Why thank you Winterpark! That's wonderful news! First piece of new information I've got for a long time
Would you characterize your choice to do so as a personal choice to hurt a certain slimy bastard git or as a strategic choice to be a hurtful person in general?
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
Have you ever been around a ticked off INFp? They are, in my opinion, the scariest to piss off. They know exactly where you're most vulnerable and can either dig and dig and dig into it, or flat out stab it....and laugh as they are doing so.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Personally I see INFP as the type who would beat you in a game, and then apologize to you afterwords for beating you.
The one INFp I know does one better: she stabs it and feels that she's the victim; you "made her do it" - you "made her feel bad about herself", and her hurting you is nothing more than a natural expression of how shitty she is feeling. - So, perhaps "all INFps are nice to a ridiculous extent at least most of the time with most people"?
Have you ever been around a ticked off INFp? They are, in my opinion, the scariest to piss off. They know exactly where you're most vulnerable and can either dig and dig and dig into it, or flat out stab it....and laugh as they are doing so.
I'm afraid of responding to this cuz I've got a couple of INFp friends who read this board.The one INFp I know does one better: she stabs it and feels that she's the victim; you "made her do it" - you "made her feel bad about herself", and her hurting you is nothing more than a natural expression of how shitty she is feeling. - So, perhaps "all INFps are nice to a ridiculous extent at least most of the time with most people"?
Have you ever been around a ticked off INFp? They are, in my opinion, the scariest to piss off. They know exactly where you're most vulnerable and can either dig and dig and dig into it, or flat out stab it....and laugh as they are doing so.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Sure, I know the IP behaviour you're referring to, but I was talking specifically about how INFps use concrete Fe and while they're doing that they can be ridiculously nice.
I'd agree with Rocky's example, except they sometimes, when they're winning, say "Oh no, you play so well, I can't possibly win, I give up, you win!" And then they feel happy knowing full well what they've done. (slightly tongue in cheek)
I've yet to have one of those INFps actually succeed in hurting my feelings or a feeling of being hit to a vulnerable spot. But yeah, I know that thing they do.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Maybe that's because people avoid "hurting" their supervisors.
Well, the first one I think, or maybe a combination of both... The choice is usually provoked by someone specific to whom it is also directed. My natural reaction is to build up a strategy and patiently conduct it, calmly observing the situation and acting carefully as needed untill I get revenge. I don't remeber wanting to hurt a random (unguilty) person though nor do I necessarily see myself as a hurtful person... When I think about it, it is usually either a specific source of annoyance or a subdued feeling of torment and discontent to which I respond in such manner. And I often feel hurt, victimized and pressured... To put it simple, If I feel hurt I desperately need to hurt back and I am ready to hurt myself in order to hurt others and watch them suffer.Why thank you Winterpark! That's wonderful news! First piece of new information I've got for a long time
Would you characterize your choice to do so as a personal choice to hurt a certain slimy bastard git or as a strategic choice to be a hurtful person in general?
edit: I wanted to add that this whole thing is probably hugely influenced and related to my self-destructive tendencies which perhaps should not be mixed with this matter because of their different nature and character. Or maybe they ARE the same matter actually...
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Ah, yes. I'm afraid that isn't really so remarkable then. (Though the remarks you make in the edit seem quite astute.)
See... Everybody has enemies and everyone uses a certain amount of resources to remove them...
But it takes a particular kind of fuckwit to flip the bird or hit someone who is smiling to you and trying to be nice, just because you didn't want someone to smile to you at that particular moment. And that's what makes ESTps special. Sawing the branch they sit on and, driving away any potential allies.... Because there's no particular goal for their actions, except to make a point.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
A point about model A and dichotomies...
The correlating distinction creating and accepting have with the dichotomies is that creating functions is the one that is used by a type to change "process" cathegory into "results" cathegory and the accepting function is used by a type to change "results" cathegory into "process" cathegory.
There is a direct correlation with the "results" and "process" cathegories and the description of how an accepting function is used to create "tools" and ways to work while the creating function is used to create situations of great discovery.
The correlation with function strength OTOH is as yet baseless.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
ESTPs driving people away?
ESTPs, when they have DA power, become evil obnoxious violent barbarians, they should never have any power whatsoever.
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
You really don't like ESTps, do you? I know some damn decent ESTps; not anywhere near all of them are like this.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
blah
ESTp
Gilligan. I already suggested you cut the crap. I've mentioned before on this forum that I have ESTp friends, that I have always had one in my family, that I married one. Frankly, I've lived more than half my life under the same roof with one. I know ESTp behaviour pretty damn well and I don't hate them. I feel sorry for them.
(I hope someone notices the irony of an ENTp calling someone decent.)
Humanbean displayed a version of the ESTp attitude quite wonderfully in this thread. I'm very grateful for any further descriptions he may wish to contribute to the thread.
Humanbean: I don't feel I've really provided concrete examples in the thread as of yet. Would such serve a purpose or would it just further depress the atmosphere?
I'll try to clarify my point anyhow... There are eight types that are "negative", ie. unhappy, likely to be abrasive, hurtful etc.
Out of those eight, four are process-oriented, while negative. They direct their anger to productive activity to directly remove the object of their unhappiness and the angrier they get, the more ruthless and active they get.
The other four types are result-oriented when they are negative. They become dysfunctional, losing their positive activity, losing the ability to see what needs to be done. Their negativity and rage is random, unfocused and can attack anything in their surroundings with the tools that that particular type happens to use. The ST-types have the most direct tools. By these definitions of the theory, my personal experience and the descriptions of most socionists, I have no difficulty in suggesting that an unhappy ESTp can be very dangerous company even to his friends.
Thus, humanbean's description, while perfectly accurate of the situation and way in which most ESTp live, ignores the point that there are situations (as there are for every type) in which their control over their activity slips. And when there's already the willingness to be hurtful towards people who are not allies, merely perhaps bystanders. Yet all that is required to alienate one of these allies or potential allies, is a momentary doubt over their friendliness, combined with fitting action. It happens. Here's something important though... I'm not claiming that this kind of activity is constant, for many ESTps not even common. Yet it is exceedingly characteristic and unique to the ESTps. It's basically this same behaviour that initiated Ganin's "ESTp uncovered", which is a scene that's happened to me many a time.
Now another thing I'd like to point out is that most of this negativity is not very powerful in proportion to the abilities of the ESTp. If an ESTp randomly hits someone in anger it's unlikely that he's doing it with the intention of causing significant damage. The intention of taking someone out by any means possible, is something that's reserved for the process-oriented negative types.
Finally I'd like you to compare the ESTj to the ESTp, (the two types most directly showing their negative feelings)... and how their dichotomies outline the ESTj as much more directed and the ESTp as much more random (from the point of view of an outside observer) in their activities.
ESTj is "taciturn", being directly negative because of certain outside facts and looks for ways to get rid of them.
ESTp is "narrator", being directly negative because of internalized knowledge and looks for ways to channel this to the outside world.
ESTj is "judicious", mainly minding his own business, seems to also downplay his violent tendencies in his own mind.
ESTp is "resolute", tries to be tough in a very big and meaningful way, seems to be overconfident in his own toughness.
ESTj is "tactical", only directed towards a single objective.
ESTp is "strategic", lacking a certain single objective.
...
And I intend to write no more on the ESTp and the ENTp for a while now.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Having made a promise to be nice to felafel, here goes...
As the nature of functions, the absolute nature of dichotomies is abstract as well.
BUT when I use the definitions of "positive" = happy with current situation or progress of situation in relation to own required activity and own goals.
"negative" = unhappy with the same...
When I use those definitions, I seem to get pretty good results.
It's really one of the most intuitively simple dichotomies.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
blah
ESTp
Smilex, I respect your opinions in matters of socionics, but this shit is retarded. I don't give a damn if you feel sorry for ESTps or not, you're being unobjective and negative, and you're trying to create a system of bias within a system that attempts to eliminate descrimination of EXACTLY THIS KIND.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Gilligan, are you intentionally lying your ass off and misattributing things or are you just being stupid? I'm really asking this because I can never really tell about you. Basically everything you say in this thread is incorrect so why don't you bugger off?
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Let's get it all out there; perhaps I've misinterperated what you're saying.Gilligan, are you intentionally lying your ass off and misattributing things or are you just being stupid? I'm really asking this because I can never really tell about you. Basically everything you say in this thread is incorrect so why don't you bugger off?
To me, the idea of labeling types as "failed" simply creates a useless, negative bias against a group of types based on what seems to be a bunch of stereotypes.
What am I missing here?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Socionics as it is, is not stereotype-free. Quite the opposite. ESTp is characterized commonly as "the most criminal type", prone to rages, a natural mafioso, compulsively threatening etc.
Yet these same socionists claim that this kind of a person will never amount to anything else, that it is his destiny to be like this forever and always and that it is best for him to accept his nature and live in a way which they call "criminal". They claim that he does not have the required capacity to handle ethical information.
Also, many are willing to make these claims based just on a few photographs.
I dispute this. I dispute that there is a person who has to be prone to rages and unsocial to feel good and be succesful. I claim that one can change the attributes of one's behaviour that define type and I claim that changing one's behaviour can result in more personal success and more personal happiness. Why I use the word "failure" is that there are types, the representatives of which are invariably unhappier than those of certain others, feel less content with their lives and though there might not be a difference in external evidence of success, there is certainly a difference of personal feeling of success. The use of the word "failure" when I do so, is completely tied to the person's own sense of personal failure or negativity.
By pointing out that maintaining certain behaviour, makes the person himself feel bad whilst also defending the point that type and behaviour can change, hope is established. It's therapeutic. There's nothign wrong with being a member of a "negative" type if you have good reasons to do so. But if one's doing it out of habit, one might want to look at the options.
As to "original socionics"... if I ever hear anyone suggest to anyone that ... "Yes, you are an ENFj, the feeling of emptiness, the feeling of having given your everything for the benefit of others and still having not given enough is quite normal. You should get used to it. It'll do you good. Please continue or you'll fail miserably because you don't have the functional information channels in your head to enable you to do anything else." I'm going to do my damnedest to make sure that the person giving this advice does not counsel anyone again.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Socionics always seemed a bit too black or white to me on a lot of issues. Some Socionists seem to suggest at times that the only or main way one can be successful or improve their own behaviour is to be with their dual type. I think there might be an element of dependence on another person to this idea that sat very uncomfortably with me. I like aspects of the theory of socionics but it just seemed to be so contrary to my own experience of independence and positive character growth by oneself for oneself. Anyway, I like smiling eyes' last post. It makes me think their might be more hope to the whole thing than I previously got the impression of.
While it has nothing to do with the rest of the post, I'd like to assure Humanbean that I was in no way being sarcastic. I'm personally grateful to you for telling your story in this thread.
The rest of this post will handle the discussion of nature vs. nurture.
The case for biology creating a set of 16 types relies on genes. Genes can create biological properties in many ways, but for them to create a pattern of either/or as in a person being either E or I (as in extrovert or introvert), the distinction has to be made between two forms of a genetic allel.
Each person has two allels of each gene. Again, for the emerging functional type to be either E or I and for there to be no middle ground (such as an EI-type) one of these forms of the gene has to be dominant. One copy of the gene must cause the same property as having two copies of the same gene.
For 16 types to emerge, there must be exactly 4 genes that code these functions. Sampling data suggests that all types are equally common. This necessitates that the recessive form of each of these genes would exist in 0.707 (or 1/ squareroot(2)) of the allels. Each of the four genes having the same or extremely close to the same number of occurrences in all populations on earth.
If this probability deviates to say 0.6 we would have a distribution of types similar to the following in a given genetic population:
if ISTJ = the dominant form of 4 genes (with each gene corresponding to one letter, and a randomly chosen type representing the dominant genes)
ISTjs in population = 16.7%
ISTps, ESTjs, INTjs, ISFjs = 9.4 % each
ENTps, ESFps, ENFjs, INFps= 3.0 % each
ENFps= 1.6 %
others = 5.3 % each
If the probability for a dominant allel was equiprobable with the recessive one the probabilities for having a certain type in the same order would be
ISTjs = 31.6 %
ISTps etc. = 10.5 %
ENTps etc. = 1.1 %
ENFps = 0.4%
others = 3.5 % of the population.
A rather moderate change in the distribution of genes would cause enormous skewing in the number of types seen in a population.
Compare the numbers above or any socionic type distribution study to another set of (only two) dominant genetic traits, the blood-type system.
Peru Indians:
AB 0%
A 0%
B 0%
0 100%
Kenyan
AB 1%
A 19%
B 20%
0 60%
French
AB 3%
A 47%
B 7%
0 43%
Chinese (Beijing)
AB 13%
A 27%
B 32%
0 29%
If the properties were genetic, we'd expect to find genetic isolates in which one of the genetic allels had died away. We'd expect to find evidence of populations in which only half the types are found because the genetic material coding the other types simply isn't there (like for the peru indians in the example above).
Does anyone here believe that personality types have distribution patterns similar to these?
...
Okay, so what if the personality type would not have dominant and recessive allels? Wouldn't the type distribution be more stable?
Perhaps, but there would be other problems to the geneticist-socionist.
if aa codes an extrovert and AA codes an introvert, then aA would have to code an extrovert-introvert (that is if, neither gene allel was dominant in creating the phenotype). We'd expect most people to be undefinable in the matter of extroversion-introversion, clearly undefinable that is. Any objective observant would note that most people are neither extrovert or introvert. Yet this is not what has been observed.
If we thought that more than one gene was involved in the creation we'd simply add to the confusion, we'd be supposing more and more possibilities of intermediary types, something which many socionists refuse completely.
So... what if there are a significant number of genes that code the personality type? It'd just be a more extreme case of the previous. The more genes involved, the more of the populace would exist around the average of of a given quality, lessening the importance of the genetic quality and giving more importance to adaptive mechanisms, that would be able to change a person's type during his life.
For type not to change due to environmental effects, most of the development of type would have to happen during the fetal period. Yet type is said not to "gel down" until maybe the age of 30. This is inconsistent and insensible.
The kind of brain adaptation that can only happen during the fetal period and not later on in life is mostly about the forming of major brain areas and major pathways connecting them. We can be rather safe in saying that personality types are not defined by having new areas of the brain, because such would be noticed, really. So the theory hangs on having some major pathways that are ordered in a different way in different brains yet start to only really kick in after they reach the age 30? From an evolutionary perspective this is of course lunacy since by the age 30 people are supposed to have already had their children and genes don't care overmuch what happens to people after that. From a neurological perspective... most changes after teen-age are vascular-degenerative or apoptotic, not genetically coded. So... how and why does a fetal-development coding gene become significant only during adulthood? If we're dealing with a genetic factor, it would be more consistent that it was most easy to perceive when the genetic trait was most recent, having been fuzzied by the least amount of adaptive changes. So how accurate do you think is typing the newborn?
Some other points... The major pathways between areas of the brain are not themselves parts of the information analysis within the brain. They only transmit signals of the activities of different areas of the brain to others. So we would not be dealing with the capacity to handle a certain kind of information but with dominance of certain areas of the brain as in "a left-brain individual" vs. "a right-brain individual". Yet people possess the capacity to train skills that are connected to particular areas of the brain. If a person can learn to be right-handed instead of left-handed, it's highly doubtful that he couldn't learn to be ISFp instead of INFp.
Finally... If type was genetic, we'd see a pattern of inheritance within families. I dare you to find one, that isn't more easily explained by upbringing. (I was once reading some socionics text or another, and the writer claimed that type was most probably genetic because children were observed to have different types despite that their mother's had given them a similar upbringing. I laughed and laughed. As if someone could create a standardized childhood experience lasting 10 or 20 years. Socionics possesses a great deal of wonderful observations, but the explanations and analysis seem to have only two levels - bad and worse.)
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
I had already given some thought to the "genetic inheritance" thing and it also seems meaningless, unless it's extremely complicated.
For example - -
Not everyone will agree, but I think many, if not most, have the impression that there are more sensors than intuitives. I have never met a group of people where the opposite was true in my evaluation (Dmitri Lytov has said that in Russia is the opposite, but I won't get into that).
So, one suggestion would be that being a sensor is related to dominant genes, and being intuitive, to recessive genes.
My parents were ISFp and ESFj; my brother is ENTp and I, ENTj.
If my parents had the "n" gene, that would be perfectly possible though slightly unlikely. I am also the only one of the four to have blue eyes, by the way - just to show how this works in other areas.
However, just like the children of a redheaded couple will necessarily be redheaded, that would imply that the children of an intuitive couple would necessarily be intuitive.
Leaving aside the ever-so-present problem of whether all the people mentioned were typed rightly, I think that a sampling of the families of the people here (and elsewhere) would all show that intuitive parents do not necessarily have intuitive children.
As example, let us take Nicky's family (where I think everyone is typed correctly) - - her parents are ENTj and ENFj, she is ENFp, but her brother is ISFj. That would already disprove it.
A little bit of speculation - -
I have little experience with children, but I have spent some time with those of an ESTj-INFj couple I know, and even as they were around 2 I could see that one of them seemed a socionics irrational and the other, rational, and the father said he had already noticed it (in other terms).
So perhaps the socionics temperaments of EJ, EP, IP and IJ are the first to appear, and the socionics type according to Model A is formed after the individual develops preference for one set of quadra values.
So, perhaps the original preference for EJ, EP, IP or IJ - - or perhaps just on whether one is rational or irrational - is genetically determined.
Again, I haven no data on that - - this is just heuristic speculation.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Lifetime patterns of behavior, temperament and personailty match 0-100% in MZ's (Monozygote twins). This is a strong psychological APA fact.
I do not see how it is possible for type to be strictly genetic which is why I believe functions are just different, random possibilities within the mind that are summarized into something generic and easily understandable.
I'm going to continue my series about the judging functions and lies but first a link between the EP and the EJ.
The standard model says that Exxx is the name of the leading function. Yet the leading function is not necessarily the dominant function. So what gives?
Another common definition is that to an Exxx being with people is a high-energy state. Let's look at this slightly more...
There are two kinds of functions, the kind that the use of makes the person start positive and end negative and the kind that makes the person start negative and end positive.
If we maintain that Ti/Fi/Fe/Te are the social functions....
We note that people who are Exxx start social situations in a high-energy positive state and end them exhausted in a negative state.
Whereas people who are Ixxx approach social situations with negative expectations and become positive, relieved when they're over. (A situation being over only when it's definitely over and has a confirmed ending.)
In this sense, being in a confirmed state with a small number of people is a necessity to the Ixxx (for a positive state of mind), whereas to the Exxx social situations are a luxury which eventually makes them troubled (in all senses of the word.)
So the EJ and the EP share a certain freedom as to their actions with people that the IP and IJ lack.
The difference between the two (on the matter of the judging functions) is that the EJ in interested in the external specifics of social interaction, specific situations and needs, whereas the EP needs to have a certain inner feeling about his social position and have others act in generally expected ways. In this sense the EJ is much more socially random, recognizing no social rules and from the p.o.v. of others breaking such constantly whereas the EP recognizes the rules, uses and abuses them.
So to the EJs judging functions...
Fe is cheerful, obstinate and creation-creating. Naturally it is also ethical, lacking a sense of power.
Te is grave, compliant and emotion-creating. Naturally, it is also thinking, possessing a sense of power. And that's what I'm going to continue with later on.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
This is a great and very true idea. I've always noticed that positive types experience awkwardness when they present negativity in their communication. Negative issues, or problems with the discussion subect are mentioned, but as footnotes, and they are almost never given excessive attention. I think this is definitely the easiest way to spot a person's position in the dichotomy. I also noticed positive types communicate in lengthier passages.
asd
Sorry, had to go away on an unexpected trip. Normally I hate travelling but this one was way too lucrative to say no to.
Anyway... I'll call the aristocratic/democratic next, just because I'm feeling so goodOh yeah.
Soooo... Aristocracy = ST + NF = beta + delta = concrete judging, abstract perceiving and
Democracy = NT + SF = alpha + gamma = concrete perceiving, abstract judging...
First thought that comes to mind is that the dichotomy defines social environments, since all types within quadra share it.
So an "aristocratic" person is either a humanist-idealist or a practical-artisan-cynic, whereas a "democratic" person is a socially-oriented manipulator or an abstract-theorist.
We note that the aristocratic groups are characterized by either doing everything by themselves without regard for others or not doing anything particular and relying on the good will of others, whereas the democrats are characterized by the manipulation of others either by social grace or power of argument into cooperation. Here by "doing something" I mean decisive activity that has any likelyhood of changing the prevailing circumstances by itself.
We can understand the former better when we perceive the relation to the social function. The democrats have an abstract judging (ie. social) function. They attempt to create new relations, bonds, dependencies and operate on the belief that such bonds, as they exist, are weak and can be molded. Thus they perceive people as individuals that are in the process of forming groups and societies. They use either their personal magnetism (SF) or their superior knowledge of some matters (NT) to push people into such social situations that are advantageous to them.
The aristocrats OTOH have the a concrete judging (social) function. To them the group's and society's rules and definitions exist as concrete matters. They perceive their role in the society as defined which is both an enabling factor and a limitation, and their actions generally erode the original situation that created the social bond, either by proving it as a bad idea or by fulfilling its original purpose. They either seek to protect or destroy the social bond by symbolical, artistic or ideological behaviour (NF) or to create practical results for or against the intention of the social bond (ST).
The previous is further elucidated if we consider the NT as people who are attempting to convince others to act according to their wishes and the SF as people who act according to others' wishes in return for future considerations and also the ST as people who do to themselves and to others exactly what they want and the NF as people who don't really do much anything.
When we consider the alpha quadra, their democratic behaviour can be seen in how they actively attempt to channel their own ideas, likes and dislikes to their environment. The activity is light-hearted but it's purpose is to test personal abilities and see how much the person can affect the environment. It's play activity, seeking one's personal skills and possibilities to act in the group.
