People use their Role functions - it has happened before!Originally Posted by The Ineffable
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...937#post771937I've gotta hear your reasoning behind this
Last edited by woofwoofl; 05-19-2011 at 01:26 AM. Reason: a second-page first post took place - it has happened before (but never from me - I made a nested quote thing to make things cleaner)!
Ah, yes. Typical Bolt. You're not your type because you "sound" like another type. HARD-HITTING INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM RIGHT THERE, FOLKS.People use their Role functions - it has happened before!
SurePeople use their Role functions - it has happened before!
That was actually a conclusion, not a vague impression (I was just ironic). What he did there - and with other occasions - is heavy usage of Ne information. Isn't that what forms a type? Big picture in opposition to detail. His perception, in opposition to Se-Base types, is not based on a serialized array of details - "it has this, it has that and that..." - but it's a holistic one. Easily excluding a detail, asserting the whole is not affected *with anything* by dismissing one fact is incompatible with Se in any circumstance.
I could also show you why Ne-Base instead of Ne-Creative, but that wouldn't pass through the narrow slits of your helmet, shiny knight.
I don't remember it very well, was long time ago, you had the same user name. I do remember that my explanation and use of terminology was too relaxed while your explanation was much more structured and precise, leading me to believe that you are rational type which would rule out ILE and ILI.
There are some hints in your original post that you're using Si mobilizing and Ne creative. The second part of your post is going over your past and childhood experiences in detail is reminiscent of the nostalgia that LIIs report experiencing. ILE's relation to their DS Si is much more perturbing for them and sometimes even agonizing. They can get fixed on some narrow experience or single fact with tunnel vision and start obsessing over it. Next your use of Ne seems to be sporadic. Ne-leading can be compared to this ever present background in ILEs. In my experience with ILEs at work for example if I tell them I am having some problem with my project they will in casual manner start going over the options of what could be done. Your use of Ne sounds more situational rather than this kind of continuous process, which points towards creative Ne over leading Ne.
How do you check what is relevant and what is irrelevant?
LIIs seems to like exploring various possible options and outcomes, which makes them appear to be less decisive than ILIs at least externally. Internally LII opinions seem to be more structured than those of ILIs.
Healthy people of all socio-types are able to perceive objective facts about their external reality. The association of Te with "objective facts" doesn't hold up. If you accept this definition, this would mean that roughly half of the population, alpha and beta quadras, are blind to objective reality. However, within your field of work you'll find many Ti-users. How could they succeed getting education and later a career in physical sciences if they are regularly ignoring Te and not considering and valuing objective facts? This description of Te simply does not correspond to what you can observe happening in reality.
You said you're a chemist, which means you have probably taken quite a bit of science classes and along the way learned to appreciate empirical approach. So my guess would be that it is your education that comes into play here rather than Ti/Te differences.
Maybe yes, or maybe not. I'm still in the process of self-discovering under the axioms of socionicsThere's a good chance we may be duals
That's correct. When I'm expressing an idea in general terms I could be chaotic (as I'm unsually in my actions) but when I'm expressing a reasoning I'm very structured. I have absolutely no doubt that in the old MBTI I'm a Ti dom (leading) and Ne aux (creative) user. The problem is how much different (or not) these Ti,Ne,Ni,Ne functions are in Socionics, and the implications of these differences. Add to this more variables to the issue which could contradict themselves (if I'm Ti leading I should have IJ temperament but if I behave chaotically I should not be a J; how to interpret quadras and their values, etc).
I feel actually a bit loss in Socionics. How to reconcialiate all of this stuff? Which are the key factors which should not be negated, and which of them coud be "shaped" according to the master points? Etc. As I commented in my introduction, I solve these issues with the Ti-ILE trick and the reasoning in the linked thread, but in my gut I know I could not be an ILE. So when I recognized it, I dediced to come here for help...
So they are very prone to posttraumatic stress disorder? Mmm, a good point for not desiring being an ILE
Another aspect that I apparently solved with the Ti-ILE trick, a user supposed to be more focused in Ti that Ne. Now taking in considerations all good advices that have been offered about this, I decide to ignore "subtype coloring" and only go there once the main question is solved.Next your use of Ne seems to be sporadic. Ne-leading can be compared to this ever present background in ILEs. In my experience with ILEs at work for example if I tell them I am having some problem with my project they will in casual manner start going over the options of what could be done. Your use of Ne sounds more situational rather than this kind of continuous process, which points towards creative Ne over leading Ne.
You're right, I use Ti much more than Ne, and my Ne is less "broad" than the ENTP main function. As most ENTPs seems to be ILEs (although not all ILE-ENTps are ENTPs) this is very good reference. ILE is discarded.
Well, when I was speaking about "relevant" in gamma terms, I was thinking in those things that have a long impact over time, not in "here and now". But I suppose this is a stereotype about gamma Vs alpha. Both of them should be concerned about present stuff and long time issues, but for different reasons.How do you check what is relevant and what is irrelevant?
Apparently I have troubles catching the essential difference between these two quadras, and probably the cause of this is the club of researchers (well I feel absolutely "at home") being distributed in these two.
I know for sure that I'm not a pragmatist ST, neither a social SF nor an humanitarian NF, discarding then deltas and betas.
One was suggested to me considering the quadra as a starting point. Maybe this is not a good advice. Do types belong to quadras, or are quadras formed by types? Which is the direction of the hierarchy? Easy answer: equivalent. But I'm not so sure...
Inside a quadra every type will have its particular motivations. Using a broad concept like them could be a useful clue, but maybe could introduce strong bias...
That's suggests LII over ILI. My reasonings are structured. I will put an example of them later.LIIs seems to like exploring various possible options and outcomes, which makes them appear to be less decisive than ILIs at least externally. Internally LII opinions seem to be more structured than those of ILIs.
That's is simply correct. Yeah, I felt so lost that I also lost the perspective, the big picture.Healthy people of all socio-types are able to perceive objective facts about their external reality. The association of Te with "objective facts" doesn't hold up. If you accept this definition, this would mean that roughly half of the population, alpha and beta quadras, are blind to objective reality. However, within your field of work you'll find many Ti-users. How could they succeed getting education and later a career in physical sciences if they are regularly ignoring Te and not considering and valuing objective facts? This description of Te simply does not correspond to what you can observe happening in reality.
You said you're a chemist, which means you have probably taken quite a bit of science classes and along the way learned to appreciate empirical approach. So my guess would be that it is your education that comes into play here rather than Ti/Te differences.
Thanks. Your post has been very useful. The LII option has more points now.
Last edited by ssss; 05-19-2011 at 09:00 AM.
As an example of my way of reasoning, I wrote my particular vision of Ti in a MBTI forum. Regardless it could be differences between it and how it's understood under socionics terms, I still see it enough similar (all main characteristics, like simmetry, are implicit):
The question is, whould an ILI be able of understand Ti in those terms? Is this the quintessence of LII Ti leading?Fractalized cosmovision.
If I explain this with some more words:
Find the simplest and uniform algorithm that could generate the whole reality that is known at every time.
And now I'll develop a bit more this idea.
At instant T sub 0, you have in yor mind a concrete amount of information what constitutes reality. Ti at work would analyze every property of "reality" and would try to find a universal and simplest rule that could explain this reality. This rule must be uniform in the same meaning that a continuum and derivable function has in Maths: the algorithm must be capable of justifying from the smallest portion of reality to the whole system with the same rule. No contradictions are allowed (a rule for a concrete portion of reality and another rule for a different portion, etc).
At instant T sub 1, an extra amount of information is provided, so reality expands. The algorithm is tested, if it still works, then OK. If not, it must be revised, changed, for being able to work with the increased reality. Like a bayesian inference.
The algorithm is created from what is perceived as a certainty (this idea is malleable, not inmutable) and used for evaluating ideas whose level of certainty is unknown.
From what I can tell MBTI is essentially a dumbed down commercialized version of socionics but the core system is same. Both socionics and MBTI are based on Jung's work, both feature 16 types and 8 functions, both use same 4 dichotomies. Often debates about MBTI to socionics conversion happen over semantics.
Eh not sure. For me as a dynamic type and Ni-leading the synthesis just happens automatically. Descriptions and behaviors add up until the probability of something being true starts tipping the scales. Studying other people, such as historic figures and celebrities, for whom the type has already been confirmed helps.
hahaSo they are very prone to posttraumatic stress disorder? Mmm, a good point for not desiring being an ILEit can seem this way at times. One example I can recall is about an ILE who would not eat lunch if his regular place at the table was occupied. Si desires continuity in the physical sense, so for this ILE guy this meant that he needed to sit in the spot he had the habit of occupying during lunch. This rather bizarre obsession with an isolated instance of constancy can be attributed to his Si DS (as well as skipping on food). LIIs in comparison seem to have better use of their Si instincts.
As I understand it since socionics assigns IEs roles (creative, leading, demonstrative, etc.) there isn't a continuous gradient between types. So Ti-ILEs who use a lot of Ti do not merge to become Ne-LIIs at some point. Creative Ti cannot transform to become leading Ti. So subtypes can't really mess up one's typing as long as you understand the differences between these roles and how this manifests with your own set of IEs.
I don't relate to description of my quadra very well too. It seems to describe LSIs and SLEs more so than EIEs and IEIs. Way I see it quadra descriptions serve as an easy starting point and a very rough guide to finding your type, with emphasis being on "very rough". It did allow you to narrow it down to 8 types, so essentially it did accomplish its job. Now you can add more information to refine your understanding further.
Thank you for this.Healthy people of all socio-types are able to perceive objective facts about their external reality. The association of Te with "objective facts" doesn't hold up. If you accept this definition, this would mean that roughly half of the population, alpha and beta quadras, are blind to objective reality. However, within your field of work you'll find many Ti-users. How could they succeed getting education and later a career in physical sciences if they are regularly ignoring Te and not considering and valuing objective facts? This description of Te simply does not correspond to what you can observe happening in reality.
I'll also add that it's just as healthy to be an artist, because a good artist needs to be almost just as objective. And it's a legitimate occupation, just like being some scientist...
It's just that science and materialism are WAY over-valued in the West, in a way that defeats its own arguement. It's like hypocritically so, 'objective facts' and science became the new religion. It's all quite stupid, because the essence of everything changes when you observe it.
I think both religion and science are equal in the sense that they both give people a justification for being critical.
I've read more than just the first few sentences now. Not the whole thing - I can't digest that much Ti at one time.
LII.
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.
I couldn't digest that much either. Just FTR.
Thank you. I don't feel as stupid now.
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.
That's what happens when measures against people who misguide new users are not taken. I hope that MSM is smart enough to understand that just having different definitions is enough to make them different systems (with categories - functions, types - which don't correspond to each other).
To address a bit this misinformation:
- Socionics is newer than MBTI, it was developed independently behind the iron courtain, as an information metabolism theory, with some MBTI influences later on;
- Socionics is historically based on Jung's work, but it is not fully compatible with that, just like chemistry with alchemy;
- the founders of Socionics specified some of these differences;
- everyone except (from what I know) these trolls who harass the forum for years know the three are different systems.
You will find different contradictions, different authors think different things, but overall they acknowledge differences. This forum was the first time I heard they are the same, from people whose credibility is doubtful (random internet users with background in MTBI and even Enneagram). This is a brief introduction to Socionics and its history: http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro1.html, we're lucky such things still exist.
haha
The teory implies what you said, and the concept sounds good (creative makes products with leading info) but I'm not completely convinced of this. I need arguments that explains why it shuld be in this way and not for example a mere quantitative question.As I understand it since socionics assigns IEs roles (creative, leading, demonstrative, etc.) there isn't a continuous gradient between types. So Ti-ILEs who use a lot of Ti do not merge to become Ne-LIIs at some point. Creative Ti cannot transform to become leading Ti. So subtypes can't really mess up one's typing as long as you understand the differences between these roles and how this manifests with your own set of IEs.
Last edited by ssss; 05-19-2011 at 06:03 PM.
I tend to agree with Slacker and Ashton.
I agree with this. In old MBTI only main extroverted function is supposed to generate the P/J character. But I do not see logic that if your main function, despite of being introverted could gather info form the outside, but at the same time not "project" info to it. After all, being a function introverted or extroverted is a question of the point of reference it uses, no the concrete area where it's confined.If you'redom, then ofc you're an IJ type in Socionics. The preservation of proper type temperaments is one of the aspects Socionics got right compared to MBTI.
Am I a J or a P temperament? That's the question. I would say that mentally I'm a J, as you can see, for example, with my definition of Ti or other examples I could write about my reasonings. I share other properties of the IJ temperament like being hardly adaptable, and having very low tolerance to stress. But the question is this "J psyche" does not translate in a J behavior as it's supposed to be. I'm predictable (I suppose), but not reliable and very messy.
This P behavior could be an effect of having a freak control mother, maybe, and having felt too limited by the way my parents see life.
Maybe under the appopiate nurture conditions I could have developed as a more functional J behavior (or maybe this is mere speculation...).
I agree. The question is that the same cause could manifest as different consequences. So looking only to the result (behavior, relations, "quadra values..." could introduce some bias to this process.The quadras and intertypes have useful merit IMO
I know they're different systems. I've investigate from different webs (wikisocion, socionics.us, etc), read and reread definitions, concepts, etc, before joining.
The question is that having participate a lot in MBTI forums I could not be sure *how much* I'm biased in my ideas, and therefore in my conclusions. I discovered this system in a MBTI based forum, so you can imagine.
For example, Socare very similar to MBTI equivalents, whereas Soc
seems to be an hybrid of both T functions, and the same with Soc
.
and
are very different in both systems, as happens with
and
.
So, due to my bias, could I interpret my leading function as
Which is my quadra, alpha because I love to share ideas (and there is a geek in my heart) or a gamma because I think a lot in the implications of ideas?
Am I really a J because my mind is structured or a P because that's my behavior? Etc.
For now I bet on LII option, but the game is not over.
(P.S. Thanks for the link).
If you're speaking about the LII option, I also see it more plausible.
Art is subjetive at unless you're speaking about how precise a drawing is and similar. Better, beautiful, etc are concepts which imply valorations, and all valorations are subjective.
Legitimate? Of course. You cannot objectively prove which occupation is more legitimate without falling in subjective valorations. Which color is more beautiful?
1. Overvaluated is a valoration, subjective (your legitimate but subjective opinion).It's just that science and materialism are WAY over-valued in the West, in a way that defeats its own arguement. It's like hypocritically so, 'objective facts' and science became the new religion. It's all quite stupid, because the essence of everything changes when you observe it.
2. If you associate science with materialism, like if an atheist could not be humanitarian of whatever similar analogy, you're completely WRONG.
3. Your argument about "all is equally objective" is not correct. No, sorry, religion, philosophy, etc are not as objective as Science, in fact there is no objectivity in them. You can prove 2+2=4, or test any scientific theory. Falsiability is the key property that makes them objective an independent from the point of view. An please does not say things like "if I define 2 as 3 then 2+2 is not 4". The question is (concept 2)(concept sum)(concept 2)(concept equal)(concept 4). Science works because it's objective, if not it would not work. Simple. "Subjective valorations" did not built the computer you're using, and it works (unless you're using Windows 98
Your opinions are all respectable, but being your opnions does not make them automatically objective. The same for me, of course.
They work differently, that's for sure.I think both religion and science are equal in the sense that they both give people a justification for being critical.
I've answered this post because it's linked with a characteristic of myself which I've expressed (and apparently you do not share/like/whatever), so I feel with the right of answering to it WITHOUT INITIATING A DEBATE. But please do not post opinions not related with the main question of this thread, another one would be more appropiate.
That actually sounds like "Introverted Thinking", yeah, but rather Introverted with Logic, IMO. That is an attitude, not a type of information, as it deals with the human approach of understanding reality. That means:
- Base function is Fields (Introverted type) - the aim is to find the rules, find the concepts, the relationships and the universals;
- one function is Rational and External (Logic) - base one's opinion on "real", provable, hard rules.
The greatest difference between your description and what I know about Ti is that Ti deals with the "real" rules, instead of just something that can merely explain things for us based on experimental evidence. That looks like the Gamma NT mindset, let's find a model which is satisfactory, which works and *can* explain things, regardless whether it's real or not. It contrasts with the Alpha NT mindset, which IRL normally requires endless inquisitiveness to be able to tell "for sure", at least as much as possible, that you found out the "real thing". Obviously, any intelligent person would acknowledge that our understanding is limited, however, there are a lot of debates in science regarding this aspect, the convenience, voices dispute the conventional models which work but don't sound right, especially when they're deduced mathematically. There's no such thing as "conventional" for Gamma NTs, everything is just a convention that works (the reason why Gamma NT types are seen as relativists or pragmatical thinkers).
Also, what you describe is not actually the "pure reason" of Ti, because your confirmation is exclusively empirical - we imagine a model which can be applied to this, then check whether all phenomenae behave accordingly, otherwise we wait for another hit of inspiration (that to me sounds exactly Ni+Te/ILI, btw). However, Ti Ego works differently, empirical confirmation does not exist, in case of Ne they're just impressions (Irrational Bodies Internal) which are selected only by fitting with the rules of inference - on short "must make sense", what does not is initially dismissed as flawed interpretation.
Btw, in your statement, I find "universal rule" contradictory with "simplest rule" or "can be changed". Those terms imply that more "universal rules" are possible, a mere contingent truth, a banal formal convention, like "we may conclude ghosts exist, that would fit with the reports, regardless of whether they exist or not". If everyone agrees with that, there is no problem, right? (induction, the only way how evidence can directly prove, IMO, but I'm open to suggestions)
Let me give you an example, Max Planck. He's IMO an LII, at least a Ti type. When he made his discovery, he refused to acknowledge it, although it was experimentally proved by himself. He said: "a purely formal assumption … actually I did not think much about it…" - the typical mindset of LII, the analyst, they must find out whether something is *trully real*, including the very existence of ourselves (Descartes). Some people may argue Planck was not a Ti type, I think I heard ILI somewhere, but they fail to explain why he, as a Te Ego refused to acknowledge a view that works and also is experimentally proven.
So regarding what you wrote around, all stuff should fit together. Seeing many possibilities, not being able to pick from them, that not only fits Ni-Base, but it is contradictory with Ti-Base, as Ti alone simply represents an immediate inference from an existing understanding, there's no such thing as "more posibilities". But IMO you are, like all Intuitive Irrationals, in "search mode", your primary drive is to find out, not to apply.
---
Regarding me and this thread, I found trying to convince an ILI - even if I have all the reasons to think I'm right - always daunting in public discussions. They are always undecided, consider the opinion of the majority, opinion which btw, as a rule of thumb, is always against mine on this forum, as most people oppose me for subjective reasons, like their dislike for my uncompromising behavior and aggressive style of debate. But to each his own, you'd not make the first lost soul, Krig the Viking is another example (you may want to check that history out). In private however, I agree with ILIs in most of the cases, on things in which only we are interested in. I put this again on their relativism, the manner of choosing the truth that fits the circumstances, so I warn you, most people here "type" based on personal likes/dislikes or political/popularity reasons. I'm not sure whether I'll still try to further type you, but I'll have some fun instead - they said I'm "socionics police", "too serious" and a killjoy. I will change that
Yeah it's hard to tell what info is real Socionics. I learned things from different authors, then going deeper I found out some things are actually only their interpretation. Note that the mentioned websites are created by the same author, Wikisocion having the disadvantage of being a wiki ("wikiality", anyone?
My opinion largely varies depending on what MBTI descriptions I find, my overall impression is that Rational/J elements are *vaguely* similar accross the systems, at least similar array of "traits", and the Irrational *seem* overall inverted. If you ask me, that doesn't make much sense in MBTI, which is anyway primarily based on the four dichotomies, for instance it's astonishing how Ti fits with ISTP and Te with ISTJ, types which are described similarily in both systems, let alone that, despite the similarity between MBTI J/P with Jungian Rational/Irrational and Socionics Schizotymic/Cyclotymic, a Judging type can be driven by sensorics, while a Perceving type by reasoning.For example, Soc
Possibly bias, not sure. The way the official M-B site defines Ti and Ni may be a clue:So, due to my bias, could I interpret my leading function as
Introverted Intuition: Looks at consistency of ideas and thoughts with an internal framework. Trusts flashes from the unconscious, which may be hard for others to understand.I really don't know what to say about that, I guess in MBTI Ni and Ti Extroverts focus on internal consistency, but to a lesser extent? My previous post may shed some light on how I see this old problem of LII vs ILI, based on my understanding in Socionics theory, both types and functions. And note that Socionics makes the difference between Information Elements, functions and types. The IEs are just types of information based on three aspects (the Information Aspects), they do not directly determine Extroversion, they're not attitudes (there can't be "focus", since there's no subject), therefore they can't tell whether a type is focused on an internal framework or external phenomenae, unless you know what functions of a subject's psyche use them. So *in this respect*, an Introverted Te type will be more similar to an Introverted Ti type, rather than an Extroverted Te type, though with care you won't confuse their Rational functions.Introverted Thinking: Seeks internal consistency and logic of ideas. Trusts his or her internal framework, which may be difficult to explain to others.
Well considering that some people like Bill Gates are undisputed Gammas, the geek criterion may fall. Also, the stereotype of ILI is again geekish.
In Socionics, Schizotymic simply means that the primary function (Base) uses Logic or Ethics (Fields+Static or Bodies+Dynamic) IE, exactly like in Jung Rational means that the first function is Thinking or Feeling. In conventional terms:
- J = T,F Base(1) + S,N Creative(2)
- P = S,N Base(1) + T,F Creative(2).
One mnemonic you may use to get used to this rule could be to consider all MBTI names Irrational/p when you remove the last letter, and inverting the 2nd and 3rd letters to obtain the Rational counterparts: INT = ILI/p; ITN = LII/j.
In Socionics j/p are not so noticeable and clearly defined as actual behavioral patterns, like in MBTI. There are crazy or rebel Rationals and conventional or traditionalist Irrationals. It is not even necessary to find it to type someone, as all these dichotomies are emergent and can be deduced one from another. For instance if by other means you figure out that someone is Fe and Introvert, he's automatically Irrational (SEI, IEI). The partitions of all these dichotomies are interdependent with each other, one has to take care of the whole ensemble. And caution with the Reinin dichotomies, they're disputed and it's not clear which are actually real and which are not, I personally use a narrow selection which has proven to me IRL. A report stated that Reinin himself, who still considers them valid, thinks that their descriptions "need improvement": http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...514#post536514
You're welcome.
