Smilexian socionics: Si column

[Smilingeyes]

This is all so vomitingly incorrect it's not even funny. Worst depiction of the Alpha NT/Gamma NT distinction ever.

You can observe that academia is mostly spearheaded by Alpha NTs (and reinforced with Deltas). And it's the Alphas who seem content to plod and connect the dots, piling on new information and discoveries in a stable, steady state manner (Si quadra value, dur), repeating the process of verification ad nauseum. And then they sit on any discoveries they make and engage in internecine warfare over intellectual turf and stagnate the shit out of the field.

Gamma NTs would rather rapidly innovate, then immediately get on with the process of implementing whatever it is into something tangible, not waste time plodding. Then jump to the next thing ASAP. They play a much faster, looser game when it comes to scientific experimentation and innovation. You'll find more of them in private industry and entrepreneurship.

This is very interesting. What an elaborate straw man you've got going there. We are saying pretty much the same things except that yo seem to have completely misunderstood what I was saying, since you repeat what I said from a different aspect and then claim I was wrong. Funny. Except of course that your characterisations are slightly off in their tone. Could you please try to understand the issue before you post next time?

Come to think of it. I've never actually seen you post anything that's of any worth to anyone. Why am I reading, or answering this? *Ashton ignored* Much, much better now.

[Phaedrus]

And it's the Alphas who seem content to plod and connect the dots, piling on new information and discoveries in a stable, steady state manner (Si quadra value, dur), repeating the process of verification ad nauseum. And then they sit on any discoveries they make and engage in internecine warfare over intellectual turf and stagnate the shit out of the field.

Gamma NTs would rather rapidly innovate, then immediately get on with the process of implementing whatever it is into something tangible, not waste time plodding. Then jump to the next thing ASAP. They play a much faster, looser game when it comes to scientific experimentation and innovation.

This seems to be another example of the very interesting phenomenon that Ashton and I seem to have not only different views on the types in question but completely different, or you can say almost diametrically opposed views. That means that we both can feel assured that we are on the right track, because we seem to have very similar views on the types -- but we don't agree on what to call them. Either Ashton is completely wrong or I am completely wrong about which types are the INTps and which are the INTjs. And if it turns out that I am completely wrong, I probably can just change my names for those types and keep most of my views on them intact.

[meatburger]

Why Envy an ESTj?

This is funny because i am slightly envious of my friend i think. From my perspective he has lead a blessed life.

He was born into a wealthy family (his father a doctor, his mother a professor). Hes tall and good looking. He plays a lot of sport. He is studying medicine and is very very smart, he has scholarship and doesn't need to work as they pay him.

Then to top all of that off, he has had many women chasing him since he was young. Hes probablly had 4 times the number of girlfriends than me and they have all been good looking. Hes now settled down with his dual a very cute and nice INFj and is cruising with everything. He also seems to know 100's of people and always get invited to events etc.

I dont want to blame anything, but my life has not been anywhere near this smooth. Lately i have been ignoring him and pushing him away as its tough to live in the shadow of someone a little like that.

Still. Life is not fair. It never was. Things go in levels. There are levels of people far more acomplished than him and far less than me. Plus, life is not over yet :wink:

[Smilingeyes]

I'll try to go into the matter of alpha-gamma pissing contest once more. ...

First, let me quote Slava from this thread: http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...ht=slava+boxes

= Top down design
= Bottom up design

likes to break things into smaller pieces in order to build structures with the lowest level components for the purpose of being able to replicate anything.

starts with a large box and then fills in the internal boxes.

You can visualize Te as boxes inside of boxes and Ti as links coming from nodes.

= Cause and effect / correlation / relevance of attributes
= Dynamics of objects

= Cause and effect vector field between objects
= Who knows :-) ... jk... algorithms of those objects... since Te is top down they see it as one large alogirthm consisting of sub algorithms.


As with and ....

starts top down by thinking of the entire idea and then filling in the functions, while starts with the sub concepts and moves up.


When top-down and bottom-up meet, contraries go out and have beers :-)

The reason why vs causes agression and arrogance is simply because one starts to look at the bottom and the other is like,,, you are wrong, here is the top. This implies that the other person's ego is usesless in relation to the other ego. It is like blind and harsh criticism. No wonder and cant work on the same thing at once....

Example:

: Today I was working on a new program that takes an array of digits and scans through them multiple times and puts the larger digit in front of the smaller digits, recursively.

: You mean buble sort?

: Uhhh, yeah... but thats just how it works.

(This is why ENTJ's love using big words)

Now of course, while re-reading this, I also immediately notice why Gilligan and possibly Ashton too disagreed with the connecting the dots suggestion. The image I get from 'connecting the dots' is of those kiddy books in which there are dots which you can connect and show the pattern that is already there. That would be synonymous with the pattern the boxes are laid out in Slava's characterization. Whereas I'm guessing Slava and Gilligan meant the kind of approach that starts from sitting on one dot, and picking some the things you can see from there and forming a link between those, a process in which you create the pattern yourself, more akin to e.g. embroidery in the way it creates the pattern.

... Though in my opinion what Slava is actually describing is Ne vs. Ni, since, you know, the pattern is the field function ie. the introvert function. Gamma NTs start with a ready-made pattern and guess at its contents and Alpha NTs scratchbuild the pattern.

Okay, now that we got that out of the way I'm actually having a slight difficulty getting what's everyone so worked up about. It's just basic socionics.

Okay, let's touch another subject, the cyclical nature of information. On the nature of opportunities, alphas create their own, gammas rush for what's there already. Alphas have a certain way of seeing things, as does everyone. They use certain kinds of resource materials and create certain kinds of results. Now a certain amount of this information they produce is of a kind that they themselves can't put to further use. This kind of material tends to pile up where there are a lot of alphas e.g. academia. This creates automatic opportunities to people who can use this kind of information. From a social perspective academia can be unpleasant to these other people, but the availability of an abundant resource can be attractive and this can and does draw in betas and gammas. (I know a good number of excellent beta researchers in academia, but very few that rise to the very top.)

Now Ashton brought forth another perspective into this matter (a faulty one, as in his suggestions of Si quadra values) but he did point out the internecine alpha warfare, which is important. The subjective dichotomy allows the existence of numerous truths that don't automatically rule each other out but must sort of conquer each other. The more concrete this fighting, the more likely it is to involve betas. Gammas don't get into this that much. Gamma allows them to quickly observe some characteristics of the opposing arguments that are not obvious from the inside of the argument, and create 'objective' suggestions that often solve a long-existing academic fight. It's silly to say that alphas stagnate the academic field, since they pretty much ARE the academic field. If this academic internecine warfare didn't pre-exist gammas would have very little background material to use, they wouldn't have the ready-made wacko theories to organise. Now, Ashton was of the opinion that gammas jump from thing to thing quickly. I agree that this is true in some, even many or most circumstances and for some gammas, but it's not for others.

But back to the argument about stagnation. This is not an issue just about academia and alphas, it's an issue that exists in every area that is dominated by a certain quadra. It's the echo chamber effect of mutual back-patting for which I've suggested people to watch out in quadra circumstances and socially supporting circumstances. And that's why all quadras are needed. Frankly I'm suggesting that if an area of society is dominated by a given quadra, people of the opposing quadra, if they can establish a beach-head on the field, have a good chance of rising to head of the field, as they can solve the issues that the opposing quadra has agreed, are unsolvable.

So, is this a reason for alphas to get pissed off again? Hey, he said that alphas fight each other all the time, that's not true, yadda yadda. I'm going back to the point about 'the mental galapagos islands'. When a new idea starts to bud, it needs time to develop. To give it time to develop, it must resist opposing ideas and get stronger. The ability to maintain your personal point of view in the middle of other, hostile ones is basically a standard requirement for the alphas to do the work they're supposed to be doing. If Ti didn't create this internecine warfare, alphas and betas couldn't function the way they need to!

So, if I'm saying that Alphas spend a long time developing ideas, how can I also say that they mouth off baseless bullshit? Ok, this is getting extremely fucking repetitive, but it seems I need to point everything out. First, there's the Ti-conflict - nature. Alphas don't necessarily even want to see the point of the information they are commenting so as to protect their personal point of view. Second, their fundamental nature is to create new things out of nothing. This creation process just takes time, it's often enough just trial and error. And those trials can also be called baseless bullshit but sometimes they succeed and who's laughing then? Mmkay?

And if you're still having trouble, mind complaining in another thread? I'm getting bloody tired of this crap.

[Smilingeyes]

And it's the Alphas who seem content to plod and connect the dots, piling on new information and discoveries in a stable, steady state manner (Si quadra value, dur), repeating the process of verification ad nauseum. And then they sit on any discoveries they make and engage in internecine warfare over intellectual turf and stagnate the shit out of the field.

Gamma NTs would rather rapidly innovate, then immediately get on with the process of implementing whatever it is into something tangible, not waste time plodding. Then jump to the next thing ASAP. They play a much faster, looser game when it comes to scientific experimentation and innovation.

This seems to be another example of the very interesting phenomenon that Ashton and I seem to have not only different views on the types in question but completely different, or you can say almost diametrically opposed views. That means that we both can feel assured that we are on the right track, because we seem to have very similar views on the types -- but we don't agree on what to call them. Either Ashton is completely wrong or I am completely wrong about which types are the INTps and which are the INTjs. And if it turns out that I am completely wrong, I probably can just change my names for those types and keep most of my views on them intact.

Well, one thing is the temperamental distinction. At least Ashton was completely ignoring IPs in his rant. One would need to concentrate on properties that are common to INTps and ENTjs while ignoring ENTpish and INTjish things which can be difficult as ENTps have things in common with both INTps and INTjs. ... So, if you compare ENTp and INTp and say the difference is due to quadra, and then you compare INTj and ENTj and say that those differences are due to quadra, you'll get two opposing views of what's the quadra difference. Ashton certainly wasn't concentrating on the objective-subjective dichotomy that is important to you.

[meatburger]

This is an interesting discussion

I know what you mean about Alphas sometimes being weird. A new ENTp at work whos about 30 calls himself strange often. He was telling me today how the way to get women is to be like him. a "pirate" a "party boy". To dress well, do your hair and make everything fun and girls will love it. While this is somewhat true i couldn't help shaking my head inside my brain at his ignorance of the different types of people and his tickets on himself.

When you say Smilex that us Deltas go along with whats already tried and tested i suppose i can understand in the intellectual persuits. ENFp's probablly aren't known for many innovative scientific ideas for instance and ESTj's definately need something to be accepted by the scienfic community to be accepted.

