They're the same thing.Originally Posted by chip
Oh and Carl Jung wasn'tdominant.
They're the same thing.
Oh and Carl Jung wasn't
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
13 posts moved + 1 copied to: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=34356 - Subterranean
I think you take such things for granted and absolute in a traditional manner, but in fact through the types, those precise things are seen differently. For example these "educational differences" are theoretically explained by the social circumstances which include the sociotype-related arbitrary interactions. Note that children have sociotypes, too, and it is claimed that Socionics would be most useful in education! It's inaccurate to assert that someone is "bad at maths", for example, without checking his/her history, like what teachers he had and how information flowed between the two. So you may say that an LII bad at math is so because, among other things, he had a teacher bad for him or that his teacher was SEE.
On the same line is the judgment on "healthy/unhealthy", or "balanced/unbalanced", certain personality disorders are affected by the type, in fact the sociotype is a factor like any other. Nothing - except tradition or ignorance - can guarantee us that previously established personality traits are unrelated to sociotypes. The descriptions that were existent on this website years ago, made several vague correlations between types and personality disorders, btw. It is unlikely for an Ij type to develop borderline personality disorder, or for an Ep to develop obsessive-compulsivity, do we agree? I did not do my homework, but I find obvious that certain kinds of perception are incompatible with certain personality disorders.
Also, several other aspects that are related to types - like irrational inclinations, egocentrism, - are often considered imbalance by the mainstream social standards. These things are not usually considered a certain development end of the road, but a "lack", "underdevelopment", "incomplete", "deviation" depending on the reference they are using.
Then, sexual orientation; do you actually asked yourself if there is such thing as a "homosexual LIE", or homosexual representatives for each type for that matter? Sounds to me like a prejudgment. Certainly this is a matter of study, but you can tell this only after you tell the actual types independently. As we were, talking about gender... Socionics types can be as easily determined for females as well as males, although there's a greater psychological difference between the two than most others, in all cultures. It's even inapplicable to ask oneself whether an LII uses lipstick or not.
---
Discussing IQ, for the record: my gf (Parasite) often scores higher than me in IQ tests - no cheats, no repeating tests, but I can still tell that she's a SEI and also that I'm smarter than her. Maybe it's something related to drive, I'm usually assertive in solving real-life problems (well, half-real) but find these tests boring - in fact, the last time I only scored 115 or so to a MENSA test, soon after an epic siege in Mount&Blade. Imagine.
-- Bolt
I'd like to bring one of my favorite quotes up.
the entire post: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...8&postcount=90
the entire thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=15740
Yes! Intelligence and type only means your intelligence will specialize on certain areas, thus leaving a deficiency in other areas. However, I think the more intelligent the person, the less apparent their deficiencies seem regardless of their type. This is so frighteningly obvious, yet you get people who want to take the false moral high ground and be politically correct and say that all types are equal and can be good at everything, which irritates the hell out of me because its based on willful ignorance.It's funny... the people who say this sort of thing are usually ethical types.
But more seriously, I would say that the primary way in which type and intelligence interact is in determining the way in which people are intelligent. A highly intelligent ESE may not necessarily be able to create a new model of quantum physics like a highly intelligent LII could, but will understand people and social interaction on an unparalleled level (or other FeSi-related areas of skill).
NTs only seem smarter than SFs if you go by the standard outdated definition of intelligence in terms of mathematical/verbal. However you can get a highly intelligent ESE that has above average mathematical/verbal ability and a highly intelligent LII that has above average social ability, however their intelligence will always be primarily focused on their area of specialization for their type.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I know a ton of really retarded logical types on this forum.
mm... controlling for "IQ", I believe that SFs are more creative and intelligent than NFs and STs.
STs are rigidly pragmatic, lack creativity and tend to redefine abstract concepts within physicalist parameters.
NFs are too abstract, go off on ridiculous tangents, and tend to force-fit their pet ideosyncratic "humano-centric" themes onto a reality that just doesn't match.
SFs are a more natural mix of abstract and pragmatic, which lends a greater robustness to their thinking. Their natural humility towards their abilities in logic and intuition means they don't fall into the trap of overconfidence in these abilities. They also smell better and are better looking.
Last edited by xerx; 08-20-2011 at 02:28 AM.
Yeah, except none of that stuff is type-related. Also, way to oversimplify.
Don't take it out on me that you're mentally inferior to SFs.
My beneficiary is mentally inferior to me. The rest are alright.
You might think so if you've got some brain damage or if you're NF.
Ti aka little penis logic.
So what? I'd rather not look like some huge steroid-using SLE (aka your bum buddy dual). A small penis is sleek and looks refined. Like the penis of a French aristocrat or a Greek God.
Uhm, SLE wields little penis logic too and isn't my dual.So what? I'd rather not look like some huge steroid-using SLE (aka your bum buddy dual).
I guess this explains why you're out of the loop.
I think you're INFp.
If I actually thought I was INFp then Socionics would be pointless and counterproductive.
Whatever. My whole participation in this thread has been to troll. Though I do think SFs are more creative (esp. in engineering and the sciences) than people give them credit for, and that you're INFp (or Ni dom at least).
ILI? well ok I'll take that at least, compliment-wise. Fe sux and has nothing to do with me, but I think I'm pretty Se avoidant and most people on here type me as an obvious Ne ego.
if the thesis were true people would be denying it as vehemently as they are in this thread.
Logical types are more confident in their reasoning. They are more likely to participate in logical debates and improve their arguments and debate skills. Ethical types doubt themselves, look to others for assurance, don't feel as confident debating. If there wasn't any difference initially, there will be a difference through practice.
how about- iq tests dont accurately measure ones skill level.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote