Theory or Reality
Socionics as theory...
when does a person become unclassifiable... when they discover the theory or reasoning behind their likely behaviour perhaps thus become freer to grow into a rounded person.
A rounded person in my opinion understands their personal psychology fully and has no type per se though they probably had an originating type they grew up from.
Remember to keep things simple and not any simpler like Einstein once said.
Re: Theory or Reality
I think we're expecting too much of socionics. A type is just the organization of functions in the human psyche. It's information metabolism. It has an effect on personality, but I don't think it's to the degree that seems to be expected by most. I'm becoming more convinced that there's not really such a thing as "developing" a function. You might be able to become more confortable with its use or its place in your psyche's structure, but I don't expect you can make it "act" more like it would in someone who has it as a dominant conscious function. I also think we give functions more credit than they're due by linking them to certain tasks. The functions should structure how one might achieve a task, not what tasks a person is capable of achieving.Originally Posted by snowyc
I agree a well-rounded person would "understand" himself. I think he would definately still have a type; however, he would know his limitations and skills and know how to work around things when necessary.
I think someone would become harder to type in such a situation, but because our methods of type identification depend a lot on observing behaviors, not because someone suddenly becomes typeless.
I'm also currently looking into the idea that people seek an identity that is defined from outside themselves. Simplistically, at the cost of precision, we need someone else to "tell us who we are." Such a thing would really throw the whole "individuality" movement out of whack.
Not to seem sychophantic, but I wholly agree with the above poster.
Lyricist
"Supposing the entity of the poet to be represented by the number 10, it is certain that a chemist, on analyzing it, would find it to be composed of one part interest and nine parts vanity." (Victor Hugo)
niveK and snowyc
I agree with both of them.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
The more i seek to understand myself the more i am able to identify aspects for character development. The best use of Socionics theory thus, has to be the intertype relations, it provides the missing link in my understanding of how say i relate to my family and friends giving me the much needed reasoning useful for easing tensions or engaging effectively when people are acting in type (usually when stressed or under duress).
Remember to keep things simple and not any simpler like Einstein once said.
I'm not there yet, but I want to besomeday. I'm terribly distant from almost all of my family..........
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Intertype relations are probably what make socionics worth the effort. And not just for how people get along, but also how information and energy will flow through a system of people. It can prove useful for optimizing a group to perform a task. The quadra is most effective, as it provides complete support, correction, understanding and activation for all involved parties.
i sort of agree. it doesn't mean we can't type well rounded people in middle age who are set in their ways, though.
lol
Re: Theory or Reality
I think we're expecting too much of socionics. A type is just the organization of functions in the human psyche. It's information metabolism. It has an effect on personality, but I don't think it's to the degree that seems to be expected by most. I'm becoming more convinced that there's not really such a thing as "developing" a function. You might be able to become more confortable with its use or its place in your psyche's structure, but I don't expect you can make it "act" more like it would in someone who has it as a dominant conscious function. I also think we give functions more credit than they're due by linking them to certain tasks. The functions should structure how one might achieve a task, not what tasks a person is capable of achieving.
I agree a well-rounded person would "understand" himself. I think he would definately still have a type; however, he would know his limitations and skills and know how to work around things when necessary.
I think someone would become harder to type in such a situation, but because our methods of type identification depend a lot on observing behaviors, not because someone suddenly becomes typeless.
I'm also currently looking into the idea that people seek an identity that is defined from outside themselves. Simplistically, at the cost of precision, we need someone else to "tell us who we are." Such a thing would really throw the whole "individuality" movement out of whack.
i do think that one can 'develop' functions. by that i don't mean the function can then be exercised as though it's dominant (if it's not), but that the person achieves a better control or skill in using it, in its own position. i agree that the basic type would still be the same - but it's harder to see.
What is 'roundedness', if not harmonious development of one's type and integration of one's different traits and talents?
When you're in a favorable environment, have found your right 'niche,' and all the functions are 'on' and working smoothly, it 'feels' subjectively like you're everywhere and everything. But to the external observer... it's obvious that this is just another version of the same old you, but in nice working condition.
All it takes is to stick you in another niche where you can't operate on your strong functions, and everything falls apart.
What is a person like who has no socionic type? Strictly speaking, that's someone who has identical relationships with all types in the socion and has no motive for social cooperation (because they have no lopsidedness built into their psyche).
The development of one's environment to suit one's type?
Or one who has conflicting relations with all types, or relations of benefit, etc. When one interacts with a person in all 16 manners simultaneously the inequalities can be seen as inverse vectors of one another (of course i realize this can be generalized further but i am trying to stay on point).
Motivation extends beyond the psychical realm and psychological dissonance can be as much a goal as completeness.
Yeah, that's part of it, tooThe development of one's environment to suit one's type?
[/quote]Or one who has conflicting relations with all types, or relations of benefit, etc
Motivation extends beyond the psychical realm and psychological dissonance can be as much a goal as completeness.
I meant 'identical' in the non-socionic meaning of the word. This 'type-less' person would be indifferent to the types of those around him.
Hm... dissonance as a goal? Dissonance in relationships or within oneself? Pursuing dissonance in relationships (ruining other people's lives, for instance) might be a weird sort of self-affirmation that would again somehow be related to the needs of one's psyche. Pursuing dissonance within oneself, if taken literally, would rapidly lead to self-destruction and death.
this seems to be an extrajection onto an unknown quantity
i would say that there is an ostensive tie between the two. as you said, what is wholeness but the harmonization of qualia? it seems that ideas such as übermensch allow the above to be realized positively, or in socionics terms it would be "developing one's." i guess *shrugs*. isn't "integration" or "development" merely the construction and realization of morologicisms? if so we can preclude the shortcomings of our deliberations by pushing at the limits of the demarcations from which they spawned
Hm... I may have lost you here (I know, I'm probably the only one who didn't get it :-)isn't "integration" or "development" merely the construction and realization of morologicisms?
sorry i am practicing something not trying to be obscure. integration seems to be the process of allowing illogicities to coexist with one another so if our goal is "totality" (ie complete harmonization) or some such we must actively seek out antithetical notions and incorporate them which ironically is the ruination of the original aim
I think it is a fun theory at first but things dont seem to mirror reality--at least for me. The most striking thing is being able to identify with 4 of the 8 functions strongly but I also have an entire laundry list that Im sure none of you want to read. At any rate, it can be fun. Note the "can be."
Socionics is both a blessing and a curse.
I have had to remind myself that people are people. I have to ask myself why i'm single - a combination of being too fussy, too rational, defaulting to shyness in high extroverted situations and living my social life like i'm always observing types rather then people with individual tastes and desires.
For example, if a girl of a certain non-dual type likes me, i should pursue the interest regardless of my rational feeling towards whether the relationship is going to theoretically work.
I'm a Rational. If i want to make the best use of my strengths i would realise quickly what works and what doesn't and stop putting myself in situations that don't get results e.g. noisy dark night clubs.
Thus I would conclude...
Rationals (NTs) may need more actual *experience* to complete their understanding of intertype relations. In other words, learn the hard way by making real mistakes with real people rather then playing out theoretical scenarios.
In direct contrast with...
Guardians (Sjs) who may need some *theory* to fill any gaps in their understanding of any tensions in their current relationships. A simple observation and notice on how to immediately improve a poor relationship would be useful.
NTs perhaps learn this stuff perhaps in the hope of using it to better themselves and others. Sj's are perhaps the guinea pigs for NTs.
NTs or the Promethean temperament are by nature, knowledge-seekers and may try to learn to control nature. Knowledge is indeed power if used and applied with conscious effort.
Remember to keep things simple and not any simpler like Einstein once said.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote