Masks, archetypes, subconscious legend and magic

[Aquagraph]

You equivocate the full behavioral profile with the sociotype (not only in this post, but as well before) and this is where I disagree and I think you're wrong too, since the sociotype is supposed to determine solely a cognition configuration from a set of limited possibilities.

I believe you've misinterpreted me and there has been a miscommunication. I might play with stereotypes, myths and other cultural heritages in socionics, yet I believe we all do that in every aspect of our life, at least in some degree. Denying such might confuse me in my quest for more precise theories or the so-called 'Truth'.

Even if you look into Jung's [1] psychological types, they merely offer the specifications to distinguish a limited set of templates, which are dry and describe no actual personality. In fact, more than Socionics' elders, Jung, with a remarkable caution, stood away from associating such a type with any specific person or role.

More or less. Agreed.

The experience of Socionis showed that the decision to adopt such titles (i.e. "The Lyricist" or "Yesenin") and profiles (detailed type descriptions, with "what would an IEI do") is a double-edged blade: on one hand it makes it more accessible to the masses and easier to begin with - one doesn't need to know the whole technical background in order to get his/her hands dirty. On the other hand, it introduces the possibility for one to stick to these profiles, taking them literally as absolute references, mistake that experience with communities such as this confirms.

This was partly my point. Archetypes are highly accessible and socionics seems more appealing for those who read about 'Yesenin' or such and say to theirselves "Hey, I know the type of person!"

What you should remember from all this is that the sociotype does not describe the whole personality, and that personality change does not necessarily mean sociotype change.

Of course. Yet a sociotype would propably change some of the personality in question.

[1] - who coincidentaly studied archetypes as well.

Yes. Although I'm only vaguely familiar with his work, I found inspiration within those cultural symbolisms. I wouldn't be amazed if this study of archetype would have been a similar interest inspiring Jung to write the seeds to socionics.

Only the last two [1] IMO, which also mean that sociotype is an ideal set of personality traits, this ideal consisting in the completeness and/or full development of these traits. This means that the development of a type involves the accumulation and/or [2] strengthening these traits to the point they prevail over other configurations, in a certain individual. But to demonstrate that this view is incorrect is easy: Aushra postulated that the type is a complete set of discrete traits. That is, by definition, any trait that is optional and scalar is not a sociotype property.

Consequently, a sociotype can be only and fully one of the Socion, and there is no such thing as an ideal representative of a sociotype, neither "underdeveloped" or "unhealthy" [3] type. Actual behavioral traits - the "type related" figures - correlate with type but do not define it. Any "Socionist" that denies these definitions is in the wrong, since that is what makes sociotypes (and what Socionics means), disputing them is a matter of whether sociotypes exist, and not a matter of whether those conceptions are correct. In my knowledge, neither Aushra was 100% certain that types cannot change, however if they do, it can only happen entirely.

So based on these arguments, I conclude that sociotypes cannot be influenced as required to make a functional correlation to archetypes or any such kind of inventories.
---

[1] - and the second bolded (third in the full list), in case it means it changes along a period of time, instead of some moment during that period.
[2] - when considering the traits scalar, it may be the case that their absence to mean zero development.
[3] - another misconception springing from the same misunderstanding, that wankers often speculate around. It should not be confused with unhealthy or underdeveloped personality correlated with type, which is acknowledged and is judged based on the social potential of a type that cannot be manifested, or it is manifested negatively. The judgment is purely value-based. Assuming an F type is supposed to end-up caring and empathetic, a bitter and cold representative is considered a consequence of a hostile informational environment, nevertheless, that doesn't change the type of that individual in the least, one can't say that type is "less F" or "more T" or anything like that.

I'm afraid I have to refrain from making any comments on this, at least for now. Partly, because of the language barrier and partly since this was new information. I might want to digest this.


Besides the last quote, almost all you have said are making me feel more and more that we actually don't disagree as much as we miscommunicate. You might be confused with my message as my past posts might have given a misleading picture of me, as I'm rarely serious and one part of me is almost always playing devil's advocate. I also try to be somewhat wrong in order to learn more. Also see my answer on your thread.

[The Ineffable]

Yes. Although I'm only vaguely familiar with his work, I found inspiration within those cultural symbolisms. I wouldn't be amazed if this study of archetype would have been a similar interest inspiring Jung to write the seeds to socionics.

That would be interesting to find out, just it seems like his theories on archetypes were developed later than the psychological types. I currently don't have reasons to view the two other than separate subjects, for the record.

Besides the last quote, almost all you have said are making me feel more and more that we actually don't disagree as much as we miscommunicate. You might be confused with my message as my past posts might have given a misleading picture of me, as I'm rarely serious and one part of me is almost always playing devil's advocate. I also try to be somewhat wrong in order to learn more. Also see my answer on your thread.

I'm not trying to picture you and I understood that you're exploring hypothetical cases, especially in that last paragraph where you said "if". Without intending to judge your potential, I just said what I see wrong with the arguments themselves .
---

I found some relevant sources:
http://translate.google.com/translat...v-comment.html
http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro1.html

[under the bridge]

Aquagraph, were you partially making the point that a majority of the population's personas, or the 'mask' we convey to society, are influenced and formed by our perception of our culture's legends/myths that our previous generations' personas essentially created? If that was the case, I agree with that. However I think that the 'legends of our culture' are but a single influence out of many; a single brushstroke making up the larger picture.

If I understand him correctly, I've come to many of the same conclusions as The Ineffable. I believe our personality is a manifestation of the amalgamation of an innumerable amount of internal and external processes and factors working in tandem. Some of the factors contributing to our overall personality are the behavior we exhibit, our environment(a vast number of influences here, of course), and what most here know as our Sociotype(thought The Ineffable phrased it very fittingly as 'the determination of a cognition configuration from a set of limited possiblities').

While a gross oversimplification, here are some examples of things that are included in these factors.

Behavior- a combination of the following processes:
*our perspective of reality(knowledge and experience affecting this aspect)
*motivations for making decisions/taking action(could be based off of values/morals and goals we've set but, in the end, the reward system[of the brain] probably determines most of it)

Environment- a fraction of the aspects that make this up:
*ideas, emotions, and lifestyles of our peers(friends, family, mentors, etc)
*culture's current form(influencing via society's standards of how your gender/ethnicity/age/etc. should behave and as you said, Aquagraph, "art in all forms" & "religion, myths, so forth")
*education(formal education, common sense, 'street smarts', critical thinking skills...)

Sociotype- the phenomenon going on within our cognition which so many have tried to define in various ways over the ages. I agree with The Ineffable in that the traits that make this up are scalar and, to reiterate what he said, "the development of a type involves the accumulation and/or strengthening [of] these traits to the point they prevail over other configurations". What exactly these traits are has yet to be determined, but I think our current understanding of the spectrums such as I/E(focus directed inward/outward), S/N(here & now/abstract), and T/F(logic, justice/mercy, emotion) gives a good impression of how our internal processes relate to one another. We're similar in that we all(for the most part) have access to these traits, but the differences in individuals are pronounced partly due to their preference of said traits and the amount of practice they invest in these them(commonly the intrinsic set we use) resulting in the reinforcement of their unique thinking patterns.

These items all simultaneously affect one another and come together to weave the complex fabric that is our personality. Again, these are just a small part of what make up our personality, but that is the best I can explain my understanding at the moment. Aquagraph, I also hope that people make it a habit to step back and bring these realizations to the forefront of their mind in order to utilize that knowledge in aims of shaping themselves. Although we can never manipulate it entirely, I believe we can attain a semblance of control over our personality. This is through increasing our awareness and understanding of ourselves, altering(what we can to the best of our ability) our behavior and/or parts of our environment, and practicing our strengths.

To summarize, personality is constantly changing, the pace dependent on the aforementioned factors. I think a good question to ask is if we're navigating down the river that is called life, or are we simply allowing ourselves to drift aimlessly downstream?

All in all, excellent discussion. I enjoyed the opportunity to elucidate my current understanding of the topic. If clarification on any of this is needed, let me know.

