Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: What's his type?

  1. #1
    Danali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Lundun
    TIM
    xxE
    Posts
    187
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default What's his type?







    Apparently he's an ILI, however, I'm doubtful of that.

    What type would you guys say he is based on what he said about himself?
    Depending on who you talk to,
    I'm either deceptively deep
    or deceptively shallow.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    254
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree with his self assessment, I think he is ILI. He seems less dismissive and more polite compared to average ILI. He explain this by having Harmonizing type, which make sense. If I am wrong and he is LII, I think he LII-Ti. Why are you doubtful about him being ILI? What type do you think he is?

  3. #3
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,936
    Mentioned
    136 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah he seems ILI, harmonizing. Comparing him with a Normalizer of the same type can be useful, N-ILI

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,156
    Mentioned
    915 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    glasses cover important nonverbal
    Gulenko allows this as he uses verbal part much
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  5. #5
    Danali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Lundun
    TIM
    xxE
    Posts
    187
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    I agree with his self assessment, I think he is ILI. He seems less dismissive and more polite compared to average ILI. He explain this by having Harmonizing type, which make sense. If I am wrong and he is LII, I think he LII-Ti. Why are you doubtful about him being ILI? What type do you think he is?
    Im leaning more towards LII, i don’t get Fi. I have a feeling he is more expressive than he’s putting on.

    On a more personal note, he answered every single question the way I would, from what he said to the way he would structure his sentence. Just that I’m more expressive. Hmm
    Depending on who you talk to,
    I'm either deceptively deep
    or deceptively shallow.

  6. #6
    IQ over 150 vesstheastralsilky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    INxJ Hybrid
    Posts
    1,486
    Mentioned
    74 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Looks Alpha NT
    ~* astralsilky

    4w5 that morphed into a 3w2 sx/sp
    Cancer Sun, Cancer/Leo Moon, Libra Ascendant, Pluto conjunct Ascendant, Sun conjunct Moon, Saturn conjunct Mercury conjunct MC in 10th, Jupiter handle of bucket pattern squares Nodes, Uranus biquintile Jupiter, Neptune sextile Ascendant, Lilith trine Ascendant, Venus in Gemini/Cancer in 9th house conjunct MC, Venus trine Uranus, Uranus conjunct Spica, Ascendant conjunct SuperGalactic Center, Sun inconjunct Galactic Center.

    Each essence is a separate glass,
    Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
    Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
    A thousand colors, but the Light is One.

    Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet

  7. #7
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTP 7w8
    Posts
    2,733
    Mentioned
    199 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    EIE 2w1

  8. #8
    Danali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Lundun
    TIM
    xxE
    Posts
    187
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    EIE 2w1
    I thought this as well.

    What makes you think so?
    Depending on who you talk to,
    I'm either deceptively deep
    or deceptively shallow.

  9. #9
    Danali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Lundun
    TIM
    xxE
    Posts
    187
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky View Post
    Looks Alpha NT
    Reasons??
    Depending on who you talk to,
    I'm either deceptively deep
    or deceptively shallow.

  10. #10
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTP 7w8
    Posts
    2,733
    Mentioned
    199 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danali View Post
    I thought this as well.

    What makes you think so?
    i just have a picture in my mind of how they manifest

  11. #11
    IQ over 150 vesstheastralsilky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    INxJ Hybrid
    Posts
    1,486
    Mentioned
    74 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danali View Post
    Reasons??
    20 years typing experience.

    A good hint with learning VI for the NTs is paying attention to how their eyes are set. Alphas usually have an emphasis at the upper level and Gammas at the lower levels. This is not a ardfast clear rule but may help guide others in knowing what to look for. I am often attracted to the eyes of alpha NTs some of which get very heavy (versus gamma light and brooding at the bottoms).
    ~* astralsilky

    4w5 that morphed into a 3w2 sx/sp
    Cancer Sun, Cancer/Leo Moon, Libra Ascendant, Pluto conjunct Ascendant, Sun conjunct Moon, Saturn conjunct Mercury conjunct MC in 10th, Jupiter handle of bucket pattern squares Nodes, Uranus biquintile Jupiter, Neptune sextile Ascendant, Lilith trine Ascendant, Venus in Gemini/Cancer in 9th house conjunct MC, Venus trine Uranus, Uranus conjunct Spica, Ascendant conjunct SuperGalactic Center, Sun inconjunct Galactic Center.

    Each essence is a separate glass,
    Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
    Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
    A thousand colors, but the Light is One.

    Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet

  12. #12
    Pano Lou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    A mystery
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have to agree that this is EIE. ILIs don't manifest like this, too much Fe going on here for alpha NT. Plus, he seems to drop hints of DA cognition, someone who 'switches' worlds in his head, so both ILI and EIE are likely, but I'd go with EIE.
    "My love for Linton is like the foliage in the woods: time will change it, I'm well aware, as winter changes the trees. My love for Heathcliff resembles the eternal rocks beneath: a source of little visible delight, but necessary. Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind"



    "Catherine Earnshaw, may you not rest as long as I am living; you said I killed you—haunt me, then!... Be with me always—take any form—drive me mad! only do not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you!"




  13. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    254
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it would be great if he also had a video with one of his close friends. His type would be more apparent. I agree with vesstheastralsilky that gamma NTs have emphasis at lower level but his hand and body movements are very ILI-ish. I think ILIs can be expressive sometimes. Maybe others are right and he is EIE. All EIEs aren't expressive all the time, but all EIEs are emotionally expressive when they are with their friends having fun, their Fe pops out, they seem stereotypically Fe-dom in those times.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,156
    Mentioned
    915 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    mb ILI

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    Maybe others are right and he is EIE. All EIEs aren't expressive all the time, but all EIEs are emotionally expressive when they are with their friends having fun, their Fe pops out, they seem stereotypically Fe-dom in those times.
    not EIE, definetely
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  15. #15
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,013
    Mentioned
    281 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I saw a lot of reasons to consider LII and very few for ILI. It's not just the interest in math and philosophy but the drive to seek fundamental knowledge to connect things to an "overall worldview". Plus there was a ton of Ne, consuming information voraciously from a wide variety of sources, having countless interests, etc.

    Si (and a bit of Fe) came out in yes, the being "unobtrusive" and calm, polite, and the being a "helpful person", liking to help. Also the other interests like tennis and doing puzzles to relax and have some fun.

    There was some Ni for sure in terms of being critical and noticing flaws, plus the spiritual/introspective inclination, but an ILI also has to value Se and Fi which there was very little of.

    Of course, if you think things like DCNH and cognitive styles are more important than basic things like quadra values, then you may disagree.
    Last edited by thehotelambush; 03-12-2019 at 11:52 AM.

  16. #16
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-H, 594 sp/sx
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Amusing, people are typing me and they didn't even tell me.

    So, the suggestions are ILI, LII, and EIE? That's no surprise because those are the three types I've always related to most. None of them are absurd to think, and I can address each.

    First of all, I want to say that I actually don't believe that trans-methodological diagnostics exist yet in any reliable fashion. When people use words like ILI, LII, EIE, etc., it's important to remember that they don't even mean the same thing as each other. Therefore, I don't really think any of you are wrong per se. The more interesting question for me is, what can I actually take from your assessments besides the labels. i.e. What's under the labels? That's the reason I value the perspective of Gulenko so much; it connects so many ideas in a way which illuminates. None of the labels being given exist in some purely deductive information system, but rather in the context of a vast semantic network which differs in content and coherence for each one of you.

    For ILI: it is not simply a question of DCNH and Cognitive Styles. DCNH should come after the typing anyways, rather than being used to rationalize it. Cognitive Style does matter though and I've found it to be very consistent; I very much have Dialectical-Algorithmic cognition as people are noticing. What also matters is temperament. That is to say, Gulenko sees my temperament as Ip, because I am introverted, and importantly, irrational and dynamic. Many people don't use dichotomies like Irrational and Dynamic since they lack consistent semantics in their methodology; for Gulenko they do have consistent semantics. My pronounced mood swings and intense sensitivity argue for an unbalanced, weak nervous system (dynamic), and apparently, the large number of eye movements up also confirms a dynamic temperament (i.e. Gulenko uses nonverbal signs as well which might be somewhat esoteric and require a bit of practice, he looks at things from a few angles). Dismissiveness has little to do with ILI IMO; that's just a negative personality trait that is ridiculous to assign to a type. As for Quadra values, there are many different takes on what those mean, and moreover, Quadra values IMO are not something which flows solely out of people. They do in some sense, but people's values also come from the integral types of their family, friends, organizations, groups and nations that they participate in. Another way of putting this is: Quadra values are multi-level, rather than flat, as I see them, and as Victor Gulenko does. Since the Axial Age as spoken of by Karl Jaspers, it might be said that humanity has an integral type of EIE, so this type and its values are especially influential.

    For EIE: There is no type of person that has influenced me more than this. I have been very close to several people of this type and they have deeply influenced my thought process, ambitions, and habits. So, my interpretation of this is that you are seeing an integral type of EIE shine through me, and that is no accident. It's like a footprint of them. I have really looked up to these people and their extraordinary personalities and talents, but they can be a little overwhelming at times (not just for me, in fact I can handle much more than most people). However, I would not be the person I am today without them. Let's just say that it's been a very complicated, heart-wrenching, twisty-turney journey full of pain, trauma, love, controversy, spirituality and enlightenment that these videos don't even begin to delve into. I plan on writing a lot more about it in the future. Short forum posts are not my natural way of expressing myself; I prefer long dialectical stories and arguments to really tease out all of the issues.

    For LII: On the one hand, this is another type that has influenced me a lot. Less so at a personal level, but I have learned a lot from LII scientists, psychologists and philosophers (including Victor Gulenko himself) and thus have adopted some of their Holographic thinking habits. On the other hand, based on other views of Socionics, I can see how I appear as one. If you focus on certain interpretations of Quadra values, like being kind, friendly and unobtrusive as an indication of not valuing Se, think that having many interests is Ne valuing (I see it as being a pronounced irrational), don't include things like Irrationality/Dynamic/Process, and think that seeking fundamental knowledge is primarily about Ti (which a number of Socionists think), then I must admit that your assessment makes a great deal of sense. We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are, so if it is helpful for you to consider me in this way, then I don't resist it... yet. However, I haven't found it to be as useful as the ILI assessment at a personal level, and according to Humanitiarian Socionics, the most common types among philosophers is the pair EIE and ILI, so I absolutely think that these types are interested in such things from another point of view.