Gammas on the other hand try to create communal rules that would optimally characterize all existing knowledge of how the world functions. They try to understand what activity is needed of them rather than what they are able to do, yet similarly they are in the process of defining their personal role.
The beta tries to maximize the results of an agreed upon project, use their found, trained and chosen skills to maximal effect. Their activity relies on there existing social circumstances that are very forgiving to extreme measures, an abundance of skill, willpower and resources. They erode the existing social situation by demanding more than people can give and trying more than they can manage. The material results and information gained from these great attempts are often worth it.
The delta try to perceive how they can turn their own given lot in life into an endurable and prosperous experience. They take things as given and don't care about the big picture. They erode the social bond through their near-sightedness and limiting their empathy to their close circle.
While the previous concentrates on the social aspect of the dichotomy, there is also the perceiving, or non-social aspect. Here, the abstract aristocrats are testing the reliability of knowledge either by acting in ways that rely on existing knowledge in a great way (risky business activity, wars, complex engineering etc.) or philophically playing with theoretical concepts and using them to seek new understanding whereas the democrats concentrate on existing knowledge and facts, teaching them to others, searching opportunities to apply their certain, tested knowledge.
In a given situation I could use the short-hand definitions of
Democracy vs. Aristocracy
Negotiating vs. Tyrannic
Active cooperation vs. Accidental cooperation
Relying on individuals vs. Relying on groups
Group-forming vs. Group-eroding
Manipulative vs. Straight-talking
Deductive vs. Inductive
...
But in the end we are again talking about an abstract quality, the precise definition of which eludes us.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
I found this very interesting when I read this part and I tried to relate it to other types as well. Basically, an ESTp isn't really doomed to be a criminal, however if he/she has failed to develop or adapt then it is likely. Just like how an ENFp is doomed to exploring everything, but accomplishing nothing in his or her entire life or an ISTj being stuck at a dead end job. I'd like to see if you can go further into detail of other types of what their doomed to be if they fail to mature or what they can aspire to be if they learn to adapt.Socionics as it is, is not stereotype-free. Quite the opposite. ESTp is characterized commonly as "the most criminal type", prone to rages, a natural mafioso, compulsively threatening etc.
Yet these same socionists claim that this kind of a person will never amount to anything else, that it is his destiny to be like this forever and always and that it is best for him to accept his nature and live in a way which they call "criminal". They claim that he does not have the required capacity to handle ethical information.
Also, many are willing to make these claims based just on a few photographs.
I dispute this. I dispute that there is a person who has to be prone to rages and unsocial to feel good and be succesful. I claim that one can change the attributes of one's behaviour that define type and I claim that changing one's behaviour can result in more personal success and more personal happiness. Why I use the word "failure" is that there are types, the representatives of which are invariably unhappier than those of certain others, feel less content with their lives and though there might not be a difference in external evidence of success, there is certainly a difference of personal feeling of success. The use of the word "failure" when I do so, is completely tied to the person's own sense of personal failure or negativity.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Hmm... I'm not quite sure we're getting each other here. I don't think anyone's doomed to be anything. I think there are typical ways in which people misapply social strategies and gain unwanted effects. In the example above I think a person who has a lot of experience of acting like an ESTp would do wisely to explore the reasons why he acts like an ESTp and in which situations this yields good results. I'd suggest exploring other methods of social behaviour and survival to complement his talents in situations that are not at all beta-like, either to explore his creativity and possibilities of acting like an ENTp or explore his ability to trust others and socialize like an ESFp.
A reasonable method to understand the problem situations characteristic of each type behaviour when misapplied is to think of the type behaviour with the eyes of the opposing quadra. In a calm delta society every beta is a troublemaker and a danger. In a beta society every delta is a loner and a loser.
You can also pick any negative trait that any type description suggests a type has. You can avoid the stereotypical behaviour by changing your type behaviour in situations in which this behaviour would be harmful.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Okay, so are you stating that in order for an ESTp to adapt, he/she has to develop his weaknesses in order to create a balance? If an ESTp or an INFj decide to not develop them, have they become worse or maybe better overall and maginified their primary strengths and weaknesses?
Interesting, but are ENFjs and ISTjs known as risky, dangerous types? How does delta strive for calmness?, though it does seem accurate the scenario of how a beta society would perceive a delta society.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
As to the first question, my answer is: Yes.
As to the second... I hesitate to use the words 'better' and 'worse' when discussing people, but constantly excercising the same functions would certainly magnify strengths and weaknesses.
Yes, ENFjs and ISTjs are certainly very risky types. Lytov has characterized ISTj as the most cruel of types. An ENFj friend of mine (married to an ISTj) calls ISTj activity power-tripping. I'd say that the ISTj is the type most likely to get into major conflicts.
The ENFj OTOH is an ideological fanatic. Even a peaceful ideology, like that of Martin Luther King, can when forcefully advocated lead to significant unrest. ENFjs have a relatively high incidence of dying for their beliefs.
One can reasonably dispute whether the INFp is a troublemaker. His role in quadra is to be an enabler to the other, more action-oriented betas. To think of his effect in a delta society, think of an old factory in which everything is routine and people just arrive to get their pay-checks. The workforce is loyal but unmotivated and keeps the management in check by strikes. The INFp would suck up to the management and urge them to use their power and force their innovative new ideas to change the factory. This might or might not be good for the society, but the delta factory workers would hate it and they'd hate the INFp.
Again, as to the second question... The deltas ISTp and ESTj strive for Si which many consider almost synonymous with physical comfort. This should be easy to see as being a "calm" state. As for ENFp and INFj their requirements seem to be more of freedom of thought, a sort of ivory tower in which to dream up innovations or creations of art. This too is a sort of secluded and "calm" state.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
This post could go to the general forum but I'm going to put it here...
It's about something I've discussed with some of you in private but never in public (I think).
Why mirrors (and activity partners) aren't equal...
Let's consider two people, one an ESFp and the other an ISFj. Let's say they are both of the feeling subtype and (for argument's sake) spend 70% of their time and energy in activity that would be referred to as ESFp or ISFj and 30% of their time in activity that would be referred to as ENFp or INFj. So we have situations in which
person 1 is ESFp and person 2 ISFj 49% of time,
person 1 is ENFp and person 2 INFj 9% of time,
person 1 is ESFp and person 2 INFj 21% of time and
person 1 is ENFp and person 2 ISFj 21% of time.
From here, we note that 58% of time they have mirror relations and 42% of time the Ep is the superviser of the Ij. Similar situation exists for all relationships centered around the use of accepting and creating version of a single function. For all functions the creative version of function supervises the accepting version from time to time.
The example is simplified, but the point stands. As far as I understand the functions, the reason for this behaviour seems to be the nature of the accepting function to find new paths whereas the creative functions attempts to stand firm. It's in the nature of the accepting function to get out of the way of the creative one.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Resurrecting a thread to bury it, maybe.
I actually got more than one subject that I'd like to get out of my system today. At least the first one is likely to be controversial.
I've mentioned a couple of times that I call myself a witch. Basically what I mean is that I dabble in chaos magic. I've never been very interested in the theory aspects of it or turning it into a real skill but I can do some very rough basic stuff with it. Oh, yeah, almost forgot to say this. There's nothing supernatural about chaos magic, there's no magic in chaos magic. It's basically a technique of self-realisation.
This thread originated as a "chaos magic" ritual. The idea was to purge myself of the need to follow some social aspects and bring myself into a closer contact with myself and my own needs. By focusing myself to a forum personality I could create a symbolic new self that would help me practise some parts of me that I'd neglected. For that reason the aggressivity I've showed in this thread was slightly forced and artificial but nevertheless such that I felt the need to get it out in the open, break the mold, abandon the, to push the touchy-feely aspects of myself to the super-ego.
It's done now. I succeeded. There's no longer any need for it. Thanks for doing magic with me.
Was that a joke? Maybe.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Introvert sensing is an under-discussed function on the forum, so I thought I'd write about my renewed relationship with it.
First an apology. While I was new on the forum I talked about many experiences and many people as being parts of the ENTj type. That was because I still falsely believed that type was static. Actually many of the people I had felt were similar to me were similar in times that I myself wasn't an ENTj. Thus I'd expect that for example Stephen King and Robert Anton Wilson aren't infact ENTjs but more probably Ejs with Fe in their ego block.
The same goes withThere are a number of experiences attributes and habits I have that I remembered as strong abilities of mine and therefore expected that since I was an ENTj those had to be associated with
I don't know why, but I feel like I want to really start talking about Si with a trivial detail. When I talk about things I perceive through intuition I tend to use the verb "to smell". It's a vague feeling, a conglomerate of associations that prove nothing but give information about things that are difficult to handle with any other tools. When I talk about sensoric stuff I tend to use the verb "to see". This is because the information is so concrete. Si is difficult to describe to people and its very difficult to explain decisions based on it. This is a habit that long predates my actual being aware of anything socionics related.
Another trivial side-note: the graphs I made on the easy-to-use-behaviour tracker thread and stuff associated with it are based onas some seem to think. All introvert functions create systems of association and beliefs of causality. This does not make them all based on logic.
Things I do when I'm going totally Si... Walk around my house doing chores with my eyes closed. Read books that I no longer have in front of me (out of memory). Run through crowds ...
(Funnily enough, there's a discussion on the forum which attributes this to Se. I had a lengthy discussion about this with a couple of Se types and we found a few differences in how we do it. The Se people look where there's a gap between people and walk/run through it. I look at people, their direction and and speed of walking and run towards a spot where I know there's going to be a gap when I arrive even when there isn't one now. A difference is that I expect I have superior planning of route while I also tend to get into trouble and do some really artful dodging when people change their direction unexpectedly. Another difference seems to be that people avoid collisions with the Se runner while I avoid collisions when I'm running.)
... program software, detect lies (I go through chains of events that people describe as if they were happening to me and I look at where there's disparity between the story and what I perceive/believe/know would actually happen, and yes, this is the reason Holmes is described as ESTj), dance (perform the movements of a dance with set movements or a martial arts kata), go through past experiences to find activities that caused faults/errors to appear in a process), make optimal schedules and route maps ... and other things.
So what's it like? It's like going through an experience inside my head, one that I've performed previously or one that I'm only imagining, in a very, very, concrete way. Ironically despite it's concreteness, practicing this a lot is what made people think I was a dreamy kid and later on this made me think I was using a lot of intuition. Even more ironically even more later I did start using intuition and stopped doing the sensory thingy but that's another subject.
Now it's back, and it's the last, best and the only line of defense earth has.
The last one was again a joke. God, I'm so not funny.
(Anyone who wants to track my posts and do a dichotomic verification to "prove" that I haven't changed types at any point is free to do so. Of course me knowing about dichotomies sort of invalidates it as I could manipulate my language to appear taciturn while I'm actually a narrator or vice versa. Ha. I'm tricky that way.)
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
I don't wonder at all that cracka believes he's ESTj, but I gotta say that dichotomically speaking everything he writes here is ESFj. I of course believe that since people change through quadras it doesn't really matter and this is utterly insignificant but anyone who wants to pursue the "No, no, you're not UFGt, you're UFZt!" thingy, please feel free to hound cracka.
Not that I don't utterly frigging love reading his posts anyway.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
It's so not cool to explain jokes, especially bad ones, but maybe someone will profit somehow from me explicitly saying this...
There's a theme in ESTjs... The two type characters usually used are a detective (Holmes) and an patriotic undercover agent (Stirlitz), both of whom go beyond the call of duty to succeed in the defense of society. Men in black (though non-existent) are also thematically ESTj. So are professional assassins & SWAT teams. Want to see someone not ESTj playing an ESTj, watch the movie "Leon". (The defense of society thing isn't necessarily an attribute of the ESTj themselves, it's just how they are sometimes employed.)
As a sidenote to another thread Mafia and tony soprano are NOT estj, as seemed to prevailing opinion in that thread as well. American Psycho might be one, though.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
I love the way you talk about walking through crowds. I do the exact same thing that you described, and other things that I believe to be similar in nature, yet I believe it to be related to a combination of
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I think there's numerous ways to do it and there might be subtle differences in how a person does it withI love the way you talk about walking through crowds. I do the exact same thing that you described, and other things that I believe to be similar in nature, yet I believe it to be related to a combination of
The simplest answer is that I did it while my life was mostly ESFj, I stopped doing it while I was ENxj and now I'm doing it again. It's not proof but to me the connection seems natural and concrete.
It's a very physical activity, requiring quick reflexes, trust in oneself and good body control. At least the way I do it I have to have very good control of friction and balance for the quick turns. These are generally sensory aspects of things.
It's a fun thing, lacking almost completely in strategic importance and thus being completely useless to any ENxj.
The critical thing is execution, not planning, (though planning is involved and thus differentiating it from the pretty similar thing Se-types do). (I think of it as an obstacle course... When I round a corner I slow down for a moment to a walk to get a grasp of the next area.)
I feel the same way as I do when I'm doing other sensory thingies while I'm doing it.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
I love walking into crowds, I love also "racing" with other friends and see who comes out of it first.
yeah, i agree. The Se people look where there's a gap between people and walk/run through it.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Reply With Quote
