It doesn't really, but the impression I get of SeTi people is quite stale.. or something. And so do the dudes you type ILE for the most partOriginally Posted by Sol
Well actually most people you type as any type seem stale
It doesn't really, but the impression I get of SeTi people is quite stale.. or something. And so do the dudes you type ILE for the most part
Well actually most people you type as any type seem stale
Last edited by maniac; 04-16-2018 at 08:38 PM.
Anyway, I think there might only be four main types of people: NF, SF, ST, NT. Yes there is probably an I/E axis but I think it's fluid and also a spectrum rather than so black and white. J/P seems correlated to N/S anyway - plus the where you are in life, mood, etc affects that.
theyre called clubs baby welcome to socionics glad ur with us
It could be whatever type, but the ones who did that to me were a confirmed SEE, I've tested him because we used to hang out a lot, and the other was the most SLE person I've ever known. I can't speak for all the other but they didn't seem like Fe.
no, I've said that the Si types I know are not overly enthusiastic when talking about food they like (like manjac was saying), except they can talk a lot about it. I've never met a Si going "omg omg I LOOOVE pizza!!", but they can spend hours describing the kinds of pizza they've eaten, and confronting all the sort of things that make a good pizza vs a bad one and all food related topics (not too sure about SEIs but my SEI cousin is not really over enthusiastic about food either).you have said the opposite in the same sentence. it's charming
Sheesh...
Sol Se confirmedSe. when you control the everything
that's very close to what I think as well, plus add T/F is really rather sexually biased if you read Jung at least... eheh
^ Jung actually admitted that btw.
F was supposed to describe women and T men, heh.
good bye
I have this cheese I like on crackers and I noticed there was mold on the cheese I brought to work. But I wanted to eat it, so I eated it.Does that make me Si valuing?
good bye
I think it's the other way around, he'd be like "Feeling is the most common function in women*, according to my researches." He says the same about Ne, that it's most common in women, according to his experience.^ Jung actually admitted that btw.
F was supposed to describe women and T men, heh.
Anyway we can buy that because his researchers were conducted 100 years ago... so this adds something interesting to who considers the functions as stale unchangeable things... but society, and time, really can modify their perception (as they contributed to Jung's "bias").
It's interesting to read Jungian typology theories but yes, as someone once told me... socionics is really not a loyal Jungian typology, thankfully I'd add.
Last edited by ooo; 04-17-2018 at 08:39 AM.
Yeah I don't know. I remember reading somewhere where he admitted in an interview that he was just trying to explain the differences between men and women after he got a lot of criticism for his types (kind of like how people criticize types here when they may not really understand it).
But I can't remember where I found it, so okay.
good bye
oh wow! lol super bias confirmed then -P
Something that I've been wondering about Jungian typology is... when he talks about the Rational functions, in general terms, as an introduction before describing the specific functions, he goes like "behaviours of the unconscious: because they're rational types their unconscious is irrational...etc etc". Then he describes Te, Fe and says in each description "the unconscious of Te is Fi" etc... obviously the same thing happens for the Irrational, where in general terms their unconscious is described first as rational, then when described in detail it becomes the dichotomy Ne/Si etc.... something to ponder on.
I mean, this undoubtedly is portrayed in Model A, but how to tell if Jung would have approved that specific disposition... IDK
I think subtypes are fundamental to support Jung's claims, because they're too vague and undeveloped to be taken as strict rules for something elaborated as socionics. God bless the subtypes.
whats your subtype m8
pizza
so funny and original
told ya
I see zero problems with Jung saying feeling is more common in women than men. obviously there is some bias there, because we can't count up and accurately determine the empirical truth of that statement, but if you understand the entirety of Jungian thought you realize how trivial such a bias is, since he proceeds to take the teeth out of all sexism as products of psychic illusion. all charges of sexism against jung are misguised in this sense, because they don't take into account his own standard, which does away with sexism at the root. thus his statements that would be sexist in anyone else's mouth really aren't. its funny because the exact group that supposedly wants to eradicate sexism has their "messiah" in Jung but they can't help but crucify him. he laid the foundation way better than anyone else for the ultimately unravelling of sexist modes of thought, but for those who want their kingdom on heaven, here and now, they can't comprehend how he goes about doing it. rather they anticipate only the most superficial manifestation of victory over prejudice and in doing so unwittingly ensure prejudice will always escape out the back door and live another day. Jung finally pinned it down, but people can't even see how and fixate on trivialities rooted in political correctness, as if political correctness supersedes Jung or penetrates deeper, and therefore should control him
IDK my statement is really in function of the fact that I myself can't properly distinguish between F and T. I feel like I'm very T actually, sometimes even more than F. People around me have always called me a sort of nerd for how analytical I can get and I'm actually perceived more as logical than emotional, but I score F, and I know how sensitive I am and people really close to me can confirm, both in good and bad.
This vision anyway doesn't stop to what I am, obviously I live in a world with different people that behave in different ways and that often prove themselves for the idea I have of them, and for the idea that they've built to prove themselves to the world... which I'd tie in a good amount to that inexplicable thing that we call "their nature". But this nature that we like to categorize in here on 16types.org is influenced in a good part by society. Would I be a T if I were a boy? Why is my bf a F? Why can't I be T as a girl? And so on... In the frame of mind of the 8 functions, which I like to keep in mind and analyze etc etc, F is a step more than T, so I'm not saying that Jung's "bias" is a simple prejudice towards sexes. My concern is much more fundamental, in that, how can a personality theory that should aim at the core essence of someone's nature... how can the theory blend the person analyzed to the world imposed to them for a particular series of "external" coincidences, namely sex, culture, instruction, class, etc, and not focus instead on what the true core of a person is? If I fit people into a psychological box because of some external features (sex, class, political agenda etc), then I'm not creating anything but a stereotype. It's fine, 100 years ago there wasn't the knowledge we now have of the brain, and the brains of people now don't look so different for the 2 (?) genders. Not to consider the fact that this division and this prejudice has created a lot of harm for everyone, not particularly for women, but more so for men, because if they show emotions, if they're less than perfectly logical, then society is ready to label them as deficient, when not gay. Don't get me wrong, I agree women and men have different features and this can result in different relationships to their bodies and the world around (Freud docet), but on the other hand I wonder how much of this is actually the case and how much instead is just a social construction. I opt for the second. I opt for this option because in my personal experience, even if I know T men and F women, this same difference of functions doens't stop the T men to be more considerate of human feelings than many women, and F women won't stop being total pricks and highly logical because of how they favor F over T, so I really wonder what's the difference in the end... and given how most typology tests work out there, I'd address this dichotomy still to "do you like math and solving problems" over "do you get out of your way to help someone?", which is the umpteenth gender stereotype that we don't need.
@Muddy - most thoughts LSI, SLI. reminded Christian Bale on one photo
@Chae - hm... that photos gave the impression of ILI. she seems mentioned those were not yours. it's all strange * sounds the tune from "X-files" *
oh no
we had IEI Owl, which one after the feeling that has no type, then have written ESI [mb she jokes]. some virus for IEI girls spreads on the planet which inclines them to a hard mistyping
EII confirmed. Opposite of an asshole.
I understand what you're saying here, but what's with the assumption that F = considerate of human feelings and T = being total pricks? this isn't even specifically directed toward your post because it actually seems to be a common misconception in typology communities. I'd say a better description is that F is more aware of human feelings, but what they do with that information is entirely dependent on the individual, whereas T is less aware of human feelings, aside from a few brief peaks here and there, but what they do with that information is more often than not unintentional. I mean logical types can still act with the intention to create a "good" or "bad" outcome (ethically speaking) but it's less likely to pan out how they intended, especially in the case of Fx PoLR who tend to accidentally misread the limited information they receive on those fronts, more so than Pi PoLR. you could probably even take it a step further by specifying ethical functions (Fi vs Fe, especially Fi egos vs Fe egos) since their intentions might be misread by representatives of the opposing orientation of their preferred function, but I still feel like they're more likely to "feel" that dissonance, if not immediately then eventually, while having the necessary knowledge to correct those misreads, if they're so inclined, while most Fx PoLRs are left thinking, "I still don't get it but ok..."
with that said though, I'm pretty sure there's a socionics article which aims to debunk that very notion (x) but what's even more interesting (to me, at least) is that Fe PoLR (INTp, ISTp) is often portrayed as worse on this forum, than it's ever written to be in socionics articles. I understand that there's a disparity between theory and reality but if the sociotypes themselves are generally unobtrusive by nature (i.e. introverted, Ip temperament, which is probably amplified in Pi subtypes) then I feel like most acts which are deemed unethical are usually the unfortunate byproduct of passivity rather than any active attempts in that direction. however I do remember reading in Jung's description of Ne that it's more commonly encountered in women than men, and I think he does mention, or at least imply, in his description of Fi that it's more commonly encountered in women than men, he may have stated similar in his description of Fe but I'd need to double-check since it's been a while since I've read them, although I don't personally see an issue with this.
that T/F dichotomy question reminds me of the I/E dichotomy: "would you rather live in a cabin in the woods by yourself for 15 years without access to anything except maybe a rubik's cube, OR would you rather snort a line of cocaine off someone's stomach with 500 of your closest friends?"
Last edited by wasp; 04-17-2018 at 02:41 PM.
@ooo
yeah but you gotta understand Jung knows all that, in fact a lot of that is due to Jung's influence to began with: to unwind the nature of social influence in forming judgement its just mediated via the psyche. the only issue I have with all that is that the psyche predates the social environment, but of course once the ball gets rolling they influence eachother. but you can unwind the social problems at their root with recourse to notions of the psyche. thus to supersede them with social psychology unwittingly frustrates its own purpose, and sets its sights on the wrong target
and thanks
Just wanted to mention that IxTps are not Fi PoLR. Are Fe PoLR. Fi is mobilizing function and our hidden agenda.
Fi PoLR is the 4th function, and it corresponds to SLE and ILE.
According model A:
Function 4 (Vulnerable): Usage causes extreme irritation; avoided as much as possible; has to be developed by perusal experience; often ignored.
Function 6 (Mobilizing/Activating). Appreciated; oveuse by others can be seen as excessive; may be overindulged or severely neglected; can cause boredom.
Which is exactly how I feel towards Fi overuse and over emphasize. It turns boring or excessive.
some SLE are not so bad
@Crystal o shit 'twas a typo but I'll correct it
But that's not what Socionics is about. It focuses on the true core of the person, just as you said. So I can't understand what you are having a problem with??
Of course correlations can exist. But that's another thing.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
The notions of "the real self" and "real feelings" sound pop-psychologyish to me. For example when someone is angry, should he:
1. Express his anger, for that it's his "true" feelings.
or
2. Suppress or control his anger, for that it's not helpful to achieving his goals.
So what do these "true selves" and "true feelings" really mean? Can someone be somehow "more honest" with their feelings? What does that even mean, and is it even desirable? Should you just remain sad instead of trying to improve your mood, because being sad is somehow "truer"?
And anyway, no matter what, people are affected by their environments and the institutions in their societies that they have built up, as in this picture:
Downward causation in emergent systems, creating a feedback loop. Top: Institutions on the higher level, Bottom: Individuals on the lower level emergence. The higher level institutions constrain the individuals (from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fE3...1PXXa22DZfRcsn).
That's why psychologism is false, because people are affected by the institutions that are greater than them. And they're not the expressions of their own psychology.
I think Jung did more "type discrimination" than sexism, describing in more positive light the types that had his valued functions than those who werent. I think he wasnt aware of it. I'll probably open a thread about it when I have the time.
lol @wasp
I think you're right @ Crystal, that's what I was trying to get at... I realize saying sexism sets the spirits on fire
@Adam Strange, fortunately you can't see how much assholish I am! (I think I had my good moments in here tho) ty anyway!
you guys ever imagine how funny it'd be if one day ausra augustuajadgsihd rose from the dead just to tell us that this whole system was just a social experiment to test how suggestible the human psyche is to faux attempts at organizing chaos aka reality
@Tallmo, Idk what the problem is either... as you said we should get at the core of a person, but can there be that core when the outside factors are considered in such a great extent? I think that's confusing. On another level, how can be there only 16+ cores? So somehow it's true we need those outside factors in order to decide how to put each person in only 16 categories, some parts in common that guide us, aka the 8 functions... but then that's no core anymore.
I think F kind of corresponds to emotional intelligence. They just are more naturally in tune with people. Ts have trouble with that? Does that make sense?
good bye
Fyi: thinker types are not assholes. :/
Ixtp are nice people. Take for an example, given low Fe.
They're much better than Fe doms.
This is the problem with typing by dichotomies. If you look at the individual IM elements and functions you can get a more nuanced picture.
how IEI can to be
revisor should to have no big problem with this, even by your texts
I've noticed your incorrectness for EII easily in the past, including because your Fe tactless emotionality and chaotic P thinking
The reason why others may do not notice IEI as your type is the lack of their typing experience and watching of real EIIs for the comparision.
He was trying to explain the differences in people. He mentions the problem in Freudian theory where two siblings are raised in the same environment yet develop clearly different neuroses.
People also influence the institutions though, so really, this is just called a projection of feelings. The institutions are the people and the people are the institutions. I mean it's not like a pile of white bricks feels anything.The notions of "the real self" and "real feelings" sound pop-psychologyish to me. For example when someone is angry, should he:
1. Express his anger, for that it's his "true" feelings.
or
2. Suppress or control his anger, for that it's not helpful to achieving his goals.
So what do these "true selves" and "true feelings" really mean? Can someone be somehow "more honest" with their feelings? What does that even mean, and is it even desirable? Should you just remain sad instead of trying to improve your mood, because being sad is somehow "truer"?
And anyway, no matter what, people are affected by their environments and the institutions in their societies that they have built up, as in this picture:
Downward causation in emergent systems, creating a feedback loop. Top: Institutions on the higher level, Bottom: Individuals on the lower level emergence. The higher level institutions constrain the individuals (from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fE3...1PXXa22DZfRcsn).
That's why psychologism is false, because people are affected by the institutions that are greater than them. And they're not the expressions of their own psychology.
Of one Essence is the human race,
Thusly has Creation put the Base;
One Limb impacted is sufficient,
For all Others to feel the Mace.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
