Whaa?? How do you come to this conclusion? I just feel a kindred spirit in him and not the socionics kind of kindred. You got me fucked up, i.e. confused. I certainly didn't mean to give that impression.I just like his energy.Originally Posted by Park
Edit: I realize I may have taken this wrong as well and it might just be innocent teasing so if it is I apologize for sounding defensive.
Last edited by Aylen; 04-06-2014 at 10:12 PM. Reason: edit out tmi
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Okay, decided to do this properly:
STAGE 1: Answer the following four questions, then answer the last two:
A. Which one describes you better most of the time?
I create a system of rules, a system of ranking and organizing things.
I am more attentive to maintaining relationships with people.
-I am not an organised person. No matter how much I try to be. I hate rules and restrictions, and while I thrive for logical consistency, I mostly create that in terms of classification for very specific items, rather than following an overall logical structure. I also do hate generalisations so very much!
And I can often go out of my way to maintain a relatively positive relationship with everyone. I am usually the guy that no one holds anything against, and I am very attentive to how I express my views. I honestly belief every type is represented among my friends.
B. Which one describes you better most of the time?
I am more attentive to managing resources efficiently and rationally.
I am more attentive to people’s moods/emotions and emotional arousability.
-I am also not a practical person. I am the very opposite of that in fact, even though I would argue that I am quite rational in intellectual matters. However, I am good at influencing people by saying the right things the right way. This is one of the reasons I am regarded as having a psychologist personality. Like typical for my 5-2-9 enneagram tritype (Which really is a great description of me), I try to use my knowledge to come up with meaningful solutions to their problems, while changing/manipulating their mood and mentality in the process.
C. Which one describes you better most of the time?
I am more attentive to sensations and what I experience physically.
I am more attentive to a pattern of events that occur over a span of time. I have a sense of when things might happen.
-VERY EASY for me to answer. I suck at paying attention to physical sensations, both around and within me. And even if I do get in contact with them, they are very easy for me to ignore.
I often think about how a specific situation might develop though. While I may not get a completely clear vision of what is going to happen, I certainly always get a single general, somewhat vague idea of how it’s going to play out.
I am also often advising myself and others to look to the future and see how their situation can be improved. Not sure of that is related though.
D. Which one describes you better most of the time?
I am more attentive to the strength/power of people and things.
I am more attentive to the potential/capability of people and things, which can be developed. I am attentive to inherent possibilities.
-However, this may be related to my previous answer. I am very good at noticing peoples hidden potential, or helping them notice it themselves and coming to terms with it. I try to view all traits from multiple perspectives and see the positive in the negative (And the negative in the positive). I can often give a very thorough explanation of people, sometimes even making them aware of strengths they didn’t even know they had in the first place.
a. Which one describes you better most of the time?
proactive
relaxed
-Not much to expand here.
b. Which one describes you better most of the time?
mobile and spontaneous
calm and balanced
-Was a bit close, but I lean towards the latter based on what other people tell me.
A. Which one describes you better most of the time?
Calm and contemplative. Romantic in spirit. You try to escape from negative emotions. Optimistic. As a rule, you avoid conflict situations and want to achieve compromises.
You are charming and sociable. If you see negative emotions around you in people, you will try to reduce it. You are ready for action in dangerous situations. You possess a sense of humour. You can easily influence people by using intonations in your voice.
a. Was the above question quite difficult to answer?
Yes, it was quite difficult
No, it wasn't that difficult
-Must admit that I am a bit smitten by the word “comtemplative”. Even so, I certainly relate more to everything in the first box, but calling me an optimist would be a bit of a stretch. Complaining is my #1 favourite activity. Hippies hate me for it, since it conflicts with the "don't worry, be happy" mentality they have, and I guess also may be quite the opposite from what someone with my... prescence and looks (Lets go with that).
But I suck at acting in the moment. I am not completely dry (Though my humour style is), but most of my humour is very intern and I really don’t come off as a funny person unless you know me well. While I can easily influence people, it is not so much by how the message is being conveyed, but rather what is being said. And I hate actual conflict.
B. Which one describes you better most of the time?
You understand people well. You like a small group of friends. Your aim is humanitarian activity. You can be good at providing a service. You know how to make peace between people that are in conflict. You know how to smooth out a painful situation. You know how to create a pleasant situation and comfort in the home.
You are sincerely religious or adhere to an ethical system. You are restrained and self-disciplined. You are strict in following moral standards. You are also strict on other people if they don’t follow moral standards. In work, you are scrupulous. You are good at talking with people. You are good at giving simple yet efficient advice to them. You make it easy for people to open up with you.
b. Was the above question quite difficult to answer?
Yes, it was quite difficult
No, it wasn't that difficult
NO DOUBT! I understand people well. I prefer small friendgroups. I work within a humanitarian field. I am good at providing service in terms of helping out. I am also a very good mediator.
However I don’t restrict my morality to a set code of ethics (And am still an atheist). I can be self-disciplined, but usually take the stance of a moral relativist, and really do not like pushing my beliefs unto others, though I will often discuss them in an open and constructive way. I don’t believe in any sort of objective right or wrong, and think morals should be negotiated rather than simply “felt”.
In relation to your two quotes, I gotta be honest and say that I don't relate strongly to either. I usually don't have a problem with facts and seemingly objective information. I often have a source or two ready in a debate, to back up my arguments, but am likewise quite capable of deconstructing one if I feel like it seems unreliable or goes against my views or opinions. Having a critical mind and questioning objective knowledge/authorities is one of my main values, but at the same time, I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories, and try to be very rational about what to dismiss and what to accept. I guess this boils down to me wanting to at least hear both sides of the case.
Using the crisis in Ukraine as an example, I was first told about it by some of my class mates, who seemed very biased against Russia. This made me go investigate the case further from different angles (news sources) when I got home. I had a hard time accepting that the Russians just wanted power over Ukraine because they were "evil and power-hungry" (Seems like a quite one-dimensional view on people/countries, in my opinion). After looking up the several different presented perspectives, and discussing the case with my mother, I finally came to a conclusion about my opinion on the matter. Granted it isn't THAT far from the perspective painted by the media and my friends, but I at least tried to incorporate more sources in my decision making.
I am not sure which of the two this would lean against though?
Don't mind him, he is just anti-Fe'ing (I suspect he may be an ILI).Whaa?? How do you come to this conclusion? I just feel a kindred spirit in him and not the socionics kind of kindred. You got me fucked up, i.e. confused. I certainly didn't mean to give that impression.I just like his energy.
Edit: I realize I may have taken this wrong as well and it might just be innocent teasing so if it is I apologize for sounding defensive.I totally understand where you are coming from in your comments.
You're definitely a tough one. Most people choose their 5th over their 8th function, or their 6th over their 7th function on that test, which makes things easy. You did neither. Ni > Si seemed like an easy choice, which makes Si less likely to be your valued function. You were more certain about IP over EJ than IJ over EP, but that's not very relevant. You made comments that go both in favor of Fe ego and Te valuing, which wasn't helpful either. You seem to find ways to agree with opposing things without contradicting yourself, which goes to show you have strong Ne; and perhaps, just perhaps, are more attentive to Ti than to Te. All the objective relativism in your posts along with your general demeanor makes me want to vouch for IP temperament and IEI. EII remains a solid option, and pretty much the only viable alternative to IEI. If you're EII, you'd be Ne subtype.
Next step would be to read up on other types and relationship dynamics, try to see yourself in relation to other types (which judging from the way you've presented yourself should not be that hard for you) and decide where you fit better.
Last edited by Park; 04-07-2014 at 10:01 PM. Reason: minor corrections
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
If I were to ask you which of the following two statements are more prominent to yourself, could you pick one?
However, I am good at influencing people by saying the right things the right way. I try to use my knowledge to come up with meaningful solutions to their problems, while changing/manipulating their mood and mentality in the process.And what exactly do you mean by "negotiated" in the following sentence?While I can easily influence people, it is not so much by how the message is being conveyed, but rather what is being said.
I don’t believe in any sort of objective right or wrong, and think morals should be negotiated rather than simply “felt”.
Last edited by Park; 04-07-2014 at 10:01 PM.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Right. chosing between the two quotes is almost impossible for me, so I asked my best friend and my sister. My best friend (Who is most likely ILE) said that the first one describes me best, even though the second is also good. My sister (Who may be EIE) also told me the first one was the most precise. So it has to be:
"However, I am good at influencing people by saying the right things the right way. I try to use my knowledge to come up with meaningful solutions to their problems, while changing/manipulating their mood and mentality in the process."
Ugh, did I really say negotiated - Now I am literally starting to sound like the texts I spend most of my day reading.
What I mean by negotiated though, is that they are something that are decided by groups of people in specific cultures, to best fit their needs. Therefore they are relative and definitely not universal. While everyone has a given set of morals that might vary, they stem from a cultural context in which the morals have already been negotiated. So you are not born with them, and they aren't innate. But they are internalised (made personal) from society at a young age when learning to speak and think in a language. Therefore can seem like they are innate to some. However they are very bound (And therefore also limited) upon this language, and our culture and norms.
For instance, all us westernes have a fairly similar definition of freedom. This is because it has ground in a collective cultural understanding. Yet if you discuss freedom in Africa or the Middle East, the word and the concept behind it means something completely different to them (Due to a cultural difference). This leads to misunderstanding as the word (And moral) itself has a different meanings and interpretations, based on their relative cultural values.
So morals, ethics, rules, norms etc. are all constructions of our language. They have no actual objective structure or force behind the. It only seems that way because they are reproduced by society and individuals alike.
So they both see more Fe than Te valuing in you.
Morals should be decided to fit people's needs? That's trippy, dude. And unless you believe in an omnipotent god (which you don't), morals have to be innate in our species. If you grow up in a fucked up community, it doesn't mean you'll inherit it's moral values. And you don't have to have any "collective cultural understanding" to not be a sociopath.
Last edited by Park; 04-07-2014 at 11:02 PM.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Needs was probably not very specific. I am no utilitarian. But based on the societies relative values. Also, this is not me describing how I think morals should be, but rather how I think they are.
No they don't have to. I believe that they are continiously produced by a dialectic interaction between individuals and their contexts. However, no two individuals have the same premises, and are continiously influenced by their enviroments and likewise able reflect upon them. I'm not talking micro perspectives here, but rather trying to explain how language shapes and determines the settings and frame from which we can create and understand our worlviews and morals.
So I don't deny individual differentation. Not at all. But I don't view this as something we are born with, but rather something we create. Existence precedes essence. So what I argue, is that this differentiation is made from a relational interaction (Relational here constituting not only in relation to other people, but also relation to one self, through introspection), rather than a by biological pre-existing determining factor. A small bit of your personality can be biologically constituted, but it is a generally accepted fact within modern psychology, that over 70% of your behaviour is context dependent. So if you grow up in a fucked up community, you don't have to inherent it's values. But the fucked up community sets the limitations from which you can understand and define your worldview, which means you shape yourself within the frames of your own understanding of that context. So basically I believe that every individual exists within a context, and removing him or her from it, makes every observation that is made about him or her meaningless.
If you are familiar with french philosopher Michel Foucault and his work about ethics, it is largely from him that I draw my opinions and viewpoints on the matter. He has made many historical analyses about how our values, norms and morals are shaped and normalised throughout history.
By way of your type... Your video, when you talked about hierarchy and stereotypes, brought to mind a consensus reached by some of this forum's betas about five years ago (myself included.)
I might've told you differently back then, but during these intervening years, various obstacles made clear that beta values don't necessarily equal the (indiscriminate) embrace of hierarchies or championing of stereotypes.
Beta values confer an implicit awareness of power hierarchies, and attentiveness to them, (whether that morphs into love, loathing, or disregard for a particular hierarchy fluctuates from person-to-person.) In other words, it's that the Ti + Se was in the front of your mind, on the tip of your tongue - and not deep in the recesses - that reveals you to be (in all likelihood) Beta.
Also, stereotyping -- for betas, this process serves a purpose similar to the shorthand used by the secretaries of our grandparents' generation -- to take quick, incisive notes -- as opposed to the current definition that connotes shallow, sloppy thinking. In other words, you might relate more to beta values when they're written by a beta - most often they're not.
From what you've communicated, your Sociotype: a variant of Ni-INFp. (Even within the subtypes of each type, there are several variants that come up again and again.)
Just teasing, take it easy.Whaa?? How do you come to this conclusion? I just feel a kindred spirit in him and not the socionics kind of kindred. You got me fucked up, i.e. confused. I certainly didn't mean to give that impression.I just like his energy.
Edit: I realize I may have taken this wrong as well and it might just be innocent teasing so if it is I apologize for sounding defensive.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote