Maybe turning things upside down is the way to go when it comes to typing by reinin dichotomies.
Emotivist = a person that is not an Fj, nor is s/he an Tp.
So it would be something like: a person than doesn't act upon his-her "ethics" naturally nor is s/he especially nitpicky about technicalities.
Constructivist = a person isn't Tj, nor is s/he an Fp.
Wooohooo!!!
Last edited by Trevor; 01-05-2011 at 09:02 AM.
Constructivism is drama. Emotivism takes itself less seriously in that regard. It jokes about emotive matters where Constructivism takes them deadly serious.
likewise for strategists reasoning is focal and deciding is diffuse, and for tacticians deciding is focal and reasoning is diffuse;Originally Posted by labcoat
this can be used to illuminate the way that most tactics incorporate available reasonings to support centralized decisions whereas most strategies hinge on the use of such decisions to support a centralized reasoning
did you invent this?
Invent, discover, or wherever you draw the line, yes. Smilingeyes is to be credited with the discovery of Focal/Diffuse, although he called it Limiting/Empowering in his time like I did for a while.
Interesting formulation. Here's how I've been interpreting it up to this point:likewise for strategists reasoning is focal and deciding is diffuse, and for tacticians deciding is focal and reasoning is diffuse;
this can be used to illuminate the way that most tactics incorporate available reasonings to support centralized decisions whereas most strategies hinge on the use of such decisions to support a centralized reasoning
if "safety" is taken as a catch-word for Reasonable and "danger" for Resolute, then in Strategists the singular focus is on a safe-haven, i.e. a sheltered resort from which planning occurs. The Tacticians are more inclined to find solid footing in harsh, weatherly climates instead, i.e. thinking on one's feet without retreating to safety.
I like the ideas labcoat.
Thanks. Do please keep in mind that the "work in progress" and "use at your own risk" qualifiers apply here (just in case my being alpha NT didn't get your alarm bells ringing).
Constructivist and Emotivist
Which one are you? Any thoughts?
Constructivist
1. Tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements.
2. Have emotional 'anchors' (eg, books, films, places) which they use to support their internal emotional state.
3. Can become 'emotionally hooked', and can have a strong reaction to a particular part or section regardless of their feelings towards the entirety.
4. Have greater difficulty disassociating from others' emotions and experiences than from requests for action or consideration.
5. “I prefer when people offer concrete solutions instead of comfort or sympathy.”
Emotivist
1. Tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction, with 'business' a secondary concern.
2. Prefer the new and novel over the old and known.
3. Information perceived as unprofessional or low-quality can leave them indifferent.
4. Have greater difficulty disassociating from requests for action or consideration than from others' emotions and experiences.
5. “If a conversation is emotionally negative, I consider it wasted.”
Constructivists
Constructivists try to get into the right mindset for an activity and it takes time for them to get from one mindset to another. When they are at home, they are mentally prepared for anything that could happen at home and when they are at work, they switch over to work-mentality. They can get overwhelmed by emotions because once they get into an emotional state, they stay in that emotional state for a long time. Constructivists avoid emotional contact with others and they don't think it's necessary to adjust to the conversation emotionally. They use automatic polite responses and customs, like starting with "how are you?" or offering their guests coffee or tea. Practical conversation (talking "business") is easier for them. They like to repeat emotional states - rereading books, watching movies that they have already seen and revisiting places they liked. They avoid movies, situations and people who give them a negative mindset, because they have a difficult time getting rid of that mindset. Constructivists use emotional anchors (carefully chosen music, books, movies) to keep or strengthen their internal emotional state.
Emotivists
Emotivists try to enter the emotional atmosphere of the conversation and they try to keep the emotion in the conversation positive. They can talk about various things they have no interest in or do not believe in simply for the sake of maintaining a "positive spirit". Talking business is more difficult and the conversation topic can wander off into emotional exchange. They try to get new experiences and new emotions, which is why they travel to new places and rarely watch movies they have already seen. In emotivists calls for action/requests are not critically estimated and because of it they can get overwhelmed by them. After getting into a theme they stay in that mode of operation for a prolonged period of time and have difficulty switching, "disconnecting" (and because of it try to avoid unpleasant requests).
Examples
In forum conversations when a person asks a question, emotivists reply with conversational posts trying to find out what caused such a question and trying to see if they can make the person feel better. They can also include an answer to the question, but that's secondary. Constructivists give as good of an answer as they can to help find a solution. They might also include a question about why the question was asked by this particular person, but only when they are curious about it. It's not important for the thread (conversation) itself.
Constructivists don't mind seeing a movie that they have already seen, but emotivists would only do that if there might be some new information that they missed the first time or if they have forgotten a lot about the movie. Constructivists might prefer re-watching a movie that gave them a good emotion to seeing something brand new that they don't know if they'll like. This is because constructivists have inert ethics and it's difficult to get rid of the wrong emotional state, but emotivists have contact ethics so they want to experience new emotions.
Who is what:
- The constructivist IM types are: ILE, ESE, EIE, SLE, ILI, ESI, SLI, and EII.
- The emotivist IM types are: SEI, LII, LSI, IEI, SEE, LIE, LSE, and IEE.
- Using the four-letter code: constructivists are TP or FJ, emotivists are TJ or FP.
Intertype relations
constructivist/emotivist in common:
identity · activation · conflict · extinguishment
constructivist/emotivist not in common:
duality · mirror · super-ego · quasi-identity
constructivist/emotivist in common if rational:
kindred · illusionary · supervision (j>p) ·
constructivist/emotivist in common if irrational:
semi-duality · business · benefit (p>j) ·
I am constructivist because I'm slightly, let's be serious, really serious. you'll notice this about me in the Unofficial Member's pic thread and the convo between Agarina and I; she's just joking around while I remove the emotional elements and get down to the important info, aka the facts and keep the conversations rather informative and dry. This doesn't mean I'm not emotional, because I am. This is one reason why I type Agarina an Emotivist type. Does this make sense?
^ is an Emotivist post because it is partly in jest but with the intention to maximize emotional background.How much do you? I'd also want to know your bra size, I'm trying out a new subtype theory that I just created and it is very important to know a person's bra size in order to get the type right. Thanks!
My post here is very serious, because I'm saying "let's talk about the serious stuff first."
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
You're emotivist, Eliza, because what you do right away in your response to other people's posts, is you try to maintain an air of positive emotionality and you do this consistently. Your way of doing it is extending compliments, or just saying in an understated way "we can get along," etc of that nature.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I am emotivist. Totally.
Socionics -
the16types.info
Bolded for agree, red for disagree
Constructivist
1. Tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements. (Dealing with people on strictly business terms gets way too emotionally draining on me after a while.)
2. Have emotional 'anchors' (eg, books, films, places) which they use to support their internal emotional state. (I do this all the time with music.)
3. Can become 'emotionally hooked', and can have a strong reaction to a particular part or section regardless of their feelings towards the entirety. (Also happens with music, scenes from films, etc. Can't think of any examples of this happening with people though)
4. Have greater difficulty disassociating from others' emotions and experiences than from requests for action or consideration. (This sounds counterintuitive to the dichotomy description? Shouldn't it say "has greater trouble connecting with others' emotions and experiences, instead seeing them as requests for action" or something?)
5. “I prefer when people offer concrete solutions instead of comfort or sympathy.” (Highly dependent on the situation)
Emotivist
1. Tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction, with 'business' a secondary concern. (Also kinda depends on the situation, but I generally much prefer to talk with people on a closer interpersonal basis than business)
2. Prefer the new and novel over the old and known. (Depends on contexttttt. I don't even see how this applies to the dichotomy.)
3. Information perceived as unprofessional or low-quality can leave them indifferent. (Doesn't everybody hate poor quality information?)
4. Have greater difficulty disassociating from requests for action or consideration than from others' emotions and experiences. (See 4 above)
5. “If a conversation is emotionally negative, I consider it wasted.” (Again, depends on context)
What's my type?
You're also likely an E1, which is part of the Competency triad.
http://www.fitzel.ca/enneagram/harmonics.html
People whose dominant Harmonic Style is the Competency style try solving problems in an objective, unemotional manner. Unlike people of the reactive style, they don't get worked up when problems happen, they remain cool and emotionally detached from them.
When confronted by a problem, these types have issues on working within a framework or structure.
Last edited by Galen; 10-17-2012 at 05:20 AM.
Nope.
Ask Mike.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Yep.
OMG Galen. I give up.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Compentcy is her dominant state of being. I thought it was prior to knowing her in person, but it simply is not. She is definitely a Shame triad type, and a Positivist triad type. Compentcy and Anger triads only show in flashes or small frames of time, such as online interface or when extremely stressed. In other words, Maritsa has online interface issues
No. This is not about being constructivist or emotivist, it's about me not taking you seriously and you being too much of a dumbass to get that. Btw I deciced I'm Si-EIE now, EIIs are boring pussies anyway plus I am forced to engage in social activities today so better arm myself with some Fe, huh? Is that a constructivist or an emotivist type, I'm too lazy to check?
Well, taking things literally was, supposedly, my forte but looks like Maritsa keeps me company or something like that. Anyway, I'm LIE Ti subtype as of the new polikujm socionics census, so everything is fine and not funny at all. He was slightly, really serious as well, I take it.
Si-EIE sounds great as well
Last edited by Absurd; 10-17-2012 at 10:02 AM.
It seems like I'm a constructivist. I try hard not to use "emotional anchors" too much and engage in new kind of activities, travel to new places etc, because I know from experience that that kind of life is much more interesting and you will learn and grow more, but it is outside of my comfort zone and it usually takes conscious effort to do so. I also very strongly prefer old friends over getting to know new people. I bolded the parts I can relate to the most.
Constructivist
1. Tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements.
2. Have emotional 'anchors' (eg, books, films, places) which they use to support their internal emotional state.
3. Can become 'emotionally hooked', and can have a strong reaction to a particular part or section regardless of their feelings towards the entirety.
4. Have greater difficulty disassociating from others' emotions and experiences than from requests for action or consideration.
5. “I prefer when people offer concrete solutions instead of comfort or sympathy.”
Emotivist
1. Tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction, with 'business' a secondary concern.
2. Prefer the new and novel over the old and known.
3. Information perceived as unprofessional or low-quality can leave them indifferent.
4. Have greater difficulty disassociating from requests for action or consideration than from others' emotions and experiences.
5. “If a conversation is emotionally negative, I consider it wasted.”
Constructivists
Constructivists try to get into the right mindset for an activity and it takes time for them to get from one mindset to another. When they are at home, they are mentally prepared for anything that could happen at home and when they are at work, they switch over to work-mentality. They can get overwhelmed by emotions because once they get into an emotional state, they stay in that emotional state for a long time. Constructivists avoid emotional contact with others and they don't think it's necessary to adjust to the conversation emotionally. They use automatic polite responses and customs, like starting with "how are you?" or offering their guests coffee or tea. Practical conversation (talking "business") is easier for them. They like to repeat emotional states - rereading books, watching movies that they have already seen and revisiting places they liked. They avoid movies, situations and people who give them a negative mindset, because they have a difficult time getting rid of that mindset. Constructivists use emotional anchors (carefully chosen music, books, movies) to keep or strengthen their internal emotional state.
Emotivists
Emotivists try to enter the emotional atmosphere of the conversation and they try to keep the emotion in the conversation positive. They can talk about various things they have no interest in or do not believe in simply for the sake of maintaining a "positive spirit". Talking business is more difficult and the conversation topic can wander off into emotional exchange. They try to get new experiences and new emotions, which is why they travel to new places and rarely watch movies they have already seen. In emotivists calls for action/requests are not critically estimated and because of it they can get overwhelmed by them. After getting into a theme they stay in that mode of operation for a prolonged period of time and have difficulty switching, "disconnecting" (and because of it try to avoid unpleasant requests).
Read what you wrote and stop acting like a baby about it. You are not only asking me for information but you are again joking around about it as you do AGAIN IN THIS POST. Your emotional anchor in the above is about you telling me what you've decided based on what something makes you feel "EII are boring pussies" and in your "ahh I'm forced" and feeling like a trapped way to "interact in social activity" DRAMA spells nothing but emotion. and then you go on with "huh?" like "HUH?" EMOTIVIST.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
LOL, Galen, your type is a NEGATIVIST!!! As in Postivist/Negativist dictonomy. [ http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...nd_negativist]
I am a Negativisit, too. Its different from optimist/pessimist, as, everyone I know would call me an optimist. And my SLI guessed wrong, he is in fact the Positivist and I the Negativist. But understood as its explained in Socionics, it makes sense.
I see these Negativist traits, as below, here in your post, as well in some other things you post:
1. - Usually more reprimanding than complimenting.
2. - Socially and intellectually more mistrusting.
3. - Explains what things are not (irrationals) or should not be (rationals).
I do all of the above and those who know me might say I do not do the first but I do. I just happen to be very, very careful about reprimanding, because of other things about my type, I guess, but I do it, and I do it as extremely tactfully as possible. Because I know that most times most people are not open to criticism, and often for good reason, so I don't waste words or take a chance of hurting someone. So I do it quite judiciously, and only when I feel it must be done, usually for, IMO, that person's greater good. I see a lot of things that need reprimanding all the time, and I keep almost all to myself. I mostly let it go, and others I pray about, because I believe prayer is efficacious.
As to what you put in red, "Tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements", do you think that could be social conditioning? As a female NF, it is socially encouraged for me to talk aobut my feeling-related thoughts. As a man, you would need to adjust, your whole life from youngest age, you would be encouraged to relate in a different way, a more to-the-point and business-like way.
I am conditioned at work to keep things very business-like, as well.
Probably we Negativists can drag you Postivists down sometimes...
I'm terribly emotivist. At work, if you want to talk with me about work, you should generally send me an e-mail asking for specific detailed questions. Otherwise it's impossible to get through my tendency towards small talk and light topics. Don't get me wrong, when I don't talk I definitely do serious work - but when I talk, I always try to lighten the atmosphere and let the ideas flow.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
i tend to just jump into whatever i called or walked in to talk to a person about and i have to remind myself about the prerequisite small talk when it comes to people who care about that kind of thing. i can easily see this dichotomy fitting for me because its sort of a distinct thing i notice consistently in my life compared to other people.
i can check off everything on the constructivist list easily and emphatically. on the emotivist list i could maybe bold a couple with some qualifiers.
Constructivist
2. Have emotional 'anchors' (eg, books, films, places) which they use to support their internal emotional state.
This part I disagree with as far as SEEs. In particular, there is one who takes care of my Mom when I go to see my SLI in the next state. When I come back, my Netflex lineup is the same all the time. No. 1 - "How to Marry a Millionaire" and NO. 2 - "Gentlemen prefer Blonds". Then a lineup of other lite comedic romances and musicals like "Singin' in the Rain". She left me a long note complaining about Netflex last time, they took "How to Marry a Millionaire" off the lineup. Clearly, watching the same favorite shows is a big part of what she enjoys doing when she is here.
As a Emotivist, I am supposed to enjoy variety more. And I do. As to movies, I have my same old genres but I enjoy new discoveries within it. Liek when is Downton Abbey getting more episodes?? However, thrre are times in my life when I have been very drawn to the same old, I can watch Sound of Music or other classics again and again; I've rewatched Camelot (the musical with Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave) til I memorized it and Man for All Seasons many times. Also I love Sense and Sensibility. I think I tend to this when I have emotional upheaval or emotional neediness in y life. When things are going okay in that department, I do it less. Verylittle lately. So I wonder if that is the case with most types, they pick up this habit when they are emotionally deprived. Kind of like a pacifier...
I think its like, "Can you do this?" "Tomorrow will you go pick up _ and do _?"
So as it says, " In emotivists calls for action/requests are not critically estimated and because of it they can get overwhelmed by them. After getting into a theme they stay in that mode of operation for a prolonged period of time and have difficulty switching, "disconnecting" (and because of it try to avoid unpleasant requests)."
I have seen this in my life. When I taught I could never say no to anyone and said yet to everyone's requests. I got a lot of requests, and found myself working longer hours than anyone else it the school. (Frequently people wanted me to make stuff for them, and I not only said yes, I said it cheerfully). I spent so much time "on", and doing, I did not know how to turn myself "off" - just kept fulfilling requests, doing that well, and teaching, well, my 600 kids. I finally got pneumonia, that stopped me. I sort of blamed it on all the requests. However, the real blame was me not saying no, and me not having a realistic view of my time and energy.
At least, that's how I think it applies to my life.
(I remember complaining about my situation at school to a man in my Bible study who worked in a school. He just shrugged and said, 'I just say NO". Which did not seem possible to me at the time! He must have been a Constructivist.)
Eliza, thanks for making these threads.
I wouldn't say someone isn't a particular type just because they don't match up totally and completely with one of the dichotomies. For one thing, there are so many aspects of a person, so many variables in each individual's life, that could affect things like this. For another, in my opinion these are tendencies, not absolute rules.
Yeah, basically this.
I definitely tend toward seriousness, though I have learned over time how to "relax" and be lighter when situations appear to call for it.
And that emotional anchors thing - yes. Sometimes I seek out new things, though, as a means of getting myself unstuck from bad emotions. Dwelling on things is a bad habit of mine...
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
I do have some emotional anchors, but what really do they mean by that, as I aquire new anchors as my personality changes. Right now, my anchor is my father's ring, which my mom gave to me when he died. I also very much use my HK93 assault rifle as an emotional anchor, for it is as beautiful as my soul. I love it so.
But these are new anchors, and I know that I will aquire even more anchors as time goes on. So I consider myself emotivist.
Socionics -
the16types.info
Both of these describe people of the pussy persuasion. I fit neither.
Although this I cannot and will not do: "They can talk about various things they have no interest in or do not believe in simply for the sake of maintaining a "positive spirit".
Last edited by Scapegrace; 10-17-2012 at 11:11 PM.
"[Scapegrace,] I don't know how anyone can stand such a sinister and mean individual as you." - Maritsa Darmandzhyan
Brought to you by socionix.com
You offer me and others much comfort. What does that say about which dichotomy you should choose
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I don't do that Lungs, because an EII has a built in mechanism to weed through a lot of information and make efficient decisions. And I can efficiently decide which dichotomy I belong to and which one others typically also. I don't do this at all. By making efficient decisions, EII remain consistent, which is a big contribution to the LSE/EII dual diad. Efficient decisions allow an EII to explain things by systems to LSE and help them see things in how Te, external manifestations, help explain what we see or what's going on.
Let me see if I can find a good example:
On Sunday, while driving to the Getty Center, my dual cousin asked me to explain Socionics and the types. While I was speaking partly in theory, like saying Extravert or Extraverted Sensory, I brought in examples of my Se cousin; using these examples, my dual cousin said "yes, because the person is driven by their own 'will', as you call it, no matter what I advise as a benefit to them, they aren't going to do because their will instructs them to do what they want." I said exactly, hence an example of not picking and choosing. By sticking to one thing despite the muddied oceans it helps for the 16 types to stay 16 and not a billion or a few.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 10-18-2012 at 05:54 AM.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Lungs, weaker Ne, in general is a probably a culprit of how you approach these dichotomies.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Is that a fact? LOL
That's an emotivist statement.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
It's so helpful to know that constructivist never make jokes.
"[Scapegrace,] I don't know how anyone can stand such a sinister and mean individual as you." - Maritsa Darmandzhyan
Brought to you by socionix.com
um...yeah. maybe yeah.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Constructivist.
Constructivist
1. Tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements.
I tend to find 'business' elements easier to talk about, and it's easier to get a conversation by talking about "important" or "practical" matters, but I'm not sure if that means I try to minimize emotional elements. I'm probably constructivist for this one though.
2. Have emotional 'anchors' (eg, books, films, places) which they use to support their internal emotional state.
I actually do this.
Emotivist
3. Information perceived as unprofessional or low-quality can leave them indifferent.
"We have a choice of two companies, but this one looked bad on their website so I decided to go with this one."
4. Have greater difficulty disassociating from requests for action or consideration than from others' emotions and experiences.
5. “If a conversation is emotionally negative, I consider it wasted.”
When you say "wasted," what does that mean? I don't like emotionally negative conversations in general. I generally try to end conversations by resolving or diffusing conflicts, and I much prefer to feel like there was some accord by the end of the conversation.
What's the (functional, Socionic-al) logic behind these types and the side of the dichotomy they fall into? Are Reinin's Dichotomies generally explained by the theory, or are they more of a "Just-So"/"Experiences-Says-So" kind of explanation?
Also, what's the difference between:
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
