You can view the page at http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-by-E-Filatova
You can view the page at http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-by-E-Filatova
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
This is pretty interesting. It's all fairly straightforward and common sense stuff, but it's a good read nonetheless.
To summarize, in Filatova's perception:
Most to least masculine types:
+3: SLE, LSI, LIE, LSE, SLI
+2: ESI, LII, SEE
+1: ILE, ESE
-2: EIE, EII, IEE
Most to least feminine types:
+3: SEI, ESE, IEI, EIE, SEE, EII, IEE
=0: LSI, ILI, LSE, SLI
-1: ILE, LII, SLE, LIE
Looks like Filatova didn't want to disparage any of the women reading her article and distributed positive scores to most of the types. The scores that I would disagree with are IEIs being more masculine than SEIs and EIIs, ESIs being most masculine of all IxFx types, and IEEs being more masculine than SEEs. In this sense I agree more with Gulenko's assignments (link).
Most masculine types: SLE, SLI, LII, LIE
Intermediary types, masculine predominates: IEI, IEE, ESE, ESI
Intermediary types, feminine predominates: LSE, LSI, ILI, ILE
Most feminine types: EII, EIE, SEE, SEI
why did this article post in Article instead of Article Commentary forum @hkkmr?
Last edited by silke; 12-17-2013 at 08:25 AM.
You meant less, right? Because IEI have -3 as score and SEI and EII -1 and -2.The scores that I would disagree with are IEIs being more masculine than SEIs and EIIs
Why not? They're the only ones with Se, and their feeling is introverted, so they may often play the role of the "strong and silent type" (depending on their upbringing, ofc.).ESIs being most masculine of all IxFx types
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
EII > SEI > IEI > ESI
With the EII being the girly girl type, and the ESI being the slightly tomboyish girl.
Well, if they're male ESIs, I don't think their female partners mind being emasculated - if that can be applicable to a woman.why not? if that in any way emasculates their LIE partners
Perhaps you're referring to the femminity scale. I'd then argue that you can't really use "more masculine" but you'd rather have to say "less feminine", since there's two explictly separated scales.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Harmful stereotypes. Conflation of dimensions results in less understood/accepted ways of being. Can be a a self fulfilling prophecy.
I don't really agree with these judgments of type. I do, however, have my own conception of masculinity and femininity, but not judging by behavior. According to the idea of the stereotypical male mindset, in which an individual is geared more toward technical subjects cognitively and less inclined toward communication and ease of human connection, I rate types with creative thinking as being the most cognitively masculine. More specifically, negativitist creative thinkers tend to be the most separate from groups and disinclined toward human connection and relationships. There are a number of qualities which modify this, such as actual gender and the presence of a disorder like Aspergers Syndrome. Positivist creative feelers are conversely the most cognitively feminine. Don't get me wrong though. I'm not saying that exemplars of these types cannot possess strengths that don't align with this idea. NCTs (negativitist creative thinkers) are often suspiciously good with people when they feel like it, and PCFs are often rather clever with things one would consider to be the domain of NCTs. These are simply general trends I've noticed. And really, they make quite a good deal of sense, considering that all creative thinkers have a weakness in the area of feeling.
I'll take the traditional feminine role.
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
My ranking would be:
1. LSI +2
2. SLI +2
3. SLE +2
4. LIE +2
5. SEE +1
6. LSE +1
7. ESI +1
8. SEI 0
9. ESE 0
10. ILI 0
11. LII 0
12. ILE 0
13. IEE -1
14. EIE -1
15. EII -2
16. IEI -2
1. ESE +2
2. SEI +2
3. EII +2
4. IEI +2
5. IEE +2
6. ESI +1
7. EIE +1
8. SEE +1
9. LSE +1
10. ILI 0
11. SLI 0
12. LSI -1
13. LII -2
14. SLE -2
15. ILE -2
16. LIE -2
Last edited by DaftPunk; 12-23-2013 at 01:22 PM.
I'd just like to point out that we can assign what we perceive is our society's most recent mythos of a "female set of behaviors" or a "male set of behaviors," but if we ACTUALLY think these things--ways of being, behaviors, primary function usages--are more or less of the female sort or of the male sort, we're engaging in unscientific mass generalizations which, strangely ignore the basis of the theory we're dealing with...the idea that it's similar psyche functions that are being utilized by similar brains which often result in similar behaviors.
This works for me. I was always very comfortable being a girl and feminine, so +3 sounds right. My brothers on the other hand are also all +3 for guys: ESTJ, ExTJ, ISTp. I liked being the "different" one growing up (most of the time).
I don't think types can be considered masculine or feminine really, but if there is anything, probably Beta and Gamma are more masculine and Alpha and Delta are more feminine because of the Se in the former quadras and Si in the latter. Even that seems to be a quite weak correlation. I also think that, regarding judging functions, Fe and Ti are more masculine, while Fi and Te are more feminine (mostly just Fi). I mean, Fe includes all the traditionally "macho" kinds of emotions (i.e. rage, standing up for your externally-based values like a heroic warrior), which are also valued in the Romance cultures that originated the concept of "macho", although of course the Tx will probably come across more masculine generally.
You also know a paper is bad when it mentions unfalsifiable evolutionary psychology BS from the outset.
I don't see how Narc said it's "commonsense"...
Also, to add something, I don't see how they rated masculinity and feminity without any regard to introversion and extraversion. It seems if you want a man to go out in public and be initiating and a woman to sit around the house and be responsive you'd want a stereotypically extraverted man and introverted woman above all else (not that that's how extraversion and introversion actually work, but they didn't get how anything else works either).
In terms of stereotypical masculinity/feminity though, here are my observations:
Stereotypicaly masculine: ILI
Stereotypically feminine: SEI
Everyone else tends to not fit male/female stereotypes in rather significant ways. Gulenko's masculinity/feminity of types seems to have nothing to do with stereotypical ideas of "manliness" or "girliness".
Last edited by Pallas; 10-02-2016 at 09:51 PM.
And now, the elephant in the room... how has a gendered perspective impacted socionics theory as a whole?
Think of romantic attitudes (aggressor-victim/ infantile-caregiver), for example.
Bias cannot be avoided, sure. But it can be detected.
Aggressor: Wants to be loved abstractly (static/intuitive)
Victim: Wants to love abstractly (dynamic/intuitive)
Caregiver: Wants to be loved concretely (static/sensing)
Infantile: Wants to love concretely (dynamic/sensing)
Aggressor and Caregiver see love as a static state and once they can make the other person love them, they'll stay that way, and Victim and Infantile see love as a dynamic state and something they constantly have to do, so they continually show their admiration for the other person, is the logic behind that. If anything in Socionics needs a name change, it's probably the romantic attitudes.
The obvious problem with how they're characterized to me is that in American culture at least, Victim is supposed to be more masculine and Aggressor more feminine ("women need to play hard-to-get and find a man who really admires them", cf. the knight and the princess, or Goethe's various protagonists who fall in love with these idolized women), although Caregiver is still more masculine and Infantile more feminine (Caregiver = breadwinner), so basically the whole Beta and Gamma quadrants are more stereotypically suited towards masculine romance styles (having Ni/Se) and Alpha and Delta towards feminine (having Ne/Si). However, in reality there are basically an equal amount of people of both sexes in all of the quadras, so romance is probably just a pain in the arse for basically exactly half of the population. Aggressor and Victim seem to have no correlation with any sort of BDSM activities from what I've seen (although that probably has a correlation with Infantile/Caregiver since those are modulated by Si and Se, which do seem to correlate with that kind of thing. Someone should study this).
Last edited by Pallas; 10-03-2016 at 03:10 AM.
^aggressor is sensing, caregiver is dynamic, and infantile is static and intuitive
The only element that comes off of overtly anything, is Se which is masculine. The others honestly could vary. For me personally... from most masculine to most feminine, it goes...
Se > Te > Fe > Ti > Ni > Fi > Si > Ne
SLE > SEE > LIE > EIE > LSI > LSE > ESI > ESE > ILI > IEI > SLI > SEI > LII > ILE > EII > IEE
ES-Beta,ES-Gamma, EN-Gamma, EN-Beta, IS-Beta, ES-Delta, IS-Gamma, ES-Alpha, IN-Gamma, IN-Beta, IS-Delta, IS-Alpha, IN-Alpha, EN-Alpha, IN-Delta, EN-Delta.
Extrovert, Extrovert, Extrovert, Extrovert, Introvert, Extrovert,Introvert, Extrovert, Introvert, Introvert, Introvert, Introvert, Introvert, Extrovert, Introvert, Extrovert
Irrational, Irrational,Rational, Rational, Rational, Rational, Rational, Rational, Irrational, Irrational, Irrational, Irrational,Rational, Irrational, Rational, Irrational
Se seems to be the most influential factor in this o_o And then the whole Extraverted vs Introverted and Rational vs Irrational deal... which actually is just temperament.
I realize none of that was truly necessary. You can uh leave now and pretend you learned something from me. ;3
TELL ME IF U AGREE OR LEAVE A LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE ^_^
Last edited by chrys; 10-03-2016 at 05:27 AM.
I've always thought ILE-Ti was the most feminine, most beautiful, and the most charming (I hate that I'm too boring for them), then SLE and EIE. I know of a few ex-models who are ILE-Ti. I don't see what's masculine about being a scientist (some scientific fields were started by women and women score higher, on average, on tests of deductive reasoning and spatial relation abilities anyway), being bossy sometimes, and having a crude sense of humor sometimes and not being a "people person". In fact (from my observations), ILE-Ti have the highest right hand 2D4D ratio of all the types. In other words, they have the lowest prenatal testosterone of all the types. And it has been documented by Alyson Blanchard (a very talented ILE-Ti researcher from the U.K.) and Uddin (I think his paper was from University of Michigan) that women who are calmer, less polite, and have less emotional empathy have less prenatal testosterone on average than women who don't go against "traditional gender roles".
LIE, SEE, IEE, and SLI (in that order) are the most masculine.
Ummm...well there is the research that males with higher digit ratios try not to play favorites with people (ILE trademark) maybe this is biologically more feminine trait where as "playing nice" with females means trying to show off and therefore conquering is a masculine trait.
I have quite high digit ratio for a male (close to +2 SD).
But then you are not agreeing with society's standards which is considered to be masculine trait. It is in eyes of a beholder.
Measuring you right now
Winning is for losers
This issue (gender position) depends on subtypes. IEI-Fe is more masculine than IEI-Ni, LIE-Ni is more androgynous than LIE-Te. Also, it depends on appearance vs actual maculinity/feminity. Someone might look more feminine, but turn out to be masculine in behavior or viceversa. Moreover, grooming is another factor, A LIE-Ni uses minimal grooming, hence a LIE-Ni woman might seem more masculine but it is not a reliable measurement for determining feminity. Enneagram is also a very important factor. This is all a very simpleminded approach to the issue it wouldn't surprise me if it has been done by an ESI (and if I'm not mistaken, Filatova is a self-typed ESI).
Last edited by mclane; 09-23-2019 at 07:39 PM.
But yes, subtype plays a huge difference in masculinity vs femininity, the SLE-Ti is much more feminine than the SLE-Se and SLE-Ti seem more feminine overall than masculine. Same with LSI-Se being more feminine than LSI-Ti. I personally think not showing intense emotion is more feminine, and LSI-Se show less emotion (especially intensity), on average (not a huge difference, but it's certainly there, they're a lot less tense, much less likely to yell or explode, except sometimes to get what they want) than LSI-Ti and LSI-Se behavior is much less influenced by their own emotional states and they're much more objective, driven by logic and their own experiences, and professional in their behavior towards others (of course their are exceptions).