[The Ineffable]

Sociotype- the phenomenon going on within our cognition which so many have tried to define in various ways over the ages. I agree with The Ineffable in that the traits that make this up are scalar and, to reiterate what he said, "the development of a type involves the accumulation and/or strengthening [of] these traits to the point they prevail over other configurations". What exactly these traits are has yet to be determined, but I think our current understanding of the spectrums such as I/E(focus directed inward/outward), S/N(here & now/abstract), and T/F(logic, justice/mercy, emotion) gives a good impression of how our internal processes relate to one another. We're similar in that we all(for the most part) have access to these traits, but the differences in individuals are pronounced partly due to their preference of said traits and the amount of practice they invest in these them(commonly the intrinsic set we use) resulting in the reinforcement of their unique thinking patterns.

If I understand you correctly, that's the opposite of what I intended (underlined). What I said there is that those characteristics would have been a necessary consequence of the suppositions listed by Aquagraph, consequence that would break the definition of the types, whose attributes are fully determined and discreet (instead of cummulative and scalar).

I make a strict difference between the type attributes or traits [1], and the unlimited number of personality traits that can be associated with the said type. I recognize the latter as scalar and used in the recognition of a representative (of a type), but as exemplified in my bottom comment - the hypothetical simplistic correlation between empathy and F Ego -, they are not what make it up. Although typical, these traits may be found more or less pronounced, sometimes missing, for instance in a limiting environment, that does not affect the type of the individual with anything, since the cognition in respect to the Model A is a different thing.

(all the instances of "type" in this post refer to the Socionics type)
---

[1] - the arrangement of functions and everything that directly emerges from it, including high-level dichotomies.

[under the bridge]

Thanks for elaborating, I understand your position now. I do agree with how you view personality traits, but I am still up in the air as to whether or not type attributes are 'set in stone'. One thing that leads me to question is my observation of people that are forced to think and behave in ways contrary to their nature from a young age(not saying this proves anything, but it makes the issue muddy from my perspective). You definitely make sense in stating your views(and I'm inclined to agree with you) but I'm still undecided here and probably will be until we have more advances in brain research and such. Making Sense of People: Decoding the Mysteries of Personality is a book that contributed to my opinion regarding how the brain forms(it didn't go into incredible depth, but it touched on the research that has been done so far) and I found it pretty interesting. If you have any books that go in deeper on the subject I'd be happy to hear what they are.

[Aquagraph]

Aquagraph, were you partially making the point that a majority of the population's personas, or the 'mask' we convey to society, are influenced and formed by our perception of our culture's legends/myths that our previous generations' personas essentially created?

Yes.

However I think that the 'legends of our culture' are but a single influence out of many; a single brushstroke making up the larger picture.

When I said "legend" or "myth", I meant all sorts of archetypes, norms, subconsious images in culture.

I believe our personality is a manifestation of the amalgamation of an innumerable amount of internal and external processes and factors working in tandem.

Well said.

Aquagraph, I also hope that people make it a habit to step back and bring these realizations to the forefront of their mind in order to utilize that knowledge in aims of shaping themselves. Although we can never manipulate it entirely, I believe we can attain a semblance of control over our personality. This is through increasing our awareness and understanding of ourselves, altering(what we can to the best of our ability) our behavior and/or parts of our environment, and practicing our strengths.

Have you ever tried calling things with different names just for the effect on your self?

Me and my friend (not such close friend) decided that we are going to start dating officially. We were drunk. In fact, we have never kissed, had sex or any of those things couples do. Nor did we even see one another that much. And we weren't 'loyal'. Nevertheless, we referred to one another as "my boyfriend/girlfriend". It was very nice and heartwarming as I have troubles committing. Then she started dating with a boy and we stopped doing it. I was a bit heartbroken.
Point being that words have tremendous effect.

Also try chaos magic. It's basically the same thing.

All in all, excellent discussion. I enjoyed the opportunity to elucidate my current understanding of the topic. If clarification on any of this is needed, let me know.

You were clear. Good to hear.

[under the bridge]

Have you ever tried calling things with different names just for the effect on your self?

Interesting experience on your part. I haven't consciously used this particular method of altering my perception of reality, but I am aware of that potential our minds possess and have been unknowingly under the effect of that 'spell' in the past. It's incredible to think of the power that sits inside of our heads and how we can manipulate it.

[Aquagraph]

Aquagraph: have you read about this?

Now I have. Thank you.