Results 1 to 40 of 111

Thread: General Socionics Theory Discussion split from polikujm's "My Type" thread

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    The Looks stanprollyright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    In your pants
    TIM
    IEE-Ne cp 6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default General Socionics Theory Discussion [split from polikujm's "My Type" thread]

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    Real Socionics makes senses, and isn't contradicted and isn't fishy sounding. Older posters who don't post here anymore knew about real Socionics. But the made-up subjective BS continues, and tons of conceptions have little relation to the more original writing(s). This is so obvious if you just read the forum's history, and attend to the mace of ownage Expat and others hath placed.
    WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? SOCIONICS IS SUBJECTIVE BY NATURE.

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    It's called before and after. Cause and affect. Search and destroy.
    What?
    Stan is not my real name.

  2. #2
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  3. #3
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stanprollyright View Post
    WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? SOCIONICS IS SUBJECTIVE BY NATURE.
    The nature of the people understanding Socionics is subjective.

  4. #4
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,374
    Mentioned
    447 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    If polikujm wants to be typed utilising Model A Socionics in a section dedicated to Model A Socionics, I think that's quite reasonable.

    Ashton has made it quite clear that he doesn't utilise Model A Socionics.

  5. #5
    The Looks stanprollyright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    In your pants
    TIM
    IEE-Ne cp 6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    The nature of the people understanding Socionics is subjective.
    There are no objective criteria for determining a person's type, nor is there any way to determine what facets of a personality or what factors in a relationship are "purely socionics related." Socionics is completely and unabashedly subjective.
    Stan is not my real name.

  6. #6
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  7. #7
    The Looks stanprollyright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    In your pants
    TIM
    IEE-Ne cp 6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pied Piper View Post
    Yes there are, there are no accurate testing methods yet, but that's a different thing.
    Like what? The elements don't exist, they aren't even well-defined. The model doesn't either, it is precisely that: a model. It symbolically represents the processes by which we "metabolize" information.
    Stan is not my real name.

  8. #8
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,374
    Mentioned
    447 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stanprollyright View Post
    Like what? The elements don't exist, they aren't even well-defined. The model doesn't either, it is precisely that: a model. It symbolically represents the processes by which we "metabolize" information.
    Well-defined compared to what?
    How does being a model mean that the model doesn't exist?
    What processes are you talking of?

  9. #9
    I'm a Ti-Te! Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    US
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    509
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    Real Socionics makes sense--it isn't excessively contradicted and isn't fishy sounding. It's something I've already found, but continue to question and change. Older posters who don't post here anymore knew about real Socionics. But the made-up subjective BS continues, and tons of conceptions have little relation to the more original writing(s). This is so obvious if you just read the forum's history, and attend to the mace of ownage Expat and others hath struck.
    .
    Hehe, real socionics doesn't really make sense. It points out situations that happen irl, but that doesn't make it really accurate. The explanation behind it all is really ambiguous.

    As for your type, from what I've seen I think it's probably intuitive, but which one I cannot say.

  10. #10
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
    Hehe, real socionics doesn't really make sense. It points out situations that happen irl, but that doesn't make it really accurate. The explanation behind it all is really ambiguous.

    As for your type, from what I've seen I think it's probably intuitive, but which one I cannot say.
    I agree. My reference to sense was just in terms of an element I've read many people talk about and discuss in this forum, and the element which some have proven, and the element that some just don't have and who have been shunned prior for their lack of knowledge about. I just recommend reading the forum's history and getting a grasp on why most people here, who have been here for longer than a lot of new people, prefer Expat and Rick's translation of augusta's work--and how smaller more insignificant forces have come into conflict with their ideas and have not made good impressions on a number of our people.

    Quote Originally Posted by stanprollyright View Post
    There are no objective criteria for determining a person's type, nor is there any way to determine what facets of a personality or what factors in a relationship are "purely socionics related." Socionics is completely and unabashedly subjective.
    Get a grip, man.

