Removed at User Request
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.
Stan is not my real name.
Removed at User Request
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.
Get a grip, man.
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
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.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...
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
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...
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.
This should be your signature, so maybe it will remind you to delete all the things you post.
I don't understand the point of this thread anymore.
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.
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
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 tooDon't just preach it. Prove it.
This is precisely the same issue that many people, including myself, have with youOh, 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.
Last edited by Marie84; 08-03-2010 at 05:39 AM.
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Socionics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastrong (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.
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.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.
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
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.
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.
I think the best explaination of what constitutes strong and weak is in the Dimensionality of Functions theory.strong/weak functions, blah blah blah
And yes, I know it's not "classical," but neither are subtypes and we all use those.
Recall that Jungian dichotomies, temperaments, and clubs are all part of Classical Socionics.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.
Stan is not my real name.
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...
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.
Stan is not my real name.