Questions, Quandaries, and Queries About Personality Type

[Capitalist Pig]

I FOUND THIS, YOU MAY ALL THANK ME NOW.

[EyeSeeCold]

Is this a general reference or a new source of information that has extractable data full of potential?

I selectively read, seemed like the same-'ol.

[ashlesha]

thank you! the first few answers about what type actually covers were especially interesting to me.

[DividedsGhost]

Godspeed, piggy, GODSPEED!!

[Capitalist Pig]

thank you! the first few answers about what type actually covers were especially interesting to me.

Me too, when I started reading them I knew this was going to be something epic. The funny thing is, nobody here has apparently found this before and I discovered it with a <5 minute Google search for "Lenore Thomson."

When I kept reading, all of the things she was saying about what types are and aren't rung so true, and sort of paralleled some things Ashton has tried to say before. Even though her writings are concerned primarily with the MBTI camp, it actually cuts right to the heart of so much of the bullshit that has been far too common on this forum for far too long, and ultimately put me off of Socionics and typology in general. I'm just hoping that some of her words will penetrate some influential minds here and refocus people on what typology is really all about.

Plus, I like this source better than the Wiki, because that's just a bunch of people interpreting her words. This is Lenore in her raw form, speaking with her own words.

Godspeed, piggy, GODSPEED!!

[mirrorsoul]

I always preferred her writing on MBTI over that of other authors. She presents a wonderful overview here of how MBTI functions are related to the mind, and how type develops in an individual as a tendency. She also seems to cover the meaning of typology with clever metaphors.

The details aren't relevant to Socionics, of course. She explains the MBTI assumption that Ni and Si users are still Judging types, by showing how those are left-brain attitudes of perception, though they are irrational functions. The first Extraverted function is meant to show one's J/P.

Socionics doesn't make that assumption, and assumes the irrationality/rationality will always come through despite being introverted.

The general ideas about type seem quite relevant, however.

[Capitalist Pig]

Thank you for reopening the thread, Ashton. I understand your outrage over it being moved for no apparent reason. Yes, we all know Lenore writes chiefly from the MBTI approach, however most of what she says here is generally applicable to any permutation of Jungian or Jungian-derived typology, Socionics especially. Taking it out of General Discussion -- when it is not even precisely defined what the criteria is for a GD thread -- was somewhat dishonest.

That said, I am glad the thread has been reopened since I am genuinely curious in people's responses.

[Sir Knight]

So essentially, one is constantly bombarded with information from the outside world and one's type only explains how they prefer to contextualize that information?

So how does that work with weak functions? You have a hard time/simply can't contextualize information in certain ways?

[glam]

I understand your outrage over it being moved for no apparent reason. Yes, we all know Lenore writes chiefly from the MBTI approach, however most of what she says here is generally applicable to any permutation of Jungian or Jungian-derived typology, Socionics especially. Taking it out of General Discussion -- when it is not even precisely defined what the criteria is for a GD thread -- was somewhat dishonest.

it wasn't moved for "no apparent reason." i realize it is about Jungian typology, but it isn't about socionics specifically, so i moved it. "General Discussion" refers to socionics discussion (the category that subforum is listed under.) it wasn't done to try and discredit the content or anything like that. i don't care about that shit. in fact i think the article is interesting and that people would probably want to discuss it, which is the main reason why i didn't want to delete the thread when Ashton requested it.

The Socionistas didn't like it because they felt snubbed by it.

not at all. and you don't get to dictate where threads go, but keep whining if it makes you feel better.

[Bluenoir]

When I kept reading, all of the things she was saying about what types are and aren't rung so true, and sort of paralleled some things Ashton has tried to say before. Even though her writings are concerned primarily with the MBTI camp, it actually cuts right to the heart of so much of the bullshit that has been far too common on this forum for far too long, and ultimately put me off of Socionics and typology in general. I'm just hoping that some of her words will penetrate some influential minds here and refocus people on what typology is really all about.

I doubt it. Not naming anyone, but there are a few here who take this stuff with a "religious" mindset, so to speak.

[Capitalist Pig]

it wasn't moved for "no apparent reason." i realize it is about Jungian typology, but it isn't about socionics specifically, so i moved it. "General Discussion" refers to socionics discussion (the category that subforum is listed under.) it wasn't done to try and discredit the content or anything like that. i don't care about that shit. in fact i think the article is interesting and that people would probably want to discuss it, which is the main reason why i didn't want to delete the thread when Ashton requested it.

OIC

i dont really care as long as it gets read