Ripped Off! That was only half and answer.
Ripped Off! That was only half and answer.
Yeah, Ashton once made a good observation that it seems the J sub irrationals and the P sub rationals react counterphobically to their PoLR - directly opposing it while the J sub rationals and P sub irrationals react phobically, choosing to dodge it and run away from it.
I notice this with myself and Fi - I definitely directly challenge it with Ti and fight it off, while someone like JRiddy I see as trying to get around it.
This sounds like aboslute bullshit.Originally Posted by Steve
I think it makes a lot of sense.
Why?
I have a friend also INTJ he is not afraid of confrontation in fact a lot of people do like him.
Me on the other hand I would rather avoid confrontation it's not worth it for me.
Fair enough as reasonable question. It looks suspiciously like model socioniX which got posted here before with an ensueing stromash. Anyway I remember reading through it and thinking it was flawed or had opportunities to be flawed, although I would need to read it again to see why as it is now a while since I read it and I haven't thought about it too much since :-)
Perhaps you could explain why J sub irrationals and P sub rationals would act counterphobically and vica versa otherwise? Actually..in this context what is meant by counterphobically and phobically?
Yeah, it's bullshit.
There is nothing Socionics-relevant to be had here.
HEIL ASHTON!
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Merry Christmas, ******.
Besides being observable in the types, it makes sense from a theoretical perspective. The judging subtypes are focused on the judging axis of information, while the perceiving subtypes the perceiving axis. What happens is that information that directly interferes with one's primary mode or orientation is directly fended off and repelled. In J sub rations, the PoLR function is a perceiving function. Since the J-sub rationals are tuned to the judging axis, the PoLR does not directly interfere wit their mode of orientation but is instead just something that unsettles them that they wish would go away. However with Judging subtype irrationals, their PoLR is a judging function, and this PoLR directly interferes with their primary mode of orientation - it is a direct threat. Therefore it is dealt with by direct opposition.
You can apply the same logic to the Perceiving subtype irrationals whose PoLR does not directly interfere with the primary mode of orientation and the Perceiving subtype rations whose PoLR does.
I can explain more later.
I believe I just avoid Fe.
The end is nigh
It's far better to explain it with model A which is what I have done previously. The above two posts is too confusing and with vague terminology imo which can also lead to misleading. I think I see what Ashton is trying to do though, just in a different way than me. What is interesting imo is that the way it is written is to me similar style of explaining and talking that yourself, strrrng and possibly jriddy uses, even dolphin sometimes. Thank you for posting though (seriously-no sarcasm.)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote