Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Curious

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Curious

    Well... I've been studying Socionics off and on for a few years, but I don't know if I understand it.

    I've studied the roles functions play, and the differences between the functions. I've only been left with a certainty of one thing... Socionic functions are similar to, but different from MBTI functions. But to be honest, I never understood those particularly well, either.

    The problem I have with typing, is that you can't infer enough from behavior. There are too many explanations for any particular behavior, so one has to look at the overall pattern. But the problem is, how do I know which data goes into the pattern, what's relevant to it and what's not? If I look at the same person from one perspective, they seem like one thing, and from another, they seem like another. How do I find the right one?

    I can usually feel fairly certain of one or two letters of another person's type. However, I don't trust my perception of my own type at all. I'm not really positive of anything.

    So, I'm going to go ahead and ask for opinions about what type I am, since there seem to be people here who get this better than I do.

  2. #2
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    Well, seeing as this is your first post and we don't know you, it'd be hard to type you right off the bat, but I do have an idea if you're willing. I want to test something. Could you look at these 8 statements and talk about which ones are most like you, least like you, what you like in other people, which seem so common and mundane that ANYone should be able to identify, etc. Plus whatever else you want to say about them. Just don't overthink them or try to guess what each is or anything like that. Just honest answers. (:
    Thanks, Diana. I'll do my best to answer these. Wish me luck.
    1) I see what could be, my thoughts run in scattered directions, web-like or branching. Rather than just see what is, I think of what might be. I see the potential in people or objects. Or, I'm more theoretical and intuitive and 'in my head, exploring the alternative trains of ideas and the what-could-bes' as opposed to being grounded in something more physical and tangible and forceful.
    Oh yeah, this is a lot like me. I think my best friends are a lot like this, too. Something about the description seems very comfortable.
    2) I am most aware of the physical world, what is, and observable qualities of a person/object. I don't get lost in what-ifs or could-bes, but see things as they are now. I easily size people up.
    Hmm... I don't relate to this much. It would be much closer to how I am if you reversed those statements, except the last one. I am pretty good at "sizing people up" in the sense of knowing rather quickly whether I'll like or trust them the moment I see them. I'm usually right about this. In most other senses, though, I'm probably not as good at that. People who are like this would probably be a little boring after a while, although I can see how it could be an advantage for someone to be this way in some situations.
    3) I see the direction things are headed, my thoughts run path-like or as vectors, and where something is leading is easy for me to determine, not as tangible physical connections, but in an intangible and intuitive way.
    Eh... somewhat. I'm not always like this, but when I am, I'm often right. It can be hard to trust this because it seems to come from nowhere for me, though I usually regret it if I don't trust it. This can sometimes be exaggerated, but usually in the right direction. I've met people like this, and they seemed strange, yet I felt I could trust them.
    4) I'm most aware of how physical things connect to each other, gears, aesthetics, machines, the human body etc. Cause and effect of tangible processes is easy and natural for me.
    I'd say I find people like this interesting once in a while, but not all the time. I think I can focus on this kind of thing and do okay with it, but it's really not my favorite thing to focus on.

    5) I have a very good feel for the connections between people/things, easily make value judgments or character determinations, and notice the closeness/distance between people.
    I wouldn't say VERY good, but I think I'm about average at doing this. Some people have told me I'm good at this, but I'm not sure if I really am. I do like to discuss these sorts of things on a regular basis, just to make sure I'm paying enough attention to it.
    6) I am very aware of the underlying process, what's going on 'beneath the surface' of an individual or group, and the 'vibes' or atmosphere of a group. The political atmosphere, or general sentiment is easy for me to pick up.
    Eugh. This makes me very uncomfortable. It seems completely unfair that some people think they have a right to judge me on my ability to perceive this, when I'm not even sure it exists. What I do perceive of it is always negative, and rarely correct. Being pressured by people who think like this, even on a forum, has been enough to make me cry, and start doing math problems or studying technical manuals compulsively to clear my head (even though I usually don't like math).
    7) I most notice the concrete processes, as in what's happening and events, the how, what and where something is happening.
    Hmm... well, aside from what's going on in my own mind, this is pretty much true. I seem to be okay at paying attention to this, and don't really find it uncomfortable. This seems to be something people do without thinking about it, so this would filter pretty colorlessly in my interactions with another person... it wouldn't stand out.
    8) I form definitive, categorical connections between people/things, and easily deal with laws, or structure, or mentally organize data
    I think I'm pretty good at this. I definitely find people who are like this to be interesting. It seems like a very convenient process.

    So, did this help at all?

  4. #4
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    In my opinion, it did help. What you described as a lot like you was Ne (1). And you also said you can be good at Ni, but you don't have as much confidence in it (3). So, so far you're looking like a possible Ne ego type. You described yourself as not being good at Se at all and finding it boring (2) with the only part not fitting was your ability to 'size people up' but the way you talked about what you meant with 'sizing people up' here sounded like Fi to me, rather than Se.

    You said that you sometimes find people with Si interesting(4), but not all the time, and you're okay at it, but it's not your favorite. Your response to Fi (5) was interesting because I was leaning towards Fi for you after your response to 2. Other people think you're good at it, but you think you're just average, but you discuss it a lot to make sure you're paying enough attention to it. . . I'm not sure what to make of this, especially with what you said about Fe (6) You describe Te as rather nothing special or stand-outish, and Ti as something you like and are pretty good at.

    I'm going to make a tentative guess of INTj for you. Ti leading, Ne creative and Fi role could all make sense with what you said. Maybe someone else can come in with some other suggestions that would explain Si and Fe though. Actually other people will probably want to ask you a bunch of different questions, but I wanted to see how well this would work for trying to type an unknown person. Hope you didn't mind being a guinea pig!
    Thanks for asking me the questions, this is all very interesting how it's coming together. I appreciate the opportunity to be a guinea pig, actually. I mean, this is a theory, not an established process.

    So, if anyone has more questions or ideas... go ahead.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    176
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This may be somewhat rash but it seems safe to assume that you're Ne ego. I'm not sure if it is your first or second function but based on the answers you gave, INTj is definitely a possibility. The question is what do you think of that possibility? Read the information on wikisocion, it could help you come up with a clearer picture of the functions and how well they describe you.

    I have some questions that may also help:
    What do you think about a theory such as socionics that attempts to put people under categories? Do you think that people's personalities can be categorized and summed up like that?
    Does it brighten up your day to have someone greet you with a big smile and a big hug in an obviously emotional way? Do you find that obvious external expression of emotions from people around you has a stimulating affect on you? Do you like being in an environment of people laughing loudly, exchanging playful jokes and are in sink as far as the external expression of emotions?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •