Edited for gayness.
Edited for gayness.
Transigent, I have been thinking for some time now that you are enfp.
So what if you're smart? Any type can be smart . . . but I get a distinctly nf feel from you, FWIW.
Entp
ILE
Transigent ENTP, or ENFP, or INTJ, or WHAT!!!???
You could be an ENFP, or any number of other types too. This kind of distant typing is always kind of pointless speculation, but I think there are a few points I would like to make...Originally Posted by Transigent
this is probably because of strong
in the ego. people are matter, matter+energy(people) interact with other matters+energies(people), and by watching them and using Ne/Ni to pick up on things....u can see the effects(T)/affect(F) of their interactions. entp's can be very keen at this...although they may approach it in a
This could fit with ENFP too. I would say that ENFPs can kind of observe the emotions and often openly show sympathy, yet not taking it that personally (the charming indifference in the female type descriptions) whereas ENTPs often appear slightly uncomfortable if they can clearly perceive the emotions but do not quite understand what is causing the emotions - or how to react to them. This is of course just a highly subjective assessment, and it is often easier to observe other people than trying to judge your own behavior. External behavior can be studied with some degree of objectivity, but you cannot objectively compare the thoughts and emotions of your own mind to anybody else.
I think you could get started by thinking of the T/F scale rather in terms of emotional deficit and emotional surplus. You are T-type if you (in a relationship) need emotions from others - F-type if your primary need in a relationship is that your partner should need your emotions. The difference is subtle but noticeable. I should try to write more about this later... Meanwhile you could read my personal take on why I am an ethical type: there is something strange going on in my brain... It feels like I have a kind of biological need to - not so much to fall in love - but to imprint or "attach myself" to someone. It is not that easy to describe, but you notice it when all the higher order mental pleasure/pain mechanisms appear to be totally different from most other people...
(Warning! This is highly speculative and may not apply to anyone else - This may be related to having Fi as first function, your program function - then again maybe not...)
From the February 12th, 2004 Economist-- "I Get a Kick out of You":
The scientific tale of love begins innocently enough, with voles. The prairie vole is a sociable creature, one of the only 3% of mammal species that appear to form monogamous relationships. Mating between prairie voles is a tremendous 24-hour effort. After this, they bond for life. The details of what is going on--the vole story, as it were--is a fascinating one. When prairie voles have sex, two hormones called oxytocin and vasopressin are released. The question is, do humans (another species in the 3% of allegedly monogamous mammals) have brains similar to prairie voles? The answer is YES!
Dr Young and his colleagues suggest this idea in an article published last month in the JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE NEUROLOGY. They argue that prairie voles become addicted to each other through a process of sexual imprinting.
Sex stimulates the release of vasopressin and oxytocin in people, as well as voles, though the role of these hormones in the human brain is not yet well understood.
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002760.html
(24 hours! For heaven's sake!)
This is - if I you excuse my words - a whole lot of rubbish. All types and all humans have the capability to "pure evil" - whatever that may be... I would rather tend to agree with the traditional MBTI/Big Five view that the thinking/feeling dichotomy is correlated with the Agreeableness scale (but in my opinion only correlated, they are not the same.):Apparently this one-sided "goodness" is a T trait, and only F types have the capability to be pure evil. (Not to say that all are, just to say that some can be.)
Agreeableness (A) One's orientation along a continuum from compassion to antagonism in thoughts, feelings, and actions.
From good-natured, trusting, helpful (F) - to rude, uncooperative, irritable, aggressive, competitive (T) :wink:
http://forbin.mit.edu/RiskAndPrefere...litymodels.jsp
In my humble opinion it is on average more likely that F types behave well and commit less pure evil, for humans are by nature selfish creatures maximising their inclusive fitness and committing pure evil is rarely in your true best interests, and a well developed F function allows you to better reason the real cost vs benefits of your (consciously or subconsciouly) emotionally motivated behavior.
No, I am afraid you are wrong on this one too... (I just go on and on..) Many people with F types are, some with T types are too... And the Oscar Wilde quote could fit very well with ESFPs and ENFPs as well, for as they have, Fi, ethics of relations, as their creative function, they do not need the morals from outside, because they believe they are perfectly capable of improvising on their own - or according to the model:
One prefers to create one’s new version of things relating to one’s second function rather than dig through old material that one doesn’t try hard to remember, anyway. Individuals view their second function more as their own personal skill or quality than as an objective component of reality.
http://www.socionika.com/model.html
And as irrational types ESFPs and ENFPs would not like to be bound by rules anyway...
It is also good to remember that discussing morals and imposing ethical standards of behavior is essentially altruistic behavior. You do not make many friends by telling people that what they are doing is wrong, (which is why I very rarely do it) yet if everyone did only what they think is right society would quickly fall apart. Punishing cheaters is generally costly to the punisher (you risk making enemies, etc.), yet it is necessary in order to maintain honest co-operation. In evolutionary terms the problem of altruistic punishment has been a major puzzle and a number of solutions, often based on game theory, have been devised. Read my latest post about President Bush for example. Or some research on this:
Altruistic Punishment in Humans
Abstract
Human cooperation is an evolutionary puzzle. Unlike other creatures, people frequently cooperate with genetically unrelated strangers, often in large groups, with people they will never meet again, and when reputation gains are small or absent. These patterns of cooperation cannot be explained by the nepotistic motives associated with the evolutionary theory of kin selection and the sel®sh motives associated with signalling theory or the theory of reciprocal altruism. Here we show experimentally that the altruistic punishment of defectors is a key motive for the explanation of cooperation. Altruistic punishment means that individuals punish, although the punishment is costly for them and yields no material gain. We show that cooperation flourishes if altruistic punishment is possible, and breaks down if it is ruled out. The evidence indicates that negative emotions towards defectors are the proximate mechanism behind altruistic punishment. These results suggest that future study of the evolution of human cooperation should include a strong focus on explaining altruistic punishment.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpmi/0305006.html
Perhaps you should write more about this. I am inclined to believe that at least after reading the basics of socionics theory people should be able to tell whether they are introverts or extroverts. As I once wrote: I have always known I am an introvert according to any theory...Not to insult anyone of course, just a quote to encompass my "inner view".
I was thinking INTj because of the Ti bent, the hidden agenda, and the fact that I feel like I am an introvert at heart.entp's might think or like to appear intj...because they are often seen as lacking stucture and stability(J) rather than (T), although (P's) can be more dependable than (J's) especially ifis their POLR and they run short on their time!
I quite enjoyed the examples you had found. Thank you.
I think INFJ-ENTP relationship could potentially work better than most Relations of Supervision, because when you are so well aware of other people's emotions you can learn to take them into account and not hurt your partner, but currently I am inclined to agree that the asymmetrical nature of the intertype relations would still tend to persist - and ENTP women especially do not want to be "supervised" by their partner, so ESTJ probably is the best for me. With ENTP man and INFJ woman it might, with some good will from both parties, work much better. Of course theory is one thing, and real life something else entirely...I wonder if the relations of supervision are the same if the types have the same perceiving function (N) compared to different perceiving functions (N)&(S)?
I think it is not quite this simple, everybody can go through bad moods and even depressions, and F types are not always able to deal with it on their own. The S/N difference sounds interesting, wonder what S types think?
I whole-heartedly agree. Sometimes the Model A seems to make perfect sense and explain almost everyting - other times it feels I have been severely delusional to buy into this kooky theory. Only time will tell...that is what is confusing about model A, u kind of see it and u kind of don't.
PS I like to write like I know everything (and to be honest I do :wink: ) - but of course I am for the most part just speculating. Do not hesitate to criticize me.
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
:wink:
Re: Transigent ENTP, or ENFP, or INTJ, or WHAT!!!???
Edited for gayness.
Re: Transigent ENTP, or ENFP, or INTJ, or WHAT!!!???
This development frightens me a little.
I Started Writing a Short Reply...
Examples, examples... (Dissatisfied grumbling) I give you plenty of info and you accuse me of dataflooding, I give you a short and simple abstract rule and you ask for examples... Anyway real life does not always provide us with clear-cut comparable examples - people with the same type can behave very differently, and much of the difference would be in non-verbal behavior that is hard to describe anyway. Observing celebrities could be useful, but give me an ENTP and an ENFP on whose types everyone agree.
What would clearly help is to first learn to type others, when you have accurately typed at least a few representatives of both types it should be easier to see to which group you belong by just trying to observe your past behavior with some degree of detached objectivity. (Well, at least it did help me). To give you a practical example: a female ENFP just responded to my query about her deeper values by saying that she likes to have good time and enjoy her friends and hobbies, as we were quite good friends I kept on pressing her with somewhat weird questions and though she looked a bit puzzled at times she tried her best and did not seem to mind.
Particularly with female ENTPs I often get the feeling that they are just a bit nervous when I talk to them, perhaps I "exude" too much Fi, like you wrote
In practise perhaps somewhat too self-consciously controlled emotions appearing out of nowhere - or who knows what - what I meant with not knowing what causes the emotions was that you can see the emotions people display, but you cannot always tell how genuine they are, or if they are just trying to be friendly or actually flirting with you, or whether they are criticising your logical arguments or maybe it is just an excuse to pay back for some old grievance someone may believe to have suffered? ENFPs usually notice such things much better than ENTPs - or alternatively do not see these things as worthy of attention as they just spontaneously react with their creative Fi - and therefore this ENTP type desription may really be helpful in typing:Like, an INFj will (without even thinking) be the EMBODIMENT of Abstract Fi, and as such will naturally bother the ENTp (with Abstract Fi in the POLR.)
5. Undifferentiated feeling. He believes that all people in their essence are kind and love one another. Therefore he looks funny enough when the situation requires initiative in expressing feelings; they are not his line at all.
From the ENTP Type Description (No direct link possible)
It is, in my opinion, quite possible that once people get to know each other better and discuss their relations perhaps even with the help of socionics these things could become less of a problem. I think is is also quite plausible that some relations of supervision are much more prone to develop severe conflicts than others. The nature of the functions involved and the way the personalities and functions have developed do have some influence.
This sounds more like ENFP:
6. A person of mood. His mood determines everything: plans for the future, self-estimation, and ideas about the world. Ambitious plans can change to disappointment and sadness; but interesting news, praise, or an unexpected interesting opportunity immediately lifts his spirits. Boredom can even make him ill.
From the ENFP Type Description (No direct link possible)
This would seem to indicate that your preference is for your partner to follow your emotions (ethical type), rather than for your partner to regulate your emotions (logical type). Just spend some time with ISTPs and ISFPs. The strengths of ISFPs are easy to appreciate but even if you have compatible types, ISTPs typically grow on you only gradually. To put it bluntly do you want ISFPs to impose their authoritarian Fe (second function=function of authority) ethics of emotions on you? - you can also use creative Fe in a very manipulative and annoying way.
Well, it is and it is not. At least traditionally it was thought that women want commitment and men do not. Nowadays it does often appear to be the opposite... There clearly are differences between the types too, I would claim that most INFJ men are naturally far more drawn to monogamy than, say ESTP men. And finally let's just say that I can recognize some aspects of this, pathological representation of the Oldham's Devoted personality, the Dependent Personality Disorder description in me:
My helper can be nurturant, supportive, and confident—if he or she wants to be.
I am helpless when I am left on my own.
I am basically alone; unless I can attach myself to a stronger person.
http://www.the16types.info/types-ISFJ.php
You could be into something, I am personally quite firmly convinced that there really is a small subset of sadistic ENFP men. :wink:
No I am afraid many people do not naturally do what they think is right, and some do not even know what is right and wrong in the same way most of us instinctively do, for example the Economist recently had an article about the genetic nature of psychopathy:
Their analysis showed that bad behaviour without psychopathy has relatively little genetic component - less than a third. By contrast, four-fifths of the difference in behaviour between the general population and children with psychopathic traits seems to lie in the genes.
All of this raises interesting questions. On a practical level it suggests that bad behaviour needs to be handled differently in different children, and will be much harder to eradicate if associated with psychopathic traits though that does not mean that parents and teachers should not try). On an intellectual level, it asks about the origins of psychopathy.
Though the genes in question have yet to be identified, this result suggests they are too abundant to be there by chance—in other words they are being kept in the population by natural selection because psychopathic behaviour confers a selective advantage. If it does, such an advantage probably pertains only when psychopaths are in the minority (a state of affairs known to biologists as a balanced polymorphism). But it does mean that far from being an aberrant behaviour, psychopathy may be disturbingly normal.
http://economist.com/science/display...ory_id=4008792
And still about you original opinion:
I think this is wrong. Probably almost all the content of our conscious minds is ultimately originally from the outside world - what we have digested from the various teachings and behavior of our parents, teachers, peer groups, and other external sources. A fitting comparison could be this quote by the Economist John Maynard Keynes:
"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/t...al/295379.html
I would argue that on the contrary thing like "morals" should be publicly discussed because they influence us no matter what. Only by bringing them out into the open can they be rationally analyzed and amended. Of course how this could be done is a difficult question - you can hardly genuinely discuss morals within a family or in the workplace, for example, if as often happens, ultimately what is moral is just what your parents or boss dictate.
There are a number of generally accepted justifications for the need of punishment. I believe this short Wikipedia excerpt should help clarify our thinking:Well then the thought becomes: "when are cheaters given reprieve?" I don't really agree with punishment (even though I begrudginly accept the hard fact that it is necessary) if only for the fact that I understand that people can be impulsive and do things that they know are wrong "in the heat of the moment", and regret them the moment they are done.
I like to think that punishments are not needed simply for the fact that the "bad thing" was not really a fully concisous descision, and they just got caught up in the moment. What will punishment do? When in a similar situation, they will do the same thing again because the actions come not from reason or premeditaion, but from impulsiveness, fear, and humanity.
The people who believe in harsh punishments for the sake of "justice" I have never understood. The only thing that I can think of is that they are so angry that they have been done wrong that they feel that they need to justify themselves somehow, but in situations that they are not actually connected to, it becomes confusing on why thier opionions of justice and punishment are so strong.
Possible reasons for judicial punishment
Deterrence
Deterrence means dissuading someone from future wrongdoing, by making the punishment severe enough that the benefit gained from the offense is outweighed by the cost (and probability) of the punishment.
Deterrence is a very common reason given for why someone should be punished.
Rehabilitation
Some punishment includes work to reform the wrongdoer so that they will not commit the offense again. This is different from deterrence, in that the goal here is to change the offender's attitude to what they have done, and make them come to accept that their behaviour was wrong.
Incapacitation
In the prison system, punishment has the effect of incapacitating the prisoner, and physically preventing him from committing crimes against those outside. The most dangerous criminals may be sentenced to life imprisonment for this reason.
The death penalty also may be invoked for this reason.
Retributive justice
Retribution is the practice of "getting even" with a wrongdoer - the suffering of the wrongdoer is seen as good in itself, even if it has no other benefits.
http://fixedreference.org/en/2004042...dia/Punishment
Different people emphasize different functions of the punishment. You do not seem to see the need for retribution, but a lot of people would beg to disagree, and while in theory it is easy to agree with you, many people come to quickly change their minds when they themselves or their closest ones are victimized - and if people could not seek retribution through the criminal justice system many could try to seek justice through private vendettas - lack of faith in the impartiality and efficiency of public law enforcement if often one of the necessary conditions for the emergence of organized crime, Mafia and other "protection" rackets.
The effectiveness of punishment as deterrence has been much debated, but generally it does not appear to be as effective as one might hope. I suppose no one has - at least in principle - any objections to the use of punishment as a means of rehabilitation. If people are incapable of controlling their violent impulses the society has both the right and the need to protect itself - we do not let lions freely roam the city streets just because they are incapable of seeing the wrong in hunting and eating humans. It is becoming increasingly clear that the article I quoted about psychopathy is just one example and many largely inborn personality traits like: poor impulse control, low intelligence, high testosterone level etc. do to some extent predispose some people to commit criminal and other anti-social behavior with significantly higher probability than most of us, and this raises many difficult questions.
I asked about this socionics.com quote earlier, and I came to think it could be that you are actually confusing Paul Wolfowitz with George W Bush - anyway I am not a member of his fan club either, but since no one has publicly come to his defence I just like to argue for the other side as well occasionally. His policies do have a certain internal consistency grounded on a firm set of values - only that many of us rather tend to disagree with his particular values.
I think someone (possibly Kaido) wrote earlier that rational (J) types should be able to tell whether they are extroverts or introverts much easier than irrational (P) types. This seems to be the case.
It does, many claims here and there nothing much proven. Still - an old shoe is often better than no shoe.I think the model A almost makes sense by its very definition. Things are so similar, that it is pretty much applicable
(to a point) no matter how somebody is typed.
I was reading some of DarkAngelFireWolf69's type descriptions on the russian site, comparing a certian function across the board (say Ti for ISFp, ENFj,
etc.) and I seemed to get the feeling that they simply described the functions as it was convienient to explain discrepancies.
Like Ti for ENTp was concerned about logic and cogitation, where Ti for ENFp was concerned about having trouble working within rigid
systems. Well, as long as you are a P type, there will always be a problem working in specific systems!
In other words, it seems that model A is explainative because it leaves an avenue for almost any possible action. (Actually, it
sounds like typical psychology to me!!!
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
Edited for gayness.
A Fellow ENFP?
I am no expert of course... but I formulated the rule because in my opinion it does help me to structure my thinking about the types. And I thought that it would be apparent from the context that when I wrote "whereas ENTPs often appear slightly uncomfortable if they can clearly perceive the emotions but do not quite understand what is causing the emotions - or how to react to them." I meant it in a figurative sense. I am a non-native speaker and I do not always get the nuances quite right, but for a guy with such an astronomical SAT-score you do seem a bit slow at times. :wink: I often put quite a lot of thought into my posts and try to condense what I am saying, so it can be worth reading them twice if you do not quite understand what I mean. I shall try to express myself more clearly from now on.Ass. :wink:
Anyway, I only asked because I don't see how that rule is ever true. It is like me saying to you: "some people don't realize where pain comes from."
I guess, it was really a cry for help in interpretation...except that some people like to use a hidden grudge to point out how I contradict myself instead of helping me out.
We all make mistakes though, you are forgiven.
I do not quite see the point of typing movie characters as they are not always that fully fleshed personalities - the actors playing them often have a different type that will always to some extent "show through" - and since typing real celebrities is still beyond our capabilities...You raise an interesting point. Even though many may disagree, I think we should start typing characters from movies. Some may say "but these characters are ficticious, and you can't type a make-believe person", but when the writers write, they write about things that they have seen and experienced before: they put people they know in new and different situations and write about how they would act. I think this is perfect "typing fodder". Although care should be taken when an actor is "miscast" for a certain role, since they won't really fit the description visually.
It is all very confusing and I have been writing about the same issues to the point of exhaustion, maybe I should try to find the links for you, but I am a bit lazy now. Typing is difficult, but there really are some similarities between people with the same type. Anyway I think the aim should be to integrate socionics much more closely with psychology and other disciplines. Many of the concepts of socionics really are just theories that seem far too detached from reality and they rarely appear to be able to make clearly testable predictions. etc. You really could be an ENFP also because you do share many concerns and even opinions with me.This is just the thing: I get along with people to the extent that I want to get along with people. I can usually tell what a person likes or hates in another person upon first meeting them, and I act accordingly. (I feel a need to change in order to maximize the degree of comfort in a relationship.) In closer relationships, however, it becomes a chore after a while, and things start to change. (It feels like I have a super-ego relationship with everyone sometimes: my problems are my own, yet other's problems are mine also.) But how much of this is socionics? How much of this is upbringing?
It is just as difficult to put a relationship "in a box" as it is to put yourself or others "in a box". It seems as if sometimes socionics seems to browbeat you into thinking that everything fits in these boxes.
It is such a shame that such a penetrating, unique, and insightful theory is riveted to a static frame by the people who created it. Socionics is so much more facinating when it is dynamic and changable. (Of course, that would disturb the "rationality" of those who are the most vociferous proponents of the static type philosophy.)
It seems as if that which is not explainable by socionics is relegated to "that which is not socionics" and forgotten. They shouldn't be so dismissive of reality sometimes. They did a study and found out that children are 25% likely to be dual to the mother, and 25% likely to be identical type to the father. Everyone knows that you and "mom" have a more helpful, cooperative relationship, and you and "dad" are more likely to have a learning, teaching relationship. Is it that big of a stretch to imagine that over the years, types have "molded" into dual and identical?
Yet again he changes the topic of conversation...
Sorry...back to the point...
Some relationships are difficult to type. People are more complex than thier socionic descriptions. The actual "fluency" of the functions sometimes takes more precedence than what position that function is in your model A. Although it is still VERY possible that most of the functions have been misinterpreted by me or others. Namely, the big misinterpretation of the T functions as being what is commonly thought of as intellegence. "T" has nothing at all to do with insight, intellegence, or analysis in the abstract: these are all N things. "Abstract" is the key word here. Ni can be a much better problem solver than Ti (it is like using a computer to numerically solve a problem with simulation vs. symbolically solving the problem with logical proof.) And Ne can give MUCH better conclusions than Te ever could (seeing possible ways the data can be explained or condensed vs. apprehending the exact data itself.)
However, these conclusions about Intuition being superior to Thinking only hold in the abstract realm: the realm of ideas. You cannot solve your taxes with Ni, and you cannot plan your life with Ne. Intuition only works in ideas because you are only percieving things that are there, but hidden. In reality, conclusions are needed.
Sorry, back to the point again...
Partly I like to write about "values" because it is one of these peculiar American political buzzwords... The "P"-ness concept is in my opinion misleading because people often tend to use it as a general term for sloppiness and an excuse to avoid rigorous independent thinking. Perhaps I should point out to you that also I used to think that I was very much a sloppy and fuzzy poorly defined "P" type personality. What I am trying to say is that the J/P scale is currently messed up and new thinking is required...Here is a question for you that I have just realized would be interesting: the word values.
This seems to be an "Ethics" word in some sense. I have never ever understood why some use it, but some people seem to have much importance attached to this word.
Wait! Nevermind, it is just like the word justice, a "J" word. I was thinking that since I don't consider myself to have a specific set of values, this means I am a "T" type, but perhaps this just solidifies the "P"-ness. (Even though this is what women are for!)
Now in one sentence you seem to be questioning all the basic concepts of socionics, in the next you take everything for granted and consider the intertype relations immutable. You should try to decide.It is my "theroy" that socionics only describes what is "built in" to humans.
For instance, say you (for whatever reason) exuded NO Fi WHATSOEVER. The fact that you would "exude" creative Ne, and say, suggestive Te would "tip off" the other person of your type, and they would see that you are INFj.
Of course, all of this is going on "behind the scenes".
This is just my theory, but it seems to be that the functions really "fit in" no matter what.Personally I see that there is definitely a lot of truth to the intertype relations theory, but it is also a gross oversimplification and that the rules may apply here but maybe not there.
There really are clearly noticeable differences in the way people perceive, react to, and analyze emotions. Much of it is type related, but many of the difficulties in socionics seem to arise because people with the same type can be very different: for example some ENTPs can be quite tough-minded others are far more sensitive souls and need more emotional encouragement. Just compare what Kaido and Discojoe have chosen to tell about themselves. :wink:Anyone who pays attention can tell the "genuineness" of emotions, the ENTp is usually not paying attention though. But what if he did?
Anyone who pays attention can also tell the "logical consistency" of things, the ENFp is usually not paying attention though. But what if he did?
Here is my guess on why the difference: it all comes down to how a person acts socially. The ENTp likes to "logically" analyze communication in the midst of it, whereas the ENFp likes to "ethically" analyze communication in the midst of it. Of course, Ne feeds them BOTH possibilities of logic and ethic, so one must be chosen "at the time" with the other to wait till later. So then the only way you can determine T/F is how they act socially.
You can tell - or perhaps you believe you can tell but sometimes you are still mistaken? There also are people who really cannot tell, or often find the hard way that they misread someone... From a personal point of view the point is that I am really not out to get casual sex, and I do not enjoy the chase. When people speak of love they often mean very different things - and there is only so much I want to discuss on a public forum...This dives into a whole other realm. LOL! I can tell 95% of the time if a girl is flirting with me, except that when I was younger, I never could believe it: "Wow, why would a girl that hot want anything to do with me? I must be deluding myself!"
This has more to do with getting in touch with your own sexuality. After this, the "determination" of "just friendly" or "interested" is extremely simple.
Yes, socionics can be a way to justify your character flaws and excuse your irresponsibility or insensitivity, but pretty much all available research indicates that many personality traits have a considerable heritable component. Children simply are not a tabula rasa that parents can freely mold as they wish. Finding a balance between the different functions dichotomies or aspects of reality is a challenge we all have to face on a daily basis and in my opinion socionics can offer some useful guidance and food for thought.Ah, but these things are not always determined with accuracy. On Lytov's website, when speaking about the "Socials" club (xSFx), it is said that many, after getting a bad grade, consider that the teacher is "out to get them", which is obviously untrue. (And indeed, many xSFx's will try to explain things in ways as strange as this quite often.)
It seems to be that having an F or a T preference has less to do with actual "accuracy" as it does with a prefered method of "explanation". All F or T seems to mean, is "what do you trust?"
Either could be wrong. A person could be more correct in his "T" estimations, but have more confidence in the "F" estimations.
At the heart of it all, I think the "intransigence" of socionics is developed by people who have problems expressing thier own soul and emotions, and are afraid to deal with this, so instead of improving themselves, devise a theory where it is "okay" to be frigid.
In many ways, a logical outlook on the world is developed as a necessity for those who fear showing thier emotions. Just as a multipronged perception of possibilities is needed for those who fear exerting thier will to obtain that one thing that they want. (One question: why are Intuitives almost always Ectomorphs?)
Of course, the converse is that people become emotional because they fear being logical, and people become willful because they cannot see other possibilities, but this just stupid. What is important in life is not logic and possibilities, but emotion and physicality. Logic and possibilities are just TOOLS to realize the real joys of life.
I have written about this too... The socionics.com descriptions by DarkAngelFireWolf69 are quite possibly the best in terms of their usefulness in typing, but even they often seem to fit many people with different types...I stay away from those descriptions because they seem to be applicable to so many people. I can tell if someone is NOT a certain type from those descriptions, but not if someone IS...you know what I mean?
This is a rather bold statement, in my opinon.Possibly...but discussion can only solve surface problems. There will always be deep feelings that no discussion could possibly touch or change.I would like to have some empirical backing...
Hmm, well I have to say that I do seem to be far more than I should, and so do many other people on this forum at least. I suppose those who are not troubled by their mood swings do not discover the need to study socionics in the first place.Yes, this is me 110%, but I ask: "Isn't everybody determined by mood?"
I think we are stumbling into semantic issues once again... I meant these words just in a figurative sense. We kind of need to create a new vocabulary to describe these new concepts socionics introduces. What I meant with regulating emotions, for example, was just spontaneously giving emotional support, evaluations and even criticism when your closest ones seem to need it.Remember, I am a "P"-type. :wink: Words like "regulate", "control", "authority" are hell: I don't want anybody to regulate/control/etc. anything. I also respect the golden rule: I don't want to regulate/control/ etc. anything of anyone elses'.
Of course, this could just be what I would like to think about myself; reality may have it differently.
You are right my approach was rather too general and abstract to be of much use for relative beginners at least. Anyway there are a lot of misleading stereotypes about different types. ISFP good - ISFJ bad, seems to be a popular one for example.I can't claim that I know enough about socionics to even imagine, interpret, or determine this situation. I DO know that I admire traits of I, N, F, and P as being sexually attractive, but duality and sexuality have no connection. I don't think that the dual is appreciated in "the abstract", that is, only in reality do you appreciate your dual, and even then you sometimes forget about them because they seem "a part of you."
Like how is "T" or "S" sexually attractive in a woman? Quite frankly, it is not, (just like "F" or "N" is unattractive in men) but it is conveinent to have T or S to fix things or take care of concrete plans.
Very true, but it is not always that easy to suddenly become a popular self-confident hunk. :wink: From my personal perspective I can say that I have from very early age on felt that I am both willing and perfectly capable of making a life time commitment. To what extent this is related to my type is hard to say, but I at least feel that it is to large extent an inborn trait, rather than a result of my upbringing or any detectable enviromental influence.Men are too passive these days. No reasonably attractive woman wants a passive man. There are more "attractive" women out there than there are "attractive" men. I would like to see a study (any study!
Guys that get many attractive girls will ALWAYS have to be forced into commitment. Girls won't want commitment until 28-30 when they realize that they won't be beautiful forever. (The smarter ones realize earlier than this.) However, girls need someone to commit to them on some level. (That doesn't preclude them from having sex with other guys though!)
I was pretty skeptical about the Oldham's types at first, but increasingly my subjective observations seem to lend support to the view that they correlate with the MBTI/socionics types quite well - and often the correlation can also be logically deduced based on the model A.You put to much stock in the Oldham-Socionic correlations in my not-so humble opinion!
I did not want to terrify you, but how about Josef Mengele ENFP?Change this to INFp, and I agree!
Compare for example here at least he was a "person of the mood" (it used to say man, is it the "newspeak" again?)
When a mother did not want to be separated from her thirteen-year-old daughter, and bit and scratched the face of the SS man who tried to force her to her assigned line, Mengele drew his gun and shot both the woman and the child. As a blanket punishment, he then sent to the gas all people from that transport who had previously been selected for work, with the comment: "Away with this shit!" (Lifton)
There were moments when his death mask gave way to a more animated expression, when Mengele came alive.There was excitement in his eyes, a tender touch in his hands. This was the moment when Josef Mengele, the geneticist, found a pair of twins. Mengele was almost fanatical about drawing blood from twins, mostly identical twins. He is reported to have bled some to death this way.
http://auschwitz.dk/Mengele/id17.htm
Could this be evidence of Te as hidden agenda??? I really do have a morbid fascination with evil.
Josef Mengele certainly fits this description...Interesting.
Well, not every person who does something wrong is a psychopath...There are "monsters" out there that aren't human in the sense that you and I are human.
Well, of course I did.Exactly. But this is precisely why they cannot be amended with simple discussion. (Although, I am beginning to get the feeling that maybe you meant a broader, more abstract "discussion"...)What an earth are you getting at?
Yes, but what I am trying to say is that everything is interconnected and the first step to changing the world should be analyzing and changing your own mind. Know thyself, as the ancient Greeks (maybe Socrates) said. What you feel is right or wrong is not, and cannot be, the sole definition of good and evil.This "mental slave" idea reminds me of a rebellious teenager...although this statement is very true I think.
AH-HA! I just got it!
Here is the difference: you think that by concerted effort and cooperation, moral order can be brought to the world.
However, I think that the world is a lost cause, and the only morals that matter are one's own feelings of right and wrong.
I believe that if we get everybody out of "bad situations", then the "moral problem" of humanity will fix itself. I think that it takes certain mindsets to do true evil: "sadistic", "victim", or "father knows best". Sadistic may ultimately be a mental malfunction, but the other two can be eliminated by creating a more favorable environment for people to be raised in. I don't think that any amount of reason can change what some people feel about life.
You seem to have an admirably positive view of humanity. In my opinion punishments are needed because people are fundamentally selfish creatures and if they can get away with murder many people would go about killing their fellow men with no hesitation. Just study history - man is a violent beast.Ah, I didn't see the connection between justice and "private vendettas"! I would certainly get back at someone for "wronging" me very badly, but I would not consider myself to be justified in doing so...but I would still do it. If somebody killed my kid, I would want them to die for it, but I would not consider myself "morally sound" for wanting this. I would be disgusted at myself on a certain level, but I would still go through with the "vengance".
I guess that I could explain my thoughts with "practical" and "moral" levels.
Do I think punishment is morally wrong and reprehensable? Yes. Some people are simply happy that punishment is in place, they then consider "everything to be in order". This is a dangerous belief. Nobody should be content with punishment needed to be carried out. Alas! Some people get a joy out of punishment, and this is just as bad as being a criminal.
Do I think punishment is a practical thing to do, and should be carried out. Yes. We can philosophize all day about forgiveness and kindness, but as you pointed out, there are reasons for punishment, and if punishment did not exist, society would most likely crumble.
Interesting, it explains a lot, I cannot see that picture. ESTP has been the most popular MBTI guess as well and in terms of Visual Identification it certainly is possible. If you look at Filatova's pictures The middle-aged man close to the bottom (picture number 16) has a slightly forced smile that does resemble the smile of George Bush in many pictures. One of the main difficulties I have with typing George W Bush is that he does not closely remind me of anyone I know. In many cases I have come to trust the type claims of socionics.com because the celebrities have in vague intuitive ways reminded me of people I know. On the other hand Socionics.com also typed Vladimir Putin as an ENTP and I still find that pretty unlikely. Anyway I am giving up typing celebrities for now at least, because quite frankly the analytical method is just far too unreliable. If only someone could finally introduce real logical vigour into typing...Ah, I forget, you are not American CS. The socionics.com site has a picture of Bush with a superimposed Osama BinLaden beard and turban in the FAQ section. You probably don't recognize Bush in this getup. It says "ESTP" below his picture though.
And I thought that only Europeans are blinded by their prejudices and therefore misunderstand America and George W Bush. Of course his most important "value" is staying in power, but I guess you can call opposing gay marriage and supporting the war in Iraq values of a kind too. Pro-democracy and "tradional" values sort of compassionate conservative - or whatever...No, that is just the thing! He makes it out to LOOK like he is "all about values", but for anyone with any perceptive processes at all, it is an OBVIOUS ploy. He has probably THE most talented political staff working for him.
Alright, let me give you the low-down about Pres. Bush:
Smack dab in the middle of a war, where many of our young-adults were being FORCED to stay and fight in, Mr. Bush comes out in his address to the nation and says:
"Get steroids out of baseball!" (Where did THIS come from?)
Values!? Where?
Yet again, the war is not going as planned, nobody can find Saddam's nukes. What does Mr. Bush have to say about this:
"Get rid of gay marriage!"
WTF!? Who cares about gay marriage? We have kids DYING in Iraq, and this guy wants to ban....gay marriage? (Many people were again shocked, for this came out of NOWHERE.)
Obviously, he was told by his political staff what things to say to get him elected. And sure enough, he was elected on a platform of VALUES. (Congrats Bush Political Team, you outsmarted the poor once again!) Where are the values here? Lying, deception, dissembling!
Anyway, if you lived in the U.S. you might see it differently. (And this is all I will say about Bush...)
Well: If a shoe don't fit, it ain't your shoe!
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
Edited for gayness.
Ok... when I first posted that link I KNEW I was right but I couldn't tell if CS was right because of the beard and turban so I thought it might have been my own poor facial recognition skills but I KNEW I was right!!!
Here is teh link again:
http://www.socionics.com/advan/qa130303.htm
Again hit control-F and type in politicians.
Here is the picture:
Sorry I didn't see what you wrote earlier Transigent but lately these posts have been so frickin long I haven't bothered to read them ^^
Now I See It!
Most - or almost all - the actors you referred to were typed by socionics.com. Now we have come to trust socionics.com - partly because the type claims seem to make sense to most of us (myself included) - but I am afraid also because it is convinient to have something you can build on. The trouble is that say socioniko.narod.ru and ru.laser.ru often type quite differently, and let us not get started about MBTI... Often we see what we want to see - or can only observe the things we believe are there - and I am afraid this is the case also here.Well, I was talking more about the obvious roles, where it shows a good example of how a certain type acts. Many times, the actors act how they naturally are, and give off an interesting portrayal of thier own type.
For example, these guys seem to give off thier own personality in the roles that they play in movies (and even sometimes on the "talk shows" when they are interviewed.):
ENTp: Jeff Goldblum, John Cleese
ESTj: Bruce Willis
ESFj: Eddie Murphy
ENFj: Charlton Heston, Sam Jackson
ISTj: Sting (!), Julia Roberts, Anthony Hopkins (Silence of the Lambs)
ESFp: Pam Grier, Al Pacino (Scarface)
ENTj: Quinten Tarentino, Steve Buscemi (Armegeddon, Resevouir Dogs)
ENFp: James Woods, Keanu Reeves
ISTp: John Malkovich (Conair), Mel Gibson
INFp: Adam Sandlar, Vin Diesel (the "tough guy" INFp)
Many times it becomes clear after seeing a movie role or an interview from one of these people, that some other people that you know are a certain "type".
For example, the theatricality of ENFj, the emotional and intellectual deepness of ISTj, the calmness and knowhow of ESTj, the "me against the world" and indignant ESFp, the sharp and insightful ENTj, the intellectual emotionality of ENFp, etc.
These are all traits that come through in the acting and shine light on the manifestations of the types. You can almost "see" the functions come to life in these examples. And you can start to see the differences between "pairs" of functions.
For example, say you don't know what
But are we really? I am not so sure. It think it should be much easier for people to understand each other if this truely were the case.Oh, indeed, there are many similarities. I am starting to think that type is only how a person acts. It seems as too many problems arise when we try to use type to explain how a person is. Because aren't we all pretty much the same inside?
Perhaps you were drawn to science because though you can question anything, there really are also things that can be proven correct once and for all, the eternal truths of mathematics do have their appeal... Our human endeavors are rarely fully correct and complete, but I do not think that should stop us from trying.I don't know if that can be used as an excuse to avoid thinking. Conclusions are hard to come by when halfway through the "rigourous thinking" you suddenly see everything in a different light where everything that you have "derived" is now incorrect and incomplete. What good is it to continue a line of thinking that has no connection with the "new" perception?
At least from my perspective this would clearly seem to indicate extroversion, :wink: fits well with the ENFP profile too...No, I am usually right. Even up until the point where I can tell the very minute before they finally decide to come up to me to try to "start something".
Then I feel a "jump", and I think "No! Here they come to ruin everything!"
Sometimes, it is even clear the "reason" that they want to be with me: "natural/emotional" or "intellectual/practical", or when I "grow on someone".
Of course, this whole process is so much fun that it is annoying when they finally want to "make it reality". This kind of ends the "game" and after this it is "down to business": a process that isn't as much fun.
This is why I usually prefer girls that I can tell would never take the initiative on thier own. Of course, the less expressive a person is, the harder it is to be "correct" in your estimation, but this way is more fun.
I think the heritabilities can be thought kind of as a slippery slope. For some getting ahead entails having to push against steeper angles, and many of the instinctive motivating drives or "pleasure/pain mechanisms" are predetermined beyond conscious control. It is all very complicated, but I think often we all would need to know people who resemble ourselves, because you can intimately understand only people who have at least somewhat similar strengths and weaknesses, otherwise for example the potential advice is often just too far-fetched... I think this is also one potential benefit of socionics.Every single trait, method of thought, quirk, etc. I can see/saw in either my parents or grandparents. Often, I deal with, think, or act according to what one of them would do, act or think in a certain situation.
But even heritability does not imply predetermined. Consider that you have a "choice" between "Mom's" trait or "Dad's" trait. You can only pick one of course, but suppose that in your life you realize that "Dad's" trait has failed you, then you will start to "develop" your latent "Mom" trait to deal with the situation at hand.
It does happen, of course. Personally I still think that your behavior and personality may change greatly but the socionics type stays the same. Nothing proven - as always - but my observations support the claims of most socionists.Ah, just because it is malleable does not imply "freely molded". I think it takes certain "life crisises" and "epiphanies" to change who you are at a "socionics molecular level." But I absolutely think that people can change, only this change is NOT a concious choice, it is an adaptation of the psyche to different life events. (Funny thing is that relationships can change over the years...ever realize that a person you have known for many years is "different" then what they once were, and that you no longer enjoy the company of this person?)
Which functional analysis descriptions? I cannot remember them all but the longest (?) ones seemed generally the best. I think though that the type descriptions are often more suitable for typing other people than yourself.I think the functional analysis type descriptions on the Russian site are the best. The socionics.com descriptions are interesting, but as you said, they often apply to many people. I myself can find "quirks" of mine in almost half the descriptions.
I am not so sure, I really do not develop muscles easily, developing endurance seems much easier for me. It is true though I should take better care of my health and exercise more...Sure it is, just hit the gym! There is so much knowledge out there about the human body that it is very easy to become "muscularized" in a relatively short amount of time. Most people would be shocked to realize how much the body has to do with everything mental, emotional, social and sexual.
Thanks for the compliment, but I meant also in a far more controversial sense that my idea of love has always involved an unhealthy degree of, ideally mutual, somewhat desperate clingyness...This is probably because you are a thoughtful and intellegent person with high moral standards. I think that correlates more than anything else with wanting to have a commitment with someone.
It is hard to say about the Oldham's types because we really do not have the evidence, but just keep them at the back of your mind, and keep on comparing...I think they correlate well to sterotypes, but after this it was just hinders things. In my opinion...
Some of the perpetrators were in every way depraved people, but the strange thing is that most of them seemed to be perfectly outstanding, often highly intelligent, people before - and in many cases after - they committed their atrocities. Just the number of distinguished German physicians and scientists who were involved.. I think we are all perfectly capable of commiting evil, it is a serious mistake to think it was/is just a few bad apples.Interesting. It seems that many of the "players" in the Holocaust were seriously depraved people. My personal view on the whole thing is that it was just a dark and evil time, and I wouldn't dismiss the view that many people who were pathologically misanthropic and evil were quickly "promoted" to the high ranks. Thus, it may be hard to "type" these people, because they were so possessed with evil.
This is a classic example. Yes, now I see what you mean. I think primarily it should be the task of the society to make sure that people do not need to face such hard choices, but beyond that I guess it has to be dealt on case by case basis, and that is why mitigating circumstances are taken into consideration when the minimum standards of public morality are enforced by the courts.Why not? Why try to define good and evil seperate from your own point of view? Morality is not something that is absolute; it is ALWAYS relative. Everyone is immoral from different points of view,What you feel is right or wrong is not, and cannot be, the sole definition of good and evil.
Consider a mother that robs a store to get food for her starving children. Is this wrong?
Well, from the point of view of society, yes it is wrong, because people cannot just steal things when they need it, or else there would be anarchy.
However, from the point of view of the mother, it is not wrong, because she truly felt that there was no other option. It would be more wrong to let the people that depend on her starve to death.
Now, is it justified if society punishes her for this action? Yes, because this is the role that they must play to make sure that people don't do crimes "for the hell of it." Is it justified if the mother tries to use excuses to get away from the punishement (if the children weren't affected by the punishment of course)? No; she should serve her time, this is the debt she must pay to society.
But after it is all said and done, suppose you were the moral "judge" of the world. Would you say that anyone is morally defunct here? Certainly it cannot be the mother: she thought she was doing good, and she served her punishment. If anything, society was wrong for "treating her as a number" and punishing her "according to law", but this is up for opinion and depends on many extraneous factors.
No, I think man is a predatory beast. If people can gain by hurting others without risk of punishment...Yes, but I think it is important to realize the motivations of violence. What if all violence were a result of fear of the other person being violent first?
I think man himself is a "doomsday device" in that he does not naturally want to do bad, but does so anyway from fear of others "doing bad" on him first. This is actually how many wars started.
Many horrific acts are done in the ideology that "this will keep even worse things from happening in the future", but is this always true, or is it a self-fufilling prophesy?
Only God knows...
Sorry, I just realized (thanks to Pedro) that the man wearing the turban is George W Bush. Of course.I agree. Actually, looking at it deeper, perhaps they type the leaders based on policies? Looking at some younger pictures of Bush...it is hard to say T or F....
But E, S, and P seem clear enough from his party-hardy, snorting cocaine days...
George Bush seems so universally loathed, everyone's favorite hate figure almost, that I would really like to know why the majority of American voters supported him?Bush and about 50% of America are coming dangerously close to the "father knows best" idea. Not to say that they may not be correct, but this is a scary belief to see people in power have.
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
Re: Now I See It!
Notice that I didn't use ALL of the people that were VI'ed by socionics.com. If these people are the wrong "type", I am afraid that socionics would cease to have all meaning whatsoever.
I just used socionics.com as a "confirmation" of actors of a certain type. It is unlikely that ALL of those people are typed correctly.
Lytov's site mistypes many people. All it took was one look in the ENFj section to see that people are typed by "stereotypes" on that site. And a little digging on the russian site shows that other people also disagree.
However, some people are very representative of the "type" and this was what I was getting at. I don't trust socionics.com all the way, but it is nice when everything matches up.
Put it this way: we all want and need pretty much the same basic things.But are we really? I am not so sure. It think it should be much easier for people to understand each other if this truely were the case.
I think the difficult part is knowing when to bring order to something, and when something is inherently orderless.Our human endeavors are rarely fully correct and complete, but I do not think that should stop us from trying.
Well, that is one of the things that made me wonder if I was ENFp.At least from my perspective this would clearly seem to indicate extroversion, :wink: fits well with the ENFP profile too...
If you look at everyone's advice, and ask yourself "why do they think that way," often you can figure out the ways that you need to think in order to believe thier advice and take it to heart. Even things that seem "far-fetched" to you can be helpful from a different point of view.otherwise for example the potential advice is often just too far-fetched...
The key is finding this point of view, and this takes effort beyond what many are willing or able to do.
Yes, perhaps. The relationship descriptions are quite terse and don't really have "everything" in there.It does happen, of course. Personally I still think that your behavior and personality may change greatly but the socionics type stays the same. Nothing proven - as always - but my observations support the claims of most socionists.
I think it is DarkAngelFireWolf69.Which functional analysis descriptions? I cannot remember them all but the longest (?) ones seemed generally the best. I think though that the type descriptions are often more suitable for typing other people than yourself.
These descriptions are good because they don't have such "sharp" differences between types. Everything is subtle, just like in real life.
Of course not, with that attitude!I am not so sure, I really do not develop muscles easily, developing endurance seems much easier for me. It is true though I should take better care of my health and exercise more...
Anyway, it is a pain in the ass, and very few people can keep up the commitment.
Oh, I see...you wanted me to make fun of you for it!Thanks for the compliment, but I meant also in a far more controversial sense that my idea of love has always involved an unhealthy degree of, ideally mutual, somewhat desperate clingyness...
If you think that it is unhealthy, then it is probably not a natural trait for you to have?
Possession by demons...but the strange thing is that most of them seemed to be perfectly outstanding, often highly intelligent, people before - and in many cases after - they committed their atrocities.
Not all people...but yes, I guess I agree. Some are bad and some are good, and most are inbetween.No, I think man is a predatory beast. If people can gain by hurting others without risk of punishment...
He's older, and he is a politician. ALL politicians in america have to have the impression that they are "in touch" with thier emotions.I am still not quite willing to buy the socionics.com claim George W Bush ESTP though, he seems awfully confident with his emotions, and ESTP just seems so boringly obvious.
Oh, I know.The challenge in typing is that I always want to find something excotic and unexpected, reveal the hidden depths of the man, so to say...
Bush is hated mostly by the people on the coasts. Educated people don't care for him as much. He panders to the people who live out in the country with his "persona" (not his policies !) and this works like a charm for him.George Bush seems so universally loathed, everyone's favorite hate figure almost, that I would really like to know why the majority of American voters supported him?
There are enough people who are not as "knowlegable" about things as they probably should be, but these people still have votes.
And guess who they overwhelmingly voted for?
Anyway, the guy that ran against him didn't really have a set "stand" on anything. Also, the opposing political party of Bush is falling apart as it stands, so they really couldn't get anything started.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
