-
-
Last edited by CILi; 05-31-2017 at 04:44 AM.
Influence, yes, fully explain, no. On both counts.Does "type" explain how we think, how we interact with the world, or both?
There has to be some external impact of type. If all type affected was how you think about things (and how you think about things didn't affect your behavior) there would be no such thing as intertype relations. Nobody's saying that all Fi-egos run around judging every single person they meet as good or evil (or at least no moreso than Ni-egos, lol). But type must affect behavior in some way, or else socionics is only a useful tool for individuals to describe how they think, and in no way a theory that can be applied outside the self, much less a theory of social interactions.
I get the impulse not to type on silly things like bossiness. But will Se cause people to tend to be more willing to take charge, all other factors being equal? Yes. Will it cause an Se-ego to try to take control of something she knows nothing about when there's a person of another type running that thing who is extremely knowledgeable and experienced? Only if that Se-ego is an idiot, and idiot is definitely *not* type related.
Also, in my opinion, type fits more loosely than a lot of people seem to think.
Agreed.Influence, yes, fully explain, no. On both counts.
EDIT: Also, yes, how one thinks about things necessarily influences behavior. Socionics, imo, works at a pretty basic perceptual level, especially for ego functions. Like, it's possible, probably, to think "without" your creative function to some degree. But I think that no matter what, at some level, your leading function will color your cognition, no matter what function you are "using" at the time, and you are extremely likely to not notice it.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
If you mean interaction as in "between humans", then yes. It explains significant, previously unknown aspects thereof. But, socionics has nothing to do with how the individual chooses to prioritize their attention to various social endeavors. In every major field there are significant figures of every type.
As others have said here, there's an influence but not an explanation of behavior and interaction. Socionics only claims how you go about metabolizing information, what you do with it, as well as everything about your personality, isn't under the realm of Socionics. Pretty much this:
From how I've come to understand things here, most forum members don't treat Socionics like this, easily falling back on stereotypes and generalizations.
If there was no external impact, there'd be no use into looking at Socionics, I definitely agree with you. There's still an impact, but it's not through predictable behavior from what I can tell. The impact comes around during the exchange of information, not all explicit and verbal. I also find that in general practice, when the distinction of what Socionics influences and doesn't becomes hazy, forum members tend to rely on what is viewed as "more concrete," which are behaviors, even if there's no real evidence behind it.
Hmm, I'm not sure we're going to the same forum thenPeople still do it, even if not as directly as how you stated. And other people claim this as well, but it still goes on... This is a problem and it's curious, to me, how some people say it doesn't go on. Maybe we have different thresholds when we're not focused on looking out for these things?
This. Nobody says that behavior isn't involved in typing at all either, but a less extreme statement seems more extreme when you disagree with it. Also, while people might reference those stereotypes, I think that comparatively few believe them in any straightforward manner, not like "if you're not silently judging everyone, you can't be Fi; or, you're Fi, you must be silently judging me." Except for extreme cases (i.e., Maritsa), people are more nuanced about it than that in their understanding, if not in their communication.
But the exchange of information affects behavior. I just don't get how you determine someone's type based on nonverbal somethings that you pick up on while observing or participating in, essentially, conversation ("information exchange"). And even if you can, how can you communicate that at all? How can you discuss that on a forum? This seems more subjective to me, not less so. I would agree that socionics does not create prescriptive behavior patterns. Socionics never says "this action means indisputably this type, and this type indisputably performs this action." But I would say that Socionics makes predictions about behavior, of varying levels of accuracy. Accuracy increases the closer you get to the core of the function, until you have 100% accuracy with something like "Fi-leading types see the world through the lens of [insert your preferred Fi definition here]." Which is tautological, of course, but my point is that at the core of what the function is, socionics makes perfect predictions and as you get farther and farther out, those predictions dwindle in accuracy, until you get to things that have such a weak correlation to type that you can consider them "not type related." By this way of seeing things, the disagreement is about where to draw the line that says "this is no longer type related."If there was no external impact, there'd be no use into looking at Socionics, I definitely agree with you. There's still an impact, but it's not through predictable behavior from what I can tell. The impact comes around during the exchange of information, not all explicit and verbal. I also find that in general practice, when the distinction of what Socionics influences and doesn't becomes hazy, forum members tend to rely on what is viewed as "more concrete," which are behaviors, even if there's no real evidence behind it.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
I guess I'm sensitive to the references. For me, if someone draws on what we're talking about here, I take it as if they are using it as evidence when I'm not sure of what they are actually thinking. If you don't believe the stereotypes that you're using to communicate ideas through... That's a little confusing to me, especially because I'm one for thinking that language and tropes shape our understanding of things.
I find this to be similar how people talk about picking up on others' vibes and intentions. The best way I can articulate this is looking for patterns in what I find to be related to a person's thought process, which is affect by how they communicate their thoughts. To me, it feels intuitive, I start to notice how a person generally organizes, emphasizes, and dissects information, as well as other qualities. So the way I type relies on how well I perceive the way a person's thought processes go, and when I use my own, fielding the reactions, where things fit and don't fit, to use as contrast for further evidence. I would need another time to try and further clarify how I type, I have a hard time verbalizing it.
The descriptions I've been coming up with are my attempt. Obviously met with varying reactions. My perspective sees IME interactions much like a machine; your leading IME is one process that works a certain way, and it is connected to your creative IME in a particular manner, and they work together in a process manner, etc with the rest of the IMEs. So I'd to see if the person's thought-processes, through evidence of witnessing their reasonings and observations, match the machine model I have worked out. Obviously it chances with my understanding of Socionics and the IAs, so it isn't perfect, but I feel like it trims a lot of what I perceive to be the fat of distinguishing what is type related and what isn't.
I think the language we receive shapes our understanding of things, but the language we produce is an attempt to reflect an understanding. But I understand your point. It's not that you don't believe the stereotypes, it's that you understand that you are using overstatement. It's like... rounding. In chemistry, you could technically have .0923857313 liters of something. And there are some purposes (the example here would be serious theoretical discussions) for which you need all twelve digits or whatever. But there are other cases in which .1 suffices perfectly well. Using a stereotype in a way that fails to qualify the fact that the stereotype does not apply to all members of the class is the same, imo. Sure, you may need the twelve digits for some things, and you've still got them written down somewhere. But for most communication purposes, .1 will suffice.
I know... but that's so immaterial. I think I understand what you're saying, but it just seems so much more solid to look for patterns in behavior than to look for patterns in thought processes. I'm not denying that both are useful, and I use both. When I type writers, I'm focused more on what I can guess about their thought processes. But when I type my friends that I'm around daily, maybe if they mention something about how they think, or if I am able to make a particularly good deduction about how they think, I'll use that to help type. But I use behavior too.I find this to be similar how people talk about picking up on others' vibes and intentions. The best way I can articulate this is looking for patterns in what I find to be related to a person's thought process, which is affect by how they communicate their thoughts. To me, it feels intuitive, I start to notice how a person generally organizes, emphasizes, and dissects information, as well as other qualities. So the way I type relies on how well I perceive the way a person's thought processes go, and when I use my own, fielding the reactions, where things fit and don't fit, to use as contrast for further evidence. I would need another time to try and further clarify how I type, I have a hard time verbalizing it.
And I also use behavioral examples to communicate. I know that they don't describe 100% of cases. But like in the chemistry analogy the 100% accuracy isn't necessary in most cases (and isn't achievable in the majority of cases).
Maybe it helps to have a specific instance. So, my ESE friend loves to cook for everybody. She is everybody's mom. This is stereotypical ESE behavior. So I come on this board and say, "Well, I typed my friend ESE because she is an intense caretaker of everyone around her, and she's also very much the center of social interactions." That's not really why I typed her ESE. The reason I typed her ESE is something like you were talking about, about the vibes she gives off or whatever, while she's doing those stereotypical ESE things. Or it's how she tends to use fake demonstrative Se by giving a threat of a consequence (do x or else), but actually the real force is an emotional one, and if you don't do what she says, she's not actually going to do anything (in contrast to an SEE friend, who will use obviously fake emotion to get her way, but is also willing to back it up with force.) Like, emotional pressure as a means to volitional pressure vs. volitional pressure as a means to emotional pressure. But you notice how that second explanation required twice as many words and was nowhere near as clear? If I can evoke a picture in the reader's mind of the exact same type of person, and even the reasons why I think she's ESE, with a more simple or stereotypical description, why should I use the more complicated one? these common behavioral traits are good shorthand for communication. If someone came in the thread and said, "Hey, that's a stupid example. Not everybody who is a stereotypical caretaker is ESE!" Then I would come back and give the more detailed version.
Yeah. I'm not at all opposed to that. It's not something that I can intellectually disagree with, even if I am emotionally "eh" about it. I mean, to each his own. I think both ways accomplish something different and neither is superior or inferior.The descriptions I've been coming up with are my attempt. Obviously met with varying reactions. My perspective sees IME interactions much like a machine; your leading IME is one process that works a certain way, and it is connected to your creative IME in a particular manner, and they work together in a process manner, etc with the rest of the IMEs. So I'd to see if the person's thought-processes, through evidence of witnessing their reasonings and observations, match the machine model I have worked out. Obviously it chances with my understanding of Socionics and the IAs, so it isn't perfect, but I feel like it trims a lot of what I perceive to be the fat of distinguishing what is type related and what isn't.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
The answer to the question seems sort of obvious. How we think necessarily affects how we relate to the world. What seems ill-defined here is not whether or not Socionics describes both, but to what extent and on what matters. Socionics I think attempts to describe manners of thought, how we process them, and how that particular processing interacts with other particular individuals manner of processing. However each of the information elements and what they ACTUALLY describe, to the extent information can be categorized in these eight particular fashions at all, describe very vague ideas that are incredibly dangerous to describe in very concrete fashion. The rule here is to tread lightly and with caution.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
No, just showing how different degrees of precision are necessary in different situations. If you'd like, I can say it's rounding 92g up to 100g. In some situations, numbers only matter on that scale. Heck, it could even be rounding 758392g up to 800000g. Again, in some cases, that's the scale that matters.