  11. #11
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    Real Socionics makes sense--it isn't excessively contradicted and isn't fishy sounding. It's something I've already found, but continue to question and change. Older posters who don't post here anymore knew about real Socionics. But the made-up subjective BS continues, and tons of conceptions have little relation to the more original writing(s). This is so obvious if you just read the forum's history, and attend to the mace of ownage Expat and others hath struck.
    Okay. So, what is it?

  12. #12
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    Okay. So, what is it?
    Please, just read.

  13. #13
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    Please, just read.
    :|

  14. #14
    Marie84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    2,347
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by he died with a felafel View Post
    hmm...I don't know enough about Poli to type him/her, but this seems like a fairly insubstantial argument, Marie (aka other people type Poli as ILI hence he's ILI...). Sorry to point that out.
    I'm not stating any certainties here, rather it's something that holds weight, IMO of course, when you have people who have shown themselves to have credibility with their understanding of a subject, in this case classical Model A, provide an opinion or/and analysis for the very subject you're seeking information for

    Also, i really don't see how that particular quote from Poli points towards Te > Ti - all he's stating is he *trusts*, for lack of a better word, certain members and not others...
    I see that statement as showing more of a concern about the content of the information over the revised versions of Socionics that are implemented here, particularly by many of the Betas who often rewrite content to fit with their own subjective understanding.
    They're only a few who do this, and they're pariahs to many on this board, particularly the few Gammas
    EII INFj
    Forum status: retired

  15. #15
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
    I see that statement as showing more of a concern about the content of the information over the revised versions of Socionics that are implemented here, particularly by many of the Betas who often rewrite content to fit with their own subjective understanding.
    They're only a few who do this, and they're pariahs to many on this board, particularly the few Gammas
    Ok so who are these "pariahs"

    Seriously I don't see it, you seem to be projecting high school-esque cliquishness onto an online forum that is a pretty loose social amalgam.
    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...

  16. #16
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Jung, Kepinski, Aushra, DarkAngelFireWolf69… >>> Niffweed, Expat, et al.…
    Jung isn't the same thing as Socionics, but you like to use his types in terms of defending your Socionics type. There's a poll on this forum where members vote for who their favorite Socionicist is. And you didn't score many votes. Expat, Rick, and Aushra tied for highest. Diana was pretty high in votes too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Don't just preach it. Prove it.
    This should be your signature, so maybe it will remind you to delete all the things you post.

  17. #17
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't understand the point of this thread anymore.

  18. #18
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Jung is integral to the very core foundations of Socionics, whether you like it or not. Aushra derived Socionics from her understandings of the 8 Jungian functions, and she makes no great mystery of this fact. She never claimed to make them up herself nor have I seen it said that she made radical departures from them. Which is the usual trend—knowledge advances by gradually building upon previous knowledge, not thrown it out and drastically reinventing something entirely new in its place. And nowhere am I aware of it actually written that "Jungian functions ≠ Socionics functions" or that two must be considered as fundamentally different theoretical constructs pertaining to the understanding of IEs.
    More of your pointless arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Okay… ? Why is this at all relevant to bring up? It's not useful as evidence for proving any of your outstanding arguments on whether my Socionics POVs are valid or not. It adds nothing logical to your argument whatsoever and appeals to consensus are generally not an accepted form of proof in most disciplines, except perhaps in marketing or politics, etc.
    Because it's obvious that you don't use Socionics. Yes it's also obvious that barely anyone agrees with who you say are duals and in the same quadra, but that's still not the point.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    Because it's obvious that you don't use Socionics.
    What does he use ?

  20. #20
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    What does he use ?
    He'll tell you all about it (or will he?) See if you can get anything out of him, even if it's not Model A related, doesn't matter. As long as you can get some sort of learning experience from him. It's not even worth talking about anymore for me. Any more questions about ashton, model x, or impressions of jung, direct to ashton.

  21. #21
    Marie84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    2,347
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    If credibility is the crux of your argument, then it seems pointless to assert personal anecdotes about the he so-called credibility of amateur persons X, Y, Z. You'd be better served in circumventing the attendant skepticism that would involve, by simply speaking straight from actual leading tier sources.

    Jung, Kepinski, Aushra, DarkAngelFireWolf69… >>> Niffweed, Expat, et al.…

    Hands down. No contest.
    As polikujm pointed out, Socionics is a separate theory from that of Jung (and Kepinski) despite the fact that Augustus and latter DarkAngelFireWolf69 (among other) used the findings and theories of past psychologists as a base for what Socionics, Model A, is
    To apply none Socionics structure with outside theories creates a separate system out of Model A, or classical/common Socionics. This isn't to say that one is more correct than the other, but it does tend to create gaps in communication that often leads to conflict between those who type using Model A and those who type using their own hypothetical definitions.

    This is a similarity I see between the Ti/Fe's in general, though Alphas haven't, as far as I've observed, disposed of the common Model A understanding and replaced it with their own disguised as the "real" Socionics. Instead they've tended to make suggestions and hypothesis, adding to the theory so to speak, but not passing those hypothesis off as anything more than a possibility (and this is something I like about them, they provide ideas that keep discussions flowing)
    A few Beta Ti/Fe's, though, have decided that they alone have discovered the "true Socionics" in which they than rebel against all the common sourced data and create their own systems, which often garner a few followers, which than further feeds their misinformed egos.
    I see this most infamously in yourself, Maritsa, Smilingeyes, Airborne, Cyclops, etc. People who have a sort of mental Messiah complex and need to spread the truth

    btw I'd just like to add that many Betas see these people as BS merchants, so I don't want to make it sound like I'm lumping them in with them

    Don't just preach it. Prove it.
    I can't because proof lays in my ability to agree with you and if I don't than my information is considered incorrect. I imagine this works in reverse too

    Oh, and no offense—but when someone always seems quick to reduce every disagreement into smears of how other people 'don't understand real Socionics' and is always strangely initiating accusations that others are 'manipulating it to their own ends'… well, you start to get suspicious after awhile that maybe they're not the selfless defenders of truth they put themselves off to be.
    This is precisely the same issue that many people, including myself, have with you
    Last edited by Marie84; 08-03-2010 at 05:39 AM.
    EII INFj
    Forum status: retired

  22. #22
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,791
    Mentioned
    205 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Just demonstrate how anything I've asserted is directly in conflict with the sources from which Socionics is derived. It's very simple. If you can't do that, then you are wrong to say it.
    The major thing I can think of is you assert that all valued functions are strong, which goes against what Aushra and Jung both said about them. I'm not entirely sure how you define being "strong" though, so it could just be a semantics thing.

    In Jung's case, one example he uses is that when extroverted sensation is at the forefront of the psyche, the introverted intuitive aspect is pushed into the unconscious. It can even manifest itself in a variety of unhealthy neuroses if the extroverted sensation attitude is taken too far. He's pretty clear about this pattern for all his psychic functions.

    I'm not sure if you still believe in it or what's up with that.

  23. #23
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    When I think of an IE as "strong," I think of it as being readily able to cognitively process information pertinent to that IE efficiently. In an information metabolism sense, we might conceive IEs analogously to the presence of enzymes which help catalyze the breakdown of different kinds of incoming information so that it can be parsed in such a way that our minds correctly apprehend. Being "strong" then would connote the presence of these 'enzymes' (IEs), which I think is a view that makes sense when we're considering valued IEs. For example, generally the mind of an INFj will be readily aware of and correctly understand + kinds of information. Otherwise intertypes wouldn't make realistic sense IMO—how else would a person know their duals if they cannot competently understand them and constructively appreciate each others values?
    That's the concept of values, not strength, probably a large problem with your conception why you don't understand what HA and PoLR do. You're still dismissing classical Socionics in saying that a type is strong at Fe if he's weak at Fi--which is obviously wrong. Duality isn't about being able to find your dual, that's what learning Socionics is about. Everyone wants to think that the person they're in love with one minute is their dual. There are certain real life implications of this theory that don't match up with marriage or naturally knowing things. Except you seem to place every couple, mostly married, into a category of duality--trying to logically chunk their faces into that too, find some connection with their thoughts that contradicts things later. That's probably one of the easiest things someone can do and pass it off as some sort of Socionics. Like marie84 was trying to point out, you share a similarity to some other Betas in this general regard of creating your own theory, as well finding some non-socionics source and using that too. It's kind of a certain kind of non-intellectual man made Ti approach to this, that's the most common with LSIs and their mirror.

  24. #24
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    It's been left open to interpretation what strong/weak means though. Where has it been defined? I'm not dismissing it as a potentially useful construct to Socionics, but I'd like to know what it really means. All I'm doing is offering a possible interpretation on how it appears to manifest.

    Okay, what is it then eh? And cite a source if you're going to make some definitive declaration. Don't give me your own mongrelized views and try to fake them as "classical socionics."

    I didn't assert that as truth. We're talking about a semantics issue only, and I made that clear in the opening.
    So again, I hope you agree that you don't like to use classical Socionics. Maybe just agree with people here and there if they reference it, but not actually accept it yourself. The main problem existing between Ti and Te relations is where the source of truth comes from. The source of truth for Ti is usually non-existent in explanation much of the time, in some frame of mind or experience, which is why Ti types get along well because their frame of mind is similar, and they can go on and on talking about it without addressing much of the material. Where as Te likes to use the consistent and relevant facts going along with such things as Socionics, and it doesn't really matter what other people say about having similar experiences or a frame of mind, as long as it is relevant, factual, not contradictory, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    That's complete bullshit and I do no such thing whatsoever. You have no idea how I approach any of this, do you? At present there are 1,401 typings and 56 known dual pairings. Out of 1,401 typings, if I were just arbitrarily labeling every married couple as a dual pairing, I'd have a lot more than 56 dual pairs. Further, out of these 56 I think only 45 are (or were) actual marriages. Most of these have been successful long-term relationships enduring over the course of many years—which is exactly what we should expect if Socionics is correct. Of the 45 pairs, only 2 were divorced. It's also worth mentioning that there's another 2-3 pairs where the relationships are so incredibly dysfunctional you wonder how in the hell they stay together (which might testify to the strength of duality? Who knows).
    Famous dual couples. I can name a bunch of them you type as duals, and a bunch of those same ones who probably are not duals. You only type the spouse or mate in very little of your typings.

  25. #25
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    It's been left open to interpretation what strong/weak means though. Where has it been defined? I'm not dismissing it as a potentially useful construct to Socionics, but I'd like to know what it really means. All I'm doing is offering a possible interpretation on how it appears to manifest.
    As polikujm yet again fails to answer the questions posed, and, as usual, fails to offer any citations....

    From what I have read, strong vs weak refers to the amount of information a person has. Strong meaning that the person has a large amount of information from which to draw on. Weak meaning that the person has little amount of information from which to draw on.

    Such that T egos have large amounts of Ti AND Te information which to draw from, but little amount of Fi/Fe information which to draw from.

    The difference between Ti ego and Te ego would be the mental vs vital:
    Ti egos strive to analyze and verbalize Ti info, letting the subconscious to handle the Te info. They don't feel a need to verbalize the Te, as the Te is already being assumed.
    while Te egos strive to analyze and verbalize Te info, letting the subconscious to handle the Ti info. They don't feel a need to verbalize the Ti, as the Ti is already being assumed.

    Socionic Model of the Psyche
    strong (1, 2, 7, 8) Individual has a confident command and large amount of information of a certain kind and can forcefully influence other people and his surroundings in a certain way.
    weak (3, 4, 5, 6)
    Individual has a weak command and insufficient amount of information of a certain kind and is subject to others' influence in this area. mental (1, 2, 3, 4)
    Individual analyzes a certain aspect of reality consciously and strives to verbalize it.
    vital (5, 6, 7, 8)
    Individual studies a certain aspect of reality subconsciously – subjectively or “through oneself” through hands-on contact.
    Socionics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Every human has every function, and can perceive and process any available information aspect by them; however, depending on where the metabolizing function for an aspect is located in a type's functional ordering, the actual quality of the produced information and the means of its use may vary.

    ...