In the area of dealing with people for instance though, i use my own methods. In the areas of feeling and emotion i brainstorm my own unique ways to think etc. I do have as my program function remember. Probablly not quite what you guys are talking about but i felt like writing so dont mind me

[Smilingeyes]

In the area of dealing with people for instance though, i use my own methods. In the areas of feeling and emotion i brainstorm my own unique ways to think etc. I do have as my program function remember. Probablly not quite what you guys are talking about but i felt like writing so dont mind me

That's something I've been wanting to go into.
Naturally deltas aren't of a smaller mental capacity than any other quadra. Our orientation just is for those personal solutions and applications. We don't need to be certain that our skills work for anyone else so we don't necessarily make big noise about them, doesn't mean that they aren't in their own way 'new' and important. Basically we create the kind of things that work despite that they shouldn't and we don't necessarily know or are that interested in the why. And that is the kind of thing that alphas like to pick up on and start pondering. Even alphas need some source material. (Not that we don't also use standard solutions, but those aren't available for everything.) In this sense delta is the quadra with the most conflicting interests. To keep up the calcified standards of the society and to still keep up our own standards of life. Delta seems to be the quadra with the most direct interest in upholding systems, morals and such, but also doing a lot of the direct corrupting of the same. It's... fascinating. In delta introverts I tend to see this as a kind of confused, self-defeating quality. In delta extroverts it seems more like a half-hearted obligation. How do you perceive this aspect? I'm still trying to fully understand it.

[Phaedrus]

= Top down design
= Bottom up design

likes to break things into smaller pieces in order to build structures with the lowest level components for the purpose of being able to replicate anything.

starts with a large box and then fills in the internal boxes.

You can visualize Te as boxes inside of boxes and Ti as links coming from nodes.

That's why I like to start from the top with the types (large boxes) and move down, whereas the INTjs and others with a similar perspective like to start from the bottom with the functions and build structures (types) from them. My approach is Objectivist, where I focus on empirical observations. Their approach is Subjectivist, where they focus on the system and its premises.

Another illustration of an important difference between INTjs and INTps is this one from the same thread:

an oversimplified example:

Ti wants to expand
Te wants to simplify and get to the point

I don't know if these differences are about versus , or versus , or some combination of them. The main thing for me is to get the empirical facts about the differences between the types right.

Ashton certainly wasn't concentrating on the objective-subjective dichotomy that is important to you.

Maybe I and Ashton are talking about different things, I don't know. But I notice this empirical phenomenon, that he and I seem to make opposite typings of real life INTjs and INTps, and I agreed with your description, whereas he didn't like it at all. I don't know what are the causes of that difference in interpretations and perspectives, but I welcome every attempt to clarify and hopefully solve this controversy. As long as it continues to exist, at least some of us are doomed to mistype ourselves and others.

[Gilly]

This is all so vomitingly incorrect it's not even funny. Worst depiction of the Alpha NT/Gamma NT distinction ever.

You can observe that academia is mostly spearheaded by Alpha NTs (and reinforced with Deltas). And it's the Alphas who seem content to plod and connect the dots, piling on new information and discoveries in a stable, steady state manner (Si quadra value, dur), repeating the process of verification ad nauseum. And then they sit on any discoveries they make and engage in internecine warfare over intellectual turf and stagnate the shit out of the field.

Gamma NTs would rather rapidly innovate, then immediately get on with the process of implementing whatever it is into something tangible, not waste time plodding. Then jump to the next thing ASAP. They play a much faster, looser game when it comes to scientific experimentation and innovation. You'll find more of them in private industry and entrepreneurship.

This is very interesting. What an elaborate straw man you've got going there. We are saying pretty much the same things except that yo seem to have completely misunderstood what I was saying, since you repeat what I said from a different aspect and then claim I was wrong. Funny. Except of course that your characterisations are slightly off in their tone. Could you please try to understand the issue before you post next time?

Come to think of it. I've never actually seen you post anything that's of any worth to anyone. Why am I reading, or answering this? *Ashton ignored* Much, much better now.

Ashton has miscommunication/interpretation issues. Don't hold it against him. It happens between he and I all the time.

[Smilingeyes]

I see what you mean now,

*A manly nod of mutual agreement and honour*

I could have also stressed how alphas are very prominent in the entertainment industry, small businesses sector and apparently fashion to mention a few but somehow the pride and the pissing-contest seems to always be about the intellectual capacity, so I concentrated on that.

Thanks for the comment about Ashton as well. I don't have anything personal against him. Actually I rather honour his motivations but I still don't need him in my hair.

Why Envy an ESTj?

Your story actually made me slightly embarrassed. Almost everything in it applies to me as well. You don't happen to be someone I know? (Though I really don't think those are type traits ) (and for me the not having to work only meant that I had more time to do volunteer work.)

[Gilly]

For the record, if I were to venture a guess, I would say that, as is apparent in the cases on those like Einstein and Marx, many of the definitive/fundamental works of a field seem to be the responsibility of Alphas; we seem to have a propensity for coming up with ideas, elaborating upon and expanding them until they have practical imlpications, and then abandoning them for something new; we don't often stay interested, even in our own work, for long enough to be seen as anything but the originator of a concept.

As a matter of fact, speaking of Marx, I think the Russian Revolution is an IDEAL example of socionics quadra dynamics at work: Marx, an ILE, wrote the Manifesto, then Lenin (SLE or ILE, imo) and Stalin (LSI) performed the revolution. Once the system was in place, some ideals were compromised in order to obtain maximum efficiency within the system (very Gamma). Once stability of SOME degree had been acheived, new leaders took power (Krushchev, Chernenko, Brezhnev: all Delta ST, imo, although I can see Chernenko as ESI for some reason), and the process of attempting to utilize the now-optimized system began. Needs of the whole were regarded as being higher than those of the individual, and new innovations and the sheerly practical nature of the system were held in high priority (Delta). In the end, Gorbachev (LII) realized that too many ideals had been compromised and the system was too much of a failure to warrent the suffering of the people, the futility of the system was acknowledged, and a new one was put into place.

Meatburger, life is not as easy for anyone as you would make it out to be. I know for a fact that many of my friends have that PRECISE image of me, but my life is so much more complicated than that: I'm affected by a mood disorder, I'm currently having trouble in school, and I'm flat broke! Sure, some people have some natural advantages from the get-go, but it's all evened out in the end, I assure you.

[Phaedrus]

For the record, if I were to venture a guess, I would say that, as is apparent in the cases on those like Einstein and Marx, many of the definitive/fundamental works of a field seem to be the responsibility of Alphas; we seem to have a propensity for coming up with ideas, elaborating upon and expanding them until they have practical imlpications, and then abandoning them for something new; we don't often stay interested, even in our own work, for long enough to be seen as anything but the originator of a concept.

As a matter of fact, speaking of Marx, I think the Russian Revolution is an IDEAL example of socionics quadra dynamics at work: Marx, an ILE, wrote the Manifesto, then Lenin (SLE or ILE, imo) and Stalin (LSI) performed the revolution. Once the system was in place, some ideals were compromised in order to obtain maximum efficiency within the system (very Gamma). Once stability of SOME degree had been acheived, new leaders took power (Krushchev, Chernenko, Brezhnev: all Delta ST, imo, although I can see Chernenko as ESI for some reason), and the process of attempting to utilize the now-optimized system began. Needs of the whole were regarded as being higher than those of the individual, and new innovations and the sheerly practical nature of the system were held in high priority (Delta). In the end, Gorbachev (LII) realized that too many ideals had been compromised and the system was too much of a failure to warrent the suffering of the people, the futility of the system was acknowledged, and a new one was put into place.

I don't want to dispute anything here, except that it is impossible, on the grounds of V.I. and body type, that Gorbachev is an LII.

[niveK]

I wish VI would go away. Every time I'm turning around, people are putting VI, a totally subjective method of testing, above observed behaviors. Yes, VI works, but there's no sane reason to put it above observed behavior.

And now, since this thread's all about Smilingeyes anyway, I have a question of a personal nature I'd like to ask. Obviously, you're not bound to answer this question, it's just a random curiosity. What is your line of work, specifically?

[Phaedrus]

I wish VI would go away. Every time I'm turning around, people are putting VI, a totally subjective method of testing, above observed behaviors. Yes, VI works, but there's no sane reason to put it above observed behavior.

V.I is only one of several typing methods, and I agree with you that one should be careful when using it. However, no observed behaviour of Gorbachev can be more certain than the observed V.I fact that he is not a LII.

[meatburger]

I agree about V.I, no one seems to able to crack being good at it. The reason being is that people are very different in still pictures. I have seen pictures of people then they send another one and they look totally different.

I do believe extremely strongly that in person V.I is extremely effective. I call it M.I (movement idenfication ) Watching how they look, move, facial expressions, how they handle things.

[FDG]

I do believe extremely strongly that in person V.I is extremely effective. I call it M.I (movement idenfication ) Watching how they look, move, facial expressions, how they handle things.

I very much agree.

[FDG]

Lenin (SLE or ILE, imo)

I don't exactly know the motivations, but I've always felt like he was my identical, right after the first time I read something he wrote.

I don't have trouble with the typing of Gorbachev as an SEE, Gilly. Why do you?

[Phaedrus]

I don't have trouble with the typing of Gorbachev as an SEE, Gilly. Why do you?

Neither do I. When I thought about it some more last night, I realized that might grandfather (my father's father), whose type I have been unsure of, was probably SEE. When he was still living he looked very much like Gorbachev, and he was definitely an ethical type. My grandfather and I also had a very good relation, which in hindsight looks very much like a Dual relation.

[Smilingeyes]

I wish VI would go away. Every time I'm turning around, people are putting VI, a totally subjective method of testing, above observed behaviors. Yes, VI works, but there's no sane reason to put it above observed behavior.

A thing that keeps coming up in my head is those well publicized works on information, how when we speak, about 80% or thereabouts, of the information is received through visual cues. Even people who aren't actually able to lip-read get information from people's lip movements that actually affects the correct hearing of words. So visual information about people is something we analyze naturally all the time anyway. And that information is especially directed towards attitudes and social roles. It does not seem impossible that this natural aptitude is used in connection with VI.

And now, since this thread's all about Smilingeyes anyway, I have a question of a personal nature I'd like to ask. Obviously, you're not bound to answer this question, it's just a random curiosity. What is your line of work, specifically?

Hmm, yeah, my column, or blog, thingy.
Answer: Medical science.

[niveK]

I wish VI would go away. Every time I'm turning around, people are putting VI, a totally subjective method of testing, above observed behaviors. Yes, VI works, but there's no sane reason to put it above observed behavior.

A thing that keeps coming up in my head is those well publicized works on information, how when we speak, about 80% or thereabouts, of the information is received through visual cues. Even people who aren't actually able to lip-read get information from people's lip movements that actually affects the correct hearing of words. So visual information about people is something we analyze naturally all the time anyway. And that information is especially directed towards attitudes and social roles. It does not seem impossible that this natural aptitude is used in connection with VI.