    My main thrill in Socionics is dealing with the methodological issues, which I think almost no one pays anywhere near enough attention to. The dialectical process of understanding the deep worldview of another person is what is most important to me in this context, and cooperating to create something greater while being conscious of the assumptions we are making. That means trying to build coherent harmonies which further illuminate reality, and constantly hanging question marks on our ASSUMPTIONS and personal psychologies, not just our assessments from certain assumptions. I don't think people tend to make errors just due to lack of rigor, but from being asleep to their own assumptions and psychological limitations, and not having empathic and open-minded people to dialogue with to allow the real radical thinking that is necessary for serious improvement to have some kind of home or sustainability. It's a very fragile and sensitive process, and this is why I consider it so important to be kind and friendly. I think that's the only way to be in the world, upon any reflection; there isn't enough of it in the world, and I don't think that's limited to quadra values or something only certain types can understand. I do understand the need for pressure sometimes, and that's a mode none of you have seen me in so you are only seeing my compassion. The pressures that do exist should be a clue as to what motivates people and what we should be considering. That said, it does take a lot of work to develop quality rigorous systems, so kudos to people who attempt it as long as you aren't too dogmatic about it. I do really like thehotelambush's work, for example, and all its mathematical analogies. I hope it flourishes, it is beautiful, but it's not my natural way of thinking.
    Last edited by Varlawend; 03-12-2019 at 03:44 PM.

  17. #17
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,013
    Mentioned
    281 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Varlawend I would have tagged you but I wanted to respect your privacy in case you wished to maintain it.

    So, according to Gulenko are open-mindedness and friendliness associated with irrationality as well, or what? And what about "cooperating to see something greater"? Or being aware of one's assumptions and learning from different points of view?

    I fully agree re DCNH. But cognitive styles for me have little to no meaning. Certainly not enough clarity to type with.

    And what are the methodological issues you are dealing with?

  18. #18
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-H, 594 sp/sx
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    @Varlawend I would have tagged you but I wanted to respect your privacy in case you wished to maintain it.
    That's an appreciable sentiment, I just found it amusing that this was happening without my awareness. And this is an old thread too!

    So, according to Gulenko are open-mindedness and friendliness associated with irrationality as well, or what? And what about "cooperating to see something greater"? Or being aware of one's assumptions and learning from different points of view?
    No, open-mindedness and friendliness are not associated with Irrationality to my knowledge. They seem like good personality traits in an uncontroversial, general sense. Cooperating to see something can revolve around Ethics, I would say. Or the Central dichotomy, in some cases, an Ni sacrifice of the self for a greater cause or ritual. Or Fe and Ti, purposeful collective uses of emotional energy. Or tightly knit Aristocratic communities. I suppose it depends. Being aware of one's assumptions (and especially growing more awareness of this) would be an example of philosophical intuition (Ni), especially Ni-, which well sees contradictions in abstract categories. It is a process of discovery IMO, painful but wondrous. I don't want to put functions on a pedestal though, because that seems to go against the spirit of Socionics. All the functions are extremely important and have their role to play in making this participatory reality a better and more magical place.

    I fully agree re DCNH. But cognitive styles for me have little to no meaning. Certainly not enough clarity to type with.
    That is fine, type with what works for you. If a version of Socionics doesn't work for you, then it's of little use for your understanding. I'm still learning about the Cognitive Styles myself, but I like them a great deal. I can see how they would be somewhat vague.

    And what are the methodological issues you are dealing with?
    Ugh, too many to write about here unfortunately. I'd like to explain it very much. It is more like a process of thinking, and a glut assumptions that exist around so much of typology. I really like typology and it has meant so much to me, but the issues and assumptions I encounter with it are enough to leave me in a nearly constant state of existential angst. At some point, I will write at far more length about these things, but also in a more organized and polished fashion so that it is hopefully more interesting.

  19. #19
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-H, 594 sp/sx
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You might find this interesting, it's an answer to a question I asked Victor Gulenko:

    https://socioniks.net/consultation/?id=105


    Victor Gulenko

    A person’s worldview and beliefs mainly reflect his individual functional profile, especially the subtype and accentuated function. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the type of the author himself and the theories created by him, which, as a rule, line up around his accentuated function. It is accentuation that excites a person and is realized by him as the leading principle, which he is inclined to transfer to any other psyche.
    The two types that are most to the philosophical understanding of life are EIE and OR. I think so, because it is they who possess intuitive dialectic thinking and, better than others, see contradictions in theories and reasoning as operating with abstract categories. In addition, they reach out to each other psychologically (hysteroids often agree with schizoids), they are interested together because they quickly perceive information from each other, and both are lovers of the argument. No one in socion is so focused on the process of thinking as these two types.
    In the future, many philosophical problems will be posed and even solved through the cooperation of various forms of thinking, including artificial intelligence. The latter so far reflects only deductive cause-and-effect thinking. However, the next step should be the re-creation of the most complex of thinking styles - the dialectical one, aimed at identifying and synthesizing opposites.
    I actually disagree with him about advanced AI at its current stage. I think that modern Deep Learning architectures reflect mainly Vortical-Synergetic/Stochastic thinking, but he might not be aware of those innovations. But besides that, this may give you an idea of how he views philosophers. I do think there are some LII philosophers too, tbh, but I can see why EIE and ILI would be the most common by his way of thinking. One of the key differences I see with Gulenko as compared to others is multi-level thinking, as in, incorporating multiple levels to the psyche. Some people don't like this, but I'm one of those that do.

