Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Temperament Groups

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Temperament Groups

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    I wrote this to describe some of the group interactions within the socion and especially the structures they form. Enjoy I need help in coming up with rules that explain WHY this is so however everything that I've come up with thus far contrtadicts itself on some level.
    It is good to start by clearly laying out your premises, makes it easier for others to follow and amend. I have to say though that it is often awfully hard to say anything for sure in socionics.

    My proposal:

    1. I am assuming the socionics interactions as currently understood work.
    2. I am discussing psychological processes not ANYTHING except psychological relations.
    3. I am only discussing IM products with temperaments that have a shared function in them and a shared direction not J/P and a direction, not the clubs, not N/S and J/P, and not T/F and J/P.
    4. The structures for the groups proposed are psychological not necessarily "power" structures.

    Temperaments- (my definition) two shared qualities (not functions necessarily) among a group of individuals (ie I and N not the same as Ni).
    This seems like rather an arbitrary set of definitions to me, but I guess you have to start from somewhere - and this is no worse than any other starting point.

    Example:

    INxx - persons in this group are INTJ, INTP, INFJ, and INFP.

    In this group the INFP is Benefactor to the INTJ. The INTP is Benefactor to the INFJ. The INTP and INFP are connected by a shared primary function (). The INFJ and INTJ are connected by shared auxuliary function (). The connection between the INxPs is greater because they share a function that is used nearly always by both people. The connection of the INxJs is weaker because they share a function that is not used as often as the of the INxPs is. Their "structure" is as follows.
    Yes, but on the other hand INTPs and INFPs share Comparative relations, and thus their creative functions hit on each other's painful fourth functions, POLR. This is not fun. In my experience I do not get on well with ISFJs with strongly expressed sensory function, Look-alike relations with INTJs have been far more inspiring:
    Look-a-like partners do not feel any danger from the other partner. The strong sides of the partners are different in the such a way that almost any conversations between them always fall into the area of the confidence of only one of the partners. Look-a-like partners also have similar problems which makes them feel rather sympathetic towards each other instead of being critical of each other's vulnerabilities.
    http://www.socionics.com/rel/lkl.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    We especially need to consider incorporating the +/- dichotomy. Please give me data!!! Tell me what is right or wrong. I will try to create rules that dictate how information is maintained and then how energy is maintained but I'll probably need help in this task. I will also work on the 3 shared characteristic gruops later.

    ***LASTLY***

    Thanks to these two for the inspiration for this post
    Thanks for taking up the challenge. In my opinion the +/- dichotomy seems to be generally accurate, but it is controversial and many socionists do not (yet) accept it. Yuri Selyutin's model on this site is, in my humble opinion, overstuffed with qualities appearing out of nowhere that do not help to differentiate between the positive and negative functions, and thus not really between the types either. I guess it is a good start though. I may be biased since I currently view all socionics information almost exclusively with regard to its usefulness in typing. Others may have broader interests.

    I hope that with our help you will eventually be able to make real progress. It is hard but it is worth it.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks pedro for the post, it was very interesting. I'm glad we're starting to create here, instead of cutting down. It's almost of the quality that should get published in a socionics magazine...if we had an English one. I must agree though, the comparative relationship has a much weaker bond than the look-a-like relationship. Out of theory and personal experience. I usually simply don't give a fuck about most ISTjs I meet. I just don't. Can't help it. Don't care that I don't. Not that I'm open about it, they act the same way as me. Being an introvert, me and an ISTj just typically interact with the people around us and show care only as a social niceity. The Look-a-Like bond however, is much closer, although somewhat inhibiting. The deal is however that their accepting functions are inhibiting, but their creative functions are understanding. This makes their goals different but most of the creativity and weaknesses the same. 'Look-a-Like' is a good name.

    I really like these analysises(sp?) and I hope you keep going with them. Soon the Russians will come to us for the good info :wink:

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    About the aspect thing...as far as I can tell, it doesn't change alot about the Model A, just refines it. Since functions get grouped in the same place(ie - always accompanies + ), alot of the times it doesn't seem to change anything, except make it more specific, especially between opposing quadra. I think however, some relationships it can affect. Example:

    (I wrote a script to save me some writing)
    note the order of the functions in each block(basically imagine model a has 16 blocks)

    http://the16types.info/beta3.php?typ...typename2=ESTJ
    http://the16types.info/beta3.php?typ...typename2=ESTJ

    Like check out the second link...see how the base of the ISFP and the creative of the ESTJ would be similar in the normal model A, and in the 'expanded' one, they are quite different.

    Edit:
    From looking at the ISFP and ESTJ relationship, it appears (with the ESTJ being the supervisor) that the normal model A relationship has an obvious problem...the primary function of the ESTJ goes directly to the ISFP's 4th(place of least resistance). Now with the aspects in play, it appears it may affect both the 4th and 6th function...the 4th as in it 'seems' the ESTJ has control (although they don't know it) over the weakest point of the ISFP, but in this model it seems to affect the suggestive function more.
    Which leads me to a statement then a question...the placement of the aspect functions in the obviously matters and the author of the article translated in these forums made that obvious, but what exactly does the order signify?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It seems to me from personal experience that the of an INTJ is best understood by an INTJ, second by an ENTP(and improved upon by , accepted as fact by an ESFj, and accepted as 'almost fact' by an ISFp.

    EDIT:
    And unconsciously understood and thus respected by an ENTJ, and unconsciously 'almost understood' by an INTP(which scares them).

    It seems with the aspects, the of an Alpha would be best understood by a Delta member, while the of an Alpha would be best understood by the Beta member.

Posting Permissions

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