Immaterial in the way all socionics is immaterial. Perceptually, you get it, if you know what to look for. But in description it's airy and imprecise and you're communicating an impression rather than anything really solid you can build an argument on. But fine, it's a poor critique. I think everything is immaterial in that sense.How is it immaterial? It doesn't seem plain as day to you when talking with a friend? You don't develop a kind of working knowledge of how your friend tends to see things, what their beliefs and outlooks on life are like, the sorts of motives they usually operate off of, how they'll likely feel about something, or how they'd likely react in some given situation? Of course you're very aware of all this I'm sure. Just as well, you probably tend to notice discrepancies between a friend's outward seeming behavior and what's actually going on with them internally. Am I right or wrong?
Of course I recognize that words have multiple interpretations. I also recognize that people are capable of discerning which interpretations are useful in a given context. If that weren't true, it would be impossible to communicate using words at all.It's somewhat different when you can see and point out the behavior in its situational context (assuming you're picking up on the relevant nuances in the 1st place). But even regardless of that, do you honestly not realize how many different interpretations people (including yourself) will have when you attribute some generic behavior as constituent to a given type… ? Not to mention that the interpretations themselves often vary depending on the observer's type.
My favorite example is poetry. Poetry is the most open to interpretation of all literary forms of communication. It can also be the most precise, in a certain way. It is clearly imprecise if the question is, "how can we communicate without being misunderstood." But if the question is, "how can we communicate something that is difficult to put into words," it can be far more precise than jargon or anything. "The hum of thoughts evaded in the mind" or "nature without check with original energy" or "I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams," are all horribly imprecise according to the first metric. But once you know what they mean, they are far more precise than anything else you can use to describe the same thing, which is proven by the fact that you need a page and a half of criticism to half-describe what is said in a line and a half of poetry.
So if we approach socionics as something that is easy to sense but hard to describe---and I think the IMs are quite easy to perceive after you've practiced a while (precisely because they are thought patterns rather than behaviors), and quite difficult to describe---then the trouble of multiple interpretations vanishes. Yes, it can be misinterpreted. But who cares? If we can get to the same goal (understanding) through one form or another, who cares which form we use? Potential for misunderstanding does not invalidate something as a mode of communication.
So if you could see why they thought what they thought, then you recognized the trait they recognized, i.e., their communication worked. Sure, you found another trait more salient, and I bet if you had described that trait to someone of moderate intelligence, they would have seen that side of it as well. But if you can see the aspect of reality (the professor's actual behavior) that was pointed to by the subjective descriptor ("mean," "hardass," whatever), then communication did take place. It worked.I'm reminded of a time I had this Econ professor. 1st day of semester prior to the class, I was talking w/ some people I knew about our schedules, and a bunch of them were being weirdly emo and dreading the prospect of having a class with this particular prof. "Oh man, he is just so intense." I'd never met the guy, so I ask what they meant. "He's just so sharply serious and focused, and won't fuck around about putting you in your place if you say something stupid in his class. It's really intimidating." Naturally, this intrigued me greatly and made me very curious to meet this apparent legend of a man. Unfortunately within seconds of seeing him, it was obvious to me that he wasn't this towering, dominating figure they'd alleged him to be lol. Just a high-strung ESTj, kinda dorky even, non-emotive but impassioned about the subject. Quick to probe people with questions when they thought they knew something lol, but it was entirely good-natured challenging to try and get them to actually think about their opinions (as opposed to just having them). Idk, I thought he was pretty cool. And yet, people would get all butthurt and say he was "mean." Sure, I suppose I could see why they thought that, but it was really an annoyingly whiny misunderstanding on their part to not read between the behavorial lines about something so blatantly obvious.
I dunno. Archetypes are pretty obvious to people. Sure, there is some degree of subjectivity, but if you take Jung seriously at all, people in theory have access to a sort of basic core of ideas. Why shouldn't the ESE stereotype be something we sort of know, the kernel of it anyway. I'm not saying it's part of the Collective Unconscious(tm), but it's a concept that has been pretty ubiquitous in culture, and so most people have some idea of this sort of perfect domesticity, this family-centered kind of do-everything, um, thing. So sure, stereotypes are personalized, but essentially similar. Again, it's a question of accuracy and precision. If I need to get more precise, I can and will. But sometimes you only need to communicate the sort of basic idea. It's a factual distinction to ask to what degree people hold basic ideas in common. I don't know how to prove or disprove that.The shorthand interpretations may only seem clearer to you, because they're more open-ended and enable people to better stretch their own interpretations to fit lol. They think they understood what you said, when in actual fact they may be thinking of something wholly different. But since nobody complains of misunderstanding your point (since they can't really know if they did or not), this allows you to operate under the easy misconception that actual communication took place. When really all you did was give people enough of a blank template to project their own personalized stereotypes onto. You're playing something of a smoke&mirrors trick without realizing it.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.