Lying about type

[mu4]

Absolutely agree we're on the same page after all. pfew.

I'm not sure I was the one who brought up the epistemological validity of socionics in this thread. The op had a specific question

"how does socionics deal with, or doesn't deal with deception while typing people"

You made epistomological assumptions in your original post which is why the discussion arouse. Don't think you didn't because I've tried to enumerate them.

I think the question here isn't the question you have in the OP. What has happened is over the course of this discussion, you are able to express your question in a more clear fashion. You original question was neither clear nor as answerable as it's present form.

This is on socionic practise level, not theorethical level or meta level or epistemology level. The reason we got into the "what is real" debate is because you questioned my subjective experience, which, implies that there's more than my subjective experience. Now i'm not saying that there's not, just saying that it's not within my subjective experience and thus irrelevant.

I don't even think that's a sollution. I actually think epistemology is unnecessary as long as people don't assume their perspective is the only or right one.

Let's be very clear, you're the one who made the incorrect assumptions in your original post. I'm not sure you yet understand the incorrect assumptions you made. You might not believe in these assumptions you made, but that's meaningless, what happened is in the framing of your original post, you necessarily used these assumptions. What you did was ignore your own beliefs and assumed things which you may not believe in for the purpose of verbalization. As I said, your beliefs don't actually matter, sometimes our lack of understanding forces us to verbalize in a manner that is not in alignment with our beliefs. In this we are inconsistent.

You also constructed some strawmen for the purpose of disbelieving in them.

You also assumed stuff like faking a "type" is easy. You are assuming you're faking your "type" and not just being fake.

[mu4]

I'm not here to drag you thru all the assumptions you made in your OP, it doesn't matter, what matters is you ask your question in a clear and succinct fashion.

[Reficulris]

You made epistomological assumptions in your original post which is why the discussion arouse. Don't think you didn't because I've tried to enumerate them. .

I don't agree, not that I didn't made epistemological assumptions, because ofc you do that as soon as you start talking, but I don't think the discussion arose from the first post at all. Your first response what exactly what I was looking for (as where the other things people wrote). After that somehow it became about true/false/right/wrong. I was quite surprised about that. Want to continue in chat?

I think the question here isn't the question you have in the OP. What has happened is over the course of this discussion, you are able to express your question in a more clear fashion. You original question was neither clear nor as answerable as it's present form.

I'm not asking wether this is a good thing or not, nor am I asking about what function this deals with (i've got a pretty good idea). I'm just wondering how it impacts typing. A lot of people here assume they're good at typing and or judging people, even justifying their self-typing with that. Do you keep into account deliberate or non-deliberate obfuscation? I think many, if not most, people here hide more than they show, and often I wonder if socionics actually encourages looking deeper or just makes people more comfortable about their "typing" skills :s

If I can summerize the answer i've gotten before the thread turned sour it's been something along this line:

"Your premise is faulty; It doesn't impact typing because typing deals with stuff on a different level. People can change/fake "personality" as in behaviours which sometimes can be long lasting, but that doesn't change their type since socionics operates information synthesis level rather than character trait level which is what you are talking about occurs on. So typing people is not hindered by obfuscation"

This was a satisfying answer to me, AFTER THE FIRST FEW POSTS. Tell me again why it was necessary to go into that argument about epistemology?

Let's be very clear, you're the one who made the incorrect assumptions in your original post. I'm not sure you yet understand the incorrect assumptions you made. You might not believe in these assumptions you made, but that's meaningless, what happened is in the framing of your original post, you necessarily used these assumptions. What you did was ignore your own beliefs and assumed things which you may not believe in for the purpose of verbalization. As I said, your beliefs don't actually matter, sometimes our lack of understanding forces us to verbalize in a manner that is not in alignment with our beliefs. In this we are inconsistent.

Oh, as I responded to words already, I was asking a broad question necessarily not specifically stated because I didn't have the words to ask that question. That said, there is no reason to go from a vague question to the merit of socionics nor to epistemology. If you ask me what milk is made of i'm not going to go into full argument about ontology either right?

You also constructed some strawmen for the purpose of disbelieving in them

Wut? I don't have to construct strawmen to disbelieve anything, that's the default state. If it seemed like I was creating a strawmen it was, again because I am having troubles acurately talking about something I don't know (which is why I started the thread for christ sake).

[mu4]

This was a satisfying answer to me, AFTER THE FIRST FEW POSTS. Tell me again why it was necessary to go into that argument about epistemology?

Oh, as I responded to words already, I was asking a broad question necessarily not specifically stated because I didn't have the words to ask that question. That said, there is no reason to go from a vague question to the merit of socionics nor to epistemology. If you ask me what milk is made of i'm not going to go into full argument about ontology either right?

Wut? I don't have to construct strawmen to disbelieve anything, that's the default state. If it seemed like I was creating a strawmen it was, again because I am having troubles acurately talking about something I don't know (which is why I started the thread for christ sake).

I only tried to describe the situation and point out some errors.

"That is all of them. There is no truth nor verifiability."
"I assume I can't be right/wrong because neither can be established."

I'm merely pointing things out.

[Words]

The method you propose is if you know, or have an idea of what you're asking for. I'm asking something in a broad, non specific way because i can't pinpoint what it is i'm uncomfortable with. If i'd had a better idea i'd probably not even needed to ask. Also, how is it manipulative?

Wait: are you still assuming i was being critical and feigned ignorance...? Sorry, i was truely not intending to criticize the theory. I'm lost :S

Maybe you didn't then but I don't know what you want. EG you talk about not believing in type, people adapting their behaviour in certain situations, and also that people are lying about their type. Then talk about people thinking they are good at typing but they don't get it. I don't see how I can tie those together without making inferences of what you are getting at.

This is how I also don't get your harsh repsonse to @darya when she started off by saying she doesn't understand the purpose of this thread. You don't understand the purpose of the thread either.

Well this isn't going anywhere it was just an impression I got based on evocative language like lying about your type then having digs and sweeping statements mixed in. It's just what you do seems your mind is tripping over it's next point before it's thought about the first one. Probably just how you presented your thread it was bound to cause confusion. There's worse things out there Thanks for clarifying a little.

[Reficulris]

Maybe you didn't then but I don't know what you want. EG you talk about not believing in type, people adapting their behaviour in certain situations, and also that people are lying about their type. Then talk about people thinking they are good at typing but they don't get it. I don't see how I can tie those together without making inferences of what you are getting at.

I'm getting at this very simple thing: "can you decieve a typer" according to socionics?
That is, does changing your behaviour and such influence typing. Misrepresenting has to do with this question, so does people who are mistyping (could be a concequence of people "lying").

I only talked about not believing in socionics in response to D. That response had nothing to do with the OP, nor did her post. Also that part about not "believing" has a specific context. It was not me who brought that up but D. and she knows this because i've voiced that oppinion. Yet, she doesn't understand what I mean by not believing. See my long conversation with Hkkmr for some pointers, it has to do with a broader perspective and does not mean anything for this thread.

This is how I also don't get your harsh repsonse to @darya when she started off by saying she doesn't understand the purpose of this thread. You don't understand the purpose of the thread either.

I do understand the purpose of the thread, i just didn't know the outcome yet, or I wouldn't have had to ask the question. My harsh response were to the vieled insults. She has the option of not responding to nonsense if she deems so. Reread that post.

Well this isn't going anywhere it was just an impression I got based on evocative language like lying about your type then having digs and sweeping statements mixed in. It's just what you do seems your mind is tripping over it's next point before it's thought about the first one. Probably just how you presented your thread it was bound to cause confusion. Thanks for clarifying a little.

I always use evocative language. i always type as I think, so yes the presentation wasn't optimal, yet the first few people answered exactly my question and gave interesting information about something related. It wasn't impossible to get.

[Words]

I'm getting at this very simple thing: "can you decieve a typer" according to socionics?
That is, does changing your behaviour and such influence typing. Misrepresenting has to do with this question, so does people who are mistyping (could be a concequence of people "lying").

I only talked about not believing in socionics in response to D. That response had nothing to do with the OP, nor did her post.


I do understand the purpose of the thread, i just didn't know the outcome yet, or I wouldn't have had to ask the question. My harsh response were to the vieled insults. She has the option of not responding to nonsense if she deems so. Reread that post.


I always use evocative language. i always type as I think, so yes the presentation wasn't optimal, yet the first few people answered exactly my question and gave interesting information about something related. It wasn't impossible to get.

I'm getting at this very simple thing: "can you decieve a typer" according to socionics? Yeah of course sometimes, some people being themselves you can still have different opinions.

I do understand the purpose of the thread, Right but it didn't seem clear to me.

I always use evocative language. i always type as I think, so yes the presentation wasn't optimal, yet the first few people answered exactly my question and gave interesting information about something related. It wasn't impossible to get. Great so you have your answers?

[Reficulris]

I'm getting at this very simple thing: "can you decieve a typer" according to socionics? Yeah of course sometimes, some people being themselves you can still have different opinions.

I do understand the purpose of the thread, Right but it didn't seem clear to me.

I always use evocative language. i always type as I think, so yes the presentation wasn't optimal, yet the first few people answered exactly my question and gave interesting information about something related. It wasn't impossible to get. Great so you have your answers?

Sort of it wasn't the answer i was hoping for, but it was the answer I needed.
need to recheck my level of analysis basically.

[Pookie]

When i'm applying for a job, meeting a client, walking the street or wooing a love, I will walk in a shield of created identity, bigger than life, more succesfull, disciplined, talented and interesting. I create this as a mechanism to protect the vulnerable emotional and flaky guy that I am. Ofcourse, after a while that guy will be known, but by then I hope to have added enough value to the lives of people around me for them to accept that person. Faking a certain personality, speaking a certain jargon, claiming certain believes is easy enough for most socially competent people (even if they, like me, don't like doing it).

This is a great brief explanation on exactly how i'm socially inept. I can't do any of that. My social mask is restraint. Adding anything extra is beyond my comprehension.

But i think you're on a pretty solid point. Alot of people have the ability to shape how other percieve them, and the more they do so the better they are at it(and honestly the more that shaping is them). So not alot of people fit into archtypes very well, because alot of people have contradictory behaviors for the reasons you mentioned. It's a defense mechanism.

[Roro]

This is one of the issues I have with typology - people can differ depending on environment. Types are not a 'one size fits all' deal - too many factors to take into account.

As you said, opening up to others is a huge risk. You're allowing yourself to become vulnerable when you do so. For me, there is:

1. The core: who I have always been deep down / who I still am.
2. The hesitant: who I want to show to the people/world I am unfamiliar with and/or don't trust.
3. The intimate: who I want to show to people I feel extremely close to (this is very close to #1; but even with people I am close to, it's still hard to show everything)
4. The role: who I have to be in certain situations - at work, for example.

All of those personalities are still 'me', but the extent to which they're used differs. There are also boundaries that can't/won't be crossed due to a conflict they will have with the first (core). I don't think it's necessarily being inauthentic when people take this approach, it's just self-preservation. A way to keep the emotional and mental 'damages' to a minimum.

Is it really a lie if a person chooses not to share every detail about themselves to the entire world? Certain parts should be kept sacred.

[Shazaam]

I'm the opposite. I have this image of being this caring, sensitive and artistic dude but in reality I am an uncaring k0rpsey-like asshole that just cares about my own sexual gratification and being the strongest and toughest.

You have to lie to others to feel happy though. You can be honest and vulnerable but it's always a risk. Honesty is very self-defeating. Sometimes you have to gaslight others and lie to them and manipulate them or you will just be completely fucked over in life. A true victim. It's just sad but true. I wish there was another way, but I don't see it.

Insight is sociopathic that way though, you don't really HAVE to be honest or fake- because other people see you for exactly what you are no matter how cynical or idealistic you are. Narcissism is the coat, insight is the dagger. Humans are just humans, we are hybrid angels/demons definitely so there's no use being too stressed about this stuff.

[ashlesha]

You have to lie to others to feel happy though. You can be honest and vulnerable but it's always a risk. Honesty is very self-defeating. Sometimes you have to gaslight others and lie to them and manipulate them or you will just be completely fucked over in life. A true victim. It's just sad but true. I wish there was another way, but I don't see it.

in what way do you get fucked over if you dont do that? what will happen?

[Shazaam]

in what way do you get fucked over if you dont do that? what will happen?

well I mean like @lungs it's the little things. It's like telling customers "to have a nice day" when you don't care what kind of day they have, its like I can't tell them I think they are uneducated white trash morons, they might get really offended and pull out a gun. (or they will laugh but I don't like to take any chances) So people call me 'sweet' kind of condescendingly my entire life and I hate that, don't they realize I'm just using it to manipulate people to my own advantage.... I mean it's like Oprah pretending to be really nice to people but we can see the emperor is having no clothes and that she's just some incredibly shallow & materialistic woman that likes a lot of expensive clothes at shops and had to figure out a good way to manipulate the masses/other people's sob stories so she could afford the things that she wanted.

I'm sure people called you 'sweet and nice' before too because you kind of are, but look at how many people died in the newspaper today. Did you give a shit? NO of course not. But of course it would be wrong to say something cutting and mean about somebody that just died, but its a little hypocritical because while they were living you probably subconsciously thought the same thing about them constantly its just different now. (okay im rambling but do u get my point)

I think rather harsh and cruel things in my head. I just don't say them out loud and I think a lot of people are like that, you can just go ahead and say them but then you become The Villain more objectively and it doesn't work.

[Ron Mexican]

You made epistomological assumptions in your original post which is why the discussion arouse.

The discussion aroused you?

[ashlesha]

This is one of the issues I have with typology - people can differ depending on environment. Types are not a 'one size fits all' deal - too many factors to take into account.

As you said, opening up to others is a huge risk. You're allowing yourself to become vulnerable when you do so. For me, there is:

1. The core: who I have always been deep down / who I still am.
2. The hesitant: who I want to show to the people/world I am unfamiliar with and/or don't trust.
3. The intimate: who I want to show to people I feel extremely close to (this is very close to #1; but even with people I am close to, it's still hard to show everything)
4. The role: who I have to be in certain situations - at work, for example.

All of those personalities are still 'me', but the extent to which they're used differs. There are also boundaries that can't/won't be crossed due to a conflict they will have with the first (core). I don't think it's necessarily being inauthentic when people take this approach, it's just self-preservation. A way to keep the emotional and mental 'damages' to a minimum.

Is it really a lie if a person chooses not to share every detail about themselves to the entire world? Certain parts should be kept sacred.

we cant be like that vampire baby in twilight and mentally transmit our entire life history to someone by touching them. communication requires us to pick and choose what we share and how we share it. those choices are what comprise the part of ourselves that other people see. before that process of choosing we're like black boxes or something. (the core?)

[Words]

I'm the opposite. I have this image of being this caring, sensitive and artistic dude but in reality I am an uncaring k0rpsey-like asshole that just cares about my own sexual gratification and being the strongest and toughest.

You have to lie to others to feel happy though. You can be honest and vulnerable but it's always a risk. Honesty is very self-defeating. Sometimes you have to gaslight others and lie to them and manipulate them or you will just be completely fucked over in life. A true victim. It's just sad but true. I wish there was another way, but I don't see it.

Insight is sociopathic that way though, you don't really HAVE to be honest or fake- because other people see you for exactly what you are no matter how cynical or idealistic you are. Narcissism is the coat, insight is the dagger. Humans are just humans, we are hybrid angels/demons definitely so there's no use being too stressed about this stuff.

Lying is bs people will hate you whether you are a truth or a lie so you both may as well find out right away.

Unless you kid on for one night to get your hole.

[ryoka14]

This is one of the issues I have with typology - people can differ depending on environment. Types are not a 'one size fits all' deal - too many factors to take into account.

As you said, opening up to others is a huge risk. You're allowing yourself to become vulnerable when you do so. For me, there is:

1. The core: who I have always been deep down / who I still am.
2. The hesitant: who I want to show to the people/world I am unfamiliar with and/or don't trust.
3. The intimate: who I want to show to people I feel extremely close to (this is very close to #1; but even with people I am close to, it's still hard to show everything)
4. The role: who I have to be in certain situations - at work, for example.

All of those personalities are still 'me', but the extent to which they're used differs. There are also boundaries that can't/won't be crossed due to a conflict they will have with the first (core). I don't think it's necessarily being inauthentic when people take this approach, it's just self-preservation. A way to keep the emotional and mental 'damages' to a minimum.

Is it really a lie if a person chooses not to share every detail about themselves to the entire world? Certain parts should be kept sacred.

Just because you change depending on the environment doesn't change your type though no?. Doesn't socionics explicitly deal with this with all the different functions and information channels? You aren't your strong/base it's just how accurate you can perceive and transmit that type of information?

for example, when I initially typed myself, I thought I was strong fe or fi, before I knew anything. As I kept introspecting though I realize I only wanted those to be strong because it's what I place look for and how I value other people precisely bc I lack it. . It's even how I interact when I first become acquainted with someone, but I now wouldn't say that it's something that would be my strong base just because I can act like that in certain situations.

I mean typing is quite restrictive but you can't grow unless you understand yourself first

[Roro]

My original post was more so in reference to those who believe types to be 'all or nothing' - no gray spaces. There are many gray areas, which are needed in the growth process. You will always be you, you will always have [most of] your 'core beliefs' - but with introspection comes necessary growth, and with the growth usually comes some degree of change in those values and beliefs.

If longterm values change, are we really expected to be the entire person we were prior to the change? If the attitudes and traits that a person currently hold completely differ from those they held ten years ago, who are they? Is their core type what you saw in them upon first meeting, or is their core type what you see now? How can you be certain as to who they really are? How can you be completely certain that what you're seeing is all there is, and that there isn't a tremendous amount of unknown beneath the surface? And when there is more beneath the surface that is not being shared with the audience, how do you determine what the real 'type' is then - is it the type of the public persona, or the type of the private/hidden persona? This could be one issue at hand when person X believes themselves to be type A, but person Y sees them as being type B.

[darya]

Then why do you respond, there's four people above you who do understand the purpose of the thread and offered constructive and insightfull posts.

Yeah, no shit Sherlock, people act differentlly in different situations. Questions that you're asking have been answered a million times before. Your TONE and WORDING are what annoy me though.

I don't BELIEVE socionics no, doesn't mean i'm not interested in it. It's probably an distinction that's lost to you. And no, enneagram is crap, this forum isn't about enneagram though, it's just a patch that gets applied to typings.

That's not a problem at all. The thing that pisses me of is your constant patronizing tone, like you're on a high horse. I also dislike how you play dumb and retract your statments afterwards with "Noooo, that's complitely not what I meant" in a manipulative way.

More baseless assumptions based on not understanding me.

True, I don't understand you and don't feel any need to.

well my dear girl.

Until you keep refering to yourself as a baby giraffe, you can keep your patronizing tone to youself.

.

If you don't like my threads, again, don't read/participate, your oppinion is not needed necessarily nor is your pressence.

If you start a thread, I will participate if I feel feel like it. ,

,I'd say for such a self aware Ni valuing creature you're pretty lousy at typing,

You're by far the worst here, Keep trying, maybe at Christmas you will be able to type your ex correctly.

Wait, no don't answer that, just don't reply to me anymore since you're going on ignore anyways.

Grow some balls ffs

,

[Waster]

I pretend I don't have Fe POLR.

[Aylen]

I pretend I don't have Fe POLR.

There should be some kind of anonymous group meetings for that.

Hello, I'm Aylen. I identify with the the acronym IEI and suffer from bouts of Fe POLR.

[consentingadult]

One thing about socionics is odd to me. Sometimes it seems like they assume that everyone wears their personality on their sleeve. This seems somehow wrong to me, as many people shape perceptions about themselves to the extend where it's almost impossible to see their true self.

When you are an experienced typer, you will be able to tell the difference between personality and persona. Even better, you'll learn that certain types are inclined towards projecting certain personas (usually by means of their Mobilizing function), which makes typing people even easier ;-)

As to yourself and your own personas: if you're lucky you will get a mid life crisis and after that you will tell your personas to go to hell. Which also implies you are telling some people to go to hell as well!

[chemical]

This sounds just like ego. The ego is the shield. Or more appropriately it's the easiest way for an individual to create this shield.

The shield is what the ego type represents, the "true self" is a just the whole.

Now people can develop mask upon their ego, which is due to other pressures.

I'll respond loosely to it (nothing to really disagree or agree with, but it's a starting point for my remarks). Depending on where you come from (I'll use Jung since it's one starting point to get into socionics from), the ego is basically the center of your conscious psyche. It isn't equal to it, but the center. It's a "mask" in a sense relative to the Self, but not an unnatural one, rather one which seems all too natural.

There is indeed a concept of persona, but the overemphasis people sometimes make on distinguishing it from the ego is to me misplaced. It's natural, and expected, that if your persona is suitable, that the ego identifies itself with the persona, even if not entirely (in the entirely case there can be issues). Both are after all an integral part of the adaptation process between the inner disposition and outer circumstances.

If you're trying to discover the innermost, truest self of an individual, you're not typing their ego, which is (as the sociotype terminology strongly suggests, marking each 1 of 16 types by its ego block) contrary to the philosophy of type. You are meant to type the ego consciousness. Even Jung, who was obsessed with the unconscious, said the typology is best viewed through understanding the orientation of consciousness, and that typing via analyzing the unconscious is often fruitless. This implies that the ego, which is the tip of the iceberg that is the Self, is what is being typed (you understand consciousness through organizing the primary functions of the ego).

It then helps to do inner work to uncover the rest of the iceberg, which is no mean feat to get anywhere significant with.

So I don't think the issue really is about masks in a way. It's more about finding a coherent framework for organizing ego consciousness, which is where there's a lot of controversy (when is something natural enough a feature of that consciousness so that we may ascribe it to the type, and when is it playing more of a filler role?).
One of the few pragmatic tools offered is to look at the superiority/inferiority of functions in a relative way, meaning, diagnose the inferiority relative to a superior function by showing how the former's manner of operation is being distorted by the latter taking excessive priority in consciousness.

I think it's quite important to acknowledge that not everyone has an innate type that is terribly clear necessarily, at least as a possible viewpoint. It's fine to speculate and theorize, because that's interesting, but that's about it. Some people simply have clearer, more definite natures with regards to the functions. So often times, someone's type is "fixed" less because it's innately who they are, but because it has worked for them, in adapting to outer and inner circumstances well enough, and in so much as it's predominantly influenced by their environment and less by innate inner disposition, it may be quite like a "mask," but it can become so closely identified with who they are that they never really change much, and have difficulty trying to.

Essentially, that even if there wasn't an innate sense of self one could isolate in terms of the functions, one comes into some level of permanence eventually.