    The functions within the ego and super-ego blocks are said to be conscious (or "mental") functions, while those within the id and super-id blocks are said to be unconscious (or "vital"). The functions residing within the ego and id blocks are strong functions which are used naturally and well, while the functions of the super-ego and super-id blocks are weak functions and are used with stress and difficulty.
    It makes sense that if one has large amounts of a type of information, then one would be more confident in doing things that require that type of information. While if one has low amount of a type of information, then one would find it stressful and difficult to do things that require that type of information.

    Note: model B broke up weak functions into experience and normatives; and strong functions into situation and 'time' (development, globality, insert other interpretative term). Thus setting up a function to be considered weak if a person limits themselves to personal experiences of the information, or learned rules for the information. Functions would be considered strong if a person expands the information to utilize in a particular situation(s), or even more expansive into across situations and time. (imo, this particular change allows for a far better awareness of how strong/weak may actually shows up in a person, and even allows a typer to trace what normatives a person may have learned, or what situations a person may attempt to apply a type of information. And awareness of times when an outsider might interpret something as being stronger than what it is. As experiences build up, or studies are done, a person's amount of information (hopefully) increases, at least for that particular type of experience or study. Then can test how well they are able to apply that to other situations/topics...or will they revert back to using the information they have more of.)


    sorry, gotta go do something, will try to come back with citations other than those two quotes...and less interpretation...makes me wish I hadn't deleted all my socionics links and print outs.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  26. #26
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This comes across as an attempt to put many of you down, which is what it is. I'm sorry to be leaving though, because I know a lot of you aren't bad people--I just don't have the ability to understand your new theories and hold classical Socionics too, even though I've attempted this as best I could.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Why are you so attached to this idea of being "Gamma" and this idealization you have of "Fi"?
    The idea has been illustrated many times, in a variety of ways. If I were to sum it up now, it wouldn't help you understand Socionics better. You would just see it as illogical, even though it's classical Socionics. Best to just read the material yourself.

  27. #27
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    Poli, you are either instigating for the sake of your own amusement or you are being a hypocritic fool.
    This is the same conclusion I've drawn.

  28. #28
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    This is the same conclusion I've drawn.
    Get out of this thread, any Socionix people. I'm looking for reason in the form of Model A, not your niave tag-along opinions. Thank you.

  29. #29
    The Looks stanprollyright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    In your pants
    TIM
    IEE-Ne cp 6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    strong/weak functions, blah blah blah
    I think the best explaination of what constitutes strong and weak is in the Dimensionality of Functions theory.

    And yes, I know it's not "classical," but neither are subtypes and we all use those.

    Well I find the dichotomal process something of interest. While I relate 100% to the dichotomies of being introverted, intuitive, logical, and irrational yet don't give them much weight, I do suppose Gilly brings up a good point that I seem mostly intuitive and irrational on this forum--which I agree with. The problem however is seeing temperaments and dichotomies not really accurately typing information elements and intertype relations. So I don't find the process all that interesting or beneficial, since it would just lead me to explain how much I relate being to an "INTP" and less to do with the actual type.
    Recall that Jungian dichotomies, temperaments, and clubs are all part of Classical Socionics.
    Stan is not my real name.

  30. #30
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What poor logic he has.
    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...

  31. #31
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stanprollyright View Post
    Recall that Jungian dichotomies, temperaments, and clubs are all part of Classical Socionics.
    Dichotomies are said to be a smaller influence in classical Socionics, where as temperaments and clubs used to be part of classical Socionics, and aren't anymore. Luckily I relate to all of those in favor of INTp, so it shouldn't really be a problem for those using that original material to grasp my type--unless someone else from Modex X wants to tell me that Ne-INTjs are irrational types and aren't strong in Ni.

  32. #32
    The Looks stanprollyright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    In your pants
    TIM
    IEE-Ne cp 6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    Dichotomies are said to be a smaller influence in classical Socionics, where as temperaments and clubs used to be part of classical Socionics, and aren't anymore.
    What? Things don't get "removed" from Classical Socionics. That's why it's "classical," because it's the same as it was a long time ago. You are either practicing Classical Socionics as it is, or you're practicing your own interpretation without temperaments and clubs.
    Stan is not my real name.

  33. #33
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    Get out of this thread, any Socionix people. I'm looking for reason in the form of Model A, not your niave tag-along opinions. Thank you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •