any of Linus’s computer expertise but did give birth to an ILE son who has been endowed with incredible skill in that area.
So Linus is a mix of my personality and body language etc and ILE computer skills like my son holds.
Edit*
By the way I’m more than open to being ILE myself...would be quite a complement considering how funny some are and is a type I do consider.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1235967
If an SLE has strong Fi, why are they not an SEE? The ILI that values Si - are you just seeing the role fxn, or are they SLI? The way I look at it is to find a best fit. There's no such thing as a perfect fit if you are using descriptions. But there are best fits and if you look primarily at IEs and functional strengths it is usually possible to find one type that overall is a better fit than another. Sometimes you'll see people who seem kind of in-between two types, and if the two types they're in-between share a lead then it's a matter of creative vs polr which shouldn't be too hard to sort out with a little time and observation. If it's between another two types you look at the thing that most distinguishes the two and find which the person better fits.Quote:
Originally Posted by isptn
Coding is one of those things, like maths, that relies on non-type related strengths. Looking geeky is also something many NFs, and even many sensors, can probably relate to as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnieW
It's hard to tell how function strength impacts skills, or whether it even does; what about the role of genetics / autism / whatever else? So I've given up on that and try to type people exclusively on the basis of personal preferences-- [edit: like the fact that Torvalds is one adversarial dude].
Are you talking about this:Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0...at_grsecurity/
How is that highly adversarial?
That’s just reaching ones stupid point by other people and responding sarcastic like is it not...as he talks about grsecurity‘s response has repetively been like this in his view, as mentioned in the article.
noQuote:
Originally Posted by Shay
also, we have different standards for "adversarial".
‘We’ as in yourself and I?Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
If so what do you type yourself as?
I didn't even know that it was implied that you had to be exactly like a type. I assumed that you just take the best fit.
I agree with Seductress Steve right there. We are not tailor made for sociotypes. Keep in mind that your behaviour has to result in a type, not the other way around. We take the best fit, garnished with personal experience and others' opinions (as long as our/their opinions aren't corrupted by a typist mindset). I've fallen into the trap of thinking that I can't be a certain sociotype because I didn't fit in the cookie cutter way too many times.
Well, DarkAngelFireWolf69 in Cognitive Styles has written that ILI's and EIE's make best algorithm designers. While types having HP style have most difficulty in it (LII, SLE, ESI, IEE). My code is usually straightforward problem solving procedural stuff – something that comes very naturally – I can't really see myself as good programmer due to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnieW
Another way of looking at this:
1) The issue is that Socionics doesn't tell you how to error-correct. This means you are bringing your own research methodology to Personality Psychology. What you'll notice is that people introduced to Psychology via Socionics, with it's lack of error-correction, will lack the ability to recognize anomalous data.
2) For example, simple organisms with a basic Nervous System don't express all 8 Information Elements. This means there is a progression somehow codified within the anatomical structure of Nervous Systems that can diversify Information Elements. When a Socionics researcher is approached with the question of "How would you recognize a new Information Element?" you will notice that the lack of an error-correcting methodology or ability to recognize anomalous data means they can't even answer a basic question of Comparative Physiology.
3) People are never actually this stupid and will simply drop the inconvenience of having an understanding that doesn't work when they apply it. It's very obvious that there is a Socionics 2.0 with individuals already making the corrections to their mental models without prompting from Socionics Theory itself.
4) This reminds me of the distinction between programmers and programming language programmers ("compiler writers"). There are people with a Metacognitive faculty that naturally links multiple Information Elements into proper circuits of thought and can create new versions.
https://www.madcapsoftware.com/products/flare/
The problem you are describing here, might not point towards you being untypable, but perhaps incorrect self-knowledge. Since you cannot really perceive yourself objectively, it is difficult to arrive at accurate self-knowlegde, more difficult than creating a clear picture of someone else. Also, Socionics is not about what you are (by yourself) but how you socially interact.Quote:
Originally Posted by isptn
What you could do is ask a few people form your network (friends, family) to fill out a Socionics questionnaire, answering the questions not for themselves, but for you. Perhaps a pattern appears.
Well, the approach that I have taken is to compare elements in interaction with each other.
What kind of response you get? How it is received? Socionics core is in IE interactions.
Therefore the environment for testing should correspond to it.
So designing algorithms is an ability that comes with :Ni:?Quote:
Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007
Why EIE? They are usually more people oriented and not into abstract people-detached thinking.
I'd say I'm a mediocre coder either. I wrote programs when I was younger. My skills could be better, it's mainly a lack of practice for me right now. I'm not into coding at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007
You need the patience to sit for a long time in front of a computer screen. Something a person with high :Se: or :Fe: usually won't do... with IEI as exception.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
Linus Torvalds does not lead with :Fe: and he hasn't strong :Se:. He clearly stated in the interview that he is not a people person.
Their dialectical algorithmic thinking style. That EIE is bit of mystery to me but maybe if they put their mind into it... Think LIE's as pioneering businessman for example (Vortical Synergetic style).Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnieW
Like one particular SEE on this forum shows connective logical thinking [even claims to be good at it on tests] while sucks at :Ti: (causal determinism).
But overall cognitive capacity might be the limiting factor among all types.
That's not the worst suggestion. But do other factors, like e.g. having below-average testosterone, have anything to say about being that?Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnieW
In another Q&A, which I watched yesterday but haven't been able to track down, he says that he enjoys being part of a team. He especially loves the back and forth banter of calling people idiots when they screw up. People aren't always the most exact narrators about their lives.Quote:
Linus Torvalds does not lead with :Fe: and he hasn't strong :Se:. He clearly stated in the interview that he is not a people person.
He could be IEI; that's a type I'm leaning towards now that I've seen some more of his videos. The take away from Linus' behaviour is that he is simultaneously an elitist, deplores political correctness, and loves to tell people that they're idiots. While Alpha NT (or any NT) isn't a typing I'd blithely dismiss, it would be odd for an Alpha to pigeon-hole people into hierarchies. IMO, he'd be better characterized as a shock-jocky Beta NF.
Talanov provides some hypothesis and data regarding sensing-intuition and thinking-feeling:Quote:
Originally Posted by isptn
http://sociotoday.narod.ru/corNS.docx (sensing-intuition)
http://sociotoday.narod.ru/corFT.docx (feeling-thinking)
enjoy your read!
In every typology I've encountered, some people seem to fit the model well, and others are difficult to categorize, and this along a spectrum.Quote:
Originally Posted by isptn
If you buy the main Socionics model as "real," everyone will be one of the 16 types. That's how the theory is set up. Some typologies allow for being a truly mixed type, and this one doesn't.
One option: You could pick the type you like and act like it until it fits you. :content: Not that I've ever seen anyone do that . . .
The trouble is, we don't have exact definitions for the types (yet). If we did they would be extremely general and more than "big" enough to include everybody who is that type.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seductress Steve
So people are forced to resort to either type descriptions, which usually contain a bunch of questionable details (like the programming thing above) or a general understanding of how the functions and IM elements fit together - this is the better approach but it may leave you to fill in a lot of details for yourself.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by golden
Welcome back :)
Most obscuration of processing structures stem from negative upbringing and experience - there's also psychological issues. The most common cause seems to be when people are raised in environments where their natural behavioural patterns are frowned upon - in a sense, forcing the lefty to write with the right. Type is in there; it's just hard to see.
a.k.a. I/O
:cry::cry::cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Isn't there anybody out there who can come up with those definitions? And I also request and need a detail machine to do this.
I've made considerable progress in doing this. Stay tuned :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chae
Oh?! Yaaaassss hooray! :eek: :love::love:Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
http://digitalspyuk.cdnds.net/16/33/...ga-excited.gif
This is post not only contradicts itself several times in several ways, but is obviously lacking in "scientific" observation. There are also several humorous statements, such as "the brain functions on limited bandwidths". That remark alone sounds like something from an old B & W Sci-Fi movie from the 40's or 50's. Oh well, if they can carry ******'s brain around in a jar, anything else might work. One good point made above is that there is a difference made between observation (not scientific, but necessary to science) and armchair theorizing. Good luck sorting out the differences to all!
I agree with the "best fit" concept. Rigid definitions are for auto specs, chemistry (and maybe not even truly the preceding categories, as we know that many cars function well when slightly out of spec and orbital patterns that are now defined as energy states in ions and molecules are constantly varying in infinite ways) and factory work. Perhaps there are no rigid definitions in the universe, we simply use some of the particular rigid definitions to serve science to progress.
on the forum:
bg/wacey/hitta are all hard to type to me. Nothing solid hits them dead in a center and explodes with truth like it does some other people on here. For whatever weird reason I'm shitty at typing those three.
like really what do bg/wacey/hitta have in common besides all being white dudes? lol im too tired to be hannibal right now.
I thought you'd say Super MBTI User.Quote:
Originally Posted by idontgiveaf
Subtypes are pretty underrated, I really should use them more... though its easier/lazy just to be childishly vague. For example LSE-si is quite different than LSE-te. (I like the si subtype ones much better)
Also I bring up gender here a lot not only because I'm a narcissistic queer but because it also influences type a lot. Like how female ILIs will still generally be a lot more emotional/sociable than male ILIs even though both have Fe polr.
So much stuff is interconnected with each other, nothing really exists in a vacuum etc.
also as an IEI ethical being a good person is the most important thing imnsho, like being supervised by a LIE with good empathy is so much better than a sociopathic/unhealthy one. So more than understanding soconics is remembering not to be a dick which is something we all need help remembering. =D
good to read. The bad SEI I knew (although not truly bad) sexually harassed me and no one listened to me when I told them he was an asshole. He’s a very clever SEI who’s very conflicted about whether he wants to be liked or respected by his colleagues. Can’t wait for the little shit to be told off. Hopefully he’ll realise he’s a relatively privileged person and if he wants to be a good guy, he has to accept that his position comes with responsibility. If he truly wants to be both liked and respected, he’ll have to learn to accept that sometimes he’s wrong and sometimes he should question his motives and actions. And not think about his own image all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Audacious
edit: laughing at myself because he is such a child and me calling him a little shit is the kind of thing parents say to kids.
This is someone who runs away laughing when you try to look him in the eye to not feel so small and dramatically throws a strop whilst smiling when you’ve been avoiding him
and you’re trying to tell him to stay away from you. Reminds me of my mamma and sister..when they’re being lame.
please also excuse my bad mood :z
Some people rely too much on stereotypes when typing, some too much on type descriptions and some don't even look at IM. Functions. You know, the thing the theory is centered around? And try to match up people's cognitive processes to them. Another problem is that some smartass will make another system, and then someone will follow, and then someone else will follow (usually an LII). They haven't really defined those functions themselves most of the time, and that creates more confusion. Someone says Ti is "X", and someone says "it's X and Y", then some fool disagrees and is like, "nope, it's actually Z". There's too much disagreement sometimes, and people can't objectively define the functions and agree upon if Ti is "X", "Y", "Z" or a combination of "XYZ". People seem to be more interested in their own subjective understanding of the system, which isn't illogical in itself but the confusion comes when someone types, say someone EIE, someone else types them SLE, and another types them SEE because of discrepancies in how those three people define the functions overall.
If people want socionics to be objective and have a standard for typing people, then they're going to have to agree upon the most accurate interpretations of the functions and the other parts within the system, and use those as the marker points for typing people/defining the system itself. There will be a lot less confusion, and a better chance of typing people by best fit, at least. You can go like "X is closer to EIE than SLE because of Y" or "A has a chance of being EIE > SLE > SEE because..." etc. Until then, people are just going to be confused.