You're assuming a lot. I started looking into socionics 3-4 years before my join date, if what you say is true I would have abandoned it long ago, rather than sticking around. Noticing flaws in something is the first step to improving it, it doesn't imply a total rejection. You can criticize a thing and still see the value in it. You can want to find a real basis for things, look for application and verification while entertaining the idea. In other words, it's completely possible to withhold judgement on something while you work through it, test it and explore it. The "oh no one thing doesn't fit, let me throw the whole thing out" kind of thing isn't a Ti-base thing, because the way their cognition works is to continually piece things together - yes, they'll abandon something if there's nothing salvageable left of it, but criticizing and testing something doesn't mean a rejection of it.
so true! its precisely why Fanxy and Phil also won't be going anywhere, even after rendering judgement
To think is to judge. Pointing out flaws in ideas doesn't mean an outright rejection. It is important as a value because it imposes limitations on knowledge and prevents certainty where there isn't certainty in an objective sense. It creates a sense of intellectual humility. This keeps the mind open to new ideas, creativity, and may lead to new ways of attaining knowledge, which reinforce other values, such as curiosity and imagination. Typologists are huge intellectual turnoffs because they espouse too much certainty in their "knowing". I'm not opposed to knowing, only when you have justified reasons for being skeptical when justifications for their conclusions are weak. The typologists are more of an issue than the theory. The theory is much more open to interpretation, but some typologists are too dogmatic to allow it because it weakens their status as typologist in the eyes of the typology dogmatists.
Typology should be more fun Bertrand!
Find meaning where there is none.
+ vs -
It is disturbing how easy it is to me to see logical fallacies. It is like LIIs don't care or see them. How I see it: there is a need for new name if you find those and better to keep it clean so you Gulenko's model G deserves lots of red marker under creative and demonstrative (and it is a fork more than its very own model). Do not generate confusion – keep it minimum – always exclaim weak points when you can see them arising.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Adam Strange LIE (because he seems credible and just seems LIE)
Alphamale ILE (just seems ILE)
Bertrand xIE (because everything he writes is creative Ni, and also because he kept changing his type, which hints at EIE)
Director Abbie LSE (because of her video and because I think she likes knitting)
Reverie ESI (because of her video)
Vespertine EII (mainly because it says "Hedgehog in the Fog" under the username, and that's such an EII thing to say, and also because (s)he posted a song from an album named "Music for Church cleaners vol. I and II")
thats all
Last edited by Tallmo; 08-15-2017 at 06:15 PM.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Yeah, to think is to judge. As for certainty - working with the data you have and no more, if the data allows for it, there can be certainty. Even if later with new data things have to be changed even to the point of a paradigm shift, that original data at that moment can be judged conclusively. This is often necessary, too. Or you'd never take action and stay in limbo instead. The theory (Socionics) being too open to interpretation is not a good thing in my eyes and this has nothing to do with status.
This is what I mean. Socionics lacks empirical data, so my conclusions are: Only accept the theory as much as evidence provides. I do not expect science to prove the theory correct, because scientific data already strongly suggests that our brains are much more similar than different, that do not have static dichotomic preferences, but preferences depending on the circumstances. Socionics lacks an underlying explanatory theory as to what decides the circumstantial preferences to begin with. This can lead to infinite regressions, so this does not help matters. Not that you cannot have a brain that works like one of the types predicts, it's just the theory doesn't encompass all humans in a scientifically valid way. What I mean by making the theory more open to interpretation is to allow individuals to use functions in a manner that they find useful, which would be dependent on culture, history, context, etc. The theory definitely has something useful to offer humanity. If socionicists only saw this, they theory would be less obscure, more useful, more accurate, etc. It's a win-win, imo.
There are most certainly status concerned socionicists, who typify bully like behavior in their defense of their theory. It happens all of the time online. I don't think this applies to you personally, but others, yes.
Last edited by Skepsis; 08-17-2017 at 02:39 PM.
Eh sure many of the nuances of the various Socionics models do lack any way of operationalizing whatsoever and that's not by accident - if you tried to do that, you'd refute things real fast.
But I wouldn't say that on the whole it's entirely imaginary ideas. I observed some of the stuff myself and there are some of the same ideas in different non-Socionics frameworks and studies do deal with them.
I don't think Socionics was meant to claim our brains are entirely different. At least in my interpretation no. Everyone has all cognitions just with different emphases. And there are definitely some rather unchanging differences between the brains of different people. It isn't hard to find studies for that. Starting from studies on different inborn temperaments of babies to studies on different cognitions of different people. (Yup academic psychology studies)so my conclusions are: Only accept the theory as much as evidence provides. I do not expect science to prove the theory correct, because scientific data already strongly suggests that our brains are much more similar than different, that do not have static dichotomic preferences, but preferences depending on the circumstances. Socionics lacks an underlying explanatory theory as to what decides the circumstantial preferences to begin with. This can lead to infinite regressions, so this does not help matters. Not that you cannot have a brain that works like one of the types predicts, it's just the theory doesn't encompass all humans in a scientifically valid way.
The questionable part is of course whether the static cognition differences in people are always arranged according to what the Socionics model claims.
Yeah, well I went beyond socionics constraints a while ago on analyzing cognition of people. It's not really even just 8 "functions" or IEs in my understanding. A bit more complex than thatWhat I mean by making the theory more open to interpretation is to allow individuals to use functions in a manner that they find useful, which would be dependent on culture, history, context, etc. The theory definitely has something useful to offer humanity. If socionicists only saw this, they theory would be less obscure, more useful, more accurate, etc. It's a win-win, imo.
How would you sum it up as to what it is that Socionics theory can offer to humanity?
Socionics offers a different angle to look at cognition. It adds to our knowledge of the human brain. It might just be it is because nothing else looks at human consciousness in such a way. It would only be more useful if the functions were treated as the ebb and flow of consciousness and people didn't latch onto small samples of consciousness and mistake the part for the whole. For example, I see you are using function x, so you HAVE to have x in ego. This seems silly, unscientific, biased, counterproductive, and useless. Many minds are more complex than simple categorical definitions based on flawed reasoning.
Socionics counts as some knowledge about humans, and since knowledge benefits human, it has something to offer.
@Bertrand could be gamma NT imo
@Delilah leaning ILI or LIE? I have him pegged as xLI - currently SLI - which he'll chew me out for if he ever returns.
I don't have you @Delilah, on Ignore.
I'm curious about @ouronis type; had an exchange in the chatbox and I got such a positive vibe like maybe quadra or neighbouring
Opinion about the type of @Sol
He repeatedly said he couldn't decide which xSTj he was and then used ITR to decide.
However, he's very unlike an LSE in that he's basically pushing his ideology all the time. LSE is less set on what they think of as correct and they don't push it. They care way more about practical efficiency than ideology of systems. They are also more open to different ideas with their Ne valuing.
I may certainly disagree with some things in his particular ideology but I do notice a similarity in thinking in how we both reject unrealistic and illogical ideas that do not link to anything causally. Example: "It's early to talk about subtypes as there may to be a heap of important traits we don't know about and which has no reason to be linked with Jung's types". I also say things like that, about how there is no reason to link things to a certain system.
All in all, I wouldn't just yet exclude LSI>LSE for him. Enneagram 1 is pretty much for sure tho'.
Last edited by Myst; 10-04-2017 at 10:41 AM.
I subcribe to that. Had the same suspicion, thanks for putting it into words @Myst. Yes to the second paragraph in particular^ This all would explain our blatant interpersonal disagreements in literally everything and his inability to see different points of view to his methods (essentially - values) while emphasizing one way, one system, his rules, in the most accurate inflexible way possible. Since he's here, at least kind of? seems fairly expressed, not devalued whatsoever. Gotta ask the EIIs here how attacked they feel. Meanwhile, I'm playing around leaving a trail of PoLR chaos. In many ways we are the opposite of a quadra spectrum - LSI > LSE.
Last edited by Chae; 10-04-2017 at 01:56 PM.
I feel the same way but ended up agreeing w/ LII for some reason. I think bcuz of the way he prompts me to consider other POVs when I'm stomping on about something and his Fe receptiveness like w/ @Suz.
Hm. Kind of depends on what you mean. The way I see @Sol is serious over merry.
The bold particularly in serious vs the bolded more perspective-based view in the merry quadras. But the other parts as well. You may be clashing for other reasons perhaps?
Am critical of the dichotomy, strong logics mess with it already, blurring the lines. What you highlighted in the serious section rather pinpoints some aspects of rationality quite accurately! Which is true in his case.
Surely, there are more reasons, and I've written that often mwehh
I'm using IR always when type. So you may look my EII examples, type them and understand that they are not EIE or good IR for LSI. Similarly you may do with other my examples. If I'd was LSI, then you'd see systematic error in my typing of switching good IR to bad IR for LSE.
> They care way more about practical efficiency than ideology of systems.
This ideology is mainly Fi, Ne and also I see it as a way to make the society and people more effective.
I have Si valued, - for example I came to my 1st date with a girl in life with a cake and jasmin tea.
I'm not shy as introverts in common see themselves (I was lead singer in school chorus in beginning classes).
I like to search for data, alternatives - Te.
Logic may tend somewhat more to the objectivist side overall (and ethical to the subjectivist,) but the bolded is Te vs Ti more than anything. This dichotomy simply splits Ti/Fe and Te/Fi. Rationality doesn't factor in.
You can ignore the part about entertainment and anyone suggesting a serious demeanor in objectivists viabut the rest holds true, and it's based on the nature of Te/Fi vs that of Ti/Fe.In this research, the hypothesis about the quadra related nature of entertainment has been show to be untrue. Also proven to be untrue was the widespread conviction that people of Serious types will not publicly display and behave in a "childish" manner. Probably in the majority of such cases (for example when adult people roll themselves down a snow hill), the situation serves as an intermediary and relaxes the existing interpersonal boundaries.
I'm curious to get through your compilation yeah
You are rather explicit in expressing it, though, Ti is explicit and Fi isn't. But anyway, you know your own mind best, I just posted about observations and my interpretation of them.> They care way more about practical efficiency than ideology of systems.
This ideology is mainly Fi, Ne and also I see it as a way to make the society and people more effective.
LSI has stronger Si than LSE actually Not every introvert is shy. Analyzing data impersonally is Logic in general.I have Si valued, - for example I came to my 1st date with a girl in life with a cake and jasmin tea.
I'm not shy as introverts in common see themselves (I was lead singer in school chorus in beginning classes).
I like to search for data, alternatives - Te.
Anyway as I said, I don't know you too closely.
FWIW, the way I relate to the Te/Ti bits of the dichotomy:
My opinion is definitely that everyone thinks for themselves but I do set my own view in an absolute way (that's the Ne PoLR part). According to that, I see some reasoning as correct and other reasoning as incorrect. Otoh I will discuss with others how they define things and in this way I do exchange views with them. Also, certain parts of my worldview I formed in a way that they can allow for really big paradigm shift too. It's not all that simple.
I will ask why something was done incorrectly. Asking "who" instead of "why" just sounds weird to me, unless it's about who is to be held accountable for it, then of course I will want to know. As for optimums, that depends whether I need to compare it to something else or it's already obvious in the situation based on whatever pre-set standard, etc. (I guess that counts as Ti comparison, too, tho')
The bit on the correct way of doing something: that's important to me if e.g. I need consistency in data for analysis. I will also happily give instructions on how to do something to someone if they need it. If someone is doing something in a way that's incredibly bad, I will fix it for them. I will leave them alone if it's not that bad. I never think of one right way otherwise unless needed for Ti reasons such as consistency (as I said above). I haven't seen it in @Sol either. Nor the opposite - I simply don't know about this aspect regarding him. What I did see was the Ti part, "propose (or impose) another conception of the situation".
As for objective truths: I think there is such a thing in theory as Absolute Truth, but I believe we can only always get closer and closer to it. I otherwise always look at things as dependent on subjective (but explicit) criteria of the user. Like if someone asks me, which smartphone I recommend for them, I will always start with asking, what do they want to use it for, what are their preferences. Definitely think that there are objectively reasoned and correct things and then there are subjectively felt things too, I don't care for those as much, unless I can logically justify according to some explicit criteria as well. That criteria is subjective in the sense that not everyone will have the same but is objective because of being impersonal.
I think a good way to differentiate Ti from Te overall is, Ti will still be willing to analyze to exchange and examine views of the parties more deeply, where Te will already want to drop it and move on from the discussion/argument. This is still heuristics, I've seen some ILIs that will argue for decently long, and I won't argue long over Ne topics lol. And the Objectivist/Subjectivist dichotomy does seem to include things that could be interpreted as Irrationality vs Rationality, too. Easy to have overlap. Same issue with Se/Ne valuing, for the perspectives part. So this stuff is a bit too ambiguous on that level of analysis.
Last edited by Myst; 10-04-2017 at 07:26 PM.
My idea was - non-valued functions are lesser expressed in the behavior as have lesser of interest. Also, ego functions are strongest, but other would change nothing as people prefer to stay away from non-valued ones anywhere they can.
Most introverts perceive themselves as shy. Just a strong factor against introversion. I'm not centered on myself and mostly seek for external stimulus, it's boring for me to stay "with myself" (yep, I'm boring for myself too )
> Analyzing data impersonally is Logic in general.
When I buy something not cheap I have a _pleasure_ from gathering the info about the stuff - models, comments, alternatives. I may choose such for days. It's Te behavior.
Ok, I see. I take Demonstrative function into account pretty strongly because that matches my experiences. Jung also had an approach that looked at things in a similar way. So I would be TiSi under that Jungian take. But what's decisive factor here for me is my own observations of myself and of others.
So yeah I personally don't always stay away from Si. It isn't a too conscious focus, that's the difference compared to Se, but it's still a strong part of my worldview, as a big part of the grounding for it. Publicly I do prefer to go for Se otherwise but I'm able to do Si "caretaking", just not too "in the face", because I don't care enough to openly discuss Si much and so that approach is a good fit for taking care of Si PoLR
I'm the same way, I don't like to have too much focus on myself, I'd rather focus on what's in front of me, on the task, etc, but the personal self is Feeling anyway.Most introverts perceive themselves as shy. Just a strong factor against introversion. I'm not centered on myself and mostly seek for external stimulus, it's boring for me to stay "with myself" (yep, I'm boring for myself too )
If you meant you don't like to work alone, then that sounds like extraversion.
Hmm wow "pleasure" is a strong word for me for that lol. I will also spend days on this but I'm just emotionally neutral. Well I guess I enjoy the part where I analyze and make decisions... but the information gathering part is just neutral for me.> Analyzing data impersonally is Logic in general.
When I buy something not cheap I have a _pleasure_ from gathering the info about the stuff - models, comments, alternatives. I may choose such for days. It's Te behavior.
I'll see about that.
Btw, to make the above picture more complete, I do have clear introverted bits too, e.g. I'm fine with working alone, working with people is my secondary mode only, and same for spending my free time, alone vs secondary mode with people, friends, sometimes party, etc
Interesting.
pro merry quadra:
- I always explain why I came to a certain conclusion, explain the reason behind my opinions/results on tests aka 'break down' the exact way I was going and trying to understand my result and the result of others in online tests for example, to explain differences in results, because I believe that a result can be manipulated through a certain way of thinking/pattern and thus differ from the result of the other. Hard to explain, sorry meh for explaining it so badly. I also have a huge knack for explaining why I did things and the reasoning behind it, so that the other person 'indeed' understands for real where I am coming from, which can be annoying, because I do that repeatedly until I think the other person has understood for real where I am coming from.
- I have a hard time concentrating on stuff without occasional light and fun breaks. I always try to turn the situation somewhat into a fun one/ lighten the atmosphere to make it less heavy irl. So I like to break free from too much work at once, because I cannot concentrate that long. Not sure about the seperating work and fun thing.. is that seperating fun and work? I think work could be fun if you do your dream job, but that could be a general opinion, lol.
- I also relate to the 'I have my own logic' thing which can clash with other individuals, because everyone definitely does have their own logic of how things should be done. So arguing is a way of trying to win over your logic by explaining my own.
- I do relate to loving when everyone participates in something, having one goal and reaching towards it, feeling everyone flow together and getting high on that group feel.
pro serious quadra:
- Though I relate to the "WHO did it that way" in the way that I do think experts/ people with a lot of experience and who invested lots of time in something etc. have a better say on things than someone who doesn't know shit about a topic which might be related to aristocracy as someone who has a title should probably know better (though it depends on if I agree with their logic and person overall), I am still mistrusting though if I am ultra sure of something and someone else proposes something I don't think is right.. so I question it a lot and try to make sense of it by my own.. like again and again and again until I get it (I basically repeat shit a lot in my head, like a loop haha).
- I do relate to the imposing a 'correct' way onto people, especially in the past, because I was and sometimes still am convinced my way is the best way, working on it though lol. Not sure if this is related to Ti Ha or low valued Ti at all.
- Because I can be shy I can use external settings as a way to approach people or get to know other people, like an organisation, official party, homework (approach a potential love interest, because I do not want to make my interest so clear, not sure if it is related to 'serious' quadra values at all or more of a basic human thing haha.) I can be somewhat formal or distant at times (plus being German lmao), though mostly because I am intimidated, shy or not sure yet on how to approach the person if I do not know them yet, this changes though as soon as we are familiar. Need some time to warm up a little, when the people intimidate me too much/ not sure if I can trust them.
Oh and so basically serious quadras see work as fun or how can I understand the last sentence? Is that why serious quadras are often described as the workaholics? In that case I am not seeing work and fun as the same, I remember having a friend who was very fixated on working together when I also thought we should do something non-work related and relaxing just to enjoy each othr's company at times. Might not be socionics related at all again, haha.
Last edited by dot; 10-04-2017 at 11:12 PM.
The work and fun part can be ignored. From the link I posted when they ran experiments that didn't pan out. So, that part doesn't really mean anything. The biggest distinction should be between the actual thought processes. For you, those fit the merry quadra. I bolded sections related to actual thought process (rather than behavior) that were found to be meaningful distinctions and what element they're related to from your post. This dichotomy attempts to separate Ti/Fe and Te/Fi.Originally Posted by MaviTilki
Here's more detail expanding on the distinctions from that same link but with the parts that aren't meaningful removed:
Last edited by squark; 10-05-2017 at 04:13 AM. Reason: spoiler tags to declutter
Lol without intending to open that can of worms of what is what function-wise, but that is what i think of as Ni haha. Like different perspectives within the box; whereas Ne i seem to see as something totally outside of the box and therefore irrelevant to me frequently we could argue this forever lol
Absolutely. With the Te types it's more like, some of them can enter arguments for a while, but I do not get to actually exchange reasonings with them. See more on this below:
This is when some people get upset that they cannot make me accept their view because I disagree and I explain why I disagree but they just keep thinking there is only one objective truth that's being discussed and if I disagree they just think that I was simply incapable of understanding that one objective truth....something is correct or not is judged by comparing it with what they see as 'objectively correct'. In disagreement, they first attempt to make sure that the other person understands the concepts and terms 'correctly'.
Often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently, within a different conceptual framework.
I dunno about Te/Fi types, I personally don't see work as fun like actively having fun. It's an OK and necessary activity but it's not the same. I can still work a lot despite that.Oh and so basically serious quadras see work as fun or how can I understand the last sentence? Is that why serious quadras are often described as the workaholics?
LIIs do have nice Ni that I like, actually. But then their Ne comes out and that gets to be too much lol.
Superego can initially look interesting.
What's up with Pinolines type changes? From EII to ILE to ESI
And Bertrand went from ESI to LIE to EIE to EII ??
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)