Conflict/Activity/ID and socionic gobbaly-goog

**Rocky** · 04-01-2006, 01:42 AM

I think the interaction of types in socionics is overly-idealized.

http://the16types.info/articles.php?article_id=1

I think things along these lines are rather bullshit. I won't deny certain interaction of the functions, but it doesn't translate to intertype relationships.

The first problem comes with the ID functions. Their very existance throws off the reliability of intertype relationships. Our ID is supposed to be strong. And we are able to use it. I would argue that the Ego does not exist without the ID. Yet, our ID is completely irritating to our beloved Activity and Dual relations.

If this is the case, then at times an Activity could turn into a relation of Conflict, for example.

What I understand about the the ID-Ego is that they go hand-in-hand, pulling each other along. It is because of the energy levels of the functions.

, for example is said to be relationships and associations of "objects" (for one thing), yet

has nothing to do with the outside world directly. That would be what we call

. So, in order for

to opperate, it needs to turn on and off to

occasionally.

can sometimes doubt whether or not it needs outside objects for stimulation. That is of course just silly, but it happens when the

is ignored. In other words,

feels really crappy without the influex of

, although we try and minimize the use of

to a minimum. Heh. This works with all functions.

Now back to Acitivy. How would this "need" change that relationship? Well, you're Activity partner dreads your 7th function... even though you are a slave to it! How comfortable is that relationship?

Also, couldn't you learn a lot from so called "bad" relationships? Quasi-Identicals? Contraries? Super-Egos maybe? Who's stopping you from using the ID? Maybe it would even be liberating! Thoses damned Activities are holding you back...

This would also bring us to the reliablitiy of the Quadras. Do they really describe social order? I doubt it. Plus, they draw lines between types which may actually be good relationships.

And now the conflict. Conflicts are irritating. Yet, maybe you need it. You need someone to slap you across the face and say, "Stop being such an ignorant fool, bi-atch!" The Super-Ego is a point of irrational fears and it would be rather harmful to keep on running away from them. Does it really suck when someone "pinches that nerve"? Yeah, it hurts. But I'd bet if it hurts enough you'd make note of it and change your ways.

So what I am saying may hurt the die-hard socionic followers. The ones who say that socionics does not exist without other people. But I think that socionics is rather flimsy in terms of interpersonal help. Socionics should be more geared towards the individual, helping people understand themselves better, identifying their strong and weak points, and helping them become more of an independant being. Not predicting future relationships.

**Angel von Himmel** · 04-01-2006, 02:30 AM

I really can not agree with this article enough to cause me to doubt socionics, especially since the main part of the argument consists of trying to claim that according to socionics there is a struggle between the 7th function and the 4th function, but that is actually impossible according to socionics theory considering that the suppression of the 7th function in usage of the 1st function actually finds itself to be a relief to those who have the same function in their own Super-Id. Also, I seriously doubt that function switching will last long enough to actually have a permament effect to turn a relationship into another relationship, even though I agree it can happen to a limited extent. It is just not a very good argument to the contrary.

**Rocky** · 04-01-2006, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by rmcnew

but that is actually impossible according to socionics theory considering that the suppression of the 7th function in usage of the 1st function actually finds itself to be a relief to those who have the same function in their own Super-Id.

I disagree... this is what socionists say, however, it would be impossible.

Sonionics only works if the functions were completely isolated and you could only use the first two. But, we are not that limited.

As I have said before, the Ego and ID require each other to live and breath. They are mearly the same thing with different energy levels. They are connected, which you cannot deny. You cannot use

to organize logical structures unless there is some measurable

influence, for example.

is a reflective process, and

an energy enpending process, naturally. So, if you use one, the other one is used at least occasionally. The opression of say,

, would be like the example I put above of

. The

type would become completely oblivious to "objective" influence, and turn away from the facts to the point of insanity (at least this is what Jung believed). But a healthy

type would use plenty of

as well, otherwise it's worthless.

This is why Jung described unhealthy people in Psychological Types. They were the most extreme, "pure" types. They were the people who were denied the use of their opposite energy level. He described the same thing about Introverted Sensing (again) that I have, and it's what happens when they are denied the use of Extraverted Sensing (read it if you are unfamiliar with it).

I see the same thing with relationships. Some of them work, but only if I subject myself to being one-sided (1 & 2 functions). This is counter-productive, because it only exposes the holes in all of the "unfavorable" relationships (such as illusion), without fixing the problems (which is possible).

**Angel von Himmel** · 04-01-2006, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by Rocky

Sonionics only works if the functions were completely isolated and you could only use the first two. But, we are not that limited.

As I have said before, the Ego and ID require each other to live and breath. They are mearly the same thing with different energy levels. They are connected, which you cannot deny. You cannot use

to organize logical structures unless there is some measurable

influence, for example.

is a reflective process, and

an energy enpending process, naturally. So, if you use one, the other one is used at least occasionally. The opression of say,

, would be like the example I put above of

. The

type would become completely oblivious to "objective" influence, and turn away from the facts to the point of insanity (at least this is what Jung believed). But a healthy

type would use plenty of

as well, otherwise it's worthless.

This is why Jung described unhealthy people in Psychological Types. They were the most extreme, "pure" types. They were the people who were denied the use of their opposite energy level. He described the same thing about Introverted Sensing (again) that I have, and it's what happens when they are denied the use of Extraverted Sensing (read it if you are unfamiliar with it).

I see the same thing with relationships. Some of them work, but only if I subject myself to being one-sided (1 & 2 functions). This is counter-productive, because it only exposes the holes in all of the "unfavorable" relationships (such as illusion), without fixing the problems (which is possible).

This is what is called debating apples and oranges, when they both fit into a fruitbasket and therefore does not make a bit of diffrence whatsoever [awaiting rocky to respond by totally taking that last statement to a higher extreme], especially when we are talking matters of perception vs. usages of functions. I am not for or against it ...

Originally Posted by Rocky

Originally Posted by rmcnew

but that is actually impossible according to socionics theory considering that the suppression of the 7th function in usage of the 1st function actually finds itself to be a relief to those who have the same function in their own Super-Id.

I disagree... this is what socionists say, however, it would be impossible.

I disagree with that it would be impossible, because the socionic's model goes by self-perceptions as opposed to the perception of others and it is entirely appropiate the way it is set up. Of course you can take Jung and try to apply it to socionics, and yes it will look like a contradiction if you try to place two diffrent theories together that do not necessarily work together and try to say they are the same, but they arn't. Like I said ... apples and oranges.

**implied** · 04-01-2006, 03:08 AM

**Rocky** · 04-01-2006, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by rmcnew

Originally Posted by Rocky

Sonionics only works if the functions were completely isolated and you could only use the first two. But, we are not that limited.

As I have said before, the Ego and ID require each other to live and breath. They are mearly the same thing with different energy levels. They are connected, which you cannot deny. You cannot use

to organize logical structures unless there is some measurable

influence, for example.

is a reflective process, and

an energy enpending process, naturally. So, if you use one, the other one is used at least occasionally. The opression of say,

, would be like the example I put above of

. The

type would become completely oblivious to "objective" influence, and turn away from the facts to the point of insanity (at least this is what Jung believed). But a healthy

type would use plenty of

as well, otherwise it's worthless.

This is why Jung described unhealthy people in Psychological Types. They were the most extreme, "pure" types. They were the people who were denied the use of their opposite energy level. He described the same thing about Introverted Sensing (again) that I have, and it's what happens when they are denied the use of Extraverted Sensing (read it if you are unfamiliar with it).

I see the same thing with relationships. Some of them work, but only if I subject myself to being one-sided (1 & 2 functions). This is counter-productive, because it only exposes the holes in all of the "unfavorable" relationships (such as illusion), without fixing the problems (which is possible).

This is what is called debating apples and oranges, when they both fit into a fruitbasket and therefore does not make a bit of diffrence whatsoever [awaiting rocky to respond by totally taking that last statement to a higher extreme], especially when we are talking matters of perception vs. usages of functions. I am not for or against it ...

Umm... what are you talking about? Apples and oranges? I was using ideas from the Model-A...

And I have an example of a relationship like that, the illusionary one. Socionics says that ESFP-ISTP have a difficult time understanding each other, and their words pass over unnoticed most of the time. Yes, this can be true I noticed (for me); however, as I said before, it was only true if I competely let myself slip into

-mode.

and

are on different wavelengths. But, if say, I'm exercizing

at the time, there is little misunderstanding at all. I feel this is healthy anyway, because their are negative aspects if you give an Introverted function full automony which I will spare you of for now.

And to clarify, what I am saying is that I am not criticizing the socionics Model, just the assertions that 1) They can predict relationships, and 2) The poor attention to subconcious functions. I know other people have voiced their concerns about intertype relationships and taking them too far (Olga, MysticSonic, Pedro, etc...). And there have also been people who have said that they disagree with the poor descriptions of the ID functions. The only reason I could think that they are pushed under the rug is that they would make the intertype relationships confusing and unpredictable.

**Rocky** · 04-01-2006, 01:47 PM

oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=166

Hey, look what I found. Too bad the original post was deleted, but it was saying something similar to what I posted here. In short;

ID= unpredictable relationships.

**Angel von Himmel** · 04-01-2006, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Rocky

Originally Posted by rmcnew

Originally Posted by Rocky

Sonionics only works if the functions were completely isolated and you could only use the first two. But, we are not that limited.

As I have said before, the Ego and ID require each other to live and breath. They are mearly the same thing with different energy levels. They are connected, which you cannot deny. You cannot use

to organize logical structures unless there is some measurable

influence, for example.

is a reflective process, and

an energy enpending process, naturally. So, if you use one, the other one is used at least occasionally. The opression of say,

, would be like the example I put above of

. The

type would become completely oblivious to "objective" influence, and turn away from the facts to the point of insanity (at least this is what Jung believed). But a healthy

type would use plenty of

as well, otherwise it's worthless.

This is why Jung described unhealthy people in Psychological Types. They were the most extreme, "pure" types. They were the people who were denied the use of their opposite energy level. He described the same thing about Introverted Sensing (again) that I have, and it's what happens when they are denied the use of Extraverted Sensing (read it if you are unfamiliar with it).

I see the same thing with relationships. Some of them work, but only if I subject myself to being one-sided (1 & 2 functions). This is counter-productive, because it only exposes the holes in all of the "unfavorable" relationships (such as illusion), without fixing the problems (which is possible).

This is what is called debating apples and oranges, when they both fit into a fruitbasket and therefore does not make a bit of diffrence whatsoever [awaiting rocky to respond by totally taking that last statement to a higher extreme], especially when we are talking matters of perception vs. usages of functions. I am not for or against it ...

Umm... what are you talking about? Apples and oranges? I was using ideas from the Model-A...

And I have an example of a relationship like that, the illusionary one. Socionics says that ESFP-ISTP have a difficult time understanding each other, and their words pass over unnoticed most of the time. Yes, this can be true I noticed (for me); however, as I said before, it was only true if I competely let myself slip into

-mode.

and

are on different wavelengths. But, if say, I'm exercizing

at the time, there is little misunderstanding at all. I feel this is healthy anyway, because their are negative aspects if you give an Introverted function full automony which I will spare you of for now.

And to clarify, what I am saying is that I am not criticizing the socionics Model, just the assertions that 1) They can predict relationships, and 2) The poor attention to subconcious functions. I know other people have voiced their concerns about intertype relationships and taking them too far (Olga, MysticSonic, Pedro, etc...).

There is a diffrence between misunderstanding a concept and paying careful attention to context ... though they are models and whether or not everything always happens as is always stated I still stand with what I said origionally ... with socionics it more about perceptions and the in the case of the ID, the absence of those functions in usage if the EGO. Whether both the EGO and the ID functions can be used is not the issue, the point is that they can not be used at the same time and what ever is preferenced over the other is the EGO, and the other inverse is the ID. The EGO is self-perception, the ID is the perception of others.

and this statement:

And there have also been people who have said that they disagree with the poor descriptions of the ID functions. The only reason I could think that they are pushed under the rug is that they would make the intertype relationships confusing and unpredictable.

Doesn't apply, because it is apparently based on a misunderstanding of what I just said.

**Rocky** · 04-01-2006, 06:17 PM

Whether both the EGO and the ID functions can be used is not the issue

That's exactly the issue.

**Angel von Himmel** · 04-01-2006, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Rocky

Whether both the EGO and the ID functions can be used is not the issue

That's exactly the issue.

Then people do not know what they are talking about, and if they did it would not be an issue 'cause I have already stated why it is not, and I am not going to repeat myself if the point I made is going to continually be missed.

**Rocky** · 04-01-2006, 11:01 PM

This is starting to sound like a personal attack against me. You are trying to taint the waters of a very viable point by adding ambiguous statements.

From what I understand, you have been saying that what I was saying was impossible because you can't use both the Ego and ID at the same time?? Maybe. I doubt it would be that clear-cut, though if we are to pretend for arguments sake, then we also couldn't use the 1 and 2 functions at the same time. But this all seems irrelevant because you do switch back and forth between the Ego and ID, and when you are in ID mode, how does that affect relationships?

**Rocky** · 04-01-2006, 11:04 PM

And then I have my other point in that the Super-ego functions aren't as bad as socionics claims. It is possible to enjoy being around people with your Super-ego functions.

**implied** · 04-02-2006, 12:13 AM

**Transigent** · 04-02-2006, 08:22 PM

Edited for gayness.

**maze** · 04-02-2006, 09:07 PM

=)

**Rocky** · 04-02-2006, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Transigent

It's not about this.

Look, haven't you ever had relationships that even though both people try as hard as they might, strange misunderstandings keep on happening?

Haven't you ever wondered why the same types of people seem to like you for no reason?

Haven't you ever wondered why the same types of people seem to hate you for no reason?

etc., etc., etc.

Well, I did say at the beginning that I thought that certain relationships between the functions existed; however, the profiles for intertype relationships are a bit subjective, the changing energy levels of the functions can affect relationships, and it is not so bad to have people annoying your Super-ego functions even if you initially do find them irritating.

Anyway, you aren't supposed to look that close at the model I don't think...hahahaha

*grunts*

*snorts*

*pissed off*

**CuriousSoul** · 04-02-2006, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Rocky

So what I am saying may hurt the die-hard socionic followers. The ones who say that socionics does not exist without other people..

I guess this originally was meant mainly as a metaphor, but I am not sure if some actually take it literally. Since this claim has been repeated a number of times I feel compelled to express a contrary opinion. I see no reason why the types would not exist when we are alone, it is just that they often become far more apparent and important when we interact with other people.

Originally Posted by Rocky

But I think that socionics is rather flimsy in terms of interpersonal help. Socionics should be more geared towards the individual, helping people understand themselves better, identifying their strong and weak points, and helping them become more of an independant being. Not predicting future relationships.

There has been such efforts as well, I just would like to take this opportunity to recommend Olga's thoughtful and personal advice.
I particularly liked the following articles:

Development of the psyche and intertype relationships
oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=3362

and:

Interaction between the creative and the weakest functions
oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=2185

Thread: Conflict/Activity/ID and socionic gobbaly-goog

Thread Tools

Display

Conflict/Activity/ID... and socionic gobbaly-goog.

Re: Conflict/Activity/ID... and socionic gobbaly-goog.

Re: Conflict/Activity/ID... and socionic gobbaly-goog.

Re: Conflict/Activity/ID... and socionic gobbaly-goog.

Re: Conflict/Activity/ID... and socionic gobbaly-goog.

Posting Permissions