I didn't even know that it was implied that you had to be exactly like a type. I assumed that you just take the best fit.
I didn't even know that it was implied that you had to be exactly like a type. I assumed that you just take the best fit.
I agree with Seductress Steve right there. We are not tailor made for sociotypes. Keep in mind that your behaviour has to result in a type, not the other way around. We take the best fit, garnished with personal experience and others' opinions (as long as our/their opinions aren't corrupted by a typist mindset). I've fallen into the trap of thinking that I can't be a certain sociotype because I didn't fit in the cookie cutter way too many times.
Well, Gulenko in Cognitive Styles has written that ILI's and EIE's make best algorithm designers. While types having HP style have most difficulty in it (LII, SLE, ESI, IEE). My code is usually straightforward problem solving procedural stuff – something that comes very naturally – I can't really see myself as good programmer due to that.Originally Posted by WinnieW
I see your point, xerx. He values, for sure.
Writing a lot of program code having weak thinking functions? Hmm. Doable, but I guess it would be quite draining.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Another way of looking at this:
1) The issue is that Socionics doesn't tell you how to error-correct. This means you are bringing your own research methodology to Personality Psychology. What you'll notice is that people introduced to Psychology via Socionics, with it's lack of error-correction, will lack the ability to recognize anomalous data.
2) For example, simple organisms with a basic Nervous System don't express all 8 Information Elements. This means there is a progression somehow codified within the anatomical structure of Nervous Systems that can diversify Information Elements. When a Socionics researcher is approached with the question of "How would you recognize a new Information Element?" you will notice that the lack of an error-correcting methodology or ability to recognize anomalous data means they can't even answer a basic question of Comparative Physiology.
3) People are never actually this stupid and will simply drop the inconvenience of having an understanding that doesn't work when they apply it. It's very obvious that there is a Socionics 2.0 with individuals already making the corrections to their mental models without prompting from Socionics Theory itself.
4) This reminds me of the distinction between programmers and programming language programmers ("compiler writers"). There are people with a Metacognitive faculty that naturally links multiple Information Elements into proper circuits of thought and can create new versions.
https://www.madcapsoftware.com/products/flare/
The problem you are describing here, might not point towards you being untypable, but perhaps incorrect self-knowledge. Since you cannot really perceive yourself objectively, it is difficult to arrive at accurate self-knowlegde, more difficult than creating a clear picture of someone else. Also, Socionics is not about what you are (by yourself) but how you socially interact.
What you could do is ask a few people form your network (friends, family) to fill out a Socionics questionnaire, answering the questions not for themselves, but for you. Perhaps a pattern appears.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Well, the approach that I have taken is to compare elements in interaction with each other.
What kind of response you get? How it is received? Socionics core is in IE interactions.
Therefore the environment for testing should correspond to it.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
So designing algorithms is an ability that comes with?
Why EIE? They are usually more people oriented and not into abstract people-detached thinking.
I'd say I'm a mediocre coder either. I wrote programs when I was younger. My skills could be better, it's mainly a lack of practice for me right now. I'm not into coding at the moment.
You need the patience to sit for a long time in front of a computer screen. Something a person with highor
Linus Torvalds does not lead with
Last edited by WinnieW; 12-17-2017 at 11:16 AM.
Their dialectical algorithmic thinking style. That EIE is bit of mystery to me but maybe if they put their mind into it... Think LIE's as pioneering businessman for example (Vortical Synergetic style).So designing algorithms is an ability that comes with
Why EIE? They are usually more people oriented and not into abstract people-detached thinking.
I'd say I'm a mediocre coder either. I wrote programs when I was younger. My skills could be better, it's mainly a lack of practice for me right now. I'm not into coding at the moment.
Like one particular SEE on this forum shows connective logical thinking [even claims to be good at it on tests] while sucks at(causal determinism).
But overall cognitive capacity might be the limiting factor among all types.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
That's not the worst suggestion. But do other factors, like e.g. having below-average testosterone, have anything to say about being that?You need the patience to sit for a long time in front of a computer screen. Something a person with high
In another Q&A, which I watched yesterday but haven't been able to track down, he says that he enjoys being part of a team. He especially loves the back and forth banter of calling people idiots when they screw up. People aren't always the most exact narrators about their lives.Linus Torvalds does not lead with
He could be IEI; that's a type I'm leaning towards now that I've seen some more of his videos. The take away from Linus' behaviour is that he is simultaneously an elitist, deplores political correctness, and loves to tell people that they're idiots. While Alpha NT (or any NT) isn't a typing I'd blithely dismiss, it would be odd for an Alpha to pigeon-hole people into hierarchies. IMO, he'd be better characterized as a shock-jocky Beta NF.
Last edited by xerx; 12-20-2017 at 07:23 PM.
Talanov provides some hypothesis and data regarding sensing-intuition and thinking-feeling:
http://sociotoday.narod.ru/corNS.docx (sensing-intuition)
http://sociotoday.narod.ru/corFT.docx (feeling-thinking)
enjoy your read!
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
In every typology I've encountered, some people seem to fit the model well, and others are difficult to categorize, and this along a spectrum.
If you buy the main Socionics model as "real," everyone will be one of the 16 types. That's how the theory is set up. Some typologies allow for being a truly mixed type, and this one doesn't.
One option: You could pick the type you like and act like it until it fits you.Not that I've ever seen anyone do that . . .
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
The trouble is, we don't have exact definitions for the types (yet). If we did they would be extremely general and more than "big" enough to include everybody who is that type.
So people are forced to resort to either type descriptions, which usually contain a bunch of questionable details (like the programming thing above) or a general understanding of how the functions and IM elements fit together - this is the better approach but it may leave you to fill in a lot of details for yourself.
One option: You could pick the type you like and act like it until it fits you.
Welcome back
Most obscuration of processing structures stem from negative upbringing and experience - there's also psychological issues. The most common cause seems to be when people are raised in environments where their natural behavioural patterns are frowned upon - in a sense, forcing the lefty to write with the right. Type is in there; it's just hard to see.
a.k.a. I/O
Isn't there anybody out there who can come up with those definitions? And I also request and need a detail machine to do this.
I've made considerable progress in doing this. Stay tuned
Isn't there anybody out there who can come up with those definitions? And I also request and need a detail machine to do this.
Oh?! Yaaaassss hooray!I've made considerable progress in doing this. Stay tuned
This is post not only contradicts itself several times in several ways, but is obviously lacking in "scientific" observation. There are also several humorous statements, such as "the brain functions on limited bandwidths". That remark alone sounds like something from an old B & W Sci-Fi movie from the 40's or 50's. Oh well, if they can carry ******'s brain around in a jar, anything else might work. One good point made above is that there is a difference made between observation (not scientific, but necessary to science) and armchair theorizing. Good luck sorting out the differences to all!
I agree with the "best fit" concept. Rigid definitions are for auto specs, chemistry (and maybe not even truly the preceding categories, as we know that many cars function well when slightly out of spec and orbital patterns that are now defined as energy states in ions and molecules are constantly varying in infinite ways) and factory work. Perhaps there are no rigid definitions in the universe, we simply use some of the particular rigid definitions to serve science to progress.
on the forum:
bg/wacey/hitta are all hard to type to me. Nothing solid hits them dead in a center and explodes with truth like it does some other people on here. For whatever weird reason I'm shitty at typing those three.
like really what do bg/wacey/hitta have in common besides all being white dudes? lol im too tired to be hannibal right now.
I thought you'd say Super MBTI User.True. It's all about preferences
Sometimes i value Fi, but i still use Ti more.
In talking with people i use Fe more. Or maybe Fi or whatever the fuck that is.
Whatever I'm lazy to type now -_#
Because people thinks differently and i always wonder why can't they see this? 樂
Like it's all about theories.It's theories for a reason. Not scientifically correct.
So it's not necessary to believe on theories
Last edited by Hope; 12-22-2017 at 08:24 AM.
Subtypes are pretty underrated, I really should use them more... though its easier/lazy just to be childishly vague. For example LSE-si is quite different than LSE-te. (I like the si subtype ones much better)
Also I bring up gender here a lot not only because I'm a narcissistic queer but because it also influences type a lot. Like how female ILIs will still generally be a lot more emotional/sociable than male ILIs even though both have Fe polr.
So much stuff is interconnected with each other, nothing really exists in a vacuum etc.
also as an IEI ethical being a good person is the most important thing imnsho, like being supervised by a LIE with good empathy is so much better than a sociopathic/unhealthy one. So more than understanding soconics is remembering not to be a dick which is something we all need help remembering. =D
good to read. The bad SEI I knew (although not truly bad) sexually harassed me and no one listened to me when I told them he was an asshole. He’s a very clever SEI who’s very conflicted about whether he wants to be liked or respected by his colleagues. Can’t wait for the little shit to be told off. Hopefully he’ll realise he’s a relatively privileged person and if he wants to be a good guy, he has to accept that his position comes with responsibility. If he truly wants to be both liked and respected, he’ll have to learn to accept that sometimes he’s wrong and sometimes he should question his motives and actions. And not think about his own image all the time.Ghosts!
Lol. I dated one of those. Although I discovered he had poor Fi/Fe in some situations (cheating; flirting and calling it friendship; lining up one partner while with another), his Fi was extremely strong in most other situations. It doesn't justify his behavior, but after discovering socionics, I realized there are things that explain it.
1) -Se asserting their own interests at the expense of others.
2) +Si prioritizing their own convenience and comfort. They're very giving, but sometimes they'll screw you over through #1 and blame it on you.
3) -Ne, especially in 1D makes people see ridiculous alternatives and chase them as genuine possibilities. Or they'll see negative potential sometimes and call it reality. They see negative potential in things that will eventually pass. But they feel the need to act on it right away when it's unnecessary or avoid acting on it when it's necessary, thus creating drama in the process. I have sympathy for the experience, but still, it's really difficult to be on the receiving end of it repeatedly.
Such things result in the receiver of the experiences believing that the SEI in question has "bad ethics functions," objectively speaking.
Similarly, with other types, you'll see that there are specific patterns in other functions (or other things) which explain the behavior you see. It can't be pinpointed to a singular function. Weaknesses are often a result of a combination of things. I know what you're getting at with SLE's "strong" Fi and ILI's "valued" Si, but I'm not in the mood to explain/analyze them right now. Maybe later.
edit: laughing at myself because he is such a child and me calling him a little shit is the kind of thing parents say to kids.
This is someone who runs away laughing when you try to look him in the eye to not feel so small and dramatically throws a strop whilst smiling when you’ve been avoiding him
and you’re trying to tell him to stay away from you. Reminds me of my mamma and sister..when they’re being lame.
please also excuse my bad mood :z
Last edited by Bethanyclaire; 06-12-2022 at 05:46 PM.
Some people rely too much on stereotypes when typing, some too much on type descriptions and some don't even look at IM. Functions. You know, the thing the theory is centered around? And try to match up people's cognitive processes to them. Another problem is that some smartass will make another system, and then someone will follow, and then someone else will follow (usually an LII). They haven't really defined those functions themselves most of the time, and that creates more confusion. Someone says Ti is "X", and someone says "it's X and Y", then some fool disagrees and is like, "nope, it's actually Z". There's too much disagreement sometimes, and people can't objectively define the functions and agree upon if Ti is "X", "Y", "Z" or a combination of "XYZ". People seem to be more interested in their own subjective understanding of the system, which isn't illogical in itself but the confusion comes when someone types, say someone EIE, someone else types them SLE, and another types them SEE because of discrepancies in how those three people define the functions overall.
If people want socionics to be objective and have a standard for typing people, then they're going to have to agree upon the most accurate interpretations of the functions and the other parts within the system, and use those as the marker points for typing people/defining the system itself. There will be a lot less confusion, and a better chance of typing people by best fit, at least. You can go like "X is closer to EIE than SLE because of Y" or "A has a chance of being EIE > SLE > SEE because..." etc. Until then, people are just going to be confused.
for the thread title :
Jung once spoke of the undifferentiated type, which is one who doesn't have a clear preference/prejudice towards a function, or towards introversion/extraversion ( in Jungian, not stereotypical way )
for the question in the content of the thread :
DCNH is the key , but DON'T misuse it in a stupid way that justifies impossible typing
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
