@Sol can benefit from reading this post
@Sol can benefit from reading this post
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
it's Jung's terms, not MBT's special invetion
J = rationality and P = irrationality. other cases are mistyping. or texts with partly wrong MBT's types descriptions
You may compare direct descriptions of J/P (rationa/irrational) dichotomy in MBT and Socionics, - they are identical. In books and tests. It has different link to functional model, but not description itself. So if you was typed correctly as J by MBTI, then you can be only rational in Socionics.
The mess with other notation like INTJ=ILI goes from the strange idea than different functional model of introverts in MBT means more, than when they say dichotomies. Meanwhile MBT's type 4-letter notation describes only dichotomies.
Luckily MBT uses MBTI as main typing way, wich has no functions mistake. So MBT's types is most correctly unambiguously understand as ENTP=ILE, INTJ=LII, - from both point, theoretical and practical. Without exceptions.
J/P in Socionics and even on Mars is dichotomy, with identical to MBT direct description. How you link it with others things - is other theme.
Only if MBT would used as main instrument not dichotomies, but wrong functional model, then there was practical sense to use "switching". And anyway, when MBT identifies correctly type according to MBTI and their types notation - it will always be same to Socionics types dichotomies as INTJ=LII.
Last edited by Sol; 07-01-2016 at 07:36 PM.
*deleted*
Post was open to misinterpretation so I deleted it. I will send it to anyone who is curious about the content. Just pm me.
Last edited by Aylen; 07-02-2016 at 06:02 AM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
on left - IEI, on right - EIE
on left - IEI, on right - EIE
Last edited by Sol; 07-04-2016 at 07:54 PM.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Feel compelled to comment here bc Maritsa has done a good job of confusing and misleading everyone. Two things in particular-
No, they do not. They are not spontaneous enough to be elegant at flirting, and it is important to them that they appear elegant to others. LSIs appreciate the lack of flirting, the ability to keep an exuberantly positive emotional atmosphere going without resorting to flirting (which is used more often by ethical creatives but they can get away with it) is the single greatest thing the EIE brings to the LSI.EIEs like to flirt
It's possible that young and silly EIE girls(edit: and boys) will talk a lot about flirting, and "plan" to do it soon, but that is bc they can't do it.
Which leads toAbsolutely, completely wrong. EIEs cause drama within a group pretty much immediately, and constantly. They can't help it, they are sensitive, easily offended, jealous, competitive; as an extravert they cannot hide it very well; and as Fe-ego the way they express themselves will always be melodramatic even if they don't want to be.EIEs do not cause drama within a group
I don't think, however, that most of the people in a reality show are EIE. Very few will be, the others might be xSFx trying to replicate the holier-than-thou and superior hysterics of EIE for the audience at home.
EIEs save themselves from all these seemingly negative traits bc they take themselves SO. SERIOUSLY. They see themselves a certain way to begin with, and they need to ALWAYS BE SEEN THAT WAY, to themselves and to others. This leads them to commit acts of heroism and self-martyrdom, it gives them enough influence over the span of their lives to be a part of the "power group" (LSI, SLE, EIE, LIE, ILI, SEE), but it can also be their downfall. If you find yourself being terrorized by an EIE, remember that last bit.
I observe ESI didn't make the cut. Would it be possible to please understand why?
edit: found my answer, no worries:
Glam^if you're asking why Alpha isn't discussed at all, it's because in the context of this article, Alpha types are "peripheral" - along with Deltas, IEI, and ESI.
instead what is discussed is the significance of the "Volitional triad" (LSI, EIE, SLE) and the "Pragmatic triad" (SEE, ILI, LIE). according to Gulenko, these six types are the ones who dominate the center of struggles for power, "from the geopolitical stage down to the level of a mediocre company."
the remaining 10 types of the "periphery" are more more prone towards cooperation rather than competition, not usually staying in the fight to obtain "central positions in society" for long.
if you're asking for the reason why does Gulenko not consider Alpha to be among the types who tend to be at the center of struggles for power, i can't know for sure.
based on the content, i'm sure Gulenko wrote this article based on practical observation of the types in society (both contemporary and historical), but theoretically i'm thinking it's because Alphas are Judicious; their Se-devaluing might make them more prone to be less interested in the power & influential status that comes with occupying "central positions in society".
Tyra Banks - INTP
Tila Tequilla - INFP
Seems like you know mainly EIE-Fe's and LSI-Ti's.
You have an overly narrow stereotype of FeNi. This is one manifestation of it, sure, but just one. It depends on other non-socionics factors and the situation too.Absolutely, completely wrong. EIEs cause drama within a group pretty much immediately, and constantly. They can't help it, they are sensitive, easily offended, jealous, competitive; as an extravert they cannot hide it very well;
This part is sensible enough.EIEs save themselves from all these seemingly negative traits bc they take themselves SO. SERIOUSLY. They see themselves a certain way to begin with, and they need to ALWAYS BE SEEN THAT WAY, to themselves and to others.
Last edited by Myst; 07-13-2016 at 11:35 PM.
Want to point out the assumption that no EIE will have (regardless of motive) a) self-awareness, b) any kind of distance from their own perception, and as a corollary c) self-control. Besides, do you really think that anyone, any type, interested in really controlling a social environment would not learn at least a modicum of self-control with regards to emotional self-expression (if not internal feeling)? What a crucial strategic error that would be, I mean *really.*
Secondly, and cattily, emotional maturity much?
Continuing on a facetious note, simple reactive shouting, drama, bullying and abuse of people is just *bad style* and much too easy to get taken down for.
Reason is a whore.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
There actually is a big difference between how seriously an EIE and IEI take themselves. EIE's are among the types who take themselves most seriously. Humour and (sometimes self depricating) jokes shouldn't be taken at face value, there's a very specific way EIE's want to be seen as -depending and appropriate on a context and people ofc (EIE's get very pissed if someone contradicts the view of themself they are trying to project - for example, if in a certain context they're claiming to be an asshole it will piss them off if the other person says they are really a sweetheart). Imo IEI's are much less proud and more flexible when it comes to their ego.
EIE's image and how they act with different people is much more varied - most IEI's are like caught within themselves, like they cant escape their inner world (looking kinda melancholy and self absorbed
Edit: Both EIE's and IEI's can be seen as arrogant, but IEI's are more arrogant about their knowledge or some kind of mystical insights they supposedly have (can look like a LII ILI mix) and EIE's have arrogance on their personal importance (proudness). IEI's also (generally) present themselves as vulnerable, EIE's as tough.
Last edited by darya; 07-14-2016 at 07:54 AM.
@darya yes I can see the difference in the temperament Ej more linear with regard to external and internal
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html