I think the attitude you described is highly unusual for an SLI. Could he be ESI, or even your beneficiary? It's impossible to tell, there isn't enough information. The question of what particular relationship this is would be secondary to identifying the IM conflicts involved.
yeah, give more individual related elements please.
as someone else said, conflicts can arise between all pairs, for wtv reason, but I'd add that they are extremely normal when you cohabit with someone. many just married couples give in when the hardships of cohabiting come up, and sure they knew who they were gonna live together with. it seems like most of what you complain about of him is how you handle some domestic burdens and not something fundamentally wrong with the way you live or see the world. you're probably pissed over some economic injustice that you've felt was going on, when buying some tools that he himself could have bought... but did he request you to buy them? and did you voice similar demands in order he could provide for them? many people don't know how to share, they've never lived with some strangers before, or they were in different situations and have a hard time to adapt to smth new, wtv the reason is, when money and the maintenance of common goods are involved, it's very easy to break into conflict.. for the future, when dealing with him about house related stuff, try to be very specific about the division of the work and the costs, create a table, be intransigent about what you give and don't share until you see some improvement in his behaviour.
in a single case - it mb from many reasons, besides the typeOriginally Posted by 17types
in case you'd got systematicly strange results - it would need to type more correctly
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
1) The entire point of Jungian Typology is to NOT be empirical. We want to minimize as much empiricism as possible because empiricism is prone to error. We want to be rational, to deduce the truth rather than infer it.
2) I already told you, A/D is important because it's fundamentally the same as the Quadras but at 1 higher level. As for the empirical part, A/D explains the flat/pyramid organizational structure of the respective quadras, which is why I call it hierarchy. You can also combine hierarchy with Quadra values to deduce political ideologies and corporate culture, e.g. Alpha = Democratic + Egalitarian = Socialism / Silicon Valley.
3) A/D, Serious/Merry, Judicious/Decisive are the only 3 Reinin dichotomies that don't break block symmetry. If you add something like process-result then you ruin block symmetry. With block symmetry I can say that the FiNe of the EII and IEE is exactly the same, and by extension it's the same for all aristocrats (again the A/D dichotomy pops up). The only difference in the actual usage depends on whether the function is valued/unvalued, conscious/unconscious, and the competence (i.e. dimensionally). But the way the block works is still fundamentally the same for all types. Most of the Reinin dichotomies break that symmetry. The value they add is dubious and much less useful than the value they destroy by breaking block symmetry.16 Types -> 4 Quadras.
4 Clubs -> 2 Hierarchies.
To clarify, the entire advantage of Socionics over MBTI and Jung is the blocks. Augusta put the functions together into the blocks and said these blocks matter. That was the fundamental breakthrough she made. If you don't respect the blocks, then you lose her insight and are back at Jung/MBTI tier analysis.
P.S. I am working on a book. It's not done yet.
Last edited by domr; 08-04-2018 at 03:47 PM.
1 just sounds like a personal aspiration and not the royal road to truth in an absolute sense. its a basic feature of Jungian typology to see this and its like you've skipped over that part and gone right into adjusting the model. its like a cart before the horse way of tackling the issue, because implicit in your actions are all the particular and obvious, when viewed from the side, assumptions at play that give rise to type itself. what im saying here is type is not just a theory, you're a type. you're living a set of archetypal assumptions, one of those being the archetype that can't see itself. until you can clearly see those adjusting the model is like someone trying to be a chef who has no sense of taste and goes solely by recipes. you can recombine the elements and see how it plays out, but its funny because thats empirical in its own way, but you're calling it a purely rational approach (the empiricism is in using as a criterion the reaction of others, rather than reserving for yourself the right to evaluate the food directly). jung talks about exactly this phenomenon in psychological types when he says irrational types are viewed as empirical in this way if looked at by a rational type, who sees their unconscious. the bottom line is you need to get a handle on both sides of yourself and thus reality in order to meaningfully toy with the model otherwise its all rearranging words on the surface. im not saying this to shoot down your endeavor Im saying this because I think you would gain tremendous insight and become incredibly powerful by doing this
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-04-2018 at 04:11 PM.
@Bertrand
You seem to not have a basic understanding of reason.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/r...sm-empiricism/
Empiricism is why 60% (or w/e) of all scientific discoveries are wrong. if you use empiricism, you are view likely to be mislead by the data because of a while host of problems ranging from correlation =/= causation to confounding variables (like people's environment). Rationalism solves all these problems, all for the small price of faith in the axioms, (axioms such as P/J, S/I, L/E). E=mc^2, the most famous scientific equation was not found using empiricism but through rationalism.
Empiricism works great when you have a very narrowly defined problem and the experiment is repeatable, like sampling the gravitation forces of a planet as it rotates around a star. But empiricism is poor in highly complicated situations where it's difficult to have repeat experiments, like human behavior.
Last edited by domr; 08-04-2018 at 04:41 PM.
And where did Jung got his idea of 8 types? As far as I remember, from his practical experience as a psychiatrist.
Anyway, thanks for your explanation, I got the point regarding A/D now. Not that I want to discuss it further because we use a different version of socionics, there´s no point in trying to integrate our povs.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yes but as soon as he created the 2 attitudes (I/E) and the 4 psychic functions (S/I, T/F), he went from a system of trying to infer the truth to a system of deducing the truth.
I see your point but I think you can´t infer from anywhere that the entire point of his book was to avoid inference completely. As a frontier intellectual he HAD to use inference since there were no axioms to start by.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I never said the point of his book was to avoid inference. In fact quite the opposite. Jung's biggest mistake was relying too much on inference and not taking the time to formalize his system. He even admits to contractions in this system, that I would argue are a result of not formalizing the system.
Jung was a genius, 100% BUT HE WAS UNEDUCATED IN LOGIC. Jung never received any training or experience in logic: financial analysis, mathematical proofs, scientific method, statistical analysis, etc. As a result, it doesn't seem to me that he understood the difference between empiricism and rationalism, nor know how to create axioms and how to use them to deduce the truth.
I want to add that Jung was IEI, so Deductive Logic Ti was at 2D (Barely Meeting Exceptions) and Inductive Logic Te was at 1D (Failing to Meet Exceptions). Inversely his Inductive Ethic Fe was 3D (Meeting Expectations) and valued. So you can tell in his writing a strong drive toward inductive ethic, i.e. empiricism, with underdeveloped logic and this compounded by a lack of education or experience in logic.
that's insane his entire introduction to psychological types goes into why people consider empiricism or rationalism to be primary or secondary to begin with. a century ago, he described the same mistakes and assumptions you're making right now in accusing him of being illogical. you're just doubling down on one of the very positions he contextualized as psychologically derived in an attempt to "improve" on his work. its like trying to use newtonian physics to "improve" the theory of relativity without understanding what it is you're improving and backed by nothing but delusional confidence
pzv5j7l.jpg
@Bertrand
1) You don't generate any value. All you do is shoot me down.
2) Jung was illogical and that he should have listened to other people pointing out flaws in his work. If he did that, and revised his work to be logically consistant, then Jung's psychology would be the cornerstone of philosophy. Instead it's been hijacked by MBTI into a horoscope-tier shit.
3) Jung's Introversion was in fact Deduction and Extraversion was Induction. (Ti = Deductive Logic, Te = Inductive Logic.) He created new labels for existing ideas and flipped the meaning. If he had a functional understanding of ration then he would not have made this mistake.
Last edited by domr; 08-04-2018 at 06:37 PM.
do you really think if Jung's introversion was deduction no one would have noticed by now? Really this goes back way further than you realize with these issues being well settled by Kant. its your own ignorance that is producing these "insights" as if they're cutting edge when its like you're just presenting them as some kind of discovery simply because they're new to you. its like when Trump announced "no one knew healthcare could be so complicated" its like yeah, actually, a lot of people knew. that's what makes you incompetent, which is like, apparently, unimaginable for him/you, so if you toss that possibility out, it transforms every "discovery" into a revelation for all of humanity. they're not even correct discoveries, they're like distorted inklings of what is actually already there in its fullness, if you'd just go read a book. but we all know trump can't read so whatever
Jung typed himself as a Ti dominant, he was the inventor of psychological types, so...
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yes, a Ti dominant coming up with the collective unconscious and archetypes, lol.
If NiTe is engineering or development, then NiFe is mysticism or magic. Both come up with crazy and zany ideas thanks to Ni but logic channels it into inventions while ethic into marketing/aspirational stuff. There is no hint of Jung preferring to focus on logic (science, technology, business, law, government) over ethic (people).
Also this is the model that I use internally for the LIE.
S = Sensation
I = Imagination (Intuition)
L = Logic (Thinking)
E = Ethic (Feeling)
+ = Induction (Extraversion)
- = Deduction (Introversion)
# = Demesionallity
Each variable is defined in 5 dimensions: 4 Jungian Functions (S/I/L/E), 2 Jungian Attitudes (i/E->+/-), 4 Jungian Differentiations (Socionic's Dimensionality), Conscious/Unconscious (also from Jung), and lastly Valued/Unvalued (a Socionics original).Code:(Conscious) [Super-Ego] | [Ego] -S1+E2 | -I3+L4 (Unvalued)---------------------(Valued) +I4-L3 | +S2-E1 [Id] | [Super-Id] (Unconscious)
If I want to find out the difference between let's say the LIE and ILE, then I can figure it out by just changing these dimensions. I know that -I3+L4 is conscious and valued for the LIE, so this will be the main focus of their life. But for the ILE, it's unconscious and unvalued, but still just as strong. So ILE will also use -I3+L4 but it'll be repressed whenever possible to favor -L3+I4, the ILE's ego functions.
That's why I said block synergy is important and useful. But most reinin dichotomies do not respect this block symmetry, they imply that there is a -I+L block where one function is process and the other is result, or negativist/positivist.
I think Jung wasvaluing, he could have been IEI-
dom.
Anyways, I don't think you can induce things without experience, this isn't empiricism, which btw is a specific philosophy, as rationalism is also a philosophy, but both philosophies have their problems and seem wrong. Science is worthless if you can't understand reality and yet, reason is not something removed from reality in an abstract cave of the mind. All consciousness is consciousness of something, I can't imagine a dismebodied ghost with no perceptions existing.
Maybe the reason Jung couldn't tell he was an ethical type was because he defined judgement so poorly, thinking and feeling, that only an unstable teenager would self identify as a feeling type.I think Jung was
Anyways, I don't think you can induce things without experience, this isn't empiricism, which btw is a specific philosophy, as rationalism is also a philosophy, but both philosophies have their problems and seem wrong. Science is worthless if you can't understand reality and yet, reason is not something removed from reality in an abstract cave of the mind. All consciousness is consciousness of something, I can't imagine a dismebodied ghost with no perceptions existing.
Empiricism and Rationalism aren't philosophy (fun fact, you probably don't even know that philosophy = science), they are the only forms of reason.
lol im picturing the alternate reality where domr is Jungs assistant, and domr thinks he's "helping" Jung with "basic logical errors" and Jung is thinking the whole time, "yeah I need to make this shit simple enough for this retard to understand, otherwise people this dumb will continue to fuck it up forever", so Jung constantly tries to re-explain in a way that is idiot proof. meanwhile, every time Jung simplifies things, the idiot is like "heh Im controlling this moron--what would he do without me--I better get paid big for this"
unfortunately that didn't happen so we have present day domr fucking things up as predicted and blaming Jung because hes psychologically locked in that kind of relationship to the world. it is a telling example of how this kind of person views the world though, its sort of like the mistakes they initiate are somehow viewed as originating in others which in turn justify further initiative to "correct" them so there becomes this positive feedback loop of idiotic unilateral activity for its own sake. no wonder SEE is sometimes termed "energy." sort of the opposite of ILI which is a total brake of a human being, using the inexorable logic of time to quiet all activity. what they share is the common presupposition that everyone is stupid, but between them its taken in two opposite directions: one up one down. what they don't realize is the stupidity is in their own premise, which is little more than a gloss on egoism, and the illogic of everyone is their own shadow they cast on the world
I wonder if my mum feels this way about me.
Hi ooo
Of course conflicts arise between any type, because well we are individual humans, with individual perks.
One thing you said - you're probably pissed over some economic injustice that you've felt was going on, when buying some tools that he himself could have bought... but did he request you to buy them - this is not me at all. If you mean by tools, kitchen items or bed sheets, I allow everyone to use my stuff because I find it a waste if it's not utilised. Secondly I would point out when the whole house got into a silly argument about rent, he the beneficiary threatened to take away certain items he had bought on his own terms, with his own money, a microwave and hoover, this never happened in the end because I ripped to shreads and told him how vindictive he was for trying to do that.
Anddd ohh boy have I have been specific with everything in the house...
Just to throw this whole chat off, I am wondering now if this is actually a supervision relationship.
Our interaction is none existent anymore and anything he does, even the slightest thing in the house (like leaving crumbs on the bench) I get super annoyed... obviously internally.
I think LIEs and ESIs are unlikely to be mixed up as far as typing goes, one is a quite extroverted EJ Te base, the other one a IJ Se creative with a base feeling function.
In general I have a hard time seeing a LIE male complaining about people not doing the dishes or leaving something not clean. It´s usually not their focus.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
hello there~
now I fail to see the why you would be bothered by this person's behavior in the house. do you mean that there's bad chemistry between you 2 and that, whatever you people do, you get on each other's nerves? you say about how he's threatened to take away "his stuff" during an argument about the terms of the rent, and that this behavior has bothered you, but this looks to me like an economic divergence. domestic economy. even your initial post was about how you felt as if you were the only one "giving", in household terms, while getting nothing in return. what I mean is that the energy between you and this other person looks like the bad fruit of a repeated misbehavior. if he's not breaking any house rules, yet you think he's behaving like a jerk, it could be explained by a bad IR, but it can even be explained by your unmatching behaviors, by your expectations. you're not describing the person in his personal traits, so it's difficult for me to see beyond the beef here...
I have witnessed relations of benefit go off the rails to the point that I've had to intercede. The relations seem fine until they have to share resources or work toward common goals that are important to both parties. INTjs are routinized perfectionists, which irritates many ISTps; INTjs also tend NOT to be very giving to casual acquaintances and they certainly don't like owing people anything. Also, having a close relationship with a roommate or coworker is likely not an INTj priority; they're OK with benign.
a.k.a. I/O
One ISTp/ISFj relationship (son around 30/mother around 60) sticks out in my mind. The son has a BIG hate on for his mother but she left him, at the age of 11, with his father and 13 year-old sister. The mother (not really a bad person) tried to maintain some contact but only on her terms so the son, even today, will not have much to do with her. I've heard him call his mother various versions of selfish while she has called him a loser; I think she may have been referring to his social life but the words of both parties were meant to be unkind. As with most relationships, there can be numerous overriding issues that obscure the effects of type.......
a.k.a. I/O
Reply With Quote
