Does your type equate with the dichotomy that describes you best?
I'm probably a Narrator.
Does your type equate with the dichotomy that describes you best?
I'm probably a Narrator.
The Reinin dichotomies and the Gulenko groups fit me perfectly.
Even if I knew nothing of Socionics, I'd recognize myself as a Narrator, Dynamic, Victim, and Business-inclined (extraverted with logic).
As a matter of fact, I just realized that I could have very easily typed me as ENTj just by cross-checking those groups, without ever having read a full ENTj profile or checked relationships.
Maybe it's just me, but if that works generally, it would be an effective way for typing.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Yes, the narrator description fits me well. I usually ask questions in an affirmative tone ("I assume this is such-and-such" or "This is such-and-such, right?" rather than "What is this?"), I rarely answer a question with another question, and I feel strange repeating a question as part of my answer (the redundancy feels awkward to me). When asking questions, my inflection doesn't usually doesn't go up at the end, and if it does, I specificially notice because it sounds strange to me. My tone is more likely to go up in the middle and come down again at the end of the question, if at all.
This part of the description made me laugh, because I definitely do that. The "exchanging monologues" part in general is true, from what I've noticed of my conversations. Also, if I have to interrupt someone, or if I do it accidentally, I feel really bad. I will then try to remember exactly where they left off in case they lose their train of thought, and I will apologize for the interruption.In reply to questions asked while he was speaking he asks to wait for the end of his monologue, and builds the answer into his further monulogue ("wait a minute, I will answer your question").
I hope I haven't misinterpreted the narrator description or listed things that are unrelated or too universal to mean anything.
Side note: I don't know if this is true, but it seems like Narrators often include answers in their questions and Taciturns often include questions in their answers. Or maybe that Narrators have answer-like questions and Taciturns have question-like answers.
NiTe | Socionix
I think this is true, an INTj with whom I exchange e-mails writes things like:Originally Posted by sarah
"my advice? don't do this at home"
"the other guy? He annoys me"
etc
As an example of its usefulness for typing - -
I often find NFs difficult to differentiate, and I had at first typed a friend as ENFj (in MBTI he's ENFP and he identifies with the description, btw). To double-check, I asked him whether he identified more with the narrator or taciturn description. "Definitely narrator", he said, even after I tried to convince him that he was likely taciturn (I couldn't decide myself from my observations).
As it turns out, for reasons totally unrelated to this, I concluded that he's INFj rather than ENFj, confirming his own perception as narrator.
I don't know if this works well all the time, but I think it's something to investigate.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
I think might Australians might seem like Taciturns at first glance due to the high rise terminals. (The international students come here and tease us )
I'm definitely a narrator.
I've noticed that Australian women, particularly younger women (younger by my definition, so not my mother-in-law but definitely my sister-in-law) do the high-rise terminals in their speech. That happens to a lesser extent in the US among young women too.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Australian men do it, too. Maybe it's just less noticeable? We've been explicitly told to try to put a lid on it when giving presentations, it can be bad for credibility.
My husband does sometimes, particularly when in that presentation mode of speech, but not when he's just chatting with someone. His best friend in Australia does it more. My father-in-law doesn't do it at all. I don't think either of his cousins do it much - well the younger one maybe a bit.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
While there is generally a great deal of discussion on types of teaching and which specific types of teachers (or functions thereof) work best with certain individuals, I am curious here to explore the issue of teaching from a different approach: the Asking and Declarative dichotomy. Do askers work best when they are being taught by another asker? Or is it that like the dual relationship, the asker works best when they can listen to a teacher who is declarative? And the same can be asked with the declaring student as well. So it may be that while the informational aspects of a teacher may not match with the valued informational metabolism of the student, the style of teaching corresponding to asking and declaring may in fact be another (unexplored) dimension to teaching and learning. So while obviously the functions themselves would tie in with this, it may be in the presentation of these informational aspects that problems and successes arise in teaching and not so much the information aspects themselves. I am not denying here the role that functions play in teaching, but that the whole "I can't stand when I am being taught in a and not a manner" is rather exaggerated, shallow reading or interpretation of the situation at hand. And that this look solely at the functions and types themselves in such situations lends itself to (using my favorite Socionics buzz words) personalizing and demonizing the functions and projecting personal issues upon types and other people.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Why do you say that?
I am not saying that it isn't, but that this is not the only dimension of teaching that we need to take into account, and that asking and declaring is another one such dimension.I also think that relating based on functions is more important then this particular dichotomy in the "quality" of teaching.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
If I am the teacher, I want to be asked questions -- but I don't want to ask them myselfs. If I am the student, I want to ask a lot of questions (and get answers from the teacher) -- but I don't want to have to answer a lot of questions myself.
Implicit in this question seems to be the assumption (though not explicitly stated) that people who are in in the "Asking" group within the Asking/Declarative dichotomy are people who ask a lot of questions, and as teachers would probably use questions to teach (e.g., the so-called "Socratic method") whereas people who are in the "Declarative" group would be more inclined to lecture on and on, sort of declaring "this is the way it is."
That is, of course, what appears to be the plain meaning behind "asker" and "declarer." Nevertheless, the Reinin discriptions don't unambiguously say that, as they seem to focus more on the idea that an asker's statements *sound* like questions, and a declarer's questions *sound* like statements. Hence, this sounds as if it has more to do with intonation or something, and may have very little if anything to do with teaching styles.
And, of course, we must consider the possibility that the entire asker/declarer hypothesis is completely wrong, and that these type groupings have absolutely nothing to do with asking or declaring, which seems most likely to be the case.
I just read about this on Wikkisocion. I assume it written here somewhere. Its reprinted at the bottom of this post.
I thought this was really interesting, particularly because I have noticed this before. As an IEE I am a "Declarer", and this describes how I am pretty well. It was interesting to read of these two types, particularly as my SEI mother is an "Asker", and her habit of "forcing" conversations by asking questions has always rubbed me wrong. Because I would answers sincerely, and she would not understand e any better. It was as if I had not spoken! Between that and the Te/Ti conversation at the diner table growing up, no wonder i just decided to stop talking eventually! And my Mom has Alzheimer s now, and still does it! Only I need to be patient with her, so I deal with it differently. I give canned answers to the same questions (because she can't remember anyway, so it makes our conversations easier; I don't get annoyed, because i have thought up a satisfactory answer - I follow a "script" I created, and its conflict-free. I also throw the same questions back at her.
I wonder if there are any "Declarers" here who also get annoyed with people asking questions just to ask questions? If I have a question, its something I really want to know*, and then I listen actively to the answer, and I remember. And, if someone asks me a question, my mind starts going figuring out why they are asking. Because i want to understand them, and where they are coming from.
This, said of Declarers, is me exactly: "questions are strictly motivated by serious need for certain information"
(Although, socially, I will ask a shy person a series of questions in order to get them to open up and get comfortable. Usually about themselves or their interests. But I do really care about the answers, and the opportunity to know a person.)
So it was a surprise to me when my SLI did this - asked questions to make conversation. Because my mind was looking for the reason he asked, and I quickly realized there wasn't much of one! When I have meals with my SLI, I prefer to set a table and sit together at it so we can talk and eat and sip wine and just be together. He, so long a bachelor, is used eating on the couch with TV on or at his computer. (In fact it took awhile to unbury the table and find a candle in the house for the table). That's when I realized he was asking questions as conversation! The very thing my Mom does, yet, I did not find it too irritating, just surprising to learn this about his style. However, sensing no deep need to know the answers, I did not give him long and deep answers but instead short ones, to make sure he had enough interest (by asking more on the topic) before I shared too much.
Here is the layout of who is what:
The asking types are LII, ILE, EIE, IEI, ESI, SEE, LSE, SLI.
The declaring types are ESE, SEI, LSI, SLE, LIE, ILI, EII, IEE.
Here are the differences:
Askers
1. tendency to dialogue
2. much of what an asker says seems more question-like, even statements
3. always, as the other person talks, affirm the receipt of information with yeah, mhm, etc.
4. can talk to an audience as a whole very well
5. starts talking at times expecting someone to get interested and start paying attention
6. as a tendency to interrupt and feels comfortable pausing half way on the speech and with "questions allowed all the time" way, returning to what was said later if necessary
7. quite often asks a non-rhetorical question and answers it himself
8. often just asks questions to fill in time, without serious need to actually find the information asked
Declarers
1. tendency to monologue
2. much of what a declarer says seems more statement-like, even questions
3. listens attentively and silently to others' speeches to return to a long speech
4. finds it easier to talk to one person at a time
5. before starting to talk, first ascertains that attention is grabbed
6. is very patient in terms of others speeches in terms of letting finish
7. prefers to finish the speech before letting others talk, likes closure and that their point was conveyed
8. questions are often either rhetorical or only strictly motivated by serious need for certain information
I would be interested to know if people have had experience with others' Asking/Declaring style that they particularly noted.
I think I typically present myself as declaring, but not 100% consistently.
And I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.
Asking/Declaring is kind of beyond the point. Think of it as monologue/dialogue. Introverts become tricky in this regard, however.
I dialogue; I have no issue changing a tangent if I think the current flow is not going where it should. You, Eliza, monologue, which is quite obvious. You essentially monologue the type of content inside my head while I am driving. However, it is not the type of content I would express person to person.
I emailed the list of these character traits to my SLI and when he called just now he read them, and knew right away that he is an Asker. He did not know mine, though - he thought perhaps Asker. Probably because I ask him a lot of questions! Only because I really, really want to know, though, not just to make conversation.
Like my SLI
LOL. Guilty as charged. Hey, but I can listen to anyone else's monologue, no matter how long!
LOL. Because you are an Asker.
Duals do not have this trait in common, so I guess its not generally a conflict-producer. It isn't for SLI and I.
BTW, SLI often is the one who decides to end our phone conversations. I let him do that. Only once in awhile i will say, "Please don't go!" I try to save that, though, so it doesn't grow old.
I know, that's part of what makes me doubt my typing sometimes. Perhaps I am a declarer, but I often say, I think, my opinion is, you may disagree, etc. I suppose that's not a question, so I am a declarer. But I find that I do dialogue.
Often a part of my argument is a "please bear with me" disclaimer, if my premise is sometimes something the other person disagrees with.
-
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
-
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
I find that the asking/declaring dichotomy is largely useless. I've never seen it acted out in real life, nor do I see its importance in understanding the human psyche any better.
Interesting, and you more like an Obstinate IEE or SEE in that you are sticking to what you think, not yielding. What other types are you considering that you are? (My SLI and I are both "Obstinates" )
P.S. If IEE and SEE are two you are considering, another dichotomy to consider is Constructivist/Emotivist, which I am putting in a new thread here. One is IEE and SEE, the other is EII....
So true! Certainly true of me, and also my SLI. And of course, everyone.
Well, we are all different even if we are the same type. In all these dichotomies, the Asking/Declaring stood out maybe most to me, as far as difference between my SLI and I. Especially on Point 5, and 1, and 8, and most of the others!
It is also interesting to see the Dialogue/Monologers here on this thread. @Maritsa Darmandzhyan(as we know from elsewhere) and I monologue , and @Jadae2point0 and @Taknamay dialogue.
My monologuing is more evident on forum than IRL. Probably why SLI thought I was an Asker. Because IRL, like a Declarer, I don't speak unless I am sure that someone is interested in hearing what I have to say. I would rather just listen. Online, I write what I want figuring no one has to read who is disinclined; they can ignore it - its fine with me. IRL, my EII friend, also a Declarer, and I can have whole evenings or afternoons of monologue exchanges. If one of us has more need to talk than the other, its no problem for us. One talks, one listens. But if I am in company of more mixed types. i.e, I recently spent a lot of time with two of my brothers because one was in from out of town, also together with my son, and one brothers girlfriend, whose type I am not sure of. At any rate, the two brothers are ExTx's - I wish I knew which type... - and my son is an ESTP, and so I had little to say because I am thinking they are not as interested in my interests. (And having little to say is fine with me; I enjoyed listening).
-
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