So you've learnt Socionics from books? That's interesting. The problem is I doubt there are much material translated to English, and much less, to my native language...Yeah it's hard to tell what info is real Socionics. I learned things from different authors, then going deeper I found out some things are actually only their interpretation. Note that the mentioned websites are created by the same author, Wikisocion having the disadvantage of being a wiki ("wikiality", anyone?
I agree that the j/p usage in Socionics made much more sense.My opinion largely varies depending on what MBTI descriptions I find, my overall impression is that Rational/J elements are *vaguely* similar accross the systems, at least similar array of "traits", and the Irrational *seem* overall inverted. If you ask me, that doesn't make much sense in MBTI, which is anyway primarily based on the four dichotomies, for instance it's astonishing how Ti fits with ISTP and Te with ISTJ, types which are described similarily in both systems, let alone that, despite the similarity between MBTI J/P with Jungian Rational/Irrational and Socionics Schizotymic/Cyclotymic, a Judging type can be driven by sensorics, while a Perceving type by reasoning.
Theoretically yes, but as the same conclusion could be achieved by different but similar methods, the answer is not easy (or at least not direct). Extroverted types seem easier for being distinguished, probably because they "project" their mindset to the world in a more noticeable way (so their behavior is more different)....
So *in this respect*, an Introverted Te type will be more similar to an Introverted Ti type, rather than an Extroverted Te type, though with care you won't confuse their Rational functions.
I always associated much more the geekish behavior to alpha types, specially yours (ILE)Well considering that some people like Bill Gates are undisputed Gammas, the geek criterion may fall. Also, the stereotype of ILI is again geekish.
But you're right, Bill is a good example of a geek (the history of how Microsoft and Apple started is a good examples of geek power) and ILI is usually represented as a native geek. This guy Anatoly Wasserman is a good example:
LIIs are not so usually seen in that way, that's true.
Woops, there was a misunderstanding here. The post you quoted did not express doubts about how to use the rules for associating sociotypes to their j/p behavior. It expressed doubts about what I could be in nature, j or p, so I will have another clue for my sociotype.In Socionics, Schizotymic simply means that the primary function (Base) uses Logic or Ethics (Fields+Static or Bodies+Dynamic) IE, exactly like in Jung Rational means that the first function is Thinking or Feeling. In conventional terms:
- J = T,F Base(1) + S,N Creative(2)
- P = S,N Base(1) + T,F Creative(2).
One mnemonic you may use to get used to this rule could be to consider all MBTI names Irrational/p when you remove the last letter, and inverting the 2nd and 3rd letters to obtain the Rational counterparts: INT = ILI/p; ITN = LII/j.
In Socionics j/p are not so noticeable and clearly defined as actual behavioral patterns, like in MBTI. There are crazy or rebel Rationals and conventional or traditionalist Irrationals. It is not even necessary to find it to type someone, as all these dichotomies are emergent and can be deduced one from another. For instance if by other means you figure out that someone is Fe and Introvert, he's automatically Irrational (SEI, IEI). The partitions of all these dichotomies are interdependent with each other, one has to take care of the whole ensemble.
But basically you're concluding that j/p cannot be directly deduced by the behavior of an user. As expected, j users are more prone to manifest an "external j behavior" more usually than p's, but it would not be a rule. So this as a clue would not be too much useful...
I do not trust them too much for already expressed reasons. Even you can prove they are "real", I mean, there's a perfect equivalence between them an functions, this does not imply that they have any useful meaning of even could be. I used the example about vectors as an analogy. And I suspect there's redundance in them, because I see suspicious that a type with all positive options exists (yours, ILE) but not their all negative counterpart.And caution with the Reinin dichotomies, they're disputed and it's not clear which are actually real and which are not, I personally use a narrow selection which has proven to me IRL. A report stated that Reinin himself, who still considers them valid, thinks that their descriptions "need improvement": http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...514#post536514
I see where you're going, but I'm not sure if this implies I'm a gamma. "Everything is a convention that works" sounds like gammas almost does not "believe" in the mere existence of reality. I do, I mean, I believe in the existence of the objective truth that does not depend on our point of view or interpretation, but I do not believe in our ability for knowing it. And the justification could be explained in a simple way.
We (humans) are a portion of the whole, a subsystem of the Universe. For knowing reality "as is", the subsystem should be able of containing as much information as the whole system, and this is inherently impossible. So we are necessarily forced to knowing reality by approximation (models). These models are not reality, only representations of reality, as a 2D projection of a 3D figure. So they're "conventions" in that sense. We cannot know the truth in a pure yes/no, black/white, etc, but models can always be improved. As they're capable of explaining more and more phenomenons, the proyection would be better, the model will become closer to the truth. But the model is not the reality which it represents, there is not neither could be "perfect truth" in them. It would be like touching the infinity, it's impossible, although you can always advance in that direction... at the end only fuzzy logic would made sense, and pragmatical knowledge.
If you are more or less implying that Ti "believes" in a perfect truth, I do not, that's for sure. But is this a question of gradation (Ti+Pe trust much more in a perfect truth than Ni+Je) -I doubt then about my ego functions- of is this a question of a "gap"? If the answer is the second, I am then a Ni ego user.
That's an interesting example. I would not wait for pusblishing my discovery, that's for sure. As a personal anecdote, during my class of Thermodynamics, I was able to imagine a "mental experiment" that seemed to contradict the II Law of Thermo. By no way I rejected it, I doubt about it, of course, but I ran to showing it to my teacher. He was unable to find what was failingLet me give you an example, Max Planck. He's IMO an LII, at least a Ti type. When he made his discovery, he refused to acknowledge it, although it was experimentally proved by himself. He said: "a purely formal assumption … actually I did not think much about it…" - the typical mindset of LII, the analyst, they must find out whether something is *trully real*, including the very existence of ourselves (Descartes). Some people may argue Planck was not a Ti type, I think I heard ILI somewhere, but they fail to explain why he, as a Te Ego refused to acknowledge a view that works and also is experimentally proven.
Well I have observed a particular behavior of LIIs that I do not share. They do not like expressing their reasonigs with all the steps, only more or less the conclusion. My posts are tremendously long, you see, with reasonings very detailed. This could be maybe expressed as if Ti sees the conclusion "self-evident" from the set of rules, so developing the reasoning would be like redundant...So regarding what you wrote around, all stuff should fit together. Seeing many possibilities, not being able to pick from them, that not only fits Ni-Base, but it is contradictory with Ti-Base, as Ti alone simply represents an immediate inference from an existing understanding, there's no such thing as "more posibilities". But IMO you are, like all Intuitive Irrationals, in "search mode", your primary drive is to find out, not to apply.
There is no such thing like "self-evident" in my mind.
Allow me to ask a question. One aspect of my reasonigs that always made me think as a Ti user (at least in those MBTI days) is that some Ni users, specially IEIs, tend to use "diffuse" concepts which they could more or less adapt to the circumstances. I see this as "mental cheating" and I have always criticized this, what apparently is more a Ti-like behavior. I'm a supporter of being "as precise as you can" for avoiding misunderstandings, double-meanings, etc. What do you think about this?
I don't care about popular opinions, simply I'm always open to the idea of "I could have misunderstood this, not seen one aspect, relevant point of view of the problem, etc." Relativism as you said. FWIW I sai that your argumentation is very strong and well constructed, to the point that you're making me seriously doubt about my Ti-ness. Just when I was "pointing" to the LII solution, you caused a 180º turn. Now I'm tilting to the ILI option.Regarding me and this thread, I found trying to convince an ILI - even if I have all the reasons to think I'm right - always daunting in public discussions. They are always undecided, consider the opinion of the majority, opinion which btw, as a rule of thumb, is always against mine on this forum, as most people oppose me for subjective reasons, like their dislike for my uncompromising behavior and aggressive style of debate. But to each his own, you'd not make the first lost soul, Krig the Viking is another example (you may want to check that history out). In private however, I agree with ILIs in most of the cases, on things in which only we are interested in. I put this again on their relativism, the manner of choosing the truth that fits the circumstances, so I warn you, most people here "type" based on personal likes/dislikes or political/popularity reasons. I'm not sure whether I'll still try to further type you, but I'll have some fun instead - they said I'm "socionics police", "too serious" and a killjoy. I will change that
What happened with Krig? He was an ILI conviced for "being" a LII?
About your style of debate, I do not have any problem with "passionate" debates as long as they remain respectful. For example, my friend of the picture is a strong believer whereas I'm a weak atheist. We've debated a lot with zero problems because we never use "negative" connotations in our word. But I tend to overreact if I see something of this.
Last edited by ssss; 05-20-2011 at 02:57 PM.
Hardly anyone could disagree with this.
I agree, although some people could not.All theories are wrong, so I see little sense in enslaving the mind to any single one. Any theory or combination thereof is relevant only insofar as it can offer real explanatory power about the phenomena it refers to.
It is not easy to answer this. I'd like to add an important factor to the bias you've expressed: the interpretation of the same phenomenon. I could see some aspect of myself as a j-ish whereas other people could think it's p-ish, and vice-versa. Concept definitions are available for everyone, but our interpretations could vary a lot.What's more type-relevant is discerning your how your mind tends to organize incoming data, assess information, and render decisions about it. Socionics is better suited as a theory about phenomenal cognition, not so much a theory about behavioral traits. It will tell more re: how a person's psyche parses ('metabolizes') information (psychological stimuli) into experienceable mental events, rather than how a person will act or what their ostensible behavior patterns will be. It's also worth noting that behavioral attributions are prone to many different biasing errors.
My behavior can be mostly defined as P due to having a lot of properties that everyone would identify as P: difficult for taking decisions and maintaining them, low reliability, messy, variable mood, etc. The only big exception seems to be my low tolerance to stress.
But I have affirmed several times that the main question, the cause of this behavior (my mind) is structured, therefore j-ish. As I cannot read other minds for comparison, how can I be sure that my mind is more structured than those of P's (or the opposite)? I have thought this due to the way I shape my reasonings, ideas, when I'm expressing them (I put on the table all the steps I follow and in which order). But this also matches with the process dichotomy (ILI, p)...
This has been extremely interesting. Thanks.Or perhaps it's not altogether j/p related.
And generally speaking, if you're >20 years of age and haven't lived with your parents for at least a few years, any adaptive behaviors you may have compensated with during that time will have given way for the most part to whatever your inborn/genetic tendencies were all along. If the above conditions are true, then odds are you're seeing yourself as you naturally are. Note:
Personality is a frequently cited example of a heritable trait that has been studied in twins and adoptions. Identical twins reared apart are far more similar in personality than randomly selected pairs of people. Likewise, identical twins are more similar than fraternal twins. Also, biological siblings are more similar in personality than adoptive siblings. Each observation suggests that personality is heritable to a certain extent. However, these same study designs allow for the examination of environment as well as genes. Adoption studies also directly measure the strength of shared family effects. Adopted siblings share only family environment. Most adoption studies indicate that by adulthood the personalities of adopted siblings are little or no more similar than random pairs of strangers. This would mean that shared family effects on personality are zero by adulthood. As is the case with personality, non-shared environmental effects are often found to out-weigh shared environmental effects. That is, environmental effects that are typically thought to be life-shaping (such as family life) may have less of an impact than non-shared effects, which are harder to identify. One possible source of non-shared effects is the environment of pre-natal development. Random variations in the genetic program of development may be a substantial source of non-shared environment. These results suggest that "nurture" may not be the predominant factor in "environment."
Of course, for deciding if I'm a LII or ILI, I will have to ponderate every characteristic, aspect, but not all of them will have the same weight. For example, ego functions are remarkably important, whereas interype relations, although useful, cannot be taken as the key if there's an obvious contradiction between these two. There are a lot of cultural and individual factors (user and acquitances) that can colour this result.Right. That's why when typing I'll apply multiple measures simultaneously and see what it converges towards. For instance if someone VIs like an LII, seems to think and speak like an LII, has intertypes coherent with LII, etc… then odds are, they're LII. Any one measure isolated by itself can't be very conclusive IMO. A few taken in concert, however, is more telling.
About myself and VI I should say that as I always find extremely difficult smiling in front of a chamera, my apparent seriousness (I am) could be exaggerated a bit, biasing the j/p result (due to stiffness). And I like to seem a bit more "dominant" than I am, like trying to show "my personal power". I'll publish more pictures in order to diminish this bias.
But I cannot negate that @The Ineffable has made strongs arguments about my Ni-ess. Assuming his understanding of this function is correct (I have no reasons for thinking he could be wrong because nobody has expressed disagreement, and the main properties he described were already known by me), his interpretation of my mindset as Ni (which could be much more debatable) sounds convincing. Relativization, looking for different points of views, interpretations, fuzzy logic (absolute conclusions are an anathema for me) etc.
Yeah, my "care" was pointing rather to an ideal case. Regarding I/E I didn't notice to have higher difficulties in the case of introverts, and that if I can consider that a separate case (sometimes it's hard to chose between EXX and IXX, like distinguishing between Dual types).
I may be one (very strong interest in software design, physics and things like this, finding everything else shallow), though my image of geek is making part of a geek culture, whereas ILEs I know rather isolate themselves in their ivory towers. I always found this culture a turn-off, I don't even understand it entirely, things like "smart jokes", geek vocabulary, geek koans, meetings, groups, symbols, plays of words and especially exclusivism and shibboleths (both being Ni/Se indicators). I'm particulary annoyed by recursive acronyms, and tricky (learned) pronunciation - a pedantic ILI I worked with tried to teach me the "correct" pronunciation: it's not tee-see-el, it's "tickle", not es-cue-el, it's "sequel" (he was not even understanding when I was using the literal pronunciation). I also despise the idea that sofistication is an indicative of quality or value. I find these things the field of the "real" geeks, stereotypically LII (except the Ni/Se parts) and ILI. Having some discussions with some ILEs, I found this in common, that we admire modest "old-school" thinkers who don't use esoteric terms, who even when they talk about complex things, they do it so directly and simply - often with examples - that even a child could understand. Well that one is disputable, considering that most people focus on the trivia, sensational and/or controversial (eg religious views), 99.999% of the population misses their point entirely, but that's a different storyI always associated much more the geekish behavior to alpha types, specially yours (ILE)
Interesting. I know nothing about him, my first impression after reading his wikipedia article, assuming I can choose only between LII and ILI, is that he's certainly ILI. IME ILIs memorize huge lots of facts and figures, while LIIs rarely learn something "useless" (not sure if it can be deduced from descriptions). If I could have a confirmation this is universally applicable, this would perhaps make one of the easiest criteria to differentiate between these two types, though I don't have enough data to be convinced (+ I guess education would make a great difference).
Not sure what you mean - your statement looks "parallel" to mine, apparently the same thing, but maybe not? -, I meant it's not so easy or obvious, like in MBTI, it does not directly correlate with behavior. Well, in Socionics nothing directly correlates with behavior, though IMO some dichotomies are more abstract than others, Rational/Irrational being one of them. For the record, some people claim it's evident and can use it successfully. I don't remember right now if I ever used it in typing, but I use it in confirming. Taking a famous person, I type Freddie Mercury as EIE, and I immediately think "how can that be Rational?". Well it can, but it's very had to explain, it's rather impossible for me to point out to "that what he said/done is Rational!", though to determine he's Fe-Base is relatively easy.
I picked this example, EIE/Fe-Base, because it can easily picture my issue, EIEs being Rational but very expressive, often non-conformist, creative, "different", more in like with the collective view on Perceiving/Irrational.
Disclaimer: the following is my opinion and observations, I make no claim it is "offical Socionics" or something, unless specified (also mind the IMOs/IMEs as usual). Reinin is arguably official.
Oh yeah. Occasionally, I found some of them flatly wrong, based on few but convincing test cases. For instance, using the available descriptions of Process/Result:
- ILE Process, "More inclined to read texts on books or computer from beginning to the end" - nothing more untrue - not only myself, but I asked other ILEs. However, ILEs prefer to have a systematic approach to work, trying to leave no mess behind, which IME it actually has in common with all Alphas or even Merry types, except perhaps Beta NFs of which I'm not yet sure/experience. So I can put this on a misunderstanding, that the description rather refers to work not learning, but
- LSE Process - "Do things sequentially, from the beginning to the end", "Immersed to a process and tends to single-tasking", "Focus between the beginning and the end of processes". This is explicit and based on my experience flatly false, it's exactly the other way around. Not only because the real-life examples I know well and can remember - eg worked with 2, my mother-in-law and the brother of a friend - who often attract irony for how "orc-ish" they begin working on everything at once, but it also contradicts the usual LSE labels of "Director", "Administrator" or "Manager", which IMO very well evoke their abilities.
The other meaning, Individualist/Collectivist doesn't fit accross these types either, IMO. Some claim this dichotomy is real just the described traits are wrong - I recall user labcoat on the forum, at least.
