Do the functions exist independently of a psychic structure?
question
Do the functions exist independently of a psychic structure?
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)
Re: question
No, because the psyche includes everything.Originally Posted by tempus
Definiton of psyche?
What do you mean by "independently"? Functions the way they are described in socionics are symbols of psychological qualities, very basics, rigid definitions. However, when you read the descriptions of the types it is not that easy to understand how to separate the functions or how they interact with each other to produce such behaviour. and there are a lot of different ideas and theories of how to interpret the interaction of functions, one of the most popular is model A?
Psyche is more than functions. It is a living body, content and dynamics, constant changes from one situation to another and in the time.
Psyche is a spiritual process of growth within the psychic structure. Psychic structure is a "body" or container for a psyche which has to have it's limitaions or directions of development. The haos was never planned but on the opposite it was a direction of development for each and single person as well as for the human world as a whole.
Psyche is more than just psychic structure, psyche is irrational part of us, a peace of Universe, a magic of God's creation, which is coming to express itself in psychic structure and facial feaures (your body). Psyche is more than psychic structure and that is why we can have the similar psychic structre or psychological type but we all still will be unic at the same time. Do you know what is it psyche?
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
I thought that defining the functions as "information elements" implied that the functions were the fundamental units of the psyche in a similar way that all physical matter is reducible to atoms and so I would disagree with the statement "Psyche is more than functions."
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)
The problem is you're suggesting that psyche can be derived from physical phenomena. There is nothing wrong with saying that, but at some point psychical phenomena must be derived from psyche, because someone has be around to observe the phenomena and that person is a structure of psyche.
"The problem is you're suggesting that psyche can be derived from physical phenomena"
No. I am asking if functions can be derived from external reality. To define a function as an "information element" makes me think the answer is no, but to refer to a function as "aspect of reality" would seem to indicate otherwise.
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)
In any particle you can only deliniate two contrasts per dimension of the particle. (two opposing sides) If we live in a four dimensional space, then you've got a limit of six different attributes you can differentiate between in a particle, with the seventh and eighth being the ability of the particle to change from moment to moment.
The functions are simply different. That's enough. In as much as you can classify aspects of something, eight is the limit to which you can clearly constrast different parts of that thing. So you can percieve a total of eight clearly different aspects/information elements/whatever, and that's enough to consider the functions of the psyche to be aspects of physical reality. It's a matter of YOUR inability to further differentiate between opposites without repeating where you've already gone.
Clever
You are talking very clever, cannot coment on that. I just want to ask. I think everybody know by now that I have got crazy assocaitons in my mind. I have been today to the fire safety course. The interesting part was about "fire triangle". It has been mentioned that for the fire to start/exploid it should be three elements present: hit, fuel, and oxygen.
It is very obvious that oxygen is associated with air, fuel is a flameable material
, but what is heat? Could it be associated with the process and thus
while the fire itself will be
? Water has got a traditional cooling function
.
This reminded me socionincs as we can potentially associate anything with functions. Does it mean that funcitons exist not only within the psyche as elements of internal relaity but also as elements of external reality and can be external reality at the same time? It is also interesting as regards to dimensionand
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
Functions are not the same things as information elements. Information elements are descriptions of types of information in external reality. Functions are perceptual units of the psyche. So, to answer your initial question, information elements exist independently of the psyche, but functions are part of the psyche.
(more on this at http://www.socionics.us/interviews/bukalov.shtml)
Okay. This is a point of confusion for me. So the information elements are
and the functions are
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)
Strictly speaking, the first part is right (about information elements), but the functions are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. It's most correct to say, for example, "I haveOkay. This is a point of confusion for me. So the information elements are
I agree that this distinction can be confusing.
I understand the idea now... defining Ne as the "first function" would seem to indicate that Ne is a function...but it's actually the IM element perceived by the first function. Okay. Thanks Rick.
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)
How can you say that? If you can only perceive an information element through the psyche, and only one type of information element per function, can not the function be interpreted as the information type? Because without the function you are necessarily unaware the information exists.Functions are not the same things as information elements. Information elements are descriptions of types of information in external reality. Functions are perceptual units of the psyche. So, to answer your initial question, information elements exist independently of the psyche, but functions are part of the psyche.
(more on this at http://www.socionics.us/interviews/bukalov.shtml)
Olga: I'll get back to you.
This seems to be a very important question. I've always felt that the Jungian descriptions had their basis in aspects of reality, since they don't rely on any biologically based reasoning. I presume that these aspects of reality have an impact on many different levels, including on the psyche at various levels, which may explain some of the complexity involved in applying typology. Probably most of the trouble I have with Socionics has to do with the lack of finding stable, understandable definitions of the aspects of reality...I guess the terminology here is "information elements."Do the functions exist independently of a psychic structure?
But I'm quite perplexed by the description of the information elements (http://www.socionics.us/theory/information.shtml). Their description seems to be imply an additional structure that I've never seen in thinking of Jungian typology.
For example, introverted intuition and extraverted feeling apparently have something in common, namely, being "internal dynamics" of something. A similar linking is made between Si and Te, between Ti and Se, and between Fi and Ne. The use of the words "internal" and "external" is also perplexing; it doesn't correspond to the notion of intraverted and extraverted; instead, intraversion is mapped to "fields," and extraversion to "objects." That part I can somewhat understand in the sense that one conceives, internally, of a conception of objects and not of objects themselves.
Still, is there any light anyone can give to these definitions? How is Ni linked to Fe? And how do we derive the rest of Socionics from these definitions?
Yes, this is true (in bold). It's like the function is a sensor that picks up a certain kind of external data. Without the sensor, we wouldn't know the data existed.How can you say that? If you can only perceive an information element through the psyche, and only one type of information element per function, can not the function be interpreted as the information type? Because without the function you are necessarily unaware the information exists.Functions are not the same things as information elements. Information elements are descriptions of types of information in external reality. Functions are perceptual units of the psyche. So, to answer your initial question, information elements exist independently of the psyche, but functions are part of the psyche.
(more on this at http://www.socionics.us/interviews/bukalov.shtml)
Jung did not differentiate between one and the other. But that's because he did not use the concept of "information." To him functions weren't "information receptors," but generalized conglomerates of behavior and perception.
I don't think this is such a big deal. We are simply saying that you can't get around specifying 2 things for each function: the number of the function and the type of information, i.e. "my first function is
Actually, Dmitri Lytov had an issue with me posting those simplified element descriptions, because he felt they were a pointless abstraction, but I decided to put them there anyway to show that the information elements were "designed" to encompass all reality and be a consistent whole. Indeed, Augusta's reformulation of Jung attempted to make everything structurally consistent. By differentiating between psychic functions and the information elements they perceive, we can now analyze any external phenomena from the perspective of information elements.
Note that when looking at those 'abstract' three-word definitions, you can take any two elements that share two of the three words in common and compare them. For example,
An example of what is meant by "internal" and "external" is
Where do people get that book? Is it in English, or are you just translating the title into English in your post?
(To be frank, I still don't know my type 100% for sure and am rather skeptical that I fit into any of them....but I am very interested in developing some sort of rigorous understanding of this.)
I would be curious if a truly rigorous treatment of this exists (i.e., getting beyond descriptive phrases, associations of words, analogies to physics, etc.).
Too bad, but the book is in Russian
You're right, there are no crystal clear definitions of the information elements. The main reason is that they are recognized as being primarily non-verbal in nature, sort of like a machine language on top of which we build our regular language.
In thinking about your type, look at the niches you tend to occupy among other people. Which information elements do you tend to convey to others? Which do you not convey to others, but use only for yourself? Which information elements do you need from other people? It is impossible to be "undifferentiated" in this regard.(To be frank, I still don't know my type 100% for sure and am rather skeptical that I fit into any of them....but I am very interested in developing some sort of rigorous understanding of this.)
That's an interesting exercise...Maybe I can be "the example" for this approach.Rick: In thinking about your type, look at the niches you tend to occupy among other people. Which information elements do you tend to convey to others? Which do you not convey to others, but use only for yourself? Which information elements do you need from other people? It is impossible to be "undifferentiated" in this regard.
Let's see:
"look at the niches you tend to occupy among other people."
...Depends. Some people seem to think I can fix their computer; I don't really know the answers, but usually the issue resolves itself, and they think I fixed it.
...Close friendships generally revolve around conversations. With friends who have their own opinion or concern about something, I tend to ask questions that help bring about a better understanding of what's being talked about. With friends who are less talkative, I tend to talk more about my latest new idea or interest. If someone has a problem, usually I have some kind of conception or insight about it, which I mention to the other person in whatever language that person can understand or accept (some people prefer not being given advice directly). With some people, I can supply the humor and entertainment, with little humorous insights or ideas.
"Which information elements do you tend to convey to others?"
...I'm equally comfortable telling people about some idea I have or addressing a logical point. I usually don't convey emotions consciously, except when something's wrong. However, at the piano I can be very emotional and can convey moods and personalities, and stimulate people's sensory imagination. When conveying information about concepts to people, I tend not to talk about the "official" version (e.g., stating the official line from classical Socionics or anything else as if I really believe it), but rather talk about my own way of seeing it.
"Which do you not convey to others, but use only for yourself?"
...I don't generally tell people what I really believe about things, although sometimes someone puts me on the spot to say what I think, and then I answer after a pause, and that may lead to an interesting conversation. I guess this can cut two ways. If "what I believe about things" = T, then you could interpret this as Ti. However, Dmitri has stated on his site and in this forum something like that preferring to pick apart what other people think, rather than stating a belief system outright, is characteristic of INTp (hence Te). I love to talk about what other people think. By picking something apart, I can understand it better.
...Another thing I don't usually share with others is my process for getting things done. I would rather say "I'll get this to you at such and such a time" than have someone delve into my process.
"Which information elements do you need from other people?"
...Hard to answer because needs exist at different levels. With the internet, who needs other people? (Just kidding.) I like it when people have an emotional reaction to my artistic creations (or who laugh at my jokes), when they have opinions or problems to dissect, when they listen in a non-judgmental way, and when they clearly communicate what they want. I'm not sure that answers the question. Doesn't everybody need all information elements?
Well, to me you sound like an irrational introvert, probably logical, but perhaps also SEI. You seem to expect others to bring out the material to discuss and then appreciate your analysis. You seem like a person who helps other people make sense of their thoughts, but don't go around talking to others about your own problems. You also seem to find it easier to interpret things subjectively (give your own interpretations of things) rather than be strictly true to the information source.
If this thing about "others clearly communicating what they want" you meant literally and is very important to you, than you are probably ILI. In other words, if it is very important for effective cooperation that your partner knows what he wants and is trying to achieve and can state his preferences without hesitation, you are probably ILI. I would want to look at some photos before making a conclusion, though.
I have found this thread, particularly between Jonathan and Rick, quite interesting.
Jonathan, I've found your posts to have me thinking about what you ask, to be ILI (INTp) and that is what I consider myself. I AM an INTp/INTP but am more than that, I do see my Sensing as very keen, but that's what could be with an ILI, in my estimation, as ILI's third function. In Jung-testings I do have 'Sensing' scoring fairly high compared to other things except for my main self which is 'NT' for sure.
I know myself though, and by knowing my inner-self through years of studying myself (introversion-introspection-intuition-thinking
At any rate, I have had some interaction on another site with someone who says they are ISFP (yes, MBTI) we can share intoxicating nature experiences via words and understand each other, but on any other level my Ni-Te is too much (seemingly) for that person, in the vein of things that board is about (not a personality site.)
I'm quoting something here in defense of ILI (INTp) as being what you are, as way of example of what I think is explanatory of how LII's are to me or other ILI's in general, and is an important point about the basic relations of INTp's and INTj's:
FWIWhttp://the16types.info/relations-15.php
Quasi-Identical partners always need to convert each other's information in such a way that it corresponds with their own understanding. This conversion requires much energy and does not bring the desired satisfaction. Books written by your Quasi-Identical are impossible to read. The creations of your Quasi-Identical look monstrous. Conversations with your Quasi-Identical, although not heavy, do not bring any satisfaction either. One partner may think that the other partner complicates simple things and simplifies the important points, trying to deliberately confuse and mislead them. Both partners are convinced that whatever their partner was trying to say, could be explained in a different and more understandable way.
Yeah, as I'm always interested in considering any possibility, I find SEI an interesting hypothesis for myself, but unlikely if dominantI do see my Sensing as very keen, but that's what could be with an ILI, in my estimation, as ILI's third function.
Interesting...what about your Te do you think may put someone else off? I'm thinking now about one of the main reasons why I sometimes doubt that I'm ILI, although it looks more and more likely that I am:my Ni-Te is too much (seemingly) for that person
I know some people who are very task-oriented in their thoughts and interests. They want primarily to know what is going to be done about this, and how this and that need to get done, and how is this other thing is going to be handled.
That kind of talk usually puts me on edge; I'd rather talk about anything conceptual that has absolutely nothing to do with what needs to be done. I always thought that was because I was
This is interesting. I don't think I ever have trouble understanding what LIIs are saying. Then again, if I'm reading something very technical that doesn't define what any of the symbols mean and where all of the reasoning is left up to the reader to determine, I probably would have difficulty. But as far as posts by LIIs and normal conversation go, I have no problem.Quasi-Identical partners always need to convert each other's information in such a way that it corresponds with their own understanding. This conversion requires much energy
This would be very interesting: Two sample writings of similar difficulty, one by an LII and one by an ILI (or for that matter, one for each type) so that one can experience this "quasi-identity" phenomena through a sort of controlled experiment...
I would say that your first impression about this issue was right. When there is a task to be done, I behave exactly in the way you describe. However, since after all I have an NT core, when discussing something I like to add the abstract layer as well.I know some people who are very task-oriented in their thoughts and interests. They want primarily to know what is going to be done about this, and how this and that need to get done, and how is this other thing is going to be handled.
That kind of talk usually puts me on edge; I'd rather talk about anything conceptual that has absolutely nothing to do with what needs to be done. I always thought that was because I was
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I agree with everything (that you or anyone else says always ... just kidding). But seriously ... your above analysis is probably correct, and in particular the last part of it fits me very well. I identify with what Jonathan describes, I agree with your analysis, Rick, I'm sure that I'm an ILI, and I'm sure that Jonathan is an ILI, too.Well, to me you sound like an irrational introvert, probably logical, but perhaps also SEI. You seem to expect others to bring out the material to discuss and then appreciate your analysis. You seem like a person who helps other people make sense of their thoughts, but don't go around talking to others about your own problems. You also seem to find it easier to interpret things subjectively (give your own interpretations of things) rather than be strictly true to the information source.
If this thing about "others clearly communicating what they want" you meant literally and is very important to you, than you are probably ILI. In other words, if it is very important for effective cooperation that your partner knows what he wants and is trying to achieve and can state his preferences without hesitation, you are probably ILI. I would want to look at some photos before making a conclusion, though.
I have personal experience of many discussions with Quasi-Identicals. One of my Quasi-Identicals is my father, but I have also have had discussions with other INTjs, and I have read books and articles that most likely are written by INTjs. So, my point is that I think I have a pretty good "feeling" for what a Quasi-Identical relation is like, and how it feels when I meet a Quasi-Identical. But it is very difficult to pin-point exactly what I "see" or "feel". Sooner or later, however, you realize that you don't think exactly the same, and that you look at the same questions from different perspectives. I have often experienced that I have difficulty determining whether we agree or disagree, and that feeling can be very frustrating, because I don't know how to proceed after that. That exact feeling might be unique to the Quasi-Identical relation, but I'm not at all sure about it.
Edited for gayness.
ENTp
Well, it seems that pretty much everyone's in agreement that I'm ILI.I'm sure that I'm an ILI, and I'm sure that Jonathan is an ILI, too.
Perhaps the focus on what to do could be more of an LIE thing or a rational type thing (?)...or maybe it's independent of type. I just know that some people I know will have the whole conversation be about stuff to get done, and that's completely normal for them, and what they prefer to talk about over anything else. Two people I know like that tested INTJ on the MBTI, but they might be LIE or LSI or something in Socionics.
