Wake Up Call

[Creepy-bg]

so who did you bully into writing this for you? typical SLE move

[aestrivex]

i hope you wouldn't claim that all, or even most people do some of these things (though it obviously varies by individual).

[implied]

so who did you bully into writing this for you? typical SLE move

yeah, whose lunch money did you steal? (;

[hellothere]

Generally I liked this post, but I have a question about this section:

It's all bullshit! "Huh?!?! " you say. I'm quite inclined to say that type has a pretty minimal influence on many personal attributes that seem to be associated with certain types and functions around here. A lot of characteristics are based on situational events, upbringing (nurture), or social influence, and shouldn't be considered when typing people. When you do associate such behaviors with Socionics you create the fundamental attribution error. That will ruin many of your typings. So before typing someone, think to yourself, "Is this behavior actually type related?" If you're unsure, it's probably best to find better information when trying to type said person.

How can you figure out which characteristics are due to situational events, upbringing, or social influence so you can separate them out when trying to type someone?

[hellothere]

alright cool, I understand what you're getting at

but then are you assuming that we are born with a type?

[hellothere]

then maybe characteristics due to upbringing (as distinct from situational influences) shouldn't be dismissed

[hellothere]

To some extent I see what you're saying, but what I meant was more along the lines of "if a mom beats her child constantly and he clams up for the rest of his life, that doesn't mean that he's a Socionics introvert." Sorry I didn't make that clear.

yep fair enough

[aestrivex]

Really, I wouldn't have wasted my time on it if nobody here did any of that stuff.

i think you're wasting your time in trying to tell people about it regardless. honestly, is dee going to listen to anything you have to say?

[ScarlettLux]

Bravo, Herzy. UDP - this sums up what I wanted to say to you when you asked me just what I thought was wrong with your "Dinner with IEI" thread.

Dee is a real person, and that is what terrifies me. He also lives very close to me, apparently. I remember we were actually about to set up a Socionics meet type thing near Toronto or Mississauga ... I wonder what would happen if we actually did meet. I could inform you all if he is as crazy as he comes off here.

Is that even possible? With people like Dio and stuff, I really have to wonder just what they are as REAL life people ... *shudders*

[Minde]

i think you're wasting your time in trying to tell people about it regardless. honestly, is dee going to listen to anything you have to say?

Dee might not, but people who might listen to and get confused by dee and others like him can benefit from this.


Good job, Herzy! If I think of more specific comments I'll be sure to post them, but for now it looks good! (It's good writing, too - I like the numbered points...)

[aestrivex]

Dee might not, but people who might listen to and get confused by dee and others like him can benefit from this.

well, isn't it rather obvious that some people do shit like this?

[Creepy-bg]

She broke my glasses too.

/me gives Carla half my sandwich and a juicebox. :wink:

[Minde]

well, isn't it rather obvious that some people do shit like this?

It's probably not obvious to people who are new to the theory or this forum. Sometimes, it's not even obvious to people who have been here awhile. And, sometimes, people just forget.

I'm sure you already know this, but not everyone is as smart or intelligent as you, niffweed.

[aestrivex]

Of course. But Herzy has to get out her frustration somehow, doesn't she? What better way to do it than completely pwn3ning and telling people where it's at?

well i don't even think she did a very good job of that.

[cracka]

Dee is a good example for this thread but there are more than just him who will go into a thread and pretty much make their case about something and not even listen to others views or opinions. This makes it almost seem like they have to be correct (to a Noob in socionics or someone similar) in what they are saying and that nobody will ever change whatever views those are. Not constructively that is... It pretty much takes 10 people saying: "you are totally wrong" for some people to even think that what they're saying may actually not be correct. Even then, they'll blame it on the "stupid masses" that make up the rest of this forum outside of their little bubble. This is just sad really.

[Creepy-bg]

Dee is a good example for this thread but there are more than just him who will go into a thread and pretty much make their case about something and not even listen to others views or opinions. This makes it almost seem like they have to be correct (to a Noob in socionics or someone similar) in what they are saying and that nobody will ever change whatever views those are. Not constructively that is... It pretty much takes 10 people saying: "you are totally wrong" for some people to even think that what they're saying may actually not be correct. Even then, they'll blame it on the "stupid masses" that make up the rest of this forum outside of their little bubble. This is just sad really.

u want a juice box?

[xyz]

....you guys need to step outside and get some fresh air and um, hang out with some people

[cracka]

....you guys need to step outside and get some fresh air and um, hang out with some people

I've been around people all day at work... I'm trying not to go out and get drunk tonight... don't screw that up by making me think I have no life...lol.
*shoots self in head*

[tcaudilllg]

s00p3rv1z3d!!

You should copyright that for a t-shirt.

[cracka]

Cracka, no. That's not an option. You're not allowed to kill yourself. We'd miss you too much.

Offing myself is never gonna happen... but thanks. You're all just gonna be stuck with me.

[xyz]

Go out and get drunk goddamit

[Gilly]

I'm tempted to say that this is mostly kindof over-obvious, and pretty pointless to point out to most of the people who actually make these mistakes, but thanks for at least putting it all in one place

[Blaze]

so who did you bully into writing this for you? typical SLE move

still,

LOL

d00d.

[iAnnAu]

I enjoyed reading this a lot, Herzy.
Just made a much shorter comment along these lines in some other thread, and now I feel like "D'oh! It just got said- and better!"
Not a bad thing, at all ...

[aka-kitsune]

well i don't even think she did a very good job of that.

You just sound bitter b/c you didn't think of it first.

Doesn't matter that it's obvious--it's still always the elephant in the room that stomps around and is rarely addressed directly. I might be still considered a n00b @ Socionics and generally lurking on the periphery of this forum, but even I can see that anyone who assumes they're not capable of this at some point in time is a blasted hypocrite.

Even you who believe yourselves Socionics scholars fall into this trap and make incorrect assumptions once in a while.

[aestrivex]

You just sound bitter b/c you didn't think of it first.

lol i've been saying that certain people are braindead idiots on this forum for two years now.

not that herzy hasn't periodically done that as well, but take a step back and think about that comparison.

[jessica129]

Dee is a real person, and that is what terrifies me. He also lives very close to me, apparently. I remember we were actually about to set up a Socionics meet type thing near Toronto or Mississauga ... I wonder what would happen if we actually did meet. I could inform you all if he is as crazy as he comes off here.

Is that even possible? With people like Dio and stuff, I really have to wonder just what they are as REAL life people ... *shudders*

lol

I don't have much to add to this thread other than I agree 100% with everything Herzy has said. It's everything I've been thinking for awhile now. I don't come here to read up on socionics anymore...frankly I find it pointless. I only come here because I enjoy the forum. More people need to read this thread and take it to heart.

[Blaze]

herzy makes some very good points about the tendency to get sucked into a socionics vortex which limits one's thinking....esp early on in understanding this theory.

we are organisms that exist in an environment and that grow and change over time. trying to say that socionics explains everything simply isn't logical since it would fail to take into consideration the facts and details of a person's life and experiences.

like you could have an LSI who had to endure a Nazi concentration camp and one that lived free and clear in the USA. these different situations and the experiences that would accompany them are going to have a profound impact on the person.

my personal pet peeve about socionics is that it does not do a very good job of explaining how people change, grow, develop and balance themselves as they get older.

to me, socionics is kind of like a skeleton of personality....it can kind of inform the shape or structure of a person, but without the skin, muscles, blood, brain, and a changing environment to place the person in, it's less than half the overall picture.

[inumbra]

I think that I make all of these mistakes (not always certain of the frequency or degree), but I’m aware of them and my aim is to reduce them over time. I allow myself to make them, because I perceive it as necessary to learning.

I think that in a way they all may reflect a single underlying problem.

Consider this lovely image:



Say that the ball in the center is like the essence of an IM element in a particular function, e.g. PoLR. The spikes represent all of the different ways that PoLR can manifest itself in individuals (just assume the number of ways is finite for the sake of the example). What I think “we’re” often trying to do (or at least I often am) is get at the central ball—the essence so as to better see what is of it and what is not... AND how it relates to people and things in real life and how it does not. In some ways this is an impossible task because no IM element stands alone, but in other ways I think it can be helpful.

So as we go from an understanding of PoLR (in general... imagine a flat plane with 3d spikes emerging from it... the flat plane being the "in general" thing that connects all the spikes... couldn't find an image) to trying to apply it to individuals, we might say something like, “well in general PoLR types aren’t as good at managing confrontations as, say, ego types.” Then Mariano Rajoy comes along and says, “hey my job involves managing confrontation and I do a great job of it.” This can then appear to contradict the “in essence”/“in general” understanding of PoLR. (i.e. the translation of the essence of PoLR into words didn't work so well, OR the understanding of the essence of PoLR itself is somewhat off)

But if we had approached it from the other direction… Say that one of the spikes represents how PoLR manifests itself specifically in Mariano Rajoy. Then we might be able to make note of that and see that it does flow back into the essence of PoLR (or stems from it), while at the same time noticing that in this case PoLR doesn’t manifest itself in not knowing how to effectively manage confrontations. If approached from this direction, we’re less likely to try to generalize everyone into a single group, and can more easily see this:

Now, how does PoLR manifest itself in SLEs? You'll never get a single answer for that, because it has a different effect on each individual SLE.

Of course then you can still do things like notice a particular behavior in someone and say, “I wonder if that stems from their Xy PoLR,” when really it’s just an individual quirk that has little or nothing to do with information metabolism. In that case, it might help to look at it from the central ball again... noticing perhaps that in essence it doesn't quite connect up.

Reality is of course the outside helpful thing that can confirm or deny particular patterns of abstract thought... both in the form of individual actions and intertype relations. And "reality" is the thing that I need to pay more attention to perhaps.

(By the way, I’m not trying to imply that the PoLR represents a crippling disability.)

I sort of see mistakes as necessary to fine tune one’s perception of these sorts of things. And actually having these things listed out neatly (as Herzy has done) is nice and easy to read.

Anyway, I think there are a few problems logically with what I just said... but it's a work in progress, as always.

[aka-kitsune]

lol i've been saying that certain people are braindead idiots on this forum for two years now.

not that herzy hasn't periodically done that as well, but take a step back and think about that comparison.

Yes, but your criticism always has a certain personal quality of correcting what you see as errors in understanding socionics. And you also have somewhat of a zero tolerance policy for differing opinions, IMO ("I will not debate this with you because you are an idiot"). Herzy is instead pointing out that the overall application of socionics "typology" can be fundamentally flawed by forgetting that people are people, different, not a type, and prone to act unpredictably at times.

Not convenient for those who like their behavior predictable, have clear unshakable standards for any personality type and relegate people to a convenient box from which they are not allowed to stray beyond.

We can all readily see that certain people are idiots. But everyone falls prey to the tendency to try to boil things down to lowest common denominator in a stab at taking a short cut to understanding.

[Logos]

Herzy, right now I wuv you. This has been a problem of mine for awhile now, since it seems that a number of individuals are blaming/projecting their dislikes and hates of individuals onto types and functions. "They rubbed my sense of Ti the wrong way." or "How could those LSIs and LIIs possibly be like that!" People are forgetting that Socionics is supposed to be about being aware of and productively improving relations and not as a means of creating more differences with which we can try and objectify others.

[Ezra]

Herzy, what always surprises me about you is the way you can rapidly morph out of Se-orientated mode into Ti. Good skill to have.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

A lot of things can centre around reasons for not being good at things, negativity, something i've been looking at is ways an understanding of socionics can impove weak points someone sees in themselves, and group interaction.

[BLauritson]

I don't really have anything to contribute but I'd like to say I think this is a good thread. I know I've been guilty in the past of what's been mentioned on there, although I think I've more or less gotten past that now (I hope so anyway, or else I think it would bring my intelligence into question given how long I've been studying this now). I think even if this is common knowledge to most people, it doesn't hurt to occasionally make a thread like this since, if nothing else, it's a refresher and it can help people who might be (unwittingly) falling into bad habits. Obviously you'll always have forum idiots and you'll get people who are new to the theory and might be making these mistakes, etc. etc., but things like this can always help those who have the potential to grow past this. I think the best thing to remember is that nobody can ever have a truly complete understanding of Socionics and that even the experts can make mistakes. If people remember this, then perhaps we can continue to develop and mature our understanding. But I'm probably just regurgitating what people have already said.. I'll stop now.

[Gilly]

I think that I make all of these mistakes (not always certain of the frequency or degree), but I’m aware of them and my aim is to reduce them over time. I allow myself to make them, because I perceive it as necessary to learning.

I think that in a way they all may reflect a single underlying problem.

Consider this lovely image:



Say that the ball in the center is like the essence of an IM element in a particular function, e.g. PoLR. The spikes represent all of the different ways that PoLR can manifest itself in individuals (just assume the number of ways is finite for the sake of the example). What I think “we’re” often trying to do (or at least I often am) is get at the central ball—the essence so as to better see what is of it and what is not... AND how it relates to people and things in real life and how it does not. In some ways this is an impossible task because no IM element stands alone, but in other ways I think it can be helpful.

So as we go from an understanding of PoLR (in general... imagine a flat plane with 3d spikes emerging from it... the flat plane being the "in general" thing that connects all the spikes... couldn't find an image) to trying to apply it to individuals, we might say something like, “well in general PoLR types aren’t as good at managing confrontations as, say, ego types.” Then Mariano Rajoy comes along and says, “hey my job involves managing confrontation and I do a great job of it.” This can then appear to contradict the “in essence”/“in general” understanding of PoLR. (i.e. the translation of the essence of PoLR into words didn't work so well, OR the understanding of the essence of PoLR itself is somewhat off)

But if we had approached it from the other direction… Say that one of the spikes represents how PoLR manifests itself specifically in Mariano Rajoy. Then we might be able to make note of that and see that it does flow back into the essence of PoLR (or stems from it), while at the same time noticing that in this case PoLR doesn’t manifest itself in not knowing how to effectively manage confrontations. If approached from this direction, we’re less likely to try to generalize everyone into a single group, and can more easily see this:



Of course then you can still do things like notice a particular behavior in someone and say, “I wonder if that stems from their Xy PoLR,” when really it’s just an individual quirk that has little or nothing to do with information metabolism. In that case, it might help to look at it from the central ball again... noticing perhaps that in essence it doesn't quite connect up.

Good analogy. If the "central ball" is the essence of the function, what "dominance" or "weakness" really says about that individual would be, in this analogy, a combination of the area of the ball that is covered in spikes
and, perhaps, the length or sharpness of them as well For example, a balanced LII or EII might be able to deal with most matters of Se sufficiently to not have them bother him or her significantly in every-day matters, but if one area is pressed to hard, something is bound to get through; another LII, like Mariano, may have refined one particular aspect of Se, but is therefore probably lacking significantly in another.

Anyways, I like this approach.

[Mariano Rajoy]

A little goes a long way.

[Gilly]

Did either of you even bother to read the disclaimer?

Why on earth would I bother reading all of that?

[Logos]

We are talking eight information aspects which are supposed to cover all of information processing of reality. If the whole PoLR and Role functions are as weak as people sometimes make them out to be, then we would all be walking around blind it would seem. Perhaps we are, but not quite to the extent that some would have us be.

[Mariano Rajoy]

I will say that I do my duties as a bouncer in a very alpha way. I am mostly on the lookout for people that are impolite or in a bad mood or get an attitude when I speak to them. Definite red flag, and I feel completely justified in showing them the door.

[Gilly]

Why on earth would I bother reading all of that?

...