Well, my biggest complaint is that there's not objective standard to qualify a VI assessment. It totally depends on the skill of the person who gives the VI. And, no matter how skilled, a person can make mistakes. So, when people start taking VI over observed behavior, I get highly annoyed.

I'm also annoyed at the physiognomy aspect some people apply to it. Facial expression and other forms of non-verbal communication make sense to use in VI; socionics deals greatly with communication style. However, when people start saying "he has webbed toes, he must be ESFj!" (I use this example because I recall an actual thread here on a subject similar to that, and obviously it is extreme compared to the usual "he has INTj cheekbones" stuff I normally see) they've gone into the land of magical thinking. That's something I'm not going to believe until I see a statistical study showing the correlation actually exists. I might entertain the idea if someone can provide a reasonable hypothesis for the causal relationship that would allow type to influence physical structure (or vice versa).

I don't want VI to go away because it's bad, just because it's misused. And really, I don't want it to go away at all. I'm just annoyed by the way it gets misused.

And now, since this thread's all about Smilingeyes anyway, I have a question of a personal nature I'd like to ask. Obviously, you're not bound to answer this question, it's just a random curiosity. What is your line of work, specifically?

Hmm, yeah, my column, or blog, thingy.
Answer: Medical science.

I meant the first statement to be in jest. I seem to be having a run of jokes that sound too serious on this forum.

[meatburger]

answer: Medical science.

What is up with ESTj's and Medical stuff

I was just out and the ESTj was there. He was telling everyone how i got drunk and i kept talking to strangers and i got lost in a club and tried to exit through a wall

Just my Ramblings, ESTj girls seem much more tame than ESTj guys. I know heaps of you now. I think your rife in society. The two ESTj girls at work are kind of quiet and just do their work. ESTj guys seem a little more bousterous. Could be just the ones i know though.

Sometimes i wonder if T girls and F guys feel a little out of place in society? Maybe in 50 years this will totally have changed?

On an unrelated note i was wondering if Jennifer Garner is ESTj? I was watching electra today and i thought she reminded me of Hillary swank. Yet a little cuter.

Anyway im tipsy so

[Smilingeyes]

What is up with ESTj's and Medical stuff

What do I know, I'm new at this (being ESTj). And I was ESFj when I picked the field.

I was just out and the ESTj was there. He was telling everyone how i got drunk and i kept talking to strangers and i got lost in a club and tried to exit through a wall

Sound like he's a bit of a prick. I don't mind being an utter and complete bastard but being a prick is something else. I hope I'm not becoming one.

I've actually felt like biting someone's head off since I woke up. Unfortunately there's no one here and nobody's been stupid enough to warrant it on the forum today. Oh, except that one guy, but he's just like that and he's like that always, so it would be a bit unfair. Besides, he's stupid funny, which is a different thing. Darn. I think I'll go for a jog in the early snowstorm instead.

Anyway im tipsy so

I don't really drink, but ever since I became delta I've wished I did.

@Nivek:
Agreed.

[Expat]

As a matter of fact, speaking of Marx, I think the Russian Revolution is an IDEAL example of socionics quadra dynamics at work: Marx, an ILE, wrote the Manifesto, then Lenin (SLE or ILE, imo) and Stalin (LSI) performed the revolution. Once the system was in place, some ideals were compromised in order to obtain maximum efficiency within the system (very Gamma). Once stability of SOME degree had been acheived, new leaders took power (Krushchev, Chernenko, Brezhnev: all Delta ST, imo, although I can see Chernenko as ESI for some reason), and the process of attempting to utilize the now-optimized system began. Needs of the whole were regarded as being higher than those of the individual, and new innovations and the sheerly practical nature of the system were held in high priority (Delta). In the end, Gorbachev (LII) realized that too many ideals had been compromised and the system was too much of a failure to warrent the suffering of the people, the futility of the system was acknowledged, and a new one was put into place.

I think the quadra dynamics were different in the case of the Russian Revolution, and less neat.

Marx as Alpha ----> agreed
Lenin and Stalin - and Trotsky as the Betas implementing the system ----> agreed

As for the rest, it's more complicated. First, as an individual, Chernenko was totally irrelevant: he "rose" to power because he had been Brezhnev's sidekick and was the most senior member. Nothing to do with his personal characteristics. He was nothing.

Khruschev has been typed as SEI and I'm inclined to agree. But he was not trying to use the now-optimized system -- on the contrary, he tried to reform it, one reason why he was deposed. Does that make him a Gamma? No, I think an Alpha in that situation may well try to shake up an existing system rather than invent a new one.

Where the quadra dynamics gets back into place is with the Gammas Andropov (ILI) and Gorbachev (SEE). They were the ones who tried to eliminate what was ineffecient from the system, but it was never their intention to create a new one. Only Gorbachev's actions led to the collapse of the old system, but that was never his intention.

[meatburger]

What do I know, I'm new at this (being ESTj). And I was ESFj when I picked the field

Medical field is a very respectable profession.

Sound like he's a bit of a prick. I don't mind being an utter and complete bastard but being a prick is something else. I hope I'm not becoming one.

oh nah i didn't mind at all. I actually thought it was funny. I dont mind anyone telling stories like that as they are funny.

Oh, except that one guy, but he's just like that and he's like that always, so it would be a bit unfair. Besides, he's stupid funny, which is a different thing. Darn. I think I'll go for a jog in the early snowstorm instead.

Hope you didn't get Frostbite. Hope you weren't referring to me aswell with that.

I don't really drink, but ever since I became delta I've wished I did.

Always time to start lol. Finding out your delta shouldn't change you in any way really. Im a good samaratin but im certianlly not going to take on all of societies problems on my shoulders :wink:

Anyway sorry for invading your thread lol

[Smilingeyes]

What do I know, I'm new at this (being ESTj). And I was ESFj when I picked the field

Medical field is a very respectable profession.

Yes, exactly. I remember how at that time I wanted the traditional status of the medical doctor more than the other aspects of the job. I wanted to be the acknowledged shepherd of the flock.

Hope you didn't get Frostbite. Hope you weren't referring to me aswell with that.

Didn't. Wasn't.

I don't really drink, but ever since I became delta I've wished I did.

Always time to start lol. Finding out your delta shouldn't change you in any way really. Im a good samaratin but im certianlly not going to take on all of societies problems on my shoulders :wink:

Anyway sorry for invading your thread lol

[/quote]

Oh, you're misunderstanding me. I didn't find out I was delta. No bleeding mystical revelations in this issue. I've gone through a whole lot of trouble to alter my behaviour so that I fit as one. I do still occasionally long the ENTj freedom but I know how going back to it would be an equal amount of trouble and bring back the issues of which I'm trying to get rid off. I haven't had a really ENTjish moment now for close to two months, so I'm actually starting to feel accustomed to this. Slightly more natural already, but there are some things I'm still not quite getting about this. Anyway, the ENTj moments are okay, even when they do appear. I was more hampered by the occasional ENFj things I did. And those I haven't been doing for a bit more than half a year.

And definitely no pressure on the invasion thing. It's refreshing to have others around who do the samaritan thing, though, of course, in very different ways and for different issues.

[Smilingeyes]

Maybe I should have put this in a whole new thread. People don't like doing long discussions in mine. Anyway, I was ... surprised, by a few things I experienced of late. The most interesting socionically was that my relations with my intuitive INFj girl friend have essentially taken a huge downward turn during the last month or slightly more. Something similar I feel to be the case with my relations with a number of other people of the perceiving stripes. Simultaneously my relations with a number of judging alpha-beta types took a turn to the better. Interesting. This all despite that quadratically I became closer to my girl friend and more distant from the alpha-beta judgers. This brings to mind the fact that socionists in general agree that the most difficult bridge to gap is that between judging and perceiving, but I'm starting to feel more and more like it's not about the gap between temperaments but the gap between functions. I find this to be particularly important in relation to relations of conflict and quasi-identity that theoretically are exceptionally bad, but in practice often seem alluring. My girl friend's most active current friend e.g. is a conflict partner and I have experience of fruitful conflict relations myself.

Now, this being me writing here, here's the dichotomical perspective... For example creative Fe and accepting Te are both extrovert, judging, emotion-creating, compliant, that's a good number of contact points. The similarities between these functions create empathy and a sort of reliability as well. Now if we look at creative Ni, it has properties of none of the same cathegories. Yet worse, it sort of connects accepting Te and accepting Fe. It can be in different situations to have the properties of either one of those functions from a perspective that evaluates things on an axis of one judging function vs. another. Meaning, it seems fickle, untrustworthy, not something you can build on.

Now if we try to connect this with standard socionics relationship theory, it doesn't work. The reasons being 1. standard socionics theory only describes long term relationship situations 2. standard socionics doesn't accept the idea of creative-function dominants [of whom there are several obvious cases on the forum, (the most clear ones to be seen being IMO Rocky, Curioussoul, Pedro, Cracka, Olga)] 3. standard socionics relationship theory describes the interrelations of theoretical patterns of information metaboly, not actual functions.

Needless to say, I find it worthwhile to take a different path in these points.

[Smilingeyes]

I had an experience of absolute Te today and I thought it might be interesting to try to describe this. It was akin to having firm knowledge of being a part of something very big and important in a very concrete way. There was a sense of ego melding into a sort of mission, like becoming one with a uniform of sorts. It was simultaneously a very strong feeling, but also very weak. If you can imagine driving some massive juggernaut of a vehicle that you actually have very little control over. Also there was a tint of full certainty of being supported by and supporting one's environment in return. It was very good. I want more.

[meatburger]

Hehe. I want more Te aswell pls

So Smilex your saying you actually changed your type from ENTj to ESTj? Or you have decided to act as one to test type swapping?

[Smilingeyes]

Hehe. I want more Te aswell pls

Here, have some.

So Smilex your saying you actually changed your type from ENTj to ESTj? Or you have decided to act as one to test type swapping?

What's the difference between those two, except for the semantics of course? I haven't really gathered the issue that if I happen to change my overall behaviour, social relations, informational focus and aptitudes, where does the type change or not change and if it doesn't why should I care, since all of it's external attributes do, and those were used to find out the original type in the first place. As far as standard socionics cares I might have been a very crafty ISFj all the time. Perhaps I just simulated EJ temperament and it's functions with my clever but simultaneously foolish type mask.

As far as I see the issue, I changed my functional focus from concrete Ni to concrete Te, a change of roughly one quadra simultaneously correlating to a cathegorical change of ENTj to ESTj. In the process I experienced multiple changes in my behaviour, ideals and focus that correlated to the facts that I previously identified well with type descriptions of intuitive ENTjs whereas I know identify with type descriptions of thinking ESTjs. To me this is about as direct evidence as is possible to get for the idea that functions create the types and informational metaboly and not the other way around. As a result of the simultaneous process I experienced a temporary weight loss, rising cortisone levels, lessening of need of sleep and other tension symptoms, resurgent memories and an alteration in the sort of dreams that I get, all correlating to matters I experienced during an earlier period of my life in which my actions and world view correlated with ESTj characteristics. Either this proves that type can change or that type is a structure which has very little meaning independent of the functions. I still find either of these possible but as the concept of static type lacks any purpose once it's observed to be independent of all the secondary characteristics that socionics observes, I see little reason personally to talk of such a structure and hence I usually prefer to correlate the use of the word type in this association with the observable type which I've pretty much proved to be changeable. This is not an argument to the direction that the fact that I have used Fe for lengthy periods in my life has not left a mark on me, for it clearly has. Yet socionics as it stands, is not able to analyze mathematical integrals of temporal function use and the effects thereof into a person's life. The type description is the same for the ESTj who has used Te and Si 98% of his life and the one who has only used them 51% of his life.

See, type is usually observed by attempting to observe characteristics associated with different functions and dichotomies in a person. Every person shows some secondary characteristics associated to all types. What is chosen as the type for the person is the type the characteristics of which were most apparent within the period of observation. When you lengthen the period of observation you increase accuracy, but for this method to be completely accurate you would have to observe a person's entire life and all of his thoughts and actions. Only then could you say for certain which characteristics were most in evidence throughout the person's life. So then, if a person happens to use accepting Ti most from the years 1 to 34 and very little other functions, he's probably INTj or ISTj, right? But what if he happens to have multiple cataclysmic life experiences and uses mostly Se in the years 34 to 36 and mostly Fi during his years of 36 to 92 at which age he dies. We would have to call him an ISFj. So, let's say that he met a socionist at the age of 31 and was typed. What odds would you give that the person was typed as an ISFj?

Or if we use the other way to determine the issue, let's say that it's correct to say that this person's type, for whatever reason, was really ISTj... So, if this ISTj just happened to live most of his life using Fi and happened to live a pretty good life and have social relations according to Fi and succeed in traditional Fi areas of the world, what significance does it have to anything that he theoretically had a type of ISTj, since the type was just something decided semiarbitrarily by some socionist at one point in the person's life. And these are all pretty realistic examples.

So, let's think about this guy who is certain that he is ESFp and lives that way for the first 30 years of his life. Let's say that at that point he somehow becomes certain that this is the wrong way to continue to live an d he starts using Ne and Ti instead. Would you still, after... let's say 15 years of this life as an ENTp say that what he is doing is wrong? Would you go and suggest that he is an ENTp or that he is an ESFp? Would you say that he has to live another 15 years as an ENTp before he proves that he really is one and until then he is a moron who is fooling himself?

You may also criticize my description of the typing method used but frankly the only alternative to behaviour typing is physiognomy. So, are you prepared to start doing personality typing from the length of people's necks and the curvature of their noses instead of their behaviour?

Hm, right. I don't know why I'm talking so much about this, apparently no one ever reads these anyway.

And sorry, none of the bile that this post is dripping is directed at you, meatburger. I was just trying to clarify (once again, and once again from a different pov) what my views are on typeswitching.

[meatburger]

Hey hehe. Nah im partially immune to bile at this present time

I should wait to reply as i dont have enough time to re-read and deliberate over your post (im at work).

I like your theories about type swapping. They interest me. I know what you mean that Socionics does not differeniate between the vast differences between how much each person uses each function etc.

I used to always wonder if i got hit by lightning if my brain could be re-wired. Maybe they will invent a way to re-wire / turn on and off peoples functions, that would be cool . Would probablly fry your brain a bit though.

One thing i know from my own Self observation, is that the functions they claim an ENFp has seem to fit me very well. My strenghts seem to indeed align very well with what Socionics claims.

I could act like an ISTj if i wanted. I still do have control over those functions, however i wouldn't be following my strenghts. If i tried to be really organised and to use a lot i would more often than not meet with failure. When i use & i feel fullfilled and at ease. I personally dont believe i could change the strength of these functions a great deal no matter how hard i tried.

So i suppose im all for using your strongest functions. If your strongest functions dont align with any Socionics type, then maybe socionics is wrong or maybe your a type they haven't considered?

[Minde]

Re Smillingeyes' latest post:

This one didn't give me a headache. Instead, it made me stop crying.

[FDG]

Maybe I should have put this in a whole new thread. People don't like doing long discussions in mine. Anyway, I was ... surprised, by a few things I experienced of late. The most interesting socionically was that my relations with my intuitive INFj girl friend have essentially taken a huge downward turn during the last month or slightly more. Something similar I feel to be the case with my relations with a number of other people of the perceiving stripes. Simultaneously my relations with a number of judging alpha-beta types took a turn to the better. Interesting. This all despite that quadratically I became closer to my girl friend and more distant from the alpha-beta judgers. This brings to mind the fact that socionists in general agree that the most difficult bridge to gap is that between judging and perceiving, but I'm starting to feel more and more like it's not about the gap between temperaments but the gap between functions. I find this to be particularly important in relation to relations of conflict and quasi-identity that theoretically are exceptionally bad, but in practice often seem alluring. My girl friend's most active current friend e.g. is a conflict partner and I have experience of fruitful conflict relations myself.

Now, this being me writing here, here's the dichotomical perspective... For example creative Fe and accepting Te are both extrovert, judging, emotion-creating, compliant, that's a good number of contact points. The similarities between these functions create empathy and a sort of reliability as well. Now if we look at creative Ni, it has properties of none of the same cathegories. Yet worse, it sort of connects accepting Te and accepting Fe. It can be in different situations to have the properties of either one of those functions from a perspective that evaluates things on an axis of one judging function vs. another. Meaning, it seems fickle, untrustworthy, not something you can build on.

Oh at last. I've thought about this already, although my theory was more directed towards the emphasis on rationality-irrationality of a given pair f.e. a Ti ESTp and a Ne INFj would have been less conflicting even if the theory would state otherwise; I don't know if by taking into account the renin dichotomies the result is the same, though - I guess it isn't even if your example would actually support my thesis since Te and Fe are both rational functions.

[Ms. Kensington]

maybe i missed the point, but why would someone who used TiNe all their lives use Se and Fi for the rest of their lives? The external situation would be forcing their use. It is not a preference, even if it gets better with time. Remove the situation, would TiNe regress back to TiNe. I don't really see how saying the functions make the type is different than saying a type is such and such functional order. Nothing inherent in there says type cannot change.

If you change your type by your own focus would that be as natural use (after the habit had cemented) as one born that way?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Minde]

Why were you crying Minde?

Oh, forgot I wrote that there. You're so sweet, Diana.

Mostly because I was feeling sorry for myself. The result of being caught between two bureaucracies. I'm having to switch insurance companies, and the consequent confusion means I had to cancel a visit to the doctor for my knee. So, last night I was dealing with that disappointment and the realization that I'd have to go without treatment for at least another couple of weeks. Plus, one of my favorite interns at that particular clinic is leaving for good and that would have been the last time I'd have seen her. I wanted to say goodbye.

Quite pathetic, I know.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[niveK]

No, it's not pathetic at all. I hope you're feeling better now. And it also served to remind me that I need to find another insurance company for home insurance, the current one is bailing on me, and says it's because of the trampoline in the yard.

Tell them it's a meteorite shield and you should get a discount for being so prepared. I'm sure you'll at least get a few confused looks before they cancel your insurance.

[Smilingeyes]

Hey hehe. Nah im partially immune to bile at this present time

You slew a dragon and got a magic helmet of bile resistance +50%?

One thing i know from my own Self observation, is that the functions they claim an ENFp has seem to fit me very well. My strenghts seem to indeed align very well with what Socionics claims.

Sure socionics works. It's just that the explanations some people use to explain it suck.

I could act like an ISTj if i wanted.

I rather doubt that. It's very difficult to really thoroughly understand a type not one's own and it's far more difficult to understand a type with which one does not share a temperament. So, I doubt you could use accepting Ti at all. But if you suggest the same for creative Ti, suggest that you could act like an ESTp and still retain the same function strengths that you do now... sure, if you do it only for a short while and half-heartedly but if there's learning it's a different story. The brain adapts.

So i suppose im all for using your strongest functions. If your strongest functions dont align with any Socionics type, then maybe socionics is wrong or maybe your a type they haven't considered?

Heh, so, what's my strongest function? Now it's Te, a year ago it was Ni, some years before that it was Fe, a few more back it was Si, and it's possible that at the very beginning it happened to be Te as well. Funny that. If anyone tries to claim I'm a type different than I say I am, that's okay by me. I could use more laughs.

maybe i missed the point, but why would someone who used TiNe all their lives use Se and Fi for the rest of their lives? The external situation would be forcing their use. It is not a preference, even if it gets better with time. Remove the situation, would TiNe regress back to TiNe.

The reason doesn't matter. It can be anything. Let's say that you happened to be a german ENTp in the year 1935 and suddenly found that you could get a lot of powerful friends, business contracts and such by going beta. And then you suddenly wound up in the army and stayed ESTp until 1945. So, how would the experiences of the previous 10 years just disappear when the external stimulus goes away? Besides, in the meanwhile you've gathered trivial skills, friends etc. that maintain the new environment even after the original stimulus goes away. Change is never easy, not to a different type and not back to an old one.

I don't really see how saying the functions make the type is different than saying a type is such and such functional order. Nothing inherent in there says type cannot change.

It might not be different. But that's only true if you discard model A, since model A makes artificial claims about function strengths in a way that doesn't hold water. And then you'd need a new way to define that order.

If you change your type by your own focus would that be as natural use (after the habit had cemented) as one born that way?

I doubt it would seem as natural. If you've only tasted one wine, you know that that's the natural taste of wine. If you've tasted many different kinds of wines, you'd need to think about the subject instead. Sometimes strength comes with focus, sometimes strength comes with adaptation.

[Smilingeyes]

Oh at last. I've thought about this already, although my theory was more directed towards the emphasis on rationality-irrationality of a given pair f.e. a Ti ESTp and a Ne INFj would have been less conflicting even if the theory would state otherwise; I don't know if by taking into account the renin dichotomies the result is the same, though - I guess it isn't even if your example would actually support my thesis since Te and Fe are both rational functions.

Thanks for the interest.
I'm not actually sure we're agreeing though. At the moment I'm feeling that e.g. a Ti ESTp and a Ne INFj would have more trouble with each other than a Ti ESTp and a Fi INFj. Also that a Ti ESTp and a Ti ISTj would have less trouble than a Ti ESTp and a Se ISTj. Does that work for you? I'd like to get more opinions on this because my opinion on the matter is far from settled.

[Smilingeyes]

This one didn't give me a headache. Instead, it made me stop crying.

Oh my god. You're giving me such memories about that INFj that I loved. Never loved anyone so much. I'm feeling slightly shell shocked at the moment. Luckily love and ESTjs don't mix, so I'm not going to do what I used to (put a certain record playing and read old letters). Still a weird feeling.