The other thing that still has me wondering is that I know someone who I'm rather sure is IEI, and this person is so much more in tune with directing intuition more "narrowly" so as to avoid trouble in life, whereas I tend to focus my attention on interesting ideas, and then life circumstances often catch me unawares, leading me to sometimes have to backtrack on decisions (or indecisions), which makes me think that my intuition is more
Does it make any sense that maybe it's not all one way or the other...that maybe one person's N is very Ni, and another person's is very Ne, and someone else's is somewhere in between?
Edited for gayness.
ENTp
I agree with you on this, trans. The difference comes out mostly in behaviour, not so much in debate - of course, with the exception of "critical points" in debate (which, in the case of NTs, are usually a lot
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Correct. And at least I don't hate theA=>B doesn't imply B=>A
Are you kidding?I take it that you're also the kind of person who is more inclined to philosophize than to have the conversation be mostly about what to do and things to get done?Rhetorical question I suppose ... Definitely so. Of course I would rather solve the philosophical questions than to philosophize for the sake of it, if you consider that to fall under the category "things to get done". But it usually takes some time to do that ... two or three years at minimum for the easier ones.
I have a friend who very well could be an INFp. He is either that or INFj. And whatever he is, he trust his intuition more than I trust mine and is willing to act based on what it "tells" him. I think that maybe I have neglected my
Are you sure you are not ENTj? I have always had the same problem with not really trusting my intuition, and preferring to take decision on a rational basis.Are you kidding?I take it that you're also the kind of person who is more inclined to philosophize than to have the conversation be mostly about what to do and things to get done?
I have a friend who very well could be an INFp. He is either that or INFj. And whatever he is, he trust his intuition more than I trust mine and is willing to act based on what it "tells" him. I think that maybe I have neglected my
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
He could still be INTj. I don't trust my intuition either unless it is all I have. In fact it feels almost irrational and illogical to place so much trust on my intuition. I mainly use my intuition has a tool with which I can quickly draw conceptions and ideas. Everything that comes out of my intuition gets analyzed and demystified by my brain. There are times when I have made decisions based solely on intuition and that is when I cannot use my analytical skills to make the decision, mainly due to time constraints (for decisions with multiple "viewpoints", making decisions solely using analytical skills requires a lot of time and may not yield any better results).Are you sure you are not ENTj? I have always had the same problem with not really trusting my intuition, and preferring to take decision on a rational basis.Are you kidding?I take it that you're also the kind of person who is more inclined to philosophize than to have the conversation be mostly about what to do and things to get done?
I have a friend who very well could be an INFp. He is either that or INFj. And whatever he is, he trust his intuition more than I trust mine and is willing to act based on what it "tells" him. I think that maybe I have neglected my
Actually I should clarify what I mean by "trust." I usually analyze every idea that comes out of my intuition because it feels "natural" to do so but, my intuition has served me really well (especially in interacting with people) thus, I have some underlying acceptance of its usage. Sometimes, when I am simply uninterested in being analytical, I will most definitely accept my conclusions given by my intuition. Even so, I will always value conclusions derived by my analytical skills to those of my intuition.
Yes. I am 100 % sure of that. Or you could put it this way: If I'm really an ENTj, then Socionics is crap. I would consider that a falsification of the whole theory. So, which do you chose - that I'm not an ENTj, or to abandon the theory? I bet 100 euro that it is more likely that I am not an ENTj than that you are one.Are you sure you are not ENTj?
Yes, that is not totally inconceivable. But, if I'm an INTj I can't explain the obvious differences between myself and all those of my friends who I know don't think like me. They all fit the descriptions of an MBTI INTJ, whereas I fit the descriptions of an MBTI INTP. There was a time when I thought that I was an INTJ, but now I can clearly see that I am not.He could still be INTj.
One huge problem with the hypothesis that I am an INTj seems to be that if that's true, then I can't find room for those MBTI INTJs in the Socionics model. They are not like me, and they are not like ENTjs either. They are not like ESTjs, and they are not like ISTjs. They are definitely T types, and they are definitely not ESTps or ISTps. So, what type are they? At least that problem would disappear if I'm an INTp.
Well, I always likened INTJ to some more introverted and contemplative ENTJ so maybe they are also ENTj??
Not totally impossible, but improbable. Here are some arguments for that:Well, I always likened INTJ to some more introverted and contemplative ENTJ so maybe they are also ENTj??
1. ENTJs and INTJs don't have the same body type. INTJs in general are more leptosomic.
2. There is a distinct difference in how I feel when interacting with ENTJs and INTJs.
3. I can often discuss almost anything with ENTJs without anyone of us getting irritated. With INTJs there are misunderstandings and slight irritations now and then. It is much more difficult for me to explain to an INTJ what I mean, but an ENTJ usually understands me without too much difficulty.
4. Some of the INTJs that I know are obviously introverted types, but all of the ENTJs I have met have had a definite E "flavour" about them.
5. What I have said in 1-4 is probably not altogether false, because I have know ENTJs and INTJs for many, many years. If what I have said here about them is not true, then I'm probably so bad at judging these things that I should stop relying on my own judgement when trying to determine someone's type. And if you and I are the same type, then you probably should do the same.
Wow! Your post is the clearest explanation anyone else has offered as to why I might be confused. I've looked at a bunch of Socionics sites and somehow missed that. Somehow, I thought that the functions that were listed as 7 or 8 in "Model A" were supposed to be weak somehow, and that the "dual-seeking" and "hidden agenda" functions were supposed to be relatively accessible.Transigent: If you are ILI you can pretty much use as well as and without any psychological discomfort, you can also use, and and with a little help and back-up....[My note: the symbols don't paste right; see original post.]
What you're saying makes a lot of sense now, because my biggest beef with Socionics was that it seemed to imply limitations to the mind that I knew weren't really there. But if you look at it in terms of what one acts on, then it has a whole different meaning.
For example, an ILE would not only have ideas for businesses, inventions, etc., but would actually have the motivation to start on some of them and develop the capacity for coping with what it takes to actually do that, whereas the ILI perhaps would be more inclined to write them all down in a file somewhere and not do anything with them........or have a much, much higher threshold regarding the idea to pick and actually act on, because of all the sacrifice required in terms of talking to people, having less time to think, create, and speculate,...not to mention having the issue of having to deal with external situations one doesn't have control over, etc.
Similarly, as the postings on this forum indicate, both ILIs and LIIs have an understanding of basic systemmatic logic and its importance....but ILIs say whatever their theory is at the moment, figuring they can revise later, whereas LIIs seem to stick with what they consider to be correct according to the system.
Besides your post, is there some article that says what you're saying? If what you're saying is the correct way of understanding Socionics, then it's really, really important.
PS...Phaedrus, I think we have a similar dilemma, and I'm wondering if it can be answered through the concept of subtypes. I'd be curious how you'd describe the various people who aren't like you. For example, how would you describe each of these NT or NT-like types that aren't like you..especially those that are INTJ in MBTI yet seemingly not LII (as I gather)?Phaedrus: One huge problem with the hypothesis that I am an INTj seems to be that if that's true, then I can't find room for those MBTI INTJs in the Socionics model. They are not like me, and they are not like ENTjs either. They are not like ESTjs, and they are not like ISTjs. They are definitely T types, and they are definitely not ESTps or ISTps. So, what type are they? At least that problem would disappear if I'm an INTp.
I'm wondering if they're like someone I know who is always into planning, always talking about what needs to get done, and what he's going to do, and offering criticism and advice on whatever other people bring up. This sort of person sounds a lot more like typical descriptions of ILI than I do (i.e., always warning people, good in business, throws cold water on any idea, somewhat pessimistic...none of which describe me).
This kind of person also would never be caught dead on these forums, because they would seem like a complete waste of time. If I were to say what I'm saying now, this kind of person would say "That's very interesting, and what about your plans for the thing next week? What are you going to be about that?" The person I'm thinking of might be S, but he tested INTJ and I don't get the sort of sensory vibe around him that I usually get with Ss.
I'm wondering if that kind of person is an ILI logical subtype and I'm ILI intuitive subtype, with some additional preference for
Jonathan, I'm not sure I can do what you're asking well enough for you to get a clear picture of the differences. I see that I and the INTJs are not the same type, but is difficult to prove it. It is just that I see this pattern, an overall "picture", where many pieces fit together and make sense. My judgement is based on what I know of differences between types based on type descriptions, interest profiles, life attitudes, V. I., body types, sound of voice, behaviours, working habits, statistics on levels of education, and lots of other small details from what those and other people have said or done at various occasions. But I'll make a try to convey some of the things I have noticed.
Here is a quote from one of my posts at SG's site:
Two of my INTj friends are alike in the way I state in the quote. They are both very intelligent and have reached a high level of education. Both are leptosomic. Both have all their life been interested in aeroplanes - one has been a pilot and built model aeroplanes from his early youth and also been succesful in competitions with them, the other is an aeoroplane engineer. Both have the same view on how to solve the energy problem. Both have the same view on how organizations should be structured. Both have similar face expressions when talking and behaving. Both "feel" the same to me when I interact with them. Both have had many different jobs an travelled around quite a bit to find one. Both have similar attitudes towards authorities and authority figures and have had some problems with them. They both think that some things are a waste of time, and they both like to plan ahead and can become irritated and nervous if things are not going according to schedule.One thing that is most noticeable among some of my INTJ (fitting the MBTI descriptions of INTJs) friends is that they seem to get irritated by my indecisiveness and passiveness in certain situations. At least two of them have also spontaneously said that one of the things they consider most important is to know what you want (to accomplish). They seem much more certain of what their goals are. From my perspective they can be too hasty in making decisions without considering all the facts and not willing to discuss alternative solutions to a problem. Sometimes they say it's fruitless since it is a doomed failure anyway. That kind of thinking and behaviour I have always thought was due to their Ni function.
I have compared them with Ludwig Wittgenstein and found some similarities there too, especially Wittgenstein's thoughts about becoming an engineer and his practical interests and capabilities, which he shares with the two INTJs. In that respect I am different from all of them. I am much more purely theoretical and philosophical. I don't share their definite interest in working with their hands. One of them does not look that different from Wittgenstein, the other looks very much like Wittgenstein. They both believe in free will, or at least want to, whereas I can accept a deterministic world view without too much emotional difficulty.
I don't come up with anything more at the moment. But I will gladly discuss this topic further, so please comment, critizise and ask more questions.
P.S. I don't know what to do with the subtypes yet. I think I can relate to the intuitive subtype of an ILI, but I have no idea what kind of creature the thinking, "businessminded" subtype is in the real world.
I think I know what you're talking about. I know people just like that. In the MBTI model, one is inclined to see them as Ni/Te because their ideation is very focused on solving the problems they want to solve (not just any problems or solutions to problems that may not exist), and because their thinking is very good not only for academics but also for practical "getting things done." Yet in Socionics one seems forced to type them as LII or LIE. This is the problem we've both been trying to solve and don't seem able to shake.One thing that is most noticeable among some of my INTJ (fitting the MBTI descriptions of INTJs) friends is that they seem to get irritated by my indecisiveness and passiveness in certain situations.
Overall, Socionics and MBTI seem to suggest different models for why people behave the way they do. Basically, Socionics ascribes the kind of behavior you're talking about ("...more certain of what their goals are...too hasty in making decisions without considering all the facts and not willing to discuss alternative solutions...") to being a rational type (e.g., dominant T), and MBTI ascribes it to having an extraverted judging functions. And, as we've learned "dominant," "Ti," and "Te" mean different things in MBTI and Socionics.
As long as these people can fit the LII or LIE description in Socionics, then that's basically the issue...it's just two different models. However, if you're sure they're not LII or LIE, then things get more complicated.
So, here's a question: Could they be LII or LIE? And if not, why not?
By the way, I would really caution about putting much stock in any VI techniques that relate to anything that's not directly influenced by mental attitude, such as being tall or short, thin or fat. If you see validity in the stuff about body type related to Socionics type, I'd be curious what the reasoning is. When I look at VI pictures, it all seems to come down to facial expression.
PS...
I may be wrong, but I think ILI logical subtype is more like what a lot of ILI descriptions say. This type would be sort of like LIE, except with a deeper core of beliefs guiding his decisions...someone who likes to make plans, warn people of dangers, criticize, etc. This kind of person would probably use
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote