You should rename the title of this thread to something more appropriate, like "Socionics Is For Dummies".
You should rename the title of this thread to something more appropriate, like "Socionics Is For Dummies".
Standard (no subtype) Dimensionality:
4D: Lead = Demonstrative
3D: Creative = Ignoring
2D: Role = Mobilizing
1D: Seeking = PoLR
"Advanced" Dimensionality:
• Inert (first function) Subtype:
4D: Lead > Demonstrative
3D: Ignoring > Creative
2D: Mobilizing > Role
1D: PoLR > Seeking
• Contact (second function) Subtype:
4D: Demonstrative > Lead
3D: Creative > Ignoring
2D: Role > Mobilizing
1D: Seeking > PoLR
I've written more about the subject here.
@Avalonia, you haven't proven your intellectual superiority until you've come up with a better model Xp
The "holly" ideas have 2 origins: positive + negative.
It's possibly to use only one side, as the opposite should be single-valued linked with it.
> That only happens when types stray from their health.
"Healthy" - is the state where type has developed against own limits, where human overcame own type to higher level without types. All healthy states are similar. Types - is where the personal leveling starts and progresses. It should be related equally to positive and negative inner ideals-attachments.
If to take my 1 type - in the most healthy variant it reduces the tendency to fight with windmills, to do this more for the own pleasure than for good result. Developed 1 look as polite, stable and positive people, like good fathers to thoughts of which people want to follow themselves. They do not need to fight with people anymore. Developed 1 get the traits of its opposite 9 - its abbility to be liked, to live in harmony with the environment, instead of feeling anger and annoying fights with others. Same happens with 9 - it overcomes its passive and avoiding attitudes to active forming the reality closer to own ideals, while staying same cute and pleasant persons. Developed 1 and 9 become very similar, but they go to this from different sides.
Imagine a mountain. It has 1 peak. While types are the points at bottom of this mountain. There are many places-types at the bottom. The lower - the more distance may to be between places. Personal development is the way from the bottom to the peak which is the same for all, despite the place where you've started the way to the top.
Jung's typology and Enneagram types have similar conception of personal development. To develop means to overcome own type limits. You should stop to avoid own fears/weaks and stop to blindly idealize your pleasures/strongs specific for your type.
On Jung's T/F dichotomy.
T - is the reason. But there is no sense in the reason if people suffer when it is realized.
F - cares about emotional pleasure. But there is no sense in pleasure if it leads to objectively worse life (lesser possibility to stay alive).
The optimum point - is the balance of the opposite ideals/attachments.
That is why duality attracts us. Our nature wants to achive this optimum. In duals we see the supressed half of ourselves and also friends which may to help us overcome our non-integrity.
A good sign to see whether you have a compatible ITR or not (aka same quadra etc):
Can you be truly yourself without feeling judged?
If you feel like you have to hide parts of who you are, or change your personality, or censor yourself, etc etc,
then it is most likely not a good ITR.
P.S: An exception can be LIE-ESI duality. The -Fi lead is always gonna make you feel judged a bit.
9 is the only enneagram type that will punch you in the face just because they don't like your face or because they feel like it. True story!
BEWARE THE NINE!
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Extroversion is more of an energetic charge and outlook rather than a matter of how much someone likes to be social, though highly extroverted people often do prefer being social (like ExFj-Fe).
Extroverted people seem "electrified"; especially those who have an extroverted subtype.
Extroverts with an introverted subtype, depending on how strong it is, will come across as "(s)lower" (energy) and possibly introverted initially, but upon further interaction will enfold their higher energy.
With introverts who have an extroverted subtype, this effect is reversed; they come across as higher energy initially, but then retract visibly after some time.
Ep and Ip types tend to have more vacillating energy levels, even those whose subtype corresponds with their main orientation (meaning I vs E).
For example, an Ne-ILE may have moments of seeming lower energy once in a while, or an Si-SEI may seem higher energy once in a while. But it is not a regular occurrence as it is for Ti-ILE; their "downtime" happens on a much more regular basis.
With Ej and Ij whose subtypes are Je or Ji, their energy levels are the most stable and stereotypical for their orientation. Ij-Ji are the stereotypical introverts, Ej-Je are the stereotypical extroverts in the Socion. Ep-Ji and Ip-Je are the most "ambiverted" in the Socion.
Now things get even more interesting and complex if you add the Enneagram to this...
Extroverted > Introverted
7 > 8 > 2 > 3 > 6 > 1 > 9 > 4 > 5
In terms of (energetic) extroversion and introversion for the stackings, I'd say the main factors are SX – which provides the most intense energetic charge – then SO, which brings that charge outwards and disperses it more widely in(to) social interactions. SP would be the most introverted, because its energy is self containing.
Sx/So > So/Sx > Sx/Sp > So/Sp > Sp/Sx > Sp/So
Sociable > Asocial
2 > 3 > 6 > 7 > 1 > 9 > 8 > 4 > 5
So/Sx > So/Sp > Sx/So > Sp/So > Sx/Sp > Sp/Sx
Based on this, the most "objective" IEs are and , and the least "objective"/most "subjective" ones are and .
Most "objective" types: SLE-Se, LSE-Te, SEE-Se, LIE-Te, ISTx-xe
Most "subjective" types: IEI-Ni, EII-Fi, ILI-Ni, ESI-Fi, ENFx-xi
"Qualia" seems like a complex term for .
"Qualia are the raw sensations of experience," Chalmers said. "I see colors — reds, greens, blues — and they feel a certain way to me. I see a red rose; I hear a clarinet; I smell mothballs. All of these feel a certain way to me. You must experience them to know what they're like. You could provide a perfect, complete map of my brain [down to elementary particles] — what's going on when I see, hear, smell — but if I haven't seen, heard, smelled for myself, that brain map is not going to tell me about the quality of seeing red, hearing a clarinet, smelling mothballs. You must experience it."
qualia is a blanket categorical term for the first person but not necessarily introverted experience of irrational perception itself. remember an introverted sensation is something more than a sensation and that "raw sensation" could just as easily be extroverted. just because something is experienced by an individual doesn't necessarily make it an introverted process (this is where static I/O reasoning falls apart). the reason philosophers struggle with qualia is it is experienced prior to rational judgement, which makes capturing it within a system difficult, since the second the rational judgement is assigned it is transformed into something other than qualia, it is now a sign not a thing, for the purposes of operation within a system. to truly honor qualia one can't even talk about it, which is what a lot of easten philosophy centers on
ESEs can be surprisingly controlling. They are usually 2s with a good connection to 8, and the demonstrative 4D -Se is not to be underestimated.
ESEs control their loved ones by taking care of them. LSEs do the same but in their case it is not that surprising. With ESEs, it is like being a puppet master behind the scenes. LSEs are not as subtle about it, and lack emotional manipulation knowhow.
The combo of Se and Te is by far the most controlling and harsh, aka ESTx.
LSE has a mask of Si care and softness which SLE lacks, but SLE is EP temperament and more dynamic in their approach, whereas LSE being EJ is more strict.
Last edited by Sol; 07-10-2018 at 07:15 PM.
@Olympia:
I agree with all your statements in post #423
Ne is about objective, including personal traits. It's Ni about something "own" and fantasy dreamworlds without limts ( including with unicorns ). Base Ni = the most strange, speculative and mystic perception of the world.
With also weak and nonvalued Te - facts of the reality matter not much (hence easier to ignore the degree a type version contradicts to the experience), while valued Ti predisposes to categorizations but speculative.
Such IEI may to have the most inclination to assign themselves random types. The example is niffer who dreams herself as own dual.
With nonvalued Ti people are inclined to do not assign random "boxes", but just lesser to use the typology. But if they use, - they care more about Te facts.
What you described would fit EII-Ne much better. They also have strong Ni but don't value Ti boxing. IEI has and values -Ti, black and white logic. They like boxes. Ni lead is speculative, but there is still the valuing of Se and Ti in the background, which EII doesn't have. Also, the IEI-Ni has boosted Ti so they will be more inclined to putting things into boxes. EII can arguably be way more speculative if they engage in their Intuition. Their speculation is not bound by Ti and Se valuing. Though they do like factual information, that is the bound they may have, but EII has 1D Te, so there won't be much in the way there. Niffer is arguably not even Ti valuing btw.
Assigning themselves random types is something I see mostly Delta NFs doing to themselves, especially those whose Fi is boosted.
Jungian typology is quite Ti, and the kinds of people who have the most issue with it and complain about not wanting to be "put into a box" are usually Ti PoLR followed by weakened Ti Role. (Aka mainly xEE-Fi and sometimes ExI-Fi). Imagining themselves to be unicorns or furries for that matter is almost always a Delta NF + Type 4 thing. Not all 4s are IEI.
yeah I know its heresy but its hard to square Ne egos being childlike but at the same time a stronger reality sense than Ni.. its more like both Ne and Ni are forms of fantasy and Ne is more broad and reaching and Ni more deep and penetrating. ultimately the most concrete types are the 4D Se types and the most disconnected the 4d Ni types, but this transcends what is really valued, i.e.: EII and IEI are equally fantastic but in their own way
@Olimpia: The IEE "don't box me in, man" is more about Ne than Ti, because SEEs don't have the same kinds of issues with it. The IEEs are seeing possibilities beyond/besides the current concrete reality.
Also, 4D Ti doesn't really box things the way you might imagine, because there are more ways to categorize and connect things than simple discreet boxes (you've taken some writing classes, yes? you know how there are rules to follow for "good writing" but actual good writers don't always follow those rules. That's the way it is with 4D functions, you know the rules well enough to go beyond them to the actual essence or meaning behind the rule, if that makes sense. So, being very strict with categorizations and not being able to see how things may not fit those categories or may stretch to multiple ones is often 2D "norms" and lower Ti.)
Last edited by squark; 07-11-2018 at 04:42 PM. Reason: typo
Nah, I have seen the same issue with SEE-Fi people.
*cough* idontgiveaf *cough*
Besides that, a couple of IEEs I have personally talked to were somewhat more open to "boxing in" (usually those who were Ne subtype or no subtype). I am guessing it is the connect on -Ti. Their Dual SLI is -Ti Dem. -Ti is more black and white logic, whereas +Ti is more permissible in certain ways. +Ti considers the exceptions to the rule much more often than -Ti does. -Ti is categorical and the stereotypical definition of Ti lead. Which is somewhat ironic, considering that LSI are +Ti lead.
But anyway, based on cognition style and unconscious "dual expectations", it seems like IEEs *can* be more okay with categorical "boxes" sometimes, due to their Dual being that way at times.
Sigh. "My personal experience" is not really a good argument. It assumes too many things, beginning with you typing the people correctly. Anyway, Ne is about seeing other possibilities beyond what is currently in front of you which is why it applies there. . .
I also think olimpia's understanding of +/- Ti is off. +Ti is the logic of the affirmative structure, it wants to box people in. -Ti is fractal structure, allowing for disconnected self contained units. +Ti is generally trying to force everything into a universal structure. it doesn't handle contradiction well. -Ti looks at things as polysemous and multi layered. +Ti generally flattens things (layers create literal ambiguity), especially when combined with Se. This is why LSI and IEE miscommunicate and conflict. IEE says something and LSI can take it as a violation of the structure (some form of turning it upside down, negation, and so forth, looking at it from the side, not Se), which is seen as bordering on a manifestation of criminal intent, meanwhile IEE tends to underestimate the ethical integrity of LSI when it makes certain statements. Some statements in the mouth of LSI are progressive when you consider them absolute, but if you project a fractal structure on them they sound asinine or merely authoritarian when they're part of a scheme wherein their "limitations" are actually anti authoritarian in scope
"boxing in" might just be how Fi creative is viewed, in terms of being verbally "judgey" i.e.: conveying one's attitude toward things almost as a weapon
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-12-2018 at 12:57 AM.