Oh, I see, you're trying to talk sense to consentingadult, I mean, mikemex. Don't argue with Huxley, especially when he is a woman.
Oh, I see, you're trying to talk sense to consentingadult, I mean, mikemex. Don't argue with Huxley, especially when he is a woman.
I think each and every description of E5 I've read until now pointed towards being INTx.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Seems so, though geniuses like Eldanen and titaniumsledgehammer were rhapsodizing last week about the elusive e5 ESE, so who's really to say?
Yeah but there are definitely LSI 5s, and ILE 5s, and although I've never encountered one, probably LIE and SLI 5s too.Originally Posted by Pa3s
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 say maybe a good model would be comparing probabilities of occurance with certain compositions.
LII and ILI e5's would be extremely common
ILE's a bit rarer
and something like an ESE e5 being very rare.
Still there are hardly any reasons why there can't be an ESE e5, I'd just imagine that in practice it would be hard to find an example of such a personality.
← right here, dude
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
That's just another way of saying that every E-type can be every Sociotype, so I don't really know what's the point in creating a model for "comparing probabilities of occurrence", which would mean your theoretical E5 ESE would have to opt for some kind of E7 LII.
Correct me if I am wrong though.
lol the point would be so you can avoid harsh rules on what sociotype matches what e-type as they aren't fully compatible systems. Instead you are defining how likely they are to occur in observation. Say <1% of all e5's are ESE, or something. I don't know that's how I approach this stuff, if you are not a fan of this idea, then that's completely fine.
I know what it means, you're just ranking/giving priority to the notion of LIIs matching E5 most of the time and the same time giving a green light to the notion of LIIs being E7.
Your no harsh rules actually is a rule, for the moment you disregard the "harsh rules" and allow the possibility of another way looking at it, your approach is a rule of thumb approach even though you stated it's hard to find such entity existing practically.
Last edited by Absurd; 01-30-2013 at 06:04 PM.
I think its better to keep things practical and probabilistic before over-constraining personally.
I took a look at your spreadsheet and the most obvious thing was: why so many types correlate to six and so few correlate with other types? Seems unbalanced.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
...
Ehh, it's allowing every single one of them workout no matter what, even Radio's stuff allows that for "very uncommon" is just another word for rare, and if it is rare, it's still there to witness.
This is my major beef with E-type to Sociotype musings. I mean just run through this forum and collect peoples' self-typings starting with IEE 5w6 and ILI 1w2 for instance.
Last edited by Absurd; 01-31-2013 at 10:09 AM.
It's leaving open the possibility of the illogical, the counter-intuitive, and the unexpected. None of that guarantees that the chimeras it allows for actually exist.
I personally don't see any reason why they couldn't work out, though I could see some serious problems with an ESE e5, mainly because an Fe-dominant, extroverted ExxJ personality being isolated in the manner that an e5 willingly does to themselves doesn't seem like a good mix. I'd probably argue that such personalities are unstable, and compare each of the combinations to probabilities such as one does with isotopes in chemistry. Some elements are extremely common because of the conditions of an environment, while others are very rare due to same conditions. I'd argue likewise that in a given sociological environment there would be a series of probabilities that define how likely it is to run across a given sociotype. In my opinion in order to truely forbid any combinations such as ESE e5 it is sufficient first to logically disprove their existence. Other wise I think the prudent and logical decision is to go with probability because you are not over assuming about something you can't logically prove.
That to me is just data, some of it is bad data, some of it is good data. Even then users here may disagree on which is bad/good, and even then this sample set is extremely narrow and based mostly on self-type when there are hundreds of other possibilities for how that data could be collected, transformed, and analyzed to produce some kind of resulting understanding of type distributions.This is my major beef with E-type to Sociotype musings. I mean just run through this forum and collect peoples' self-typings starting with IEE 5w6 and ILI 1w2 for instance.
MBTI did some stuff when trying to tie enneagram with it and it referenced Jung's, say, ISTP and E5 'together' for instance and you actually do the opposite. I bet it's not only you, but this was always quite interesting and at the same time hilarious seeing a total discrepancy called consensus on this board.
Anyway, as much I not find chemistry useful nor never did (I think), stable isotopes are those that change under influence, so an ESE E5 wouldn't be ESE nor E5 after the change which means, it doesn't make much sense.
Wonder in what environment ESE E5 flourishes - rich one in lava? Anyhow, that rare stuff is what I've been talking all the time.Some elements are extremely common because of the conditions of an environment, while others are very rare due to same conditions.
Yeah sure, a guy dressed in a labcoat would do a series of coin tosses.I'd argue likewise that in a given sociological environment there would be a series of probabilities that define how likely it is to run across a given sociotype.
But you can't do that before resorting to a "series of probabilities" which means, you won't be able to disprove it, which further means ESE E5 exists for you even though you can't logically prove its existence?In my opinion in order to truely forbid any combinations such as ESE e5 it is sufficient first to logically disprove their existence.
Lol I really don't understand your argument about change under influence -- the stability of an isotope has to do with how stable the nucleus is, the protons and neutrons. If the isotope is very unstable then it will attempt to decay some of its matter from the nucleus.
Likewise I'm saying that certain psychologies are probably unstable and will result in a similar decay. I would probably go so far as to argue that some sort of type change would be involved, although here everyone champions the static type theories.
The biggest problem for me though its what happens to an ESE E5 or a similar unstable personality but rather how one is created. In chemistry isotopes are sometimes created as the result of dramatic conditions. Isotopes of hydrogen and helium are plentiful in the sun when they undergo fusion but such an environment is one of intense heat and energy.
Likewise I'd argue that in order to give birth to a personality such as an ESE e5, you would probably need unusual circumstances or extremities.
The point is that first in order to have one of these chimera combinations, you'd need some kind unusual circumstances or environments surrounding them and secondarily I'd argue that instability will either lead to type change or destruction/desolation of the individual's psychology.
I'd say the big two instabilities of the ESE e5 are twofold
- isolation of the e5 versus an ExxJ temperament
- the cold thinking nature of the e5 versus the warm and emotionally expressive nature of Si and Fe
none the less extroversion is socionics is not linked to "gregariousness" or "being social", its conceivable to have an extroverted type be 5/9/4, although in such a cycle of isolation and re-merging that is typical of withdrawn type the personality one would have to use a base Je-function persistently to prove its relative strength to other functions and its relative value. I don't see why the explicit presence of people or socializing is required to utilize Fe or Te?
secondarily everyone assumes Si=comfort and Fe=emotional-expression... which I think is rather shallow. Fe as a function is extroverted feeling. For one the function isn't meant to imply only happy or warm feelings of comfort. Si and Fe aren't supposed to synthesize like that or at least their is hardly any reason for that interpretation. I've personally read Fe as encapsulating the entire spectrum of human emotion. The extroversion implies outward (extro) version. Version from the latin vert (face). So extroversion implies an outward orientation. Imagine a surface bounded by a boundary, something can flow into that surface, something can flow out. Their are two orientations to the surface. Two directions of flux. This is the extroversion/introversion idea.
Extroversion is a flow out of the entity, introversion is a flow into the entity. Hence traditionally pop-psychology has chosen extroversion to mean being outspoken, assertive, and acting out. Whilst introversion means reticent, reserved, and taking things in. However socionics makes its determinations based on a functional model. The Fe type is one which merely perceives the feelings which flow out of entities within an environment, whilst Fi type is one which merely perceives the feelings which flow into the entities within an environment. Although every feeling type is considered to be strong in both, usually one orientation is value while the other undervalued. For thinkers in socionics, they are weak in both, however one orientation is valued and considered constructive, while the other is unvalued and considered destructive. This is the basis for conflict and duality in socionics.
Anyways my argument here is that you can have a person act out emotionally by themselves for a small period of time as well as perceive the emotions out of other entities through observation (watching tv shows, media, or people watching). Periods of isolation and observation need not imply emotional-reservation. Although emotional reservation is a huge dynamic of the e5. This is mainly because they are a fear type, and emotions are perceived to be threatening. With e5w4 though, you are bridging the boundaries between emotion and thought. Both types in a way are scientists, one is a scientist of their mind, a philosopher that seeks to understand the world so that they need not fear it. The other is a scientist of their emotions, a psychologist, artist, romantic that seeks to understand themselves and their place of worth in the world in which they exist. The boundary between these two are about self-understanding, and consequentially, both are withdrawn types. I think it would be possible to have a highly observant e5w4 ESE, but they would almost have to in some ways seem more like an e4w5. Also SEI would probably be more common for e4 than ESE.
Si being comfort and Se being toughness is also shallow as both are essentially "SENSING". One with an orientation which is inward and the other with an orientation which is outward. Sensations into the entity versus Sensations out of the entity. This is why Si is typically associated to fields as is Ni, because of the inward sense of connectedness both types have in their perceptions. Se by contrast is outward and thus perceives bodies, distinct objects separate from the self. All sensing types are strong with both, but one is preferred. intuitive types are considered to be weak at both, one being constructive, the other being destructive. Thus the foundation of duality and conflict between opposing clubs. NT's paired with SF's and NF's paired with ST's. Si-ego types are just as strong with Se, so how can an Si-type be all comfort and no toughness? It makes no sense and is shallow. Si is merely a perception of sensations into an entity, an observation on the fields and connections between entities in a system and the sensations or sensory information concerning that.
An ESE e5?
They would have to one which expresses their emotions to no audience, but observes all possible audiences with a distinct focus on SF information. How entities are connected by sensations and how each individual entity gives off emotion and how that influences the connection of sensations in an environment (Alpha SF) <--- which bear in mind is also a strong thought process in Gamma SF but with RESERVE orientation. That orientation is the basis for conflict and duality.
Anyways they would probably have a wing in e4 and have to be put in some kind of circumstances that explains why they only express emotions to themselves and observe others. Considering a childhood of abuse that drove an instinctual e8 entity to an e5 through some sort of permanent disintegration and a personality that is ESE I could see such a pattern lasting. But eventually I'd theorize type-change, as I don't think it would be healthy for someone to observe such a spectacle and never participate.
Type change itself could be considered by a simplistic model, that one accumulates resources over time, each resource goes into a function. The resources are value and strength. Overtime you can arrive at a type through measuring the accumulation of such resources. A person 10 years of age has accumulated a certain amount but a person of 20 years of age has accumulated an amount equal to 0-10 in their 10-20 years. So they could reinvest those resources reasonably to reserve the most dramatic effects of those 0-10 years over the course of the 10-20 years. Some may argue that balancing out like such is normalizing the personality and giving no character, but their is an entire time-history of dynamic change, an entire branch of a tree that is entirely unique and colorful. One is merely a static view that disregard time and the changes that occur over it.
We are even being shallow in assume that these resources accumulate in a linear fashion, maybe having more resources implies a quicker rate of accumulation, in which case we would have an exponentially accumulating model. Maybe their is an entire cycle of recession and prosperity in terms of these resources. Maybe these systems of resources exist in closed or open system in which entities relate through predation or prey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E...terra_equation
Last edited by male; 02-01-2013 at 02:19 PM.
That's a very nice post @Shang Tsung. However, I would advice against arguing any further. Absurd isn't interested in finding out the truth, he's just concerned about having the last word in any conversation.
[
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
This simply means ESE E5 has been, say, IEI E7 before the decay/change which means a person self-typing IEI E7 has been unstable and through decay reached stability in the form of ESE E5, which again means, you're advocating such a viewpoint. Have to agree, that's a hell of a theory you've got there, for it seems you're saying people on this board are unstable/radioactive.decays by turning into another isotope of the same element—or even into another element entirely. (For example, uranium-238 decays by emitting alpha particles, ultimately becoming lead-206.) A stable isotope, on the other hand, has already become what it is going to be, and will not experience further decay.
You just argued against what you stated/posted above.Likewise I'd argue that in order to give birth to a personality such as an ESE e5, you would probably need unusual circumstances or extremities.
The point is that first in order to have one of these chimera combinations, you'd need some kind unusual circumstances or environments surrounding them and secondarily I'd argue that instability will either lead to type change or destruction/desolation of the individual's psychology.
Okay, you narrowed it down to E5 with 4 wing. ESE 5w4.An ESE e5?
Anyways they would probably have a wing in e4 and have to be put in some kind of circumstances that explains why they only express emotions to themselves and observe others. Considering a childhood of abuse that drove an instinctual e8 entity to an e5 through some sort of permanent disintegration and a personality that is ESE I could see such a pattern lasting.
Does that mean you advocate type change/decay now? Conclusion would be ESE 5w4.But eventually I'd theorize type-change, as I don't think it would be healthy for someone to observe such a spectacle and never participate.
You're as good as your word and your word is no good, mikemex. Truth hurts. Anyway, have you undergone decay yet? And it's advise against not advice against.
Last edited by Absurd; 02-01-2013 at 07:01 PM.
Basically my post is very long and rambling, anyone who cares to read it can, but I won't blame those that forgo it, I'd forgo it if it was me reading my post =p.
Take an aspirin then.
A shallow explanation, where the word "intellectual" takes again a prominent part. Personalities are very complex, and even if at the very end the causes of "everything" are more or less a set of simple principia (human brain is still an organic machine), when you use these principia you have to be able to accurately explain every situation or aspect which could happen. The issue is multiaspectual, with a lot of variables, conditions, etc that you have to balance in order to achieve a coherent and valid answer. Selecting only the portions of information that makes you right makes you blind and extremely dumb. As @Pa3s pointed, every description about E5 points to, or least favors, introversion. Only you seem to disagree with this.All members of the thinking triad are intellectuals. They just vary in the kind of intellectuality each one possess. Sevens are more comfortable with an empirical approach to learning: they want to experiment and find by trial and error what works, what is true, etc. See @woofwoofl for example; I don't know him at all but from the brief conversations I've had with him, he's visibly concerned about finding patterns (like where to met a certain type, etc) from his hands on experience. A five is in the other extreme: he figures out things by reflexing, by analyzing, by deducing. Pretty much by staying away from the world so it doesn't interferece with his neutrality. Six is an ambivert that isn't fully skilled in either mode so is always unsure, chronically seeking reassurance from other, more confident types.
Even if E5+ex is not strictly impossible, it would be less likely. If you add another factor that contradicts the core values, motivation, etc of E5, the chances are even less. So what are you then, the exception, the special one? Because this is not the quid, is it? The quid is that regardless whatever me or any other could say, you will not consider the possibility that E5+EF is not a good match. You want or even need to be an E5, and you are afraid that if you're not, this would make you less intellectual. You do not want to question your E5-ness, admit it. I suspect that you will even question your sociotype easier than your enneatype...
But unfortunately for you, this is again an E6 behavior. They have a certain trend to not question what they consider "sacred ideas". I do not forget how you get offended in your first post. By the other hand, there's no such thing as truth for an E5. They question everything, themselves included. There's no "final answer" for them, only an endless road...
Nothing you said?Any other notion about such enneatypes is merely your prejudice. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in there pointing to introversion, logic or anything else.I think you need glasses.
There's a proverb in my mother tongue which says "cree el ladrón que todos son de su condición", which translates as "a thief thinks everybody is like him". I said previously that I'm considering for myself two extroverted types, one of which is ethical. How can I have prejudices, if I'm ruling out E5 for myself, dumbass?? Maybe my self-esteem does not require being a type like yours...
I really do not see the point of discussing with you. You repeat consistently the same bad patterns of thinking. Whatever.
Last edited by MensSuperMateriam; 02-05-2013 at 10:25 AM.
@Shang Tsung. You make certain good points, but I still disagree with some aspects of your conclusions.
Not everybody thinks that types are static (so they could not change) neither the same type should be a "fixed" thing. Socionics, enneagram... tries (with questionable success) to be models for personalities, and these are emergent aspects of the human brain. The brain is essentially dynamic, so any idea that implies static personalities is doomed to fail. Our existence is a continuum, after all...
The way I see enneatypes (and in certain way, also sociotypes) is like... archetypal mental states. These archetypes would be like attractors in chaos theory; the system being dynamic as it is oscillates (in time, in nature), but around certain "middle point" which is representative of the whole issue. Changing a mental state is like jumping from one attractor to another.
Technically, everybody could be in any mental state (attractor, enneatype). I'm now in state A, then I go to B, then to C, then I return to A... But every personality favors certain states over others; ther's not the same chance for a concrete person to be in any of them. The so called "enneatype" is the mental state in which the person is more likely to be, so he/she will be in it more often than the alternatives. If you're enneatype A this means that you will be more often in mental state A.
So an EF, ESE included, could temporally be in an E5 mental state, yes. But as you pointed, this is a very unstable combination. The user tends to go to a more compatible mental state, which is not E5. External situations can force to be in this or any other unstable condition more time than usual, but it is still unstable. If left alone, the user tends to go to the more confortable situation. As ESEs will never be in an stable E5 condition, technically ESEs cannot be E5 even if sometimes they're in this mental state (more if forced).
The same applies to any other not compatible situation.
Last edited by MensSuperMateriam; 02-05-2013 at 09:53 AM.
Sounds like you have a good idea of what I'm talking about, however I still think its ultimately possible to have an ESE e5.
I said its unstable, but if you understand attractors, then you know an unstable equilibrium point is still a possible solution, but only if its exactly at that point, any perturbation that would move something away from an unstable point would cause it to move away from it and to another attractor.
I see things very similarly with certain combinations, they are still valid personalities, but they just aren't very likely to be seen in nature because they require such an unusual set of circumstances to bring them about. I'd argue they have to be forced into those unusual states, and that spontaneously people would naturally "decay" towards a more stable state.
I'm just personally against hard rules that forbid type combinations, I think its up to a person who assigns that type to supply a plausible explanation for why they are that combination or how it works. Some explanations I think make sense and some explanations show a clear lack of understanding.
For example I'd argue something along the line that e5, e7, and e8 are connected through integration and disintegration. ILE is more common to be e7, LII more common to be e5 and something like LSI or SLE more common to be e8. In which case we can consider all combinations (9) to be various attractors in a dynamic system. Something like ILE e5 is possible but potentially a less strong attractor in comparison to LII e5, but still relevant given certain considerations.
for example consider this picture of the e5 type dynamic
http://www.9types.com/epd/5.php
The top portion can be loosely related to any thinking type, but the bottom portion seems to only apply to introverts. Thus as an e5 is closer to unhealthy levels they are more likely to represent LII or ILI or some INTx, and as the e5 is closer to health they may also represent an ILE.
In socionics we could consider this a transition fromdominance. maybe LII-Ti transitions to LII-Ne and then to ILE-Ti and then ILE-Ne over a long portain of time as e5 approaches greater mental health and development.
This isn't to imply that LII is less healthy but that potentially self-development can occur in which one may transition from extroverted to introverted or vice versa in order to resolve the negative aspects of one orientation. I think there is a difference between introversion that is stable and positive and introversion that is unstable and undesired and forced or brought on by isolation or fear. I'd argue that being in a position of unstable and unhealthy introversion doesn't mean a person is convergent towards introversion but divergent away from it ultimately and towards another attractor in their self-development.
Last edited by male; 02-05-2013 at 04:27 PM.
It seems that we both agree in this part, except maybe some minor details. I bolded keyword stable.
You affirm as me that these unusual combinations tend to decay (unstable), so you're implying the same I said, they're unnatural. Personality archetypes represent a set of impulses (natural trends) which manifest as goals, thinking patterns, etc. The user try to fulfill these impulses through particular behavior, attitude, etc, that sometimes synergistically helps and sometimes doesn't work. Enneagram looks to these "impulses" from certain point of view, and so do Socionics from a different one. Unstable combinations are made from E+S sets whose elements imply non compatible impulses, in the sense that the strategy which could fulfill one part do the opposite for the other part.
I agree that external conditions (pressure) could force such kind of unusual combinations, but I would not see them as "unusual attractors", or at least not all of them. An "unusual attractor" represent a solution which is stable in time if not perturbed. This could work for something like ILE+5, in the sense that, after all, ILE is LII mirror, so it's not extremely difficult for an ILE to adopt, or emulate, LII thought patterns. For these metastable states a better analogy could be a colloid, which is thermodynamically unstable but cinetically stable.
But the ESE mind is too different, IMO. There would be no metastable solution. Still it's true that I cannot categorically say that no particuar instance could happen. Extreme pressure could force them, and the more the pressure is maintained, the longer the state would last when such pressure ceases to exist. Maybe even during lifetime no decay is observed, but only because it was so severely forced that it's decaying too slow. An analogy for this one is diamond; created under extreme conditions, and although it's not thermodynamically neither cinetically stable (usual conditions), we do not observe its "decayment" to graphite.
Pressure can turn coal into diamond or crush it to dust. MacGyver dixit
So can these combinations be observed? I have to say "yes", but they're all unnatural states. Even if metastable conditions could be achieved by moderated conditions, sociotypes would not develop into these enneagrams if not forced.
I cannot say this explanation makes no sense, but I see several problems. For working we should consider that the "fulfillment" is mirror, considering only positive aspects and ignoring negative ones in this path.for example consider this picture of the e5 type dynamic
http://www.9types.com/epd/5.php
The top portion can be loosely related to any thinking type, but the bottom portion seems to only apply to introverts. Thus as an e5 is closer to unhealthy levels they are more likely to represent LII or ILI or some INTx, and as the e5 is closer to health they may also represent an ILE.
In socionics we could consider this a transition from
This isn't to imply that LII is less healthy but that potentially self-development can occur in which one may transition from extroverted to introverted or vice versa in order to resolve the negative aspects of one orientation. I think there is a difference between introversion that is stable and positive and introversion that is unstable and undesired and forced or brought on by isolation or fear. I'd argue that being in a position of unstable and unhealthy introversion doesn't mean a person is convergent towards introversion but divergent away from it ultimately and towards another attractor in their self-development.
Let's suppose we start with average type X. An X user has a stronger (leading) ego function and a weaker (creative) ego function. If the user focuses too much in leading, then the user becomes unbalanced (not strengthening the weaker creative) and moves away from what the mirror represents. This agree with what you say.
Strengthening creative is required for becoming balanced, but only to a certain degree. You cannot (or maybe should not) strengthen creative to the point of using it more than leading, because this is another way (although less usual) of becoming unbalanced. The main worldview, idiosyncrasy of type X is leading, not creative. In fact, they represent opposite views, for example Ne=chaos and Ti=order. Creative is a tool that you use to fulfill the needs of main function (well, oversimplifying a bit). You have to learn how to use this tool, the better you do the more you can achieve, but the tool is not the goal, only the way, so to speak. If you focus too much in leading, you do not learn how to use the tool you need to achieve your needs, but if you focus too much in creative, you're negating your own needs.
I must say that all of this is a way of speaking. Functions are models, limit cases, I do not think we can divide, isolate them. The ego block (in fact the whole personality) is an indivisible whole, but it's still "polarized". Going from X to mirror is not just evolving, but becoming something different. Still, again, intermediate points are possible, but as the natural state is polarized, it's not stable...
So as E5 is much more a natural state for LII than for ILE, an ILE+E5 is not an "evolved ILE" as it seems, but an ILE in a forced state. An evolved ILE is a 7 integrated to 5, not a pure 5.
Anyway there are still incompatibilities between both models, so... Why a LII E5 disintegrates to 7? 5 to 7 disintegration works well with ILI 5s (the archetypal 5, in fact); but it should not apply to LII. 5 to 8 integration (Se dual seeking) also works for ILIs, but not for LIIs (Se PoLR...). Are we sure LIIs are 5 capables?(I'm joking).
I'm quite suspicious about which methodology the creators of these modes used for testing their hypothesis (if any). As Enneagram concepts are even less falsifiable than Socionics ones, in case of conflict I trust Socionics a bit more (but still not too much).
Last edited by MensSuperMateriam; 02-06-2013 at 10:00 AM.
My very first roommate was IEE E5 and showed all the signs. I noticed that she was a lot more active online for one. She was into sewing and DIY and had tons of accounts and an Etsy store and spent an inordinate amount of time in her room working on that stuff. She was also scientifically inclined and spent a lot of time listening to related podcasts and stuff, but once or twice a week she would go out with an ILE and another IEE and party. At home it was virtually impossible for most people to pull her out of her bubble and get her to be less withdrawn. I wouldn't rule out E5 for an extrovert at all. She definitely wasn't an introvert--relied too much on external factors for validation.
Dandelion Fluff Upon a Spoon
Could you explain what you mean by this?
Looks like Pierre smokes a lot. Besides, I don't really know what's the point in arguing over something that supposedly affects every Sociotype. That is, the possibility...
For when you actually allow the possibility of, say, I don't know SEEs E5 you make it possible for every Sociotype correlate with every E-type, unless ones "possibilities" have a plug located somewhere that you can pull thus rendering the possible possibilities not possible.
If IEE equals E5, SEE can equal E5.
If ILI can equal E1, IEE can equal E1.
There is no limit in this, unless one says that only IEE can equal E1 but not ILI anymore - one is creating rules then that one applies.
Don't know about MensSuperMateriam, nor really followed this thread, but providing he self-types E5 and extrovert, he kicked himself in the groin.
So the whole notion of this can be but that can't has been quite funny to me seeing different people advance the point it can and can't. What would be middle ground here? I don't think there is one and won't be one as long it is treated relative by most people which simply means there is nothing to argue about.
The same can be done trying to prove/disprove the existence of Sociotypes, for on the basis we know they exist, we can also say they don't exist by merits of the same logic, I think...
Last edited by Absurd; 02-21-2013 at 11:18 AM.
Don't make stupid statements, please. Do you see any sociotype or enneatype in my profile? No? Me neither.
I've expressed in this thread (speaking without reading, really intelligent) that I consider myself likely an extrovert and consequently I'm ruling out E5 for myself.
(In fact, I actually think I do not fit in E5 regardless sociotype).
Last edited by MensSuperMateriam; 02-21-2013 at 02:11 PM.
You're welcome.
No, I'm deaf not blind.Do you see any sociotype or enneatype in my profile? No? Me neither.
You're welcome.I've expressed in this thread (speaking without reading, really intelligent
(In fact, I actually think I do not fit in E5 regardless sociotype).
You know another important aspect people are forgetting is wings.
e6 is a viable type for ILE
e5 is a viable type for LII
so then where does that leave someone who is balanced between an e5 and e6? probably in the same realm as ILE-Ti and LII-Ne.
I like the system of probabilities personally and I'm probably going to adhere to that over hard and restrictive rules. I happen to personally like the enneagram a bit better than socionics, and am fairly sure I'm e5, so maybe I'm actually LII instead of ILE, but really I have so many issue with socionics that I find nailing this down irrelevant. For one I dislike the intertype relations-- they seem to be oriented towards grouping people into "quadras" which seems to be a very tribal like idea. I've met many people in rl that I'd type SEE and I'll admit there is quite a bit of difference in psychology and orientation, but its never been outright conflict. Likewise I've met people who are supposedly my dual or identical that I have trouble tolerating. I wish socionics would do a better job addressing these issues as well as address development within the self better.
Personality is based on more stuff than just type. Two persons of the same type can have very different intelligence levels for example. Life experience often proves other people's points of view as valid regardless if they are opposite to your own and a person who has learned stuff from members of other quadras is likely going to seem different than a person who only has experience with people who has values like his own. In that sense you're misinterpreting Socionics because it merely describes the effort you have to make to communicate with members of other types and quadras; not that you should restrict yourself to like minded individuals.
What you're describing is perfectly normal. Super Egos (in your case, SEE) often have some sort mutual admiration and it rarely turns into conflict. Also, keep in mind that IEE and ILE are the most open types of the entire Socion and it's also normal that you can relate to a lot of people, more so than other types.
The issues you're having with identicals and duals are also normal. Identicals strive to occupy the same space and thus often turns into competition. From my experience, if they are the opposite subtype their presence might even become unbearable because each becomes overly critic of the other (having different emphasis over things that are essentially the same).
About duals, subtype also plays a major role. I personally have had ugly conflicts with Te-SLIs. Their ego is quite fragile. One I remember was with an engineer at VW when I went there to demonstrate a magnetic brake I invented. He said I couldn't predict its performance unless it was through an empirical test (and I did present a working experiment, it simply was not installed in a car). I simply replied 'Yes, I can' (because to me it's simply a fact that being an inventor consists in exactly that: predicting the behavior of stuff that doesn't exist yet). And this guy went nuts, we were this close to physically fighting each other. Te subtypes are bossy and proud (more LSE like) and this guy obviously didn't like that I challenged his opinion so confidently. Si-SLIs are more SEI like, this is, more laid-back. They are usually more confident and less sensitive.
[
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
Actually I disagree that I'm misinterpreting Socionics, although I think your point is valid. The fact of the matter is most of the material I've read at least in english tends to represent intertype relations in a manner in consistent with what you are saying. Some sources assert that psychological distance should be maintained between one's conflictor or other types in opposing quadras. I find this view alienating and disturbing. In this way Socionics is actually prescribing restricting oneself to like minded individuals. Also its very common in practice for people to express negative experiences with other people as characterizing a "conflictor" relationship or as being from another quadra.
The thing is I actually agree with you in that it should not restrict oneself to like minded individuals, but very little information has been presented in the english speaking socionics community which paints a positive and non-alienating view of opposing quadras and there interactions. Even worse many MBTI systems have completely incompatible ideas on intertype relations based on entirely different principles -- forcing one to accept socionics at the cost of some other intellectual idea, and many times this is done purely out of preference with very little critical argument as to why duality and conflict should work the way it works. A lot of people understand the theory, but I've seen very few people take time to really prove or confirm its validity in reality. Some people will even say "its not science, it doesn't need to be confirmed"... which to me sounds like a cop out for sloppy thinking and subjective preference in place of actual truth or characterization of the human experience.
Socionics itself is based on a theory of how people metabolize information, so at best conflict or duality is merely based on this ground, but the level to which its extended without due explanation has always disturbed me.
Finally I really dislike all the BS centering around semantics; like type, temperament, personality, orientation, and so forth. It's all pretty much the same damn thing, we are characterizing the nature of "man" and understanding the differences in peoples.
This to me just sounds like a cop out explanation, like you are trying to force socionics to be valid, making something work. Also saying stuff like "perfectly normal" and "is often the case" is a great way to talk to sound authoritative and like you know stuff, but its hardly convincing. This isn't something I just thought up yesterday, this has been rolling around in my head from the first week I discovered socionics, several years ago, since I joined the forum. The only reason I'm not more vocal about it is because of the kind of fanatical and fervent opposition I ran into initially. I feel like a lot of people try to force things to work for there own sense of internal validity as opposed to questioning the system.
Also people like to misinterpret these criticisms as destruction of personality theory, where I look at it different-- as building a stronger system of understanding. I've tried hundreds of times in my early days on this forum to get my points across but all I met was irrationality and fanaticism.
Basically the same thing as above, its very authoritative sounding and not really convincing. It just sounds like you are trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Well that's a nice story, but honestly I don't really care besides the point you are making about subtypes but still this still sounds like square peg into round hole. I would propose alternative ideas, but long ago I've figured out people are very set in their bias towards socionics. One huge problem I've had is the theory doesn't address development of the functions, it simply assumes in a way that people are born with certain functions strong, weak, valued, and unvalued-- these plug into 8 little slots and create 16 types and these types relate to each other based on specific rules. This seems like a good static model of personality, but it doesn't take into account that people's psychology is dynamic and they can work on their weaknesses and fall behind on conditioning their strengths, and can modify their values. It doesn't take into account the difference in extremely polarized personalities versus balanced personalities. It doesn't take into account alternative theories on how individuals relate to each other. It merely assumes that say a preference inand
Unfortunately socionics in its present practice and formulation doesn't address this. It's a static model, it doesn't account for self-development and alternative ideas on harmonization between individuals. In my opinion its simplistic and offensive to assume such an overly fixed model of relations between people-- its like a doctor trying to prescribe you something you may not actually feel like you need.
At the same time I'm not amiss to completely discard socionics, it has its use and is a logical system that expresses something useful. It's just people are far to easy on it, they don't ever want to critically poke holes in the theory. They want to prematurely validate it and go to extreme lengths to make it work. I think like any model it has its practical limit to its usefulness and people who disregard that aspect are merely just fanatics who adhere to it so that they can avoid thinking and asking difficult questions and can instead feel like they have all the answers to every relationship and personal issue in there pocket. Isn't it a bit ridiculous to think some eastern bloc psychologist miraculously discovered a perfect and infallible system that should not be questioned?
I want to ask these questions, and from my initial studies I've even learned that jung played around with idea of how the functions develop in the individual. Sadly this aspect was omitted in the formulation of theories like MBTI and Socionics.
The one aspect I like about the enneagram is it addresses self-development. It integrates logic with feeling and understands the individual as a whole psychology and entity, and it attempts to understand how the types relate to each other at a fundamental level with wings and lines of integration and other patterns. The enneagram just doesn't have as strong of a social understanding in intertype relations. But socionics isn't that far ahead -- it merely assumes there are only two functions which I as an individual value but am weak in and that its impossible to build strength in these as an individual and instead I must seek it from my dual -- and wah-la! magically we have duality. It seems a little artificial to me... why only two functions? why do I need a dual? why can't I receive constructive interaction from functions that I am strong in? strong relative to what? an absolute standard? relative to other functions? The questions go on and on, and the only answers I tend to get are authoritative accusations about how these questions are creepy, ignorant, and show a lack of understanding in socionics. An appeal to my willful submission to the ideas of some eastern bloc psychologist. An appeal to forgoing my critical capacities in place of an acceptance of some arbitrary system.
Last edited by male; 02-22-2013 at 07:48 AM.
Is avarice a trait for introverts only?
In short, yes. You can learn a lot from members of your opposing quadra but it will take a lot of energy if you do so directly. Contrary to what people believe, interactions are not so much about will power and good disposition; there is some deep lack of understanding and misinterpretation. And to prove this I'm going to quote you:
This demonstrates in practice that a Ti valuers dismiss information provided by Fi valuers as merely "gossip". If I didn't know about Socionics I would probably take offense here.
One thing I'm convinced of is that type is permanent. People are born with a type and they remain that type until they die. A definition I like about what is real and what is not is: reality is defined by what's consistent.
I'm just as skeptical as you. The issue I see is that I understand that people and types are different levels of the same thing. There is nothing wrong about the system if interaction between types is predicted in some way and it turns out to be different when it comes to real people. Socionics describes the essence of an individual, not his behavior.
No, what I see here is that you have too much confidence in your own mind and prefer to be skeptical about theory than about yourself not being fully capable of understanding it. Most of the critic you've exposed here is about stuff that Socionics doesn't even pretend to do.
Actually, functions do not evolve, they are simple constructs about fundamental ways in which information is handled. What you mean is information gathered by individuals, what we know as experience. Rationality is an extreme of how behavior follows memory: rationals usually do not think about things twice, they just do so once and from there they follow their conclusion unless it becomes too evident that it no longer applies. This is what allows people to behave in many ways that seem contradictory to their type: they just execute a program that they learned without really giving it much thought.
Basically, yes.It doesn't take into account alternative theories on how individuals relate to each other. It merely assumes that say a preference in
Actually, you're confused here, Socionics doesn't have the concept of "feeling". Socionics has "ethics" and it's another form of logic; it has nothing to do with emotions. Feeling is Jungian/MBTI.
No, it doesn't. And again, it predicts relationship between types, not between people.
It's true that we could build a system that extends the basic notions of Socionics. I've already began working in one by the way.
[
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
If by "functions do not evolve" you are adressing Shang's statement on the development of functions ("but it doesn't take into account that people's psychology is dynamic and they can work on their weaknesses and fall behind on conditioning their strengths, and can modify their values"), you are either missing his point, you don't understand what you're talking about, or i'm not understanding awhat youre connecting to the word evolve.
Via Jung himself, amongst others, you develop the different functions at different times in your life. The first thing a child tends to develop is the functions in their ego. The Role tends to develop in an individual around adulthood. The time spent developing these functions increases the adequacy you have in utilizing them. Granted, You can't use Te and Fe at the same time because they contradict each other, but you can certainly use either, and just using them is enough to get better at them. Practice makes perfect is a universal platitude. You can also correlate this to the metaphor of one's shadow. The more ignored one's shadow is, the less capable one is of controlling its manifestations. To not ignore would demand involvement, and involvement in a function consciously absolutely leads to practice in that area. To conquer one's shadow you have to actively acknowledge it and work at it.
To say that functions don't develop is just nonsensical to me, it would imply that a 2 year old is as good with Te(or all the other functions) as he's ever going to be.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Yea actually I used to hold this view as well and claim the same thing, but really here my intention is to criticize the entire system
Actually I don't know that many people that believe that, but I never asserted that interactions are based on will power and good disposition. I just think sometimes its a little more complex than the model that socionics presents.
How about you try to prove something that isn't offensive. This is what is very annoying about the way you go about things. You are trying to prove I have a deep lack of understanding and misinterpretation. What you are trying to prove is about me, not about ideas and psychological. Please stop being such an ass. I don't think I have a lack of understanding, none the less a deep one. You are trying to assert yourself in the role of a teacher and its pretty offensive. Nothing is wrong with communicating ideas or teaching someone something but this is kind of arrogant-- you are assuming my thoughts are merely "wrong" and you will shortly teach me a lesson through quotations. Really take a second and think about how this is like on the receiving end please.
Actually I think its different, see your story kind of annoyed me because it was all about how smart you are and how you invented this thing and this other guy couldn't see how it was useful because you are an inventor and he wasn't. You also made it sound like it had nothing to do with your own faults, but merely the guy was bossy and proud. You were also saying this in a context where you are making claims that I don't understand socionics. I'm trying to keep my composure but you are coming across kind of douchey like you are some all wise sage and everyone who disagrees with you is merely at fault because of there pride. It's a bit self-aggrandizing, and really I'm kind of skeptical about such assertions -- I wasn't there myself to judge if he was really bossy and proud. Maybe you said something offensive to him like "you have a deep lack of understanding and misinterpretation, I will teach you about my magnetic brake!". In my experience, people don't respond well to that kind of rhetoric because you are immediately invalidating their ideas instead of critically discussing them on the same level of them. You are disrespecting the intellects of other human beings and trying to come off like "teacher". That's why I really don't give a shit about your story, it was nothing to do with "gossip", but thanks for putting words in my mouth teacher. I'm glad though socionics allows you not to take offense here.
See I disagree here, I mean you can make a definition like that. You can say type is permanent and constant and we can define type that way, but then I guess my question is concerning strength of functions? This means that a weak function can never grow strong and a strong function can never grow weak -- what evidence is there for that? To me intuitively this is warped. I have witnessed in observation that people psychological overcome weaknesses and sometimes grow weak in something they don't regularly practice.
The quote about reality is defined by what's consistent... I guess its interesting but really what I'm talking about is statics and dynamics and not consistent and inconsistent. These are two different meanings.
Socioincs describes the essence of an individual. Once again I'd disagree it's actually a model based on functions and information metabolism -- you've taken quite a leap to say that functions and information metabolism defines the essence of an individual. This is view I run into all the time where people say type is consistent and it describes the "essence" of a person. No it doesn't. I understand what people are trying to get at when they talk about essence. But I think the essence of an individual is more complex and unique than a simple theory like socionics can describe entirely.
What I don't understand is how you seem to distinguish people from types, and saying "well a type isn't a person, personality is more complex than type" but also you are saying type is constant, real, and describes one's essence. This seems contradictory, and hence I get the feeling you are throwing a collection of ideas out here and there you've heard through other sources to try to defend socionics to make it "work". Even worse you are doing this from a self-assumed teacher role and accusing me of a deep lack of understanding. It's very annoying/agitating.
This is just wrong. I do understand the basic ideas of the theory. What I will agree with you on is that possibly I may disagree about its application. I think many people have convinced themselves they understand it fully in practice, while I am very skeptical about its application in practice. You seem to be very set in not seeing some of the problems I see in practice, claiming that I don't understand socionics and that I'm making false claims. I don't really see where I'm doing this, maybe you could be more specific about these. To me I've found your attempts to describe things unimpressive. You've made several contradictions -- especially saying stuff like "reality is way is consistent" in reference to types and then saying stuff like "a type is different from a real person". Well which is it? Is a type something real and consistent that describes the essence of a person or is it a theoretical construct that is different from a real person. I don't know, to me it seems like you are saying what is convenient to drive your point home like a dishonest "priest" of socionics versus a prophet of truth.
Lol I just disagree about this. Functions may be constructs, but still I would argue they evolve in terms of strength or weakness. More information and insight and wisdom into an area that a particular function addresses allows it to grow stronger through experience. Also the claim about rationality makes sense, but it seem simplistic and overly stereotyped. I have trouble believing real people act like a machine, obeying type stereotypes so that socionics is satisfied. Type and personality theory was invented to characterize people and their nature... this thinking is so warped, its like you are trying to make the behaviors of people fit the theory -- it's completely reserve and it shows in your writing, you may people sound like machines, which is what they are when you force them to mechanically obey some system of personality in your mind.
See this is how you think, YES and NO. No critical thought.
Actually yes that's true it is "ETHICS" but essentially its very much the same thing from what I've read, and I don't think it changes my point much.
Perhaps you could expand on the differences between types and peoples.
Good for you, I don't know where this is really applicable to our conversation so sorry for being a bit of an ass, but putting this at the end just seems like a way for you to flaunt how smart and sage-like you are. Now that you've just schooled a novice you are letting him know about your big plans to create a new system! WOW! Seriously before you open your mouth consider how you sound on the opposite end please. I'm not trying to be mean, but you come across very arrogant and easily throw yourself into a teacher role when someone hasn't really asked for that and you haven't really assessed your own intellect relative to another -- this is a very offensive trait in my opinion.
Sorry but I refuse to give in to drama. First, that quote was about misunderstanding between you and me, not about you regarding Socionics. Also I do not mean to belittle you so whatever you feel about what I say is your own business. But just to be fair and to acknowledge your feelings, I will say that contrary to what you think, I do have a quite positive image about you (and about @Galen and @MensSuperMateriam, for that matter). I've read many of your posts and you seem knowledgeable and reasonable. I just accuse you of being too narrow minded sometimes (Galen in particular). It's just that I have a tendency to focus on the negative, on the wrong, on the missing. And you have to admit that you are taking specific critic and turning it into general against your persona.
For the record, I won't back from my statement: I do hold the view that you're missing certain aspects and implications of Socionics. I'm not questioning your knowledge about the system itself, I'm questioning if you understand its true meaning and position in the grand scheme of things. You're NT, I'm NF. Keep that in mind.
That's just your prejudice talking. It's like accusing a movie director of bragging because he narrates his casual breakfast with a famous actor. Such situations are uncommon for you and me, but for a movie director they are business as usual. And it's just the same about me being an inventor, you're simply not familiar about it.
Right under your nose and still don't get it? Socionics is a model of information metabolism but what about information itself?
A type and a person are different levels of the same thing as I said. Personality begins with a type and develops with the addition of information. But what is information? In the context of Socionics we can describe it as the set of strategies meant to deal with real world issues effectively. Everyone is capable of being a passive receptor of such. Given enough it may even give the impression that you've become strong in some area but reality is that you do nothing but to imitate. What makes your type truly meaningful is that it gives you self sufficiency in some area. This is, in that area you can be creative and produce your own strategies.
Instinct is an area that concerns Socionics but it doesn't currently address. It's low level information, kind of a BIOS / Operating System in a computer. This is what my work is about.
[
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
