Originally Posted by
silverchris9
Just to jump in on this, I've been reading lately about intuitions, and I imagine that an intuitive type, particularly an Ni type, would have intuitive biases that s/he would have trouble overcoming, biasing him/her towards wrong answers. Also there's the simple issue of memory---if you don't have a particularly strong short-term memory then it's difficult to do, say, lengthy math problems that require you to keep many variables and even numbers (at least their relative values) inside your head at once. A low IQ intuitive might be a person who has difficulty understanding systems external to themselves, but might have a very complex internal or mystical way of thinking.
I will say that the current way that school is taught, in addition to biasing strong short-term memory (which correlates strongly to IQ scores, according to a book I read recently), does bias towards auditory learners. And intuitive types might have a natural inclination towards language, simply because language is so abstract and un-physical. It might be clearer to say that sensors have less natural inclination towards language. So that might be one reason why intuitive types seem or tend to learn better. But it's important to remember that basically any IE can be applied to virtually any situation, you just have to do so creatively. My favorite example is my grandfather, who I strongly suspect is some variety of Ni ego. He's a very, very good driver, which is something you'd tend to associate with Se: strong understanding of the spatial world around you, spatial imagination, if the car is in location x and going roughly this fast, then when will it be in location y (not in the abstract sense, but in an immediate perception, an immediate extension of the sensory perception that is not mentally 'worked out" but spontaneously arrived-at). But he approaches it from another angle, with lots of planning in advance, and rules, and psychological speculations about the driver of each car ("oh, he's a hot-head, he's gonna try to force his way into my lane. I could just let him hit me, but I guess I'll slow down and let him in"). And it works just as well, or better, than a sensor who also makes an effort to be a good driver. So there is almost certainly an analogous mental process whereby Fi and Fe egos might be fantastic at math or analytic philosophy, or an Se ego become a great poet or a Ti/Te ego become a great actor or actress. There are lots of ways to skin cats!
This is pretty far afield from the original topic, but it's an idea that I've always been really interested in. I mean, it's basically "how can socionics be not super biased and limiting, and be a system of understanding how rather than dictating what a person does/can do/might do/will do.
re: Parental polrs affecting childhood type, yes, I strongly agree with the developmental model. I imagine you settle in on a base function very very very early in life (although it would be interesting to think about how you settle on a base function. Do you start with the judging or perceiving/rational or irrational bias? Do you start with introverted or extroverted?). It is not a conscious choice, but rather something that evolves as you are forced to specialize in order to solve problems, achieve goals, attain desires, etc. I can't attack this from every angle, so let's try this one. Oh hey, I get a favorable response every time I approach it this way. Oh now I'm really good at approaching things this way, and not only that, it is more mentally comfortable for me, so I enjoy it more, it is how my mind "prefers" to work (which could really be true on a physical level, in terms of how the neurons are connected what connections are myelinated, etc.) And so you develop a base type. And then a little older, you settle on a second cognitive mode, one that relates either to the world outside yourself or the world inside yourself. This arises not due to any particular law or necessity, but rather because it is the most likely outcome By analogy: gold and other precious metals do not become stores of value because they are inherently valuable. But almost every culture will eventually choose precious metals as stores of value because they are portable, scarce, and aesthetically pleasing. And as precision in counting and portability begin to trump all other factors (and the notion of value has been firmly settled in by precious metals), most societies will eventually turn to paper money. So too do most humans settle on two primary ways of interacting with the world, not because of any firm necessity or inborn imprint, but because eventually it is not practical to do anything else (even though the conscious mind is not aware of this and would not put it in those terms). And the two primary ways of interacting with the world that you settle on dictate the rest of Model A.
I would also note that the emergence of the second type may be more subject to conscious control, as it occurs when you're a little older. Or perhaps babies do have more will over how they shape their subconscious than we think. Who knows? (are babies capable of repression? denial? sublimation?)
But hkkmr is very right in saying that you can't really predict how the parents' type might influence the child's. I honestly have given up on reaching a satisfactory typing of my parents/immediate family. I'm most confident in my dad being LSI and my brother being SEE. But I have no idea what to do with my mom, who I still have not landed on between IEE and EIE. My stepmother I used to type as LSE but I think that was purely because I didn't like her and didn't get along with her. There's definitely still some natural conflict there (natural as in, rooted in who we are, rather than merely the situation of "I am your new parent." "No I don't want a new parent!"), but it seems that we have too many commonalities for me to completely by into the conflictor notion. She's definitely some kind of Fi/Te, but probably gamma rather than delta. All that's to say, I have no clue how I ended up with Te polr. I imagine that being surrounded by a fair amount of Se is part of the reason that I am a fairly externally active-in-the-world IEI (although I am hesitant to ascribe so large a part of my personality to an intertype relationship in a theory that I still consider tenuous and doubtful, at least insofar as its actual manifestation in reality or its use or adequacy to experience). But that has to do with how types interacted once they were solidified. Certainly I grew up in a heavily Fe valuing environment, so it's conceivable that being aware that the ability to influence the emotional atmosphere was hugely valuable influenced the development of my type. And I did value and respect that environment. But I could just as easily have repudiated that environment as "too emotional." But perhaps that would have required me to have had more bad experiences with warm, vibrant emotionality earlier on? I don't know how I reacted to my father's lack of Ne, how that might have been an influence. Sigh. It's tough to unravel, especially because you can't think back to a moment when you were like "Ah yes! I shall choose Fe over Te as my secondary function!"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
