True and pissed version of me

[Olduvai]

Reading bullshit into my lines about my motivations is not gonna do any good. You're very very off there with these assumptions, wtf.

lolok

I did give OP an analysis in his other type thread before.

Sorry, I must've missed it. I'll give it a look-see when I have the time.

No, not solid evidence, simply playing around with weak-ish correlations between concrete traits and type is no good to find what information processing one does in their head.

I think behaviors and tendencies have a great deal to do with information processing.

No, it can come from other factors.

In the context of socionics I think it's a surefire indicator. Negativists are prickly and grumbly, positivists are ebullient and carefree.

This is even less related.

Absolutely not. Emotivists tend to be tangential and free-form in their speech, constructivists tend to stick to a point/topic of conversation.

I'm quite sure that Ti valuing types can have this knowledge too.

Okay, I'll give you that. But Te is often associated with factual information, which is what OP was offering there. Plus, you're the one who thinks he's a Te-ego.

Well we will see that. *skepticism*

*Confidence* We will indeed.

Because I don't agree with you? LOL

No, becuz you think he's Gamma SF.

Ah and I see gamma SF primarily because of his posts on the forum so far indicating Fi valuing, high S with weak and devalued Ne and Ti. If OP is interested I will gladly find those posts for him.

So we agree on some things. Nice.

[Myst]

I think behaviors and tendencies have a great deal to do with information processing.

There is a link but I find the correlations too weak; it's not a one to one relation as behaviours can result from different factors, information processing can't be derived from them directly.

If you were to try and using such operationalizations of definitions you tried put all those traits together for every representative of each socionics type, you'd often end up with observations contradicting this version of the theory.

In the context of socionics I think it's a surefire indicator. Negativists are prickly and grumbly, positivists are ebullient and carefree.

It cannot be a surefire indicator as these are just behavioural traits again while the concept of negativism/positivism is not about that.

Also, as above, I'm sure observations would not match up.

Absolutely not. Emotivists tend to be tangential and free-form in their speech, constructivists tend to stick to a point/topic of conversation.

"Tend to be", like, 60% of the time? That'd be a pretty weak trend for my liking if trying to type someone.

Okay, I'll give you that. But Te is often associated with factual information, which is what OP was offering there. Plus, you're the one who thinks he's a Te-ego.

Er, you mean Te valuing, not Te ego, yea?

Anyhow, yes I happen to think Te valuing for him, just not strong enough Te to be in ego.

*Confidence* We will indeed.

Lol..

No, becuz you think he's Gamma SF.

And how's that a reason for anything regarding the quality of my opinion on his type?

So we agree on some things. Nice.

Sure, @nondescript's not gonna escape Gamma quadra that easily

[Olduvai]

There is a link but I find the correlations too weak; it's not a one to one relation as behaviours can result from different factors, information processing can't be derived from them directly.

It's evidence in favor of. It isn't much, but it's there.

If you were to try and using such operationalizations of definitions you tried put all those traits together for every representative of each socionics type, you'd often end up with observations contradicting this version of the theory.

I feel like that's true no matter how you choose to define your concepts. Socionics is pretty vague and imprecise.

It cannot be a surefire indicator as these are just behavioural traits again while the concept of negativism/positivism is not about that.

Figuratively speaking, if a positivist is shown the "front side", they will continue to look at the front side. A negativist, on the other hand, will try to find the "back side". Positivists generally accept things at face value (at least initially), whereas negativists are virtually always doubtful. Negstivists are quick to contradict/invalidate. Positivists are a bit more willing to entertain ideas. You'll more often hear negativists use invalidating words or phrases ("no", "you're wrong", "bullshit", etc) when expressing disagreement than you will positivists, who are more likely to voice their skepticism by painting the topic in an ironic or absurdist light. Hence why negativists come off as prickly.

"Tend to be", like, 60% of the time? That'd be a pretty weak trend for my liking if trying to type someone.

How about "more often than not".

Er, you mean Te valuing, not Te ego, yea?

Yeah, my bad.

Anyhow, yes I happen to think Te valuing for him, just not strong enough Te to be in ego.

Well, maybe I can find some nore evidence for strong Te.

And how's that a reason for anything regarding the quality of my opinion on his type?

It was kind of a joke. As in, "it's ridiculous that you'd type him gamma sf becuz that obviously isn't the case".

Sure, nondescript not gonna escape Gamma quadra that easily

Dude knows about obscure nerdy shit like the 7 forms of lightsaber combat. He even has a favorite form. He's also very familiar with abstract theoretical concepts (socionics, jung, etc). I just don't think a sensor would venture that far outside of the immediately tangible. They'd be lost in the woods.

[Myst]

It's evidence in favor of. It isn't much, but it's there.

You sounded more confident of the LIE typing originally, lol

I feel like that's true no matter how you choose to define your concepts. Socionics is pretty vague and imprecise.

I find the real core definitions are not vague. Imprecise sure in terms of the basic IE categories being really broad meaning you have to be careful at what conclusions you can draw based on them.

Figuratively speaking, if a positivist is shown the "front side", they will continue to look at the front side. A negativist, on the other hand, will try to find the "back side". Positivists generally accept things at face value (at least initially), whereas negativists are virtually always doubtful. Negstivists are quick to contradict/invalidate. Positivists are a bit more willing to entertain ideas. You'll more often hear negativists use invalidating words or phrases ("no", "you're wrong", "bullshit", etc) when expressing disagreement than you will positivists, who are more likely to voice their skepticism by painting the topic in an ironic or absurdist light. Hence why negativists come off as prickly.

My problem with this is that I can relate to both sides of such descriptions of the dichotomies. The same with trying to apply it to other people too. All the reinin dichotomies if looked at in this way turn out bullshit whereas if I look at their core definitions from a Model A standpoint I can find some validity to some of the reinin dichotomies ...though I'm still a bit doubtful on that too

How about "more often than not".

Doesn't help, lol

Well, maybe I can find some nore evidence for strong Te.

Do try. Is @nondescript interested still, though? Let us know.

It was kind of a joke. As in, "it's ridiculous that you'd type him gamma sf becuz that obviously isn't the case".

Huh ok, would never have guessed it was a joke... IRL these things are easier.

Dude knows about obscure nerdy shit like the 7 forms of lightsaber combat. He even has a favorite form. He's also very familiar with abstract theoretical concepts (socionics, jung, etc). I just don't think a sensor would venture that far outside of the immediately tangible. They'd be lost in the woods.

I like reading Jung thus I can't be a sensor? No one on this forum is S type, as well? What sort of reasoning is this? Reeks of superficial MBTI bollocks, sorry.

Tbh, it did give me a hard time at first and OP does seem lost in this theory so far, lol.

So say, the difference is more like, S types will struggle a bit with N stuff, takes more time to process it but it's not like it's impossible. Also the examples here can be approached via other IEs too, not just Ne/Ni, which also helps in processing such topics.

[Olduvai]

I find the real core definitions are not vague. Imprecise sure in terms of the basic IE categories being really broad meaning you have to be careful at what conclusions you can draw based on them.

Don't vague and imprecise basically mean the same thing? Anyway, I think the lack of consensus around typings proves my point. Not that I favor a consensus-based approach to typing. Not yet, at least.

My problem with this is that I can relate to both sides of such descriptions of the dichotomies. The same with trying to apply it to other people too.

huh, I think the distinction in this case is pretty clear.

Sometimes Positivism / Negativism is taken for criticalness, under which interpretation Positivists are often depicted as always accepting and never critical of anything. This, of course, does not hold up to scrutiny of statements of Positivist types. Positivist types will critically analyze the information that they have received, but the manner in which they relay their criticisms differs from Negativist types. Positivist types are more inclined to voice affirmative statements designed to point out contradictions, or depict the topics in an ironic or absurdist light in order to demonstrate their disbelief or critique something that they've found to be untrue; while criticisms delivered by Negativist types contains a higher proportion of negating, eliminating, or invalidating statements and propositions. Negativists are as if excluding, "cutting off", or barring information (or people) that they've found to be lacking by their standards. In general, Positivists are initially more open and accepting of new information (or people), but later may reject it; while Negativists have a larger initial barrier to "entry" of new information (or people), but have greater difficulty rejecting something that they have already accepted.

All the reinin dichotomies if looked at in this way turn out bullshit whereas if I look at their core definitions from a Model A standpoint I can find some validity to some of the reinin dichotomies ...though I'm still a bit doubtful on that too

I'll admit, I do find the basis for the reinin dichotomies a bit shakey. Not the methodology they used to arrive at the possibility of more dichotomies, but how they actually "filled" those dichotomies and named them.

Doesn't help, lol

Oh stop, yes it does. Don't be so dense.

Do try. Is @nondescript interested still, though? Let us know.

Yeah, seriously @nondescript, we're trying to give you some answers!

Another possible correlation:

Ok, I think, nah scratch that, BELIEVE this is it! The full truth that fits me both in MBTI and in Socio(stereotypes discarded). So, if anyone has ANYTHING more to add, please feel free to. Otherwise I'll lock the thread because it has done its purpose and oh boy did it do it perfectly!

I'll be humble and just say:

Thank you! (an awesome character ended his story like that and who am I to disagree with him?)

Positivists, in contrast to Negativists, who seem too cautious and mistrustful due to their propensity search for and carefully investigate alternatives to anything, more often make an impression of being too single-minded, opinionated and stubborn, too oriented at "one answer", promoting and enforcing a singular opinion, viewpoint, or interpretation.

I like reading Jung thus I can't be a sensor?

Well, do you have any other theoretical/conceptual pursuits/interests? Do you have a diverse taste in music that includes many obscure artists and/or genres? Are you skeptical of astronomy, cosmology, and/or space exploration? Do you like sci fi/fantasy?

No one on this forum is S type, as well?

Not very many I'd say.

What sort of reasoning is this? Reeks of superficial MBTI bollocks, sorry.

Oh yeah, let's just compare it to MBTI, that way we can dismiss it more easily! And you call into question my reasoning...

Either way, I happen to think MBTI has some validity. Its concept of Fi in particular makes a lot more sense to me than Aushra's boneheaded "internal static properties of fields, like/dislike, attraction/repulsion, WTF/GTFO" bullshit. Hers sounds mechanical and contrived, MBTI's sounds empirical and derived.

So say, the difference is more like, S types will struggle a bit with N stuff, takes more time to process it but it's not like it's impossible.

Well, it depends on the type. A N-PoLR can only experience N stuff, they can't educate themselves on the topic because they lack the capacity for understanding norms.

[Myst]

Don't vague and imprecise basically mean the same thing?

Nope, vague to me: ambiguous, not clear in meaning; imprecise: not precise but it doesn't mean it can't still be specified in a way to have clear meaning.

There can be overlap but they are not the same thing to me.

Anyway, I think the lack of consensus around typings proves my point. Not that I favor a consensus-based approach to typing. Not yet, at least.

The lack of consensus comes from how typology fans all have different theories in their heads about concrete manifestations of the information processing.

huh, I think the distinction in this case is pretty clear.

No because I can be doing both.

I'll admit, I do find the basis for the reinin dichotomies a bit shakey. Not the methodology they used to arrive at the possibility of more dichotomies, but how they actually "filled" those dichotomies and named them.

Right.

Oh stop, yes it does. Don't be so dense.

If anyone is being dense here, that's not me. How on earth would it specify a *definite* type when something to base the type on is just "more often than not" related to type? Not better than my example number of 60%. Which is what my "doesn't help" comment referred to.

Another possible correlation:

Too many "possible" unverified correlations for my liking.

Well, do you have any other theoretical/conceptual pursuits/interests? Do you have a diverse taste in music that includes many obscure artists and/or genres? Are you skeptical of astronomy, cosmology, and/or space exploration? Do you like sci fi/fantasy?

That question was rhetorical, I know full well I'm S type, no need to analyse this. I do in general like things that have a basis in reality and many scientific theories do. Socionics and its jungian origins are not considered scientific but I still prefer to link it to reality.

Oh yeah, let's just compare it to MBTI, that way we can dismiss it more easily! And you call into question my reasoning...

No, what I was referring to was the popular stereotyped thinking by MBTI fans.

Either way, I happen to think MBTI has some validity. Its concept of Fi in particular makes a lot more sense to me than Aushra's boneheaded "internal static properties of fields, like/dislike, attraction/repulsion, WTF/GTFO" bullshit. Hers sounds mechanical and contrived, MBTI's sounds empirical and derived.

Sure, that theory is correlated to Big 5 and shit like that.

Well, it depends on the type. A N-PoLR can only experience N stuff, they can't educate themselves on the topic because they lack the capacity for understanding norms.

N PoLR also has 2D N HA so they can. And many topics can be processed by other IEs too as I said.

[Olduvai]

The lack of consensus comes from how typology fans all have different theories in their heads about concrete manifestations of the information processing.

Right, which is what you criticized me for doing. Even though everyone else does it. But apparently I'm superficial.

No because I can be doing both.

Not really:

No, not solid evidence

No, it can come from other factors.

This is even less related.

Nope, vague to me

Too many "possible" unverified correlations for my liking.

No, what I was referring to was the popular stereotyped thinking by MBTI fans.

No because I can be doing both.

criticisms delivered by Negativist types contains a higher proportion of negating, eliminating, or invalidating statements and propositions. Negativists are as if excluding, "cutting off", or barring information (or people) that they've found to be lacking by their standards.

If anyone is being dense here, that's not me. How on earth would it specify a *definite* type when something to base the type on is just "more often than not" related to type? Not better than my example number of 60%. Which is what my "doesn't help" comment referred to.

No, it's definitely you. Ease your standards for a bit, this isn't science. I understand what you're saying and I respect your opinion but I think you're being stubborn and closed-minded (if not for the right reasons).

Too many "possible" unverified correlations for my liking.

You're so picky.

That question was rhetorical, I know full well I'm S type, no need to analyse this.

I doubt that but okay.

I do in general like things that have a basis in reality and many scientific theories do. Socionics and its jungian origins are not considered scientific but I still prefer to link it to reality.

Basis in reality =/= sensation. Logic has a basis in reality.

No, what I was referring to was the popular stereotyped thinking by MBTI fans.

You're lumping my thoughts into the same category as your reviled MBTI fans (MBTI is such a dirty word! err... acronym). You're taking the easy way out. I doubt you've even seriously considered the possibility that MBTI fans might be correct in their "stereotyped thinking".

Sure, that theory is correlated to Big 5 and shit like that.

I don't know anything about the Big 5.

N PoLR also has 2D N HA so they can. And many topics can be processed by other IEs too as I said.

But if a topic is somehow inherently Ne, then it can't be processed by Ni. Not to mention there's behaviors that accompany these preferences, meaning someone with Ne-PoLR simply wouldnt be interested in exploring such topics, even if they're rudimentarily capable of processing them via Ni.

[nondescript]

Don't vague and imprecise basically mean the same thing? Anyway, I think the lack of consensus around typings proves my point. Not that I favor a consensus-based approach to typing. Not yet, at least.




huh, I think the distinction in this case is pretty clear.





I'll admit, I do find the basis for the reinin dichotomies a bit shakey. Not the methodology they used to arrive at the possibility of more dichotomies, but how they actually "filled" those dichotomies and named them.




Oh stop, yes it does. Don't be so dense.




Yeah, seriously @nondescript, we're trying to give you some answers!

Another possible correlation:





Well, do you have any other theoretical/conceptual pursuits/interests? Do you have a diverse taste in music that includes many obscure artists and/or genres? Are you skeptical of astronomy, cosmology, and/or space exploration? Do you like sci fi/fantasy?




Not very many I'd say.




Oh yeah, let's just compare it to MBTI, that way we can dismiss it more easily! And you call into question my reasoning...

Either way, I happen to think MBTI has some validity. Its concept of Fi in particular makes a lot more sense to me than Aushra's boneheaded "internal static properties of fields, like/dislike, attraction/repulsion, WTF/GTFO" bullshit. Hers sounds mechanical and contrived, MBTI's sounds empirical and derived.




Well, it depends on the type. A N-PoLR can only experience N stuff, they can't educate themselves on the topic because they lack the capacity for understanding norms.

Ah, ok. What did you have in mind?