Temperaments

[Galen]

I completely identify with EP. Especially the part about being dependent on external stimuli and not on my internal states. It goes further than that. I've been willing to completely risk my health to do dangerous things that could have been done more sensibly.

Hahaha. I wouldn't say I identify with that last part, but I really did identify with the Ep description too. I've also noticed lots of similarities between the Ej description and Ejs I know, although I'm not sure it's a case of "all or nothing." I haven't interacted with enough Ijs to give my mind on the Ij descriptor. The part about Ips shirking their duties made me lol.

I don't particularly care for the "how to spot" section though. I walk quickly when I need to, and don't when I don't.

[FDG]

I would say it's accurate for extraverts, a little bit too extreme on the energy-conserving side for introverts. I know plenty of introverts that practice road cycling, if I were to apply what those descriptions say, that wouldn't be possible.

[MatthewZ]

I would say it's accurate for extraverts, a little bit too extreme on the energy-conserving side for introverts. I know plenty of introverts that practice road cycling, if I were to apply what those descriptions say, that wouldn't be possible.

I concur with this point.

[717495]

I don't fit with the IJ description really. It's good to know temperament, but still not take it too seriously. I'm pretty sure I fit with the IP temperament description completely. But since I identify with Ti so much, then I chose INTj. If I were to identify with Ne the most, I would be ENTp, regardless of temperament or energy I think.

You could have a crazy energetic Ti dominant INTj with a more lazy and introverted ESFj. This is more rare (I think I've seen it with two other duals), but viable. I wouldn't think that dichotomies are more informative than the information elements, unless there is a sort of tie and uncertainty as to which IMs you relate with. Though if there is a tie, then just think about what your PoLR is.

Because even if you want to regard temperament and mix things up a little more, an Ne dominant will always be either ENTp or ENFp, I'm pretty sure. I still do think temperament helps a bit at first. I don't know for certain though if its really worth too much in Socionics. Still thinking about it, but from my experience only 40-50% of types seem to fit with their according temperament description here. I know that all of the Ne dominants I know who are alphas have Fi-PoLR, so they couldn't be INTjs. None of the delta Fi dominants I know have Ti-PoLR, so seems unlikely that temperament would really play a role, and they each seem to fit into these descriptions randomly (I've just as much seen IP, IJ, EJ for ENFps as I've seen EP). I've seen some examples someone else has shown me of Fi dominants who allegedly have Ti-PoLR (Fi-ENFps), but I didn't agree. I think they either were either INFj or ENFp. Most of them were Ne dominant (ENFp).

So again, not prioritizing temperament too much. I've been taught well in the past to stick with the information elements. Or else I'm a definite IP. A bonus category of sorts that doesn't seem intertype relation related. Yeah... it's interesting to theorize about, but it's not the most reliable thing obviously.

[717495]

I understand. The problem is similar to you at a personal level, but I don't want to put too much weight on temperament generally because of my past experiences, in it just being too variable. I'm sticking with the straightforward rule of: Ti dominant will either be INTj or ISTj. I know in your theory, its einstein who is actually a Ti dominant even though he's ENTp, but there are some other Ti-ENTps there who I might be inclined to think are INTjs (I can't remember who it is from memory, but a few people.) I'm all for subtypes and have begun seeing some minor differences between subtypes, but nothing that changes what the dominant information element is simply because they fit the same temperament or look similarly in the eyes, you know. I just see more benefit in understanding the types and have begun seeing clearer correlations in grouping them together based on the original "types", without basing it on too many extra theories.

Temperament was never one of those theories that I could see much use for (maybe for the same reasons you see use for it: that it helps) but for me it ultimately helps more not to have them. And I think I'm a Ti dominant from reading descriptions, over Ne dominant. In your understanding of the types though, I don't really have anything against being Ne-INFj, since I think it was a better call with your sample and concept of Fi vs Ti, and Ne vs Ti, but there still are some differences I'm seeing between your subjective understanding and my subjective understanding (not that I can fully understand where you're coming from, and my subjective understanding is essentially reading different perspectives and articles of information, and not knowing what is true or false). I am basically still trying to grasp onto an outer understanding of the theory, without making too many of my own calls, or personalizing my understanding too much. As far as I can see, most people don't have much use for temperaments either.

[717495]

I understand. Let me try to explain what I know. A dominant information element being "statics of objects" assumes that the temperament is EP. "statics of fields" IJ. "dynamics of fields" IP. "dynamics of objects" EJ. This is how it's supposed to work, but essentially what I see in what someone like Gulenko sees in his four temperament descriptions, or what I think aushra would conclude, are actually loosely connected to the types themselves (the tri-code system (ie EOD) is not what comes first--the IM descriptions come first, and then are categorized from there). They're connected, but his description of EP, for example, it does not actually mean strictly that whoever fits this description will have a dominant attitude of "statics of objects," but that there is some amount of likelihood that a "statics of objects" type will fit with much of the behavior described. Essentially, in theory it describes the similarity between Se and Ne, however it does it in such a way where it is abstracted (this is obvious, because a personality is real thing, so the science here will always be fuzzy), and then respecified, so the description in terms of "temperament" will never apply consistently enough, where as something like "information element" applies more directly to the type, because it deals much more closely with who the type is in reality. These are my personal observations.

[DividedsGhost]

IP > IJ for me. The others don't come close. What temperament would you say tennis falls under?

[xerx]

Hahaha. I wouldn't say I identify with that last part, but I really did identify with the Ep description too. I've also noticed lots of similarities between the Ej description and Ejs I know, although I'm not sure it's a case of "all or nothing." I haven't interacted with enough Ijs to give my mind on the Ij descriptor. The part about Ips shirking their duties made me lol.

I don't particularly care for the "how to spot" section though. I walk quickly when I need to, and don't when I don't.

Cool. The "how to spot" section is a perfect description of how I walk.