Your typing of forum members

[godslave]

You are very good.
And not trying to demerit your insightful perception, though, I have to say that, I habe extremely high confidence that @godslave is on the Ne-Si axis, plus he's way too expressive for being an ILI for what it's worth. Hmmmm I typed him IEE based off some of his interests, but I think he's somewhat depressed at this point and that can distort the perception of the type

My 2 cents

It's not even the fact that he is expressive. He's very tangentially orientated and interested in possibilities. He is very scattered and it seems to come naturally to him. I notice that in Expansion (though he's probably IEE-Ne) and yourself too.

Thanks for the typing !

[Ikite iru]

chriscorey ILE. NT woman. Has the typical mental fortitude in debating detailed faultines in arguments.

Win the argument is the ILE mantra.

I'm sure a type that doesn't value Se isn't going to spam this site rambling about politics while drunk but that's just me I guess.

[chriscorey]

I'm sure a type that doesn't value Se isn't going to spam this site rambling about politics while drunk but that's just me I guess.

Lol I'm ILI and have been typed assuch all across the internet,.

[chriscorey]

I'm sure a type that doesn't value Se isn't going to spam this site rambling about politics while drunk but that's just me I guess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2l0RjZvOI

[Distance]

Nunki IEI

[SacredKnowing]

@Nunki He already has it on vinyl.

[Distance]

https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1598170

This isn't Ni Te. ILI use Te data and invent ways around extraverted thinking. Shifting and shuffling with Ni in existing frames.

This whole shebang is Ti and Ne or Ne Ti.

Ti concoctions.

Se

[pzombieLIT]

SquishyCans - EII or IEI

This reminds me. I was wondering about that actually. I can totally see why somebody might suggest that. And I can come off IEI, especially around SLEs. But I don't really value Fi, as EIIs do. Or at least the descriptions for Fi lead in EII don't fit me at all, but Ti does.

There's a weird intermingling of Jungian T vs F, Big 5 agreeableness, and Reinin's Constructive/Emotive dichotomy. Like ILI vs LII, ILI are constructive and LII emotivist, so ILI have more of the disagreeableness of T, but LII have more agreeable T. It's something... They all kind of relate to each other in different ways, but not always directly or at least I'm not sure what each one is supposedly getting at anymore. I guess I should make a thread about it...

edit: or maybe I am IEI. I guess it's possible. IEI or LII. But I have Alpha values, so there's that. I think if people are honest about Socionics and self-awareness, it's more complicated than just a static type. I said it in another thread, but I really do think there's something to the benefit rings. I think each type morphs between the types next to them, as well as their own type and it adds interesting complexity to the relations.

[godslave]

edit: or maybe I am IEI. I guess it's possible. IEI or LII. But I have Alpha values, so there's that. I think if people are honest about Socionics and self-awareness, it's more complicated than just a static type. I said it in another thread, but I really do think there's something to the benefit rings. I think each type morphs between the types next to them, as well as their own type and it adds interesting complexity to the relations.

Consider that information flow between types it will be tempting to imagine that the flow has an incidence on the development of a type and its "shape". It would be similar to the erosion phenomenon. The question is how long would it take for a type to morph and under which conditions.

However, a systematic "morphing" law between types would be hard to substantiate in socionics. Furthermore, if this morphing concept prove to be theoretically true, then it would enter in collision with an immuable principle, namely that TIM's structure don't change (at least not in socionics). That said, TIMs are not people and no model in the world can factor the complexity of the human psyche and the variables that can influence its development in any systematic way.

[pzombieLIT]

Ah well, it's not really that complicated. If somebody is say Ne Fi, dualistically they also use Si and Te. Since we are not robots, you can easily use say your HA Te and back it up Si or Ni. But if you are an intuitive type, then Ni will be more likely/familiar (which is benefit pair). I don't know, I get what you're doing here, but it's not that complicated. I'm not trying to make a big leap here, just looking at the type a little more dynamically.

[godslave]

Ah well, it's not really that complicated. If somebody is say Ne Fi, dualistically they also use Si and Te. Since we are not robots, you can easily use say your HA Te and back it up Si or Ni.

Can you explain first the Idea of morphing what do you mean by that exactly so that I can try to follow your reasoning ? I don't understand the bold part.

But if you are an intuitive type, then Ni will be more likely/familiar (which is benefit pair). I don't know,

Same here, I don't understand.

I get what you're doing here, but it's not that complicated. I'm not trying to make a big leap here, just looking at the type a little more dynamically.

What do you think that I'm doing here ? I would like to look at the type a little more dynamically too .

[pzombieLIT]

What do you think that I'm doing here ? I would like to look at the type a little more dynamically too .

Sorry, I um...I like to think about things from a subjective or inductive way -> Ti.

What I mean is, I remembered you having a post about how people use the word "we" and I noticed how you seem to focus on methodologies and wanting to separate typology systems.

So Rusted Typology had an interesting video on INTj vs INTp, where he said INTj like to connect everything with some logic. And that's what I think I do.
Sidenote: It's also interesting how Rust types SEE, when previously he was self-typed SLE, yet that video was very holographic SLE Ti organizational logic. Anyway, it reminded me of the Donald Trump type debate thread and the difference between SLE and SEE. I think Gulenko has had a bad influence on Socionics by making money on typing and setting up a school that he now has to live up to in reputation -> which seems like a Beta Quadra value thing to do as well...But that's another topic...and I don't know if anybody wants to talk about Gulenko anymore. (and I'm not even sure "I" want to talk about him anymore. His followers get on my nerves a little...)

But I remembered the frustration of trying to talk about this stuff with people over the years, especially people that are very critical and over-skeptical (imo) and don't seem to give the concepts a fair chance, usually by people that don't seem to "value" Ti. They usually eventually declare everything bullshit and socionics not empirical and leave. So I get the impression you don't value Ti is what I mean and I don't know if that even applies to you, so my bad if it came off negative.

Can you explain first the Idea of morphing what do you mean by that exactly so that I can try to follow your reasoning ? I don't understand the bold part.


Same here, I don't understand.

So I'm not sure how to approach giving an answer. Like for one, do you think Jungian Psychotypes underpin Socionics types? If not, then what I say probably won't be of value to you. I'm also lazy and fear too much effort and too much criticism, especially if I don't know if the other person wants to hear a long complicated reasoning, and this has been something that's taken me awhile to understand and I'm sure I'm wrong about some stuff, but I can try once in a while I guess.

But it's like this to me. Take Jung's 8 archetypes for cognitively experiencing the world -> Ni/Se, Ne/Si, Ti/Fe, Te/Fi. One has to question, does this abstractly represent human cognition or does it miss something? If it's missing something, it's not worth using (probably). I think it's not missing something, in that I believe the abstractions are "capable" of labeling all the ways that our mind's can process the world, but in an inductive sense, being that our mind's work towards stability. So we will have genes and environmental influences that cause our mind to develop certain ways of being, and it will be more like a probability distribution or bell curve (from a more strictly Te sense) where your type is what's more apparent than anything else.
For example, Socionics does make some inferred correlations, such as Ni being "victim" or Ne as "childlike". Those are debatable to the extent that they happen from a Te perspective and we'd need to deduce from Te. But I think it's more like they are a subset of their respective functional pairs, but also set exclusionary from each other, meaning you won't necessarily see them, but that when you do, the childlike (Ne/Si) descriptions won't belong to (Ni/Se) and the victim (Ni/Se) descriptions wouldn't really belong to the (Ne/Si) descriptions either. There would be specific domains of knowledge each one would encompass.

So...back to answering your question. If our mind forms around a cognitive function, let's say Ne in this case, where Si is the dualistic opposite, meaning they exist like ying and yang or love and hate. When you (and I mean 'you' in the hypothetical sense) use Ne, Si is also a part of your Ne. So we can talk about what this implies or means.
First thing is briefly that you would be "extroverted", meaning that your mind is more geared towards interacting with what's around you. The second is that the focus is on intuition, so you'd see the connection between things, but not from a purely detached attitude (like Ni), but from an interactive one that enacts intuition on the environment. Ne would be looking to change reality by suppressing the subjective understanding of the "hear and now" (Si). So say, I don't know, you run a church and see that people don't perceive your religion in the way that you wanted or the way it's supposed to be, so you'd figure out how they view it (Si) and then try to come up with an idea to change that subjective perception to the one you want. I see this a lot with Apple products. I personally hate Apple (let's not get into that), but they do a good job with brand image and marketing a feeling or vibe about their products to their customers, some form of Ne/Si imo.
So now we can talk about the neurotic factor. Since subjectivity underlies Ne by way of Si, we can talk about neurotic behaviors of Ne. In order for Ne to do what it seeks, it has to perceive and repress Si. If something negative is perceived about Si, that negativity will be projected on the world. So Ne could subconsciously perceive an environment as say hostile, then project that perception on the world around and try to change it to something they think is better (Ne), without realizing that other people might not perceive it the same way they do and reject their attempts to change anything. Something like that anyway. So someone developing Ne is going to have a neurotic factor with Si. And it will take experience, self-reflection, self-awareness to overcome it.

So there's kind of two neurotic problems here. If somebody is just Ne, their mind would only "perceive" reality, but not feel compelled any way toward it. So this Ne person needs rationality to balance their irrational perception and extroverted attitude. I kind of think of this maybe as a form of evolution because without this balance, the mind is very neurotic and not adaptable and would not benefit survival. Some people might be more or less like this and I suppose they can still thrive anyway (Donald Trump comes to mind...). But rationality seems to deal with the organization and motivation with reality and by adding it, it allows this extroverted consciousness an introverted attitude that can deal with too much Ne or Si neurotic problems, as well as supplying motivation and a desire to organize reality with Ti or Te.

Sidenote: People often misappropriate feeling as emotions, but it's really more about motivation imo (internalized feeling vs externalized feeling), and thinking as dispassionate logic, but it's really more about how we are motivated to organize reality imo (internalized thinking vs externalized thinking). For example, Alive seems to be frustrated with the way people are reasoning things and seems to be typing everyone IEI as a backhanded way of venting his frustration. But emotion can be anything; all the functions can be an emotion imo. Maybe this would be a good discussion on what exactly is Te and Ti because I guess I'm skeptical now that saying Te is "facts" or Ti "logic" necessarily makes any sense when that's isolating it from Fi/Fe and then doesn't make much Socionics sense to me, now that I'm writing this out. In a philosophical sense maybe though, but it would theoretically be different from typing. It's also similar to saying Fi is "relational" ethics and Fe is "emotional" ethics, but lots of F types can be quite evil and not very ethical imo. But similarly, in a philosophical sense, I guess it could be argued anyhow.

But anyway, back to the question, since this Ne person is characterized by having a dominating extroverted attitude, they will also balance it with rationality, but of an introverted attitude. So that means either Fi or Ti. So let's say this person is inclined to Fi. Now this is where I kind of might disagree with model A in that I think HA Te (in this case of NeFi IEE) isn't necessarily unconscious. What I mean is this person is primarily Ne+Te and Fi+Si second. This would relate to IEE-Ne and they would switch between Ne and Te; but when using Te, as intuition is the main focus of this consciousness, Te will have intuitive flavor -> i.e. appear Te+intuition or LIE. I see this a lot in typing threads where IEE can be mistaken for LIE for example. But as this hypothetical consciousness growths, there is a path for growth: through the demonstrative Fe and suggestive Si. I think the demonstrative is basically developed as a way to reinforce or help the creative function. It just makes sense if people end up with a preference for either ST, NT, NF, or NT preference. So as the introverted Fi attitude is developed, the demonstrative probably kind of develops with it. This would be IEE-Fi type. And over time the harmful effects of the extroverted attitude can be dealt with as well, namely the person should theoretically use Si more and come to terms with its neurotic elements in their ego. So this IEE would start appearing more ESE (Fe+Si). For IEE, this relates to the benefit ring LIE(neurotic IEE-Ne subtype, Sam Bankman Fried comes to mind)<-IEE(more stable IEE-Fi subtype)->ESE (self-actualization?).

I don't know if that makes sense. But that's basically it. The benefit ring weirdly seems to explain types in developmental stages.

[Distance]

Actually, I am an ILE and I'm Infantile because I know about Socionics, which isn't even worth studying unless you're an Alpha NT in the first place (it's not like anyone else besides us can even apply it).

I was hoping that my studies in Socionics would help me cure people of Autism (ILI from the Socionic Perspective) but I find it a futile effort that will bring me no monetary gains; in fact, Elon Musk (that everyone hates) has a better idea of trying to cure such conditions by surgically modifying the brain.

EIE

A phoenix from a past life.

Blue is not just for boys.

[godslave]

Sorry, I um...I like to think about things from a subjective or inductive way -> Ti.

Okay !

What I mean is, I remembered you having a post about how people use the word "we" and I noticed how you seem to focus on methodologies and wanting to separate typology systems.

Yes ! I don't don't find Reinin dichotomies useful in the typing process so I don't use them. That said, there is a Reinin D that I like more than others namely Aristocratic / Democratic.

Now, it is true that most human beings are biased towards either one of these two ways of perceiving other individuals :

- A) Individuals who perceive other individuals as representative of all the attributes (values, beliefs etc..) of the group they belong to.
- B) Individuals who perceive other individuals as representative of their own individuality regardless of the group an individual might belong to.

I used to think that A was exclusive to Aristocratic Quadras and B exclusive to Democratic Quadras. However, I changed my mind and decided to not correlate A and B with Aristocratic/Democratic anymore.

Indeed, A and B probably exist in any Quadra and are thus NTR. I've seen Alpha and Gamma Types expressing A. I've seen Deltas expressing B. (I've never seen Beta Types expressing B though ).

One could say that all these particular Alpha, Gamma and Delta Types might have been mistyped, sure but it doesn't matter at this point since I don't use Reinin anyways.

As for the tendency in some people to use the pronoun "we" used by a single person to emphasize his or her appartenance/identification to a group, I thought it was indicative of A and therefore an Aristocratic propensity.

Yes, I don't like to mixe typology for typing purposes. Each typology should be apprehended as a stand alone system and certainly not as a tool for justifying a typing of another system. I'm aligned with SSS and use their methodology for the most part. But my typing skills are not very sharp !

So Rusted Typology had an interesting video on INTj vs INTp, where he said INTj like to connect everything with some logic. And that's what I think I do.

Okay.

Sidenote: It's also interesting how Rust types SEE, when previously he was self-typed SLE, yet that video was very holographic SLE Ti organizational logic. Anyway, it reminded me of the Donald Trump type debate thread and the difference between SLE and SEE. I think Gulenko has had a bad influence on Socionics by making money on typing and setting up a school that he now has to live up to in reputation -> which seems like a Beta Quadra value thing to do as well...But that's another topic...and I don't know if anybody wants to talk about Gulenko anymore. (and I'm not even sure "I" want to talk about him anymore. His followers get on my nerves a little...)

But I remembered the frustration of trying to talk about this stuff with people over the years, especially people that are very critical and over-skeptical (imo) and don't seem to give the concepts a fair chance, usually by people that don't seem to "value" Ti. They usually eventually declare everything bullshit and socionics not empirical and leave. So I get the impression you don't value Ti is what I mean and I don't know if that even applies to you, so my bad if it came off negative.

You didn't came off as negative, it's okay !

Well, that obviously doesn't apply to me, but it doesn't mean that I value Ti does it ?

So I'm not sure how to approach giving an answer. Like for one, do you think Jungian Psychotypes underpin Socionics types? If not, then what I say probably won't be of value to you.

I like that term "underpin" ! Well the short answer is yes and no. Socionics is some kind of chimera which is only partly inspired by Jung's Typology (mainly the Four Jungian Dichotomies and the functions (albeit reconceptualized)). The rest of Aushra ideas was to put together a system in which she brought Kepinki's information metabolism, cybernetics, some of Freud's nomenclature .

Now, Jungian Psychology most certainly underpins Jungian Psychotypes, indeed the latter was designed to fit perfectly within the former. As for the chimera aforementioned, it hardly fit within the Jungian Paradigm. That said, in Jung's work, some have found some elements of correlations between Jung's Typology with Model A. Some people did just that, but that's just squaring the circle at this point.

I'm also lazy and fear too much effort and too much criticism, especially if I don't know if the other person wants to hear a long complicated reasoning, and this has been something that's taken me awhile to understand and I'm sure I'm wrong about some stuff, but I can try once in a while I guess.

Oh, I'm ready for the long reasoning and I'm sure that I don't have neither the energy nor the mental capacity for too much criticism !

But it's like this to me. Take Jung's 8 archetypes for cognitively experiencing the world -> Ni/Se, Ne/Si, Ti/Fe, Te/Fi. One has to question, does this abstractly represent human cognition or does it miss something? If it's missing something, it's not worth using (probably). I think it's not missing something, in that I believe the abstractions are "capable" of labeling all the ways that our mind's can process the world, but in an inductive sense, being that our mind's work towards stability. So we will have genes and environmental influences that cause our mind to develop certain ways of being, and it will be more like a probability distribution or bell curve (from a more strictly Te sense) where your type is what's more apparent than anything else.

It's hard for me to make sense out of what you are trying to say here, but fair enough let's continue...

For example, Socionics does make some inferred correlations, such as Ni being "victim" or Ne as "childlike". Those are debatable to the extent that they happen from a Te perspective and we'd need to deduce from Te. But I think it's more like they are a subset of their respective functional pairs, but also set exclusionary from each other, meaning you won't necessarily see them, but that when you do, the childlike (Ne/Si) descriptions won't belong to (Ni/Se) and the victim (Ni/Se) descriptions wouldn't really belong to the (Ne/Si) descriptions either. There would be specific domains of knowledge each one would encompass.

...

So...back to answering your question. If our mind forms around a cognitive function, let's say Ne in this case, where Si is the dualistic opposite, meaning they exist like ying and yang or love and hate. When you (and I mean 'you' in the hypothetical sense) use Ne, Si is also a part of your Ne. So we can talk about what this implies or means.

I'm sorry but I have to reject the premise in red. "Using" a function doesn't imply the simultaneous usage of any part of its paired function. I mean, I don't think paired functions are tied like some kind quantum entanglement . But fair enough, let's continue...

First thing is briefly that you would be "extroverted", meaning that your mind is more geared towards interacting with what's around you. The second is that the focus is on intuition, so you'd see the connection between things, but not from a purely detached attitude (like Ni), but from an interactive one that enacts intuition on the environment. Ne would be looking to change reality by suppressing the subjective understanding of the "hear and now" (Si). So say, I don't know, you run a church and see that people don't perceive your religion in the way that you wanted or the way it's supposed to be, so you'd figure out how they view it (Si) and then try to come up with an idea to change that subjective perception to the one you want.

... Okay !

I see this a lot with Apple products. I personally hate Apple (let's not get into that), but they do a good job with brand image and marketing a feeling or vibe about their products to their customers, some form of Ne/Si imo.
So now we can talk about the neurotic factor. Since subjectivity underlies Ne by way of Si, we can talk about neurotic behaviors of Ne. In order for Ne to do what it seeks, it has to perceive and repress Si. If something negative is perceived about Si, that negativity will be projected on the world. So Ne could subconsciously perceive an environment as say hostile, then project that perception on the world around and try to change it to something they think is better (Ne), without realizing that other people might not perceive it the same way they do and reject their attempts to change anything. Something like that anyway. So someone developing Ne is going to have a neurotic factor with Si. And it will take experience, self-reflection, self-awareness to overcome it.

I fail to see the direct connection you are establishing between "neurotic behaviors" and Ne (the Dominant function (?)).

So there's kind of two neurotic problems here. If somebody is just Ne, their mind would only "perceive" reality, but not feel compelled any way toward it. So this Ne person needs rationality to balance their irrational perception and extroverted attitude. I kind of think of this maybe as a form of evolution because without this balance, the mind is very neurotic and not adaptable and would not benefit survival. Some people might be more or less like this and I suppose they can still thrive anyway (Donald Trump comes to mind...). But rationality seems to deal with the organization and motivation with reality and by adding it, it allows this extroverted consciousness an introverted attitude that can deal with too much Ne or Si neurotic problems, as well as supplying motivation and a desire to organize reality with Ti or Te.

Okay..

Sidenote: People often misappropriate feeling as emotions, but it's really more about motivation imo (internalized feeling vs externalized feeling), and thinking as dispassionate logic, but it's really more about how we are motivated to organize reality imo (internalized thinking vs externalized thinking). For example, Alive seems to be frustrated with the way people are reasoning things and seems to be typing everyone IEI as a backhanded way of venting his frustration. But emotion can be anything; all the functions can be an emotion imo. Maybe this would be a good discussion on what exactly is Te and Ti because I guess I'm skeptical now that saying Te is "facts" or Ti "logic" necessarily makes any sense when that's isolating it from Fi/Fe and then doesn't make much Socionics sense to me, now that I'm writing this out. In a philosophical sense maybe though, but it would theoretically be different from typing. It's also similar to saying Fi is "relational" ethics and Fe is "emotional" ethics, but lots of F types can be quite evil and not very ethical imo. But similarly, in a philosophical sense, I guess it could be argued anyhow.

I guess even F types have their neurotic behaviors . Indeed, F types don't necessarily have a monopoly on Ethics and Morals.

But anyway, back to the question, since this Ne person is characterized by having a dominating extroverted attitude, they will also balance it with rationality, but of an introverted attitude. So that means either Fi or Ti. So let's say this person is inclined to Fi. Now this is where I kind of might disagree with model A in that I think HA Te (in this case of NeFi IEE) isn't necessarily unconscious. What I mean is this person is primarily Ne+Te and Fi+Si second. This would relate to IEE-Ne and they would switch between Ne and Te; but when using Te, as intuition is the main focus of this consciousness, Te will have intuitive flavor -> i.e. appear Te+intuition or LIE.

The expression "hidden agenda" is misleading. I prefer to call that function like it was initially called i.e. the activating function. It's not a question of flavor or anything like that, it's just an "unconscious" mechanism induced by the psyche that manifests as an instruction which activates the Ego functions esp the creative function in the social sphere when it is needed for instance to solve a new problem. No more no less.

I see this a lot in typing threads where IEE can be mistaken for LIE for example. But as this hypothetical consciousness growths, there is a path for growth: through the demonstrative Fe and suggestive Si. I think the demonstrative is basically developed as a way to reinforce or help the creative function. It just makes sense if people end up with a preference for either ST, NT, NF, or NT preference. So as the introverted Fi attitude is developed, the demonstrative probably kind of develops with it. This would be IEE-Fi type. And over time the harmful effects of the extroverted attitude can be dealt with as well, namely the person should theoretically use Si more and come to terms with its neurotic elements in their ego. So this IEE would start appearing more ESE (Fe+Si). For IEE, this relates to the benefit ring LIE(neurotic IEE-Ne subtype, Sam Bankman Fried comes to mind)<-IEE(more stable IEE-Fi subtype)->ESE (self-actualization?).

I don't know if that makes sense. But that's basically it. The benefit ring weirdly seems to explain types in developmental stages.

I don't see the point of using subtypes when dealing with the benefit ring or the supervising ring for that matter. As far as I know, subtypes are not factored in the socion dynamics as a whole.

Anyway, thank you very much for your time and explanations.



Edit : Erratum : I said "Delta types" instead "Alpha types" . That's corrected now.

[Park]

Jesus, I have to scroll multiple times to read a single post. You guys should author books, or research papers or something.

[Ikite iru]

Is it just me, or are quite a lot of recently active users getting banned? I'm not reading every thread on this site, but was surprised at answering Headstrong and seeing that he was banned already and it happened to a couple of other users as well

[Ave]

Is it just me, or are quite a lot of recently active users getting banned? I'm not reading every thread on this site, but was surprised at answering Headstrong and seeing that he was banned already and it happened to a couple of other users as well

I'm pretty sure "Headstrong" was a former user who had already gotten permabanned.

I don't know who else got banned, Qaz?

[Ikite iru]

I'm pretty sure "Headstrong" was a former user who had already gotten permabanned.

I don't know who else got banned, Qaz?

I only remember reading "banned" a couple of times recently but I didn't pay attention to names. I assume it must be a wave of self-bans or something since there's barely any moderation here

[pzombieLIT]

Okay !



Yes ! I don't don't find Reinin dichotomies useful in the typing process so I don't use them. That said, there is a Reinin D that I like more than others namely Aristocratic / Democratic.

Now, it is true that most human beings are biased towards either one of these two ways of perceiving other individuals :

- A) Individuals who perceive other individuals as representative of all the attributes (values, beliefs etc..) of the group they belong to.
- B) Individuals who perceive other individuals as representative of their own individuality regardless of the group an individual might belong to.

I used to think that A was exclusive to Aristocratic Quadras and B exclusive to Democratic Quadras. However, I changed my mind and decided to not correlate A and B with Aristocratic/Democratic anymore.

Indeed, A and B probably exist in any Quadra and are thus NTR. I've seen Alpha and Gamma Types expressing A. I've seen Deltas expressing B. (I've never seen Beta Types expressing B though ).

One could say that all these particular Alpha, Gamma and Delta Types might have been mistyped, sure but it doesn't matter at this point since I don't use Reinin anyways.

It's interesting I guess, since the Reinin traits are further mathematical dimensions on the types. But Reinin doesn't justify them with a philosophical backing and I watched a video with Expat and Jack Oliver talking about it and they seemed to have the same criticisms that I've found. Some dichotomies are too situational, rather than type intrinsic. And since I also see type as more dynamic than just the two ego functions, I don't think these would necessarily apply anyway. But some traits do seem to be empirically true for me among various types, like constructive/emotive, or reasonable/decisive. I find it fun to toy with the dichotomies calculator sometimes by picking different categories of a person and see what it comes up with.

As for the tendency in some people to use the pronoun "we" used by a single person to emphasize his or her appartenance/identification to a group, I thought it was indicative of A and therefore an Aristocratic propensity.

Yeah, that's a good question. If I had to guess I'd say Ti, whether Beta or Alpha, is still going to "value" categories, especially with Socionics. But Beta ST is thought to be pragmatic logic, kind of seeing things more simply, where a type might be thought to fulfill a certain organizational role or encompass a person more simply. But with Alpha or Gamma, you have more complicated NT logic, so they see more possibilities for the person and what more specifically to do with that individual. I'm guessing it then just means something like "expansive thinking" versus "limited thinking" or something like that.

Yes, I don't like to mixe typology for typing purposes. Each typology should be apprehended as a stand alone system and certainly not as a tool for justifying a typing of another system. I'm aligned with SSS and use their methodology for the most part. But my typing skills are not very sharp !

Yeah, I think I get it. There's a Rusted Typology video on panjungianism. He calls it a disease lol - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQtnpqxyv1c
But there's an inherent problem in having many typologies all based off the same Jungian nomenclature as well. It's like having 800 different religions that all claim they are true and every other religion is false. But somehow we're supposed to pick one or see them as all valid? It's just not logically consistent when we can just interpret something differently and say it's valid because "those dirty annoying panjungians lol". Cause then we don't have a point of reference for removing ambiguity. To remove ambiguity, you could take aspects of different interpretations and create something logically consistent, but then people still get mad and say somebody is "combining" things. It almost feels like in politics if I say criticize say Donald Trump, people freak out and call me a Liberal, when I also criticize Biden and am actually Independent. It's hard to have honest discussions.

So my question - If there is no way to remove ambiguity, isn't that a huge epistemological problem?

Well, that obviously doesn't apply to me, but it doesn't mean that I value Ti does it ?

...I don't know. It does seem to match up well with Ti-polrs and sometimes people that "say" they are ILI. But I mean I don't know, that'd be weird for me to say something definitively like that to you. Just is a pattern I guess.

I like that term "underpin" ! Well the short answer is yes and no. Socionics is some kind of chimera which is only partly inspired by Jung's Typology (mainly the Four Jungian Dichotomies and the functions (albeit reconceptualized)). The rest of Aushra ideas was to put together a system in which she brought Kepinki's information metabolism, cybernetics, some of Freud's nomenclature .

Now, Jungian Psychology most certainly underpins Jungian Psychotypes, indeed the latter was designed to fit perfectly within the former. As for the chimera aforementioned, it hardly fit within the Jungian Paradigm. That said, in Jung's work, some have found some elements of correlations between Jung's Typology with Model A. Some people did just that, but that's just squaring the circle at this point.

That's interesting. I think I'm at odds with Socionics then. My focus seems to have always been on the Jungian stuff as processes in people and correlating that through Socionics math and using the descriptions and ideas as things to look for and observe. So I guess I'm more of a purist Jungian?

It's hard for me to make sense out of what you are trying to say here, but fair enough let's continue...

...



I'm sorry but I have to reject the premise in red. "Using" a function doesn't imply the simultaneous usage of any part of its paired function. I mean, I don't think paired functions are tied like some kind quantum entanglement . But fair enough, let's continue...



... Okay !




I fail to see the direct connection you are establishing between "neurotic behaviors" and Ne (the Dominant function (?)).




Okay..



I guess even F types have their neurotic behaviors . Indeed, F types don't necessarily have a monopoly on Ethics and Morals.



The expression "hidden agenda" is misleading. I prefer to call that function like it was initially called i.e. the activating function. It's not a question of flavor or anything like that, it's just an "unconscious" mechanism induced by the psyche that manifests as an instruction which activates the Ego functions esp the creative function in the social sphere when it is needed for instance to solve a new problem. No more no less.



I don't see the point of using subtypes when dealing with the benefit ring or the supervising ring for that matter. As far as I know, subtypes are not factored in the socion dynamics as a whole.

Anyway, thank you very much for your time and explanations.

Well, to answer these more directly, put another way, I think the 8 functions can be correlated to philosophy of mind as Aristotlean Forms. intuition/sensing, feeling/thinking, extroversion/introversion seem capable of each representing all the different ways that consciousness can interpret and interact with reality. Going over it would be pretty in-depth and I don't know if I'm the best person to do that, but I guess I could ask instead, can you think of anything that couldn't be put into one of the 8 functions?

But the dual aspect is what describes the "unconscious". It's supposed to influence your ego function. And understanding that influence is part of Analytical psychology.
So I guess I don't understand when you say

I'm sorry but I have to reject the premise in red. "Using" a function doesn't imply the simultaneous usage of any part of its paired function. I mean, I don't think paired functions are tied like some kind quantum entanglement . But fair enough, let's continue...

Do you mean you reject the Jungian unconscious? I don't understand.

But neuroticism has a lot to do with this "unconscious" part of the ego functions. I was just trying to say that there seems to be two types of Jungian neuroticism, where somebody can apply negative aspects to the unconscious functions that they essentially believe and project, or just have a big ego, which implies imbalanced rationality/irrationality and introversion/extroversion. But the example might have been bad. I'm not an expert on Psychological types. Jung has a way of writing that I don't understand immediately. But it would be weird for somebody to deny that neuroticism isn't a part of the 8 functions (and not saying that's what you're saying, but just pre-emptively stating).

[Distance]

EIE

>A phoenix from a past life. <

Blue is not just for boys.

ILI

[chriscorey]

chriscorey ILE. NT woman. Has the typical mental fortitude in debating detailed faultines in arguments.

Win the argument is the ILE mantra.

Si type in the shadow of transforming into INTJ . Ni Te.


I see thru the booze and the other problems.

I agree with you. I'm just confused because I'm so reserved in person. I was typed ILI for the longest time and then I thought "maybe ILE"

[godslave]

It's interesting I guess, since the Reinin traits are further mathematical dimensions on the types. But Reinin doesn't justify them with a philosophical backing and I watched a video with Expat and Jack Oliver talking about it and they seemed to have the same criticisms that I've found. Some dichotomies are too situational, rather than type intrinsic. And since I also see type as more dynamic than just the two ego functions, I don't think these would necessarily apply anyway. But some traits do seem to be empirically true for me among various types, like constructive/emotive, or reasonable/decisive. I find it fun to toy with the dichotomies calculator sometimes by picking different categories of a person and see what it comes up with.

I've watched that expat video you mentioned a while ago. The problem with Reinin is that 1) they are "dichotomies" meaning "either/or" and the subject must align with all the dichotomies relative to his or her TIM but irl, most of the time things are more "grey" than black or white 2) some of these dichotomies describe complex traits and "state of minds" that are beyond the scope of the Model because they overlap with some cultural factors. Therefore we can't use them in the typing process.

Yeah, that's a good question. If I had to guess I'd say Ti, whether Beta or Alpha, is still going to "value" categories, especially with Socionics. But Beta ST is thought to be pragmatic logic, kind of seeing things more simply, where a type might be thought to fulfill a certain organizational role or encompass a person more simply. But with Alpha or Gamma, you have more complicated NT logic, so they see more possibilities for the person and what more specifically to do with that individual. I'm guessing it then just means something like "expansive thinking" versus "limited thinking" or something like that.

Maybe. Like I said, it doesn't mean much to me anymore. Also, using the "we" when talking about the society in general is often indicative of IEs steming from the Mental ring so there is that.

Yeah, I think I get it. There's a Rusted Typology video on panjungianism. He calls it a disease lol - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQtnpqxyv1c
But there's an inherent problem in having many typologies all based off the same Jungian nomenclature as well. It's like having 800 different religions that all claim they are true and every other religion is false. But somehow we're supposed to pick one or see them as all valid? It's just not logically consistent when we can just interpret something differently and say it's valid because "those dirty annoying panjungians lol". Cause then we don't have a point of reference for removing ambiguity. To remove ambiguity, you could take aspects of different interpretations and create something logically consistent, but then people still get mad and say somebody is "combining" things. It almost feels like in politics if I say criticize say Donald Trump, people freak out and call me a Liberal, when I also criticize Biden and am actually Independent. It's hard to have honest discussions.

So my question - If there is no way to remove ambiguity, isn't that a huge epistemological problem?

I agree. There is much confusion in the typology community. To remove ambiguity I think it's more safe to look at each system as independent. If one wants to integrate different element from different systems then one must acknowledge that one is then building a new system even if one uses the same nomenclature...

...I don't know. It does seem to match up well with Ti-polrs and sometimes people that "say" they are ILI. But I mean I don't know, that'd be weird for me to say something definitively like that to you. Just is a pattern I guess.

Fair enough, thanks for the typing I always appreciate that !

That's interesting. I think I'm at odds with Socionics then. My focus seems to have always been on the Jungian stuff as processes in people and correlating that through Socionics math and using the descriptions and ideas as things to look for and observe. So I guess I'm more of a purist Jungian?

Maybe, you know there are some forumites who are "Jungian" in the same way as you are. For instance @Tallmo and @CR400AF , they sure know about Jung's psychology and I like them !

Well, to answer these more directly, put another way, I think the 8 functions can be correlated to philosophy of mind as Aristotelian Forms. intuition/sensing, feeling/thinking, extroversion/introversion seem capable of each representing all the different ways that consciousness can interpret and interact with reality. Going over it would be pretty in-depth and I don't know if I'm the best person to do that, but I guess I could ask instead, can you think of anything that couldn't be put into one of the 8 functions?

That's the right approach and that's how Jung intended. I mean, when he said for instance the "Introverted thinking type" he was like saying 'This guy is the kind of guy who thinks by himself and is kinda stubborn, and here is why [....] " and I'm barely exaggerating .

Now, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since Jung's PT. With the advent of modern cognitive science (50's) and its development, we have entered a new paradigm in which the notion of perception of reality is constantly challenged.

But the dual aspect is what describes the "unconscious". It's supposed to influence your ego function. And understanding that influence is part of Analytical psychology.
So I guess I don't understand when you say

I'm sorry but I have to reject the premise in red. "Using" a function doesn't imply the simultaneous usage of any part of its paired function. I mean, I don't think paired functions are tied like some kind quantum entanglement . But fair enough, let's continue...

Do you mean you reject the Jungian unconscious? I don't understand.

No. It's not a question of rejecting the Jungian unconscious. I don't "believe" in Freud and/or Jung paradigms blindly as if it was the gospel truth if that's what you want to know. To me they are more like philosophical movements.

That said, the Jungian unconscious (I would put it in plural) is more complex than just duality between the the dominant and the inferior function (its "unconscious" paired function). For one there are more that just one unconscious (more or less) functions in the same unconscious "space". These unconscious functions are of the personal unconscious but doesn't encompasses the whole unconscious (personal / Collective). Plus some aspects of the inferior and other functions are brought to consciousness as the person journey in the process of individuation.

So when I said that you can't use a function along with its paired function at the same time i.e. both the dominant and the inferior it was not a rejection of the Jungian unconscious but just a reminder of a rule inherent to the psyche. That rule applies to socionics too. What is unconscious (and there is a lot) is out of reach of consciousness, it's as simple as that.

But neuroticism has a lot to do with this "unconscious" part of the ego functions. [Blasphemy ! ] I was just trying to say that there seems to be two types of Jungian neuroticism, where somebody can apply negative aspects to the unconscious functions that they essentially believe and project, or just have a big ego, which implies imbalanced rationality/irrationality and introversion/extroversion. But the example might have been bad. I'm not an expert on Psychological types. Jung has a way of writing that I don't understand immediately. But it would be weird for somebody to deny that neuroticism isn't a part of the 8 functions (and not saying that's what you're saying, but just pre-emptively stating).

I think what you are referring to is an archetypical complex that Jung called the Shadow.

The manifestations of the inferior function are archaic and very childish just like socionics 1D functions. That said, neuroticism has much more to do the individual personal psychology and neurosis than with cognitive functions. There are no inherent neuroticism in the 8 functions regardless.


Anyway, Thank you for your time. That was very interesting (and much easier to read for me this time ahah !) !

[Headstrong]

@Braingel EIE-CN; I don't mind if I get permabanned for typing you correctly because believe it or not, it's to help you.
@Ikite iru still LII-CN - I think you were CH before, but not now, it quite obviously changed as of late.

[Ikite iru]

I only mind when people spam 10 messages in a row. With spoilers it will be even more difficult to search for messages

[Braingel]

@Braingel EIE-CN; I don't mind if I get permabanned for typing you correctly because believe it or not, it's to help you.
@Ikite iru still LII-CN - I think you were CH before, but not now, it quite obviously changed as of late.

Can a mod please deal with him trying to @ me…. when he is supposed to be “leaving me alone”.. Also, this isn’t really to “help”, this typing is based on not knowing me at all, assuming things about myself, and also literally a hate typing with your own negative views of eie as you went on and on and on and on, and fucking on about and literally turnt eie into a pejorative towards myself.. You’ve never seen a video of myself, you don’t know how I behave irl or how I do outside of mental health episode in general really, so your typing means nothing because of this, and even less because you’ve spite typed and tried weaponize this eie bs on me.

No one would even agree with your DCNH assessment, as literally everyone who does type me as an EIE goes with “EIE-H” or “EIE-N”.. Even those who type me ILI or IEI go with H or N for myself..

[pzombieLIT]

I think what you are referring to is an archetypical complex that Jung called the Shadow.

The manifestations of the inferior function are archaic and very childish just like socionics 1D functions. That said, neuroticism has much more to do the individual personal psychology and neurosis than with cognitive functions. There are no inherent neuroticism in the 8 functions regardless.

I'm confused. By 8 functions, you are referring to Jung's 8 types? Because they very much have to do with neuroticism. He describes it for each type, but just as an example from Psychological Types, here is Te - https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/...--------------

The inferiority of feeling in this type manifests itself also in other ways. In so far as it corresponds with the dominating positive formula, the conscious attitude becomes more or less impersonal, often, indeed, to such a degree that a very considerable wrong is done to personal interests. When the conscious attitude is extreme, all personal considerations recede from view, even those which concern the individual's own person. His health is neglected, his social position deteriorates, often the most vital interests of his family are violated -- they are wronged morally and financially, even their bodily health is made to suffer -- all in the service of the ideal. At all events personal sympathy with others must be impaired, unless they too chance to be in the service of the same formula. Hence it not infrequently happens that his immediate family circle, his own children for instance, only know such a father as a cruel tyrant, whilst the outer world resounds with the fame of his humanity. Not so much in spite of as because of the highly impersonal character of the conscious attitude, the unconscious feelings are highly personal and oversensitive, giving rise to certain secret prejudices, as, for instance, a decided readiness to misconstrue any objective opposition to his formula as personal ill-will, or a constant tendency to make negative suppositions regarding the qualities of others in order to invalidate their arguments beforehand-in defence, naturally, of his own susceptibility. As a result of this unconscious sensitiveness, his expression and tone frequently becomes sharp, pointed, aggressive, and insinuations multiply. The feelings have an untimely and halting character, which is always a mark of the inferior function. Hence arises a pronounced tendency to resentment. However generous the individual sacrifice [p. 440] to the intellectual goal may be, the feelings are correspondingly petty, suspicious, crossgrained, and conservative. Everything new that is not already contained formula is viewed through a veil of unconscious and is judged accordingly. It happened only in middle of last century that a certain physician, famed his humanitarianism, threatened to dismiss an assistant for daring to use a thermometer, because the formula decreed that fever shall be recognized by the pulse. There are, of course, a host of similar examples.

Thinking which in other respects may be altogether blameless becomes all the more subtly and prejudicially, affected, the more feelings are repressed. An intellectual standpoint, which, perhaps on account of its actual intrinsic value, might justifiably claim general recognition, undergoes a characteristic alteration through the influence of this unconscious personal sensitiveness; it becomes rigidly dogmatic. The personal self-assertion is transferred to the intellectual standpoint. Truth is no longer left to work her natural effect, but through an identification with the subject she is treated like a sensitive darling whom an evil-minded critic has wronged. The critic is demolished, if possible with personal invective, and no argument is too gross to be used against him. Truth must be trotted out, until finally it begins to dawn upon the public that it is not so much really a question of truth as of her personal procreator.

Jung can be hard to read and understand (I don't get what that last sentence is even saying), but he seems to describe generally the issue that Te has with Fi.

And this is the problem I have with people separating Jung's typology from the functions. Their understanding and perception might have some truth to it and valid in that sense, sure, but to ignore something so insightful like the neuroticism of the types is just superficial thinking imo.
Because it's very helpful in understanding by recognizing and dealing with our own neuroticism. Without it, we have something like MBTI where we are just identifying with traits and descriptions that create more of a Forer Effect. If MBTI was developed and Jung had never made his Psychological Types, I probably would have lost interest in this completely. Can't people use Jung's Types and still develop their own schools or understandings? I don't understand why there is this weird obsession with separating Jung from his typology...

[godslave]

I'm confused. By 8 functions, you are referring to Jung's 8 types? Because they very much have to do with neuroticism. He describes it for each type, but just as an example from Psychological Types, here is Te - https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/...--------------

The inferiority of feeling in this type manifests itself also in other ways. In so far as it corresponds with the dominating positive formula, the conscious attitude becomes more or less impersonal, often, indeed, to such a degree that a very considerable wrong is done to personal interests. When the conscious attitude is extreme, all personal considerations recede from view, even those which concern the individual's own person. His health is neglected, his social position deteriorates, often the most vital interests of his family are violated -- they are wronged morally and financially, even their bodily health is made to suffer -- all in the service of the ideal. At all events personal sympathy with others must be impaired, unless they too chance to be in the service of the same formula. Hence it not infrequently happens that his immediate family circle, his own children for instance, only know such a father as a cruel tyrant, whilst the outer world resounds with the fame of his humanity. Not so much in spite of as because of the highly impersonal character of the conscious attitude, the unconscious feelings are highly personal and oversensitive, giving rise to certain secret prejudices, as, for instance, a decided readiness to misconstrue any objective opposition to his formula as personal ill-will, or a constant tendency to make negative suppositions regarding the qualities of others in order to invalidate their arguments beforehand-in defence, naturally, of his own susceptibility. As a result of this unconscious sensitiveness, his expression and tone frequently becomes sharp, pointed, aggressive, and insinuations multiply. The feelings have an untimely and halting character, which is always a mark of the inferior function. Hence arises a pronounced tendency to resentment. However generous the individual sacrifice [p. 440] to the intellectual goal may be, the feelings are correspondingly petty, suspicious, crossgrained, and conservative. Everything new that is not already contained formula is viewed through a veil of unconscious and is judged accordingly. It happened only in middle of last century that a certain physician, famed his humanitarianism, threatened to dismiss an assistant for daring to use a thermometer, because the formula decreed that fever shall be recognized by the pulse. There are, of course, a host of similar examples.

Thinking which in other respects may be altogether blameless becomes all the more subtly and prejudicially, affected, the more feelings are repressed. An intellectual standpoint, which, perhaps on account of its actual intrinsic value, might justifiably claim general recognition, undergoes a characteristic alteration through the influence of this unconscious personal sensitiveness; it becomes rigidly dogmatic. The personal self-assertion is transferred to the intellectual standpoint. Truth is no longer left to work her natural effect, but through an identification with the subject she is treated like a sensitive darling whom an evil-minded critic has wronged. The critic is demolished, if possible with personal invective, and no argument is too gross to be used against him. Truth must be trotted out, until finally it begins to dawn upon the public that it is not so much really a question of truth as of her personal procreator.

Jung can be hard to read and understand (I don't get what that last sentence is even saying), but he seems to describe generally the issue that Te has with Fi.

Jung is talking about repressed feelings for the thinking types. Repressed i.e. out of conscious reach, repressed in the unconscious. What is described here are the empirical manifestations of that repression induced by the thinking type(s) psyche, the individual is not aware of it because it's unconscious. That said, obviously when some unconscious content is brought to consciousness (for instance via analysis/therapy) then that particular content is no longer unconscious since the person is now aware of it. I mean, that's "psychology 101" !

And this is the problem I have with people separating Jung's typology from the functions. Their understanding and perception might have some truth to it and valid in that sense, sure, but to ignore something so insightful like the neuroticism of the types is just superficial thinking imo.

Because it's very helpful in understanding by recognizing and dealing with our own neuroticism. Without it, we have something like MBTI where we are just identifying with traits and descriptions that create more of a Forer Effect.

I don't know what you mean by "separating Jung's typology from the functions", there is no Jung typology without the Functions that indeed doesn't make sense. Now, as you probably know, "neuroticism" is a word that covers a lot and even if each type's inferior function archaism is typical without it being systematic , we can't establish a systematic causality (like compensation) between all the neurosises a person might develop and the influence of his inferior function, that wouldn't make sense. As a reminder, Jung's PT descriptions are just "guidelines", if one apprehend them too systematically or rigidly then that would be a mistake, in fact that's exactly what Jung warned about. Indeed, an individual is not a PT in the sense that he or she evolves in the process of individuation.

If MBTI was developed and Jung had never made his Psychological Types, I probably would have lost interest in this completely. Can't people use Jung's Types and still develop their own schools or understandings? I don't understand why there is this weird obsession with separating Jung from his typology...

Sure, I mean there is a lot of people who did and are still doing that. I mean take John Beebe for instance. Not to mention all the Psychologists and the numerous Jung associations members around the world who are experts in "Jungology"...

I said several time, that Jung's Typology is ought to be used within the paradigm of Jung's psychology. I don't know who are the people who separate Jung form his typology but I certainly don't.

[Distance]

ILI

[pzombieLIT]

Se valuing types aim to get influence, which makes them more likely to get into high positions. That's really all there is to it. I'm not really designed for competition, leading teams, achieving something. I don't care about any of that. How am I supposed to rule? Most Se valuers abuse drugs and substances to get where they are.

I'm just not feeling it anymore. It has been a long time since I've had a discussion with you here and my enthusiasm is just not there when I think almost everyone is mistyped and the basis of socionics is just not as good as I used to think. The user "idiot" made a point that really resonated with me. What if Jung really just identified subtypes for a specific type that was prone to go to his therapy sessions? I need to think more about that. I don't think I would ever go to therapy as I am simply not that interested in talking about me and I am notoriously avoidant of most people, so how was he supposed to observe people with my type?

Ikite iru - Mole. Lives in tunnel vision.

Paying child support would compromise my research and my focus on advancing the field of Socionics. I have made great sacrifices for the sake of my work and have dedicated my life to it. It is important to prioritize our own passions and goals in life. The child support system is deeply flawed and often exploitative, and I refuse to take part in it. I have nothing but respect for those who choose to raise children, but it is not a choice that is compatible with my life's work.

G AI - ILE, Fi polr. But of course Dr. Gulenko, but of course.

DogofDanger - IQ 5000+ easily. Everyone is an idiot, but him. He's any type he wants to be.