---
But I also have an ontological problem with the Reinin dichotomies: they were determined mathematically, all the possible combinations of the four Jungian dichotomies, in respect to the 16 types. However, besides the fact that it is an artificial construct and people don't agree on the descriptions, if we use the IAs and IEs (the actual Model A fundamentals), we end up with a different set, even if we apparently will have the same, considering that the "base four" coincide with Model A combinations. That was just an arbitrary choice. For instance, the Reinin Dichotomies, which include Extroverted/Introverted and Dynamic/Static, don't include the External/Internal distinction, which would have not happened if this were not bulked in T,S/N,F. Nevertheless, using a set based on the IAs, we actually find and can justify quite some observations of the Reinin traits.
Take for instance Aristocratic/Democratic, an arguably noticeable personality trait (I acknowledge it). While it exists in both arrangements, in Reinin it fails to be explained, what we can observe is just that if you pair Sx with Tx and Nx with Fx in a block, you obtain Aristocratic. Why, what's the relationship between them? No one apparently knows, however, if you use Model-A, there is actually a justification, and based on an actual fundamental distinction: pairing External or Internal IEs together. In fact IMO, it's reasonable to think this discriminatory trait of Aristocratics is a consequence of using either tangible (S, T) or intangible (N, F) information at once.
(To know what I mean by this "discriminatory", which should not be taken literally, it's something like: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (this sounds rationalized, though), or "heh, scientists..." or "heh, women...".)
For the sake of completeness, how this "intangible+tangible" is used by Democratics, they mix hypothetical with real/practical, they lack the "traditionalism" of their counterparts and are always prone to defy the status-quo by adopting fresh discoveries in their daily usage, if it makes theoretical sense. It's that "why not?".
As I've commented in upper post, I find difficult smiling to a chamera, possibly biasing the pictures for V.I. With these new ones I'll try to compensate:
Faces in a more natural state:
This one was taken in the room of one of the few people that get me smiling easily.
I hope @yellow82 would not be so afraid of me after this picture
Surprisingly no LII, ILI or undecided between these two have actively participated in this thread (exposing reasoned arguments). I would like to read their opinions. My identicals should feel identified with my behavior, way of thinking, expressing ideas, etc, whereas my quasi-identical should understand perfectly what I say but at the same time would find the way I say it completely unnatural.
Their participation would be extremely useful (and acknowledged).
I can say that I find the way supposed LIIs of this forum express their ideas very different from mine. Usually direct to the point (result instead process?) instead long and "developed" posts like mine, and their statements, conclusions, work much more in a correct/incorrect way (two-valued logic) than in the grey area of relativism (fuzzy logic).
I do not remember having read significant amount of ILI posts, except for @EyeSeeCold, whose status as ILI seems to be severely disputed (and regardless the type he is, the way he express seems to me very similar to LII style).
Since I've got zero interest in you as human being then what inducement exists for me to sift through --- let alone read --- your verbose posts in search of your type, an activity and goal which themselves are of dubious merit?
False, you have participated, therefore you've interest. That's a ridiculous behavior after such introduction. Be consequent with your words.
Yea, they are really verbose, haha.
Any reasoning I could give from the outside for a certain type is inferior to the gigantic self-knowledge bank you have on the inside. My best advice would be to read the multitude of descriptions from different authors to get an overall big picture of INTp/INTj/ENTp/ whatever else you've considered.
From personal experience I have also at one time been stuck between INTp/INTj/ENTp and turned out LII, which makes sense to me considering it's the farthest of the NT's from ENTj, the type whose description didn't resonate with me much at all. I wouldn't be surprised if this was also the case for yourself.
Your combination of easily understood (to me) writing and VI strongly suggest Alpha NT to me for what it's worth.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
What's with the attitude? Condense your words, I'm not reading all that crap.
That's a pragmatical approach. Thanks.
Another inmature being with a pathologic need of seeking attention. If you do not want to read, then do not read. Simple. Effective. I do not need to know that you don't want to read.
Ask Timmy to teach you how to count. The question which you've failed to answer is my first involvement in this thread.
Stop acting tuff. You're just as insecure as the rest of us.
However, it would definitely help the great majority of us that haven't given your posts a second glance if you would condense your words and stop rambling on and on and on and on and on.
I have a Ph.D., don't know about you.
Anyway, that's a lost war right? You just want to behave as an alpha male for whatever reason (not in the socionic sense, of course). I doubt I can do anything for making you reconsidering your behavior, so I will let it go. You win, if this is what you want to hear (read) and makes you happy
Oh, wow, a motherfucking Ph.dot.D, you're some raw shit.I have a Ph.D., don't know about you.
Anyway, that's a lost war right? You just want to behave as an alpha male for whatever reason (not in the socionic sense, of course). I doubt I can do anything for making you reconsidering your behavior, so I will let it go. You win, if this is what you want to hear (read) and makes you happy
That obviously, fucking makes you smarter than everyone else.
I wanted an answer to my question but you've decided to be prissy and flossy instead. So: why should I or anyone read this titanic mess and help you sort your type?I have a Ph.D., don't know about you.
Anyway, that's a lost war right? You just want to behave as an alpha male for whatever reason (not in the socionic sense, of course). I doubt I can do anything for making you reconsidering your behavior, so I will let it go. You win, if this is what you want to hear (read) and makes you happy
Let's see what I can come up with...
So this guy has a superiority complex. Thinks his motherfucking Ph.dot.D is $$$
He sculpts his face in his pictures because he a) wants to look tuff or b) has a hideous smile and conceals his nasty teeth.
Just an older, stupider version of ESC.
Oh, stop talking down to people, ass.
Posting Permissions