  20. #20
    FarDraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    TIM
    ILI sp5
    Posts
    390
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    ...Ugh, too many to write about here unfortunately. I'd like to explain it very much. It is more like a process of thinking, and a glut assumptions that exist around so much of typology. I really like typology and it has meant so much to me, but the issues and assumptions I encounter with it are enough to leave me in a nearly constant state of existential angst. At some point, I will write at far more length about these things, but also in a more organized and polished fashion so that it is hopefully more interesting.
    Please do explain at some point. I've had methodological problems with socionics as well since there could be bias in the means by which we type. For example, which information is most important with type and which is less important? That's an important quandary for settling type disputes where there is evidence for one type using one aspect of socionics and evidence for another using other aspects. I, too, have been typed LII by some while personally relating to the ILI descriptions more so than the LII descriptions, so I may be able to learn from you if you have a clear DA cognition.

    I'm not sure if the methodological holes you have in mind are identical or even similar to the ideas I have, but I would certainly like to compare.
    ----- FarDraft, 2019

  21. #21
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,013
    Mentioned
    281 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    No, open-mindedness and friendliness are not associated with Irrationality to my knowledge. They seem like good personality traits in an uncontroversial, general sense.
    They are more controversial than you might think. You see, the competitive, dominating nature of Se is directly opposed to open-mindedness. When you want to win or beat the other guy, you don't want to be "friendly" with him. And you don't want to be "open" to him winning or being right, either, you want you to win and not him, because then you lose. That's Se, which is directly opposed to Si and Ne.

    Cooperating to see something can revolve around Ethics, I would say. Or the Central dichotomy, in some cases, an Ni sacrifice of the self for a greater cause or ritual. Or Fe and Ti, purposeful collective uses of emotional energy. Or tightly knit Aristocratic communities. I suppose it depends.
    The fact that you're not sure suggests that the system you're using isn't quite as tight or illuminating as you say.

    Being aware of one's assumptions (and especially growing more awareness of this) would be an example of philosophical intuition (Ni), especially Ni-, which well sees contradictions in abstract categories.
    It's not about contradictions though, it's about seeing things from an outside point of view - which is Ne. Ne is also about openness to possibilities, such as the different ways of interpreting typology.

    The problem with Gulenko's new stuff is that it goes against the basic definitions of the IM elements and what it means to value them. If you don't have a good definition of Se and Si and why they conflict, then quadras simply don't work, there is no explanation for why ILIs should conflict with ESEs (if they even do anymore), etc. And Gulenko has said as much: he thinks DCNH (!!) has more of an impact on relationships than the basic types! This suggests a very serious break from classical socionics and its truly illuminating relationship structure.

  22. #22
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-H, 594 sp/sx
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They are more controversial than you might think. You see, the competitive, dominating nature of Se is directly opposed to open-mindedness. When you want to win or beat the other guy, you don't want to be "friendly" with him. And you don't want to be "open" to him winning or being right, either, you want you to win and not him, because then you lose. That's Se, which is directly opposed to Si and Ne.
    Yes, I know many people like that, I also see competitive people like that as what you would call Se-valuers. But I disagree that all Se-valuers are this way, if that is what you are implying, and I don't see a basis for such an assertion. But yes, here are we are getting to some assumptions. You say this is what Se is (I agree that these things have to do with Se of course). But how do you know? Because it is part of the system you use to make sense of things? That's not wrong in itself of course, but it's hardly a license for implying that it is the only or best way of seeing things. Se and Ne have complicated relationship, and I don't really agree that they are entirely opposed. In a sense, they are. In fact, an excess of Se will lead to outbreaks of Ne in Humanitarian Socionics, and vice versa. Si and Se do in fact have an effect on another that mutually constrains action in that system. So yes, I do see more of a Dualism there.

    The fact that you're not sure suggests that the system you're using isn't quite as tight or illuminating as you say.


    I have no idea what to make of this. First of all, do you understand the principle that different things can have similar properties? I was talking about something abstract, not a concrete instance of something, that is why it can have multiple meanings. And frankly, even a concrete instance of something can have meanings contributed to it from multiple angles, so even in that case I'm not sure what you're getting at. Lastly, I don't really use one system for typology, so I don't even know what you mean about "the system I'm using being so tight and illuminating". That is a problematic assumption of yours from the start.

    It's not about contradictions though, it's about seeing things from an outside point of view - which is Ne. Ne is also about openness to possibilities, such as the different ways of interpreting typology.
    Being aware of one's assumptions has a lot to do with noticing contradictions in the systems that you use to make sense of your experience and your own behavior and that of others, and noticing contradictions also has a lot to do with expanding one's point of view. What is seeing things from an outside point of view, anyways? Seeing things from a point of view that's not your own? And how could you see things from such a point of view, if it is not your own? If you are seeing them, then apparently it is your point of view, so it is in some sense inside. Why does only Ne do this? Because you have defined it that way, and that works to break down your experience to some extent? Is Ne in charge of all empathy now as well? The way I see things, all of the Irrational IME's have to do with expanding our point of view, and there are more things besides which expand our point of view.

    The problem with Gulenko's new stuff is that it goes against the basic definitions of the IM elements and what it means to value them. If you don't have a good definition of Se and Si and why they conflict, then quadras simply don't work, there is no explanation for why ILIs should conflict with ESEs (if they even do anymore), etc. And Gulenko has said as much: he thinks DCNH (!!) has more of an impact on relationships than the basic types! This suggests a very serious break from classical socionics and its truly illuminating relationship structure.
    Any "basic definition" of an IM element or what it means to value it can be challenged; it doesn't just get to be some sacrosanct given. I don't really see much widespread agreement in Socionics about what such things mean in practice, even disregarding the work of Gulenko, so that seems like a rather unsolved problem to me from the get-go. Gulenko does have extensive definitions for Se and Si, the dualism between them, and how the Quadras work, which I find pretty impressive and interesting. ESE and ILI have a conflictor relationship in Gulenko's model, but that doesn't actually mean they always conflict in practice; conflictor relations can train one to survive in harsh conditions for example. I haven't seen him say that DCNH has a greater impact on relationships than the basic types, but I can see how it would be at a comparable level. His model is indeed a very serious break from classical Socionics, that much I agree with. I've never been impressed by any classical Socionics understanding; it was interesting to me from the start, but I quickly found it rather flat and simplistic in practice, and I'm very far from alone in that. But maybe others can find more use for it than me, like yourself, and I'm rather interested to see how far that can go. I don't dismiss it. I don't doubt that even classical Socionics can be a helpful tool for better understanding people and seeing some patterns in relationships. However, my own relationships make far more sense in the context of Humanitarian Socionics than anything classical Socionics has ever produced. That's my review of such things, and since it's my experience, I'm the only one who gets to write that review, but I understand if you see things differently.
    Last edited by Varlawend; 03-12-2019 at 06:45 PM.

  23. #23
    a two horned unicorn renegade Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    Ne-ILE-C 7 ELFV?
    Posts
    4,285
    Mentioned
    181 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default


    (although it totally ignores the point pupil makes subjective logical system interepted as an opinion which is possibly just lack of accepting the definition of non finalized system. Which in itself shows delicious contradictions of verbal reasoning whatever it might reflect besides the point that we are living in a world that posseses lots of things to uncover.)

    Anyway, I would rather see something bit more objective [as we are dealing with something overtly complex] before calling a day finally in socionics... but it is just me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.

  24. #24
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,013
    Mentioned
    281 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    You might find this interesting, it's an answer to a question I asked Victor Gulenko:

    https://socioniks.net/consultation/?id=105


    "A person’s worldview and beliefs mainly reflect his individual functional profile, especially the subtype and accentuated function. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the type of the author himself and the theories created by him, which, as a rule, line up around his accentuated function. It is accentuation that excites a person and is realized by him as the leading principle, which he is inclined to transfer to any other psyche.
    Yeah, this is a very serious break with classical socionics, probably one of the biggest I've seen from Gulenko. The leading function is supposed to be the "accentuated" one. This seems to me like a poor way to explain away the problems in a bad underlying model. I am honestly puzzled how Gulenko went from making arguably significant contributions to the theory...to this.

    The two types that are most to the philosophical understanding of life are EIE and OR. I think so, because it is they who possess intuitive dialectic thinking and, better than others, see contradictions in theories and reasoning as operating with abstract categories. In addition, they reach out to each other psychologically (hysteroids often agree with schizoids), they are interested together because they quickly perceive information from each other, and both are lovers of the argument. No one in socion is so focused on the process of thinking as these two types.
    In the future, many philosophical problems will be posed and even solved through the cooperation of various forms of thinking, including artificial intelligence. The latter so far reflects only deductive cause-and-effect thinking. However, the next step should be the re-creation of the most complex of thinking styles - the dialectical one, aimed at identifying and synthesizing opposites."
    EIEs and ILIs can often be philosophical, but it's more straightforward to associate this with TiNe...and oddly enough Gulenko actually does: -Ti for him is the "logic of contradictions and paradoxes". So why are EIEs supposed to be more philosophical and attuned to paradoxes than LIIs who have -Ti as a leading element? That makes no sense. (Contradiction is a logical concept, btw.)




    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    Yes, I know many people like that, I also see competitive people like that as what you would call Se-valuers. But I disagree that all Se-valuers are this way, if that is what you are implying, and I don't see a basis for such an assertion. But yes, here are we are getting to some assumptions. You say this is what Se is (I agree that these things have to do with Se of course). But how do you know? Because it is part of the system you use to make sense of things? That's not wrong in itself of course, but it's hardly a license for implying that it is the only or best way of seeing things. Se and Ne have complicated relationship, and I don't really agree that they are entirely opposed. In a sense, they are. In fact, an excess of Se will lead to outbreaks of Ne in Humanitarian Socionics, and vice versa. Si and Se do in fact have an effect on another that mutually constrains action in that system. So yes, I do see more of a Dualism there.
    The best way of seeing things is the one that gives the most understanding. And yes, you have to evaluate the coherence and power of the system as a whole.

    All Se valuers must share some one thing that makes them Se valuers. That's what we call having Se and/or Ni in a valued position. Of course this can manifest in different ways but they all share the same root. But the "example" I gave was very general, enough to represent the conflict between Se and Si as a whole.

    [/COLOR]I have no idea what to make of this. First of all, do you understand the principle that different things can have similar properties? I was talking about something abstract, not a concrete instance of something, that is why it can have multiple meanings. And frankly, even a concrete instance of something can have meanings contributed to it from multiple angles, so even in that case I'm not sure what you're getting at.
    The way you test an abstract system is by applying it to specific examples. The better it's able to explain those multiple examples as a consequence of type, the better the theory. A theory has to constrain to explain, and in this case you haven't constrained anything.

    Lastly, I don't really use one system for typology, so I don't even know what you mean about "the system I'm using being so tight and illuminating". That is a problematic assumption of yours from the start.
    I was referring to Gulenkoan Humanitarian socionics which you said "connects so many ideas in a way which illuminates" and apparently used to justify your typing as ILI.

    Being aware of one's assumptions has a lot to do with noticing contradictions in the systems that you use to make sense of your experience and your own behavior and that of others, and noticing contradictions also has a lot to do with expanding one's point of view. What is seeing things from an outside point of view, anyways? Seeing things from a point of view that's not your own? And how could you see things from such a point of view, if it is not your own? If you are seeing them, then apparently it is your point of view, so it is in some sense inside. Why does only Ne do this? Because you have defined it that way, and that works to break down your experience to some extent? Is Ne in charge of all empathy now as well? The way I see things, all of the Irrational IME's have to do with expanding our point of view, and there are more things besides which expand our point of view.
    "noticing contradictions also has a lot to do with expanding one's point of view"

    TiNe

    "Why does only Ne do this?"

    Because Ne is internal (deals with hidden information, such as perspectives), extroverted (expands rather than limiting), and abstract (deals with phenomena that are disconnected from immediate experience).

    If you disagree, then what is Ne? How should it be defined? All these questions don't mean much unless you can provide a better interpretation of your own.

    Any "basic definition" of an IM element or what it means to value it can be challenged; it doesn't just get to be some sacrosanct given. I don't really see much widespread agreement in Socionics about what such things mean in practice, even disregarding the work of Gulenko, so that seems like a rather unsolved problem to me from the get-go. Gulenko does have extensive definitions for Se and Si, the dualism between them, and how the Quadras work, which I find pretty impressive and interesting.
    Oh he does? I don't recall seeing any recent writing of his on the relationships between IM elements. The only Russian article I could find was older and didn't talk about specific examples. Likewise I've seen a lot about "quadra progression" and very little about the intertype relationships.

    I don't think I said anywhere that the basic definitions are "sacrosanct". I've put a lot of effort into refining them and seeking out their essence. What I have a problem with is definitions that apparently undermine the established predictions of socionics. It's a step backwards.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    450
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    LII, or EII. I only say EII because his talking style matches my talking style, maybe it's an IJ thing.

    Anyway, here' some sloppy VI.

    Your beard looks LII, your hair looks LII, your voice sounds LII. lol sorry but that was my initial reaction to the video.
    Last edited by Lord Pixel; 03-13-2019 at 12:14 AM.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    450
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky View Post
    20 years typing experience.

    A good hint with learning VI for the NTs is paying attention to how their eyes are set. Alphas usually have an emphasis at the upper level and Gammas at the lower levels. This is not a ardfast clear rule but may help guide others in knowing what to look for. I am often attracted to the eyes of alpha NTs some of which get very heavy (versus gamma light and brooding at the bottoms).
    Wait u don't like the brooding?

    I guess everyone has their own cup of tea lol.

  27. #27
    MrsTortilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ESI 468 sp/sx
    Posts
    456
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    EIE is not a good typing! Definitely ILI. Reminds me a bit of my ILI uncle when he was young. Also uhhhh let’s just say I zero in on Gamma NT’s and know one when I see one (ie I am attracted to them). Also it is silly to rule out ILI based on the multiple interests; I’m ESI and have always had a ton of interests and trouble developing just one or two. I think many many people are this way for a multitude of reasons. Intellectual curiosity is probably a big impetus for this.

  28. #28
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-H, 594 sp/sx
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Yeah, this is a very serious break with classical socionics, probably one of the biggest I've seen from Gulenko. The leading function is supposed to be the "accentuated" one. This seems to me like a poor way to explain away the problems in a bad underlying model. I am honestly puzzled how Gulenko went from making arguably significant contributions to the theory...to this.
    Your puzzlement is not a surprise when you blatantly misrepresent what you are talking about. Nothing is supposed to be a certain way just because, and this bottom of the barrel dogmatism is all that you're putting forward here. Have you even read about the accentuated function? My guess would be that you have next to no understanding of it. Just assuming that because someone's perspective disagrees with you then it must be an attempt to explain away problems in a bad model is a rather unusual violation of common sense. One of the strangest things I'm finding in this conversation is how you keep implying my openness to the perspective of others indicates that I am Ne-valuing, but you yourself seem sorely lacking in this quality. I do not recognize this characteristic in you; you seem intent on pushing your perspective onto people like me, whether or not they agree with it or find value in it. Don't get me wrong, you have respectable characteristics; but I don't think that's one of them. This is a very off-putting approach, and by your own logic, you seem Ni-valuing to me. Often, your dismissiveness isn't even couched in some kind of explanation or preclusive logic; it's just mindless incredulity and inability/unwillingness to consider a perspective on a topic that differs from your own.

    EIEs and ILIs can often be philosophical, but it's more straightforward to associate this with TiNe...and oddly enough Gulenko actually does: -Ti for him is the "logic of contradictions and paradoxes". So why are EIEs supposed to be more philosophical and attuned to paradoxes than LIIs who have -Ti as a leading element? That makes no sense. (Contradiction is a logical concept, btw.)
    Well, it's more straightforward to associate this with TiNe in your way of thinking, according to you, based on your understanding of philosophy. But no, Gulenko doesn't associate this with TiNe, by which I assume you mean LII. First of all, you already know that he associates things differently than you do based on what I am showing you, so you are clearly ignoring reality in your assessment of Gulenko's associations.

    I can somewhat see where you are coming from in your point about Ti-, at a superficial level at least, but Gulenko sees it a bit differently:

    -Ti- has to do with seeing order in chaos because it is involutionary in Gulenko's theory, going from complex to simple. Once you aggregate such a static understanding, you can notice deviations from it, but the purpose of using the function, from a Program position especially, is not to notice contradictions. It's to create a consistent and comprehensive system in the first place. Ti+ is similar but evolutionary; you can notice deviations from it once you have built the system, but the purpose isn't noticing the contradictions, it's actually building the stable system and making assessments in accordance with it.

    -This gets into the difference between Statics and Dynamics. Predominance of statics leads to stability in a group and a kind of psychological conservatism, because they are trying to fit things into stable structures. Dynamics, on the other hand, are more sensitive to extraneous influences and prone to frequent changes. They are much more inclined to look for the contradictions hidden within a structure, and between structures; this is especially true for those with the Negativist, Dynamic, Process Dialectical Algorithmic thinking. However, it is much more difficult for Dynamics to achieve stability and balance as compared to the Statics. I do agree with you that you need to be working from some kind of logic in order to see contradictions, but the distinction in this context is whether you are prone to seeing its contradictions and instabilities (dynamic), or whether you are more prone to try to fit things into the stable structure and making it work in order to achieve this equilibrium (static). The functions do always work together of course, rather than ever truly working apart.

    -Attunement to paradoxes is something slightly different. I do agree that LII's have this sort of attunement, in the sense that they are good at finding order in areas where others see only paradoxes. They can work well with paradoxes and understand them easily; that applies to all Intuitive Negativists if we're talking about abstract paradoxes. That's not really what Gulenko is talking about here.

    The best way of seeing things is the one that gives the most understanding. And yes, you have to evaluate the coherence and power of the system as a whole.
    I agree with this, although I would add that we are only assessing what gives us the best understanding up to a certain point past which our understanding no longer reaches. So, the best way of seeing things needs to be continually re-evaluated, tested and questioned so that we can reach all of the better ways of understanding of which we are not yet aware. And that requires being more open-minded than antagonistically assuming that anyone who has a different conception than you is just trying to explain away a bad theory.

    All Se valuers must share some one thing that makes them Se valuers. That's what we call having Se and/or Ni in a valued position. Of course this can manifest in different ways but they all share the same root. But the "example" I gave was very general, enough to represent the conflict between Se and Si as a whole.
    I agree that they must share some common root. In Gulenko's theory, it is called the Central dichotomy, as opposed to the peripheral dichotomy. It has a well-developed semantics in the model. However, your claim that your example is general enough to represent the conflict between these two elements at best works for you. If it works for how you wish to define the understanding of Se and Si, then by all means, stick with it. But, to say that it works well enough for others is not your assessment to make.

    You see, the competitive, dominating nature of Se is directly opposed to open-mindedness. When you want to win or beat the other guy, you don't want to be "friendly" with him. And you don't want to be "open" to him winning or being right, either, you want you to win and not him, because then you lose. That's Se, which is directly opposed to Si and Ne.
    Jordan Peterson, one of your examples of an Se-valuer, doesn't seem to fit so well into your conception. Ironically, it looks like there is a lot you could learn about open-mindedness from him:



    The way you test an abstract system is by applying it to specific examples. The better it's able to explain those multiple examples as a consequence of type, the better the theory. A theory has to constrain to explain, and in this case you haven't constrained anything.
    I agree that applying an abstract system on specific examples is a good way to test it. However, the notion of what constitutes a better explanation is very controversial. I absolutely disagree that what I said didn't constrain anything, and moreover, nothing I said that you were responding to in that quote was meant to test an abstract system. I was simply referring to different ways a general event could come about and different associations that it has.

    I was referring to Gulenkoan Humanitarian socionics which you said "connects so many ideas in a way which illuminates" and apparently used to justify your typing as ILI.
    I have indeed found Gulenko's system quite illuminating, in addition to many other systems that I use to assess myself and the world. However, I never mentioned the word tight: that was your false characterization of me. It is not merely illuminating in how I understand myself, but rather in how I understand all things in mutual sublime tension with one another. I use multiple systems, and this is not a trivial point, as you will hopefully see soon enough. Nothing you have said causes me to change my mind about this, and on the whole you seem very confused about Gulenko and myself. You didn't know me as child, a teenager, etc., and my behavior was quite different then as well.

    "noticing contradictions also has a lot to do with expanding one's point of view"

    TiNe
    This is just empty self-congratulations, ugly self-assurance. Clearly, we disagree on this, and this adds nothing persuasive to your point of view to someone who doesn't already agree with you.

    "Why does only Ne do this?"

    Because Ne is internal (deals with hidden information, such as perspectives), extroverted (expands rather than limiting), and abstract (deals with phenomena that are disconnected from immediate experience).
    Perspectives might be hidden at first. But can't sensing expand your perspective as well, even though it isn't hidden? I don't really see how it can't. I do agree that extroverted functions expand, but as I view the introverted functions, they are expanded into. The extroverted functions expand out and make their impression on existence, whereas the introverted functions take in and attempt to understand existence and all of its relations. The extroverted functions can actually limit in their expansion because of their dominance, and Introverted functions can clear the way for more and thus not limit (particularly the Irrational one's). So, I would question the necessity of your definition of extroversion, but it's perfectly viable for your own use. In order to expand your point of view, you have to bring something into your immediate experience, so I'm not sure I understand the bit about abstract.

    If you disagree, then what is Ne? How should it be defined? All these questions don't mean much unless you can provide a better interpretation of your own.
    There are a number of ways to define Ne: Gulenko's, yours, Jung's, and even more besides. It's not that I disagree with your conception, I just don't see how it precludes all others. I disagree that questions don't mean much without providing a better interpretation. It may be meaningless to you based on what you are trying to do, but for other people, questioning in itself is valuable because it can show us the limits of our conceptions and thus hint at how we could improve our orientation to the world. In any case, I have many definitions of Ne to offer; we can just go take a tour of the various Socionics schools and their many differences. Personally, I like Gulenko's definition, but I understand if different systems work for different people based on their different orientations. Your definition of Ne isn't simply bad or something like that; I can see that you've put a lot of effort into thinking about and you have a neat perspective on it.

    Oh he does? I don't recall seeing any recent writing of his on the relationships between IM elements. The only Russian article I could find was older and didn't talk about specific examples. Likewise I've seen a lot about "quadra progression" and very little about the intertype relationships.
    Yes, Se and Si have a redemption relationship. This is discussed in various articles on his site, as well as older articles. He has lots of articles about intertype relationships so I have no idea what you're talking about there.

    I don't think I said anywhere that the basic definitions are "sacrosanct". I've put a lot of effort into refining them and seeking out their essence. What I have a problem with is definitions that apparently undermine the established predictions of socionics. It's a step backwards.
    You didn't say that, but it is an observation of how you treat classical Socionics (your version of it anyways). You treat it as something which is inviolable and unable to challenged, else, we are making a "step backwards", which is just rhetoric of course. At the very least, we can't challenge it in a major way, we are only allowed to make gradual refinements like you are or something like that. If you don't really treat your version of classical Socionics as sacrosanct, then let me know, since I don't want to misrepresent you, but then you would have to allow major challenges to it. My problem with your statement here is people seem generally unable to agree on what these "established predictions" of Socionics even seem to mean. They can't agree on type diagnostics, they can't agree on relations, etc. This very thread displays that very well, as do so many others. So, I can't really agree with you that Socionics even has a set of established, given predictions. Every different school of Socionics, while they all share some things, seem to have somewhat different predictions regarding Socionics theory and how it applies in practice. Simply ignoring this reality is not going to solve that problem.
    Last edited by Varlawend; 03-13-2019 at 07:12 PM.

  29. #29
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,013
    Mentioned
    281 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    Well, it's more straightforward to associate this with TiNe in your way of thinking, according to you, based on your understanding of philosophy. But no, Gulenko doesn't associate this with TiNe, by which I assume you mean LII. First of all, you already know that he associates things differently than you do based on what I am showing you, so you are clearly ignoring reality in your assessment of Gulenko's associations.

    I can somewhat see where you are coming from in your point about Ti-, at a superficial level at least, but Gulenko sees it a bit differently:

    -Ti- has to do with seeing order in chaos because it is involutionary in Gulenko's theory, going from complex to simple. Once you aggregate such a static understanding, you can notice deviations from it, but the purpose of using the function, from a Program position especially, is not to notice contradictions. It's to create a consistent and comprehensive system in the first place. Ti+ is similar but evolutionary; you can notice deviations from it once you have built the system, but the purpose isn't noticing the contradictions, it's actually building the stable system and making assessments in accordance with it.
    If your goal is to create a consistent system then you need to be able to recognize when you've succeeded, i.e. when a system is consistent. That automatically implies being able to recognize inconsistency because if you can recognize the presence of something then you can recognize its absence too.

    Jordan Peterson, one of your examples of an Se-valuer, doesn't seem to fit so well into your conception. Ironically, it looks like there is a lot you could learn about open-mindedness from him:

    I'm not able to view the video here but feel free to write what it says.

    There are a number of ways to define Ne: Gulenko's, yours, Jung's, and even more besides. It's not that I disagree with your conception, I just don't see how it precludes all others.
    Yeah, that's essentially what I've been trying to convey to you but I guess it isn't working.

    You didn't say that, but it is an observation of how you treat classical Socionics (your version of it anyways). You treat it as something which is inviolable and unable to challenged, else, we are making a "step backwards", which is just rhetoric of course. At the very least, we can't challenge it in a major way, we are only allowed to make gradual refinements like you are or something like that. If you don't really treat your version of classical Socionics as sacrosanct, then let me know, since I don't want to misrepresent you, but then you would have to allow major challenges to it. My problem with your statement here is people seem generally unable to agree on what these "established predictions" of Socionics even seem to mean. They can't agree on type diagnostics, they can't agree on relations, etc. This very thread displays that very well, as do so many others. So, I can't really agree with you that Socionics even has a set of established, given predictions. Every different school of Socionics, while they all share some things, seem to have somewhat different predictions regarding Socionics theory and how it applies in practice. Simply ignoring this reality is not going to solve that problem.
    It's not controversial to say that duals should generally get along and opposite-quadra types generally shouldn't. And that this is the result of information metabolism, which Model A is based on.

    I'm not treating my interpretation of socionics as "inviolable", but I see socionics interpretations as something that are meant to describe and explain objective reality. It makes no difference to me that there are 100 socionists out there all with different interpretations. What matters is what insight they have into reality and how coherently their interpretation fits together. So far you haven't demonstrated that, just like I apparently haven't conveyed to you why my interpretation makes sense (which, by the way was formed with the input of other socionists whom I respect and have also differed with at times). If someone does demonstrate that, then I would be open to making whatever changes are appropriate. So, you can spare me the accusations of dogmatism.

    I agree that applying an abstract system on specific examples is a good way to test it. However, the notion of what constitutes a better explanation is very controversial. I absolutely disagree that what I said didn't constrain anything, and moreover, nothing I said that you were responding to in that quote was meant to test an abstract system. I was simply referring to different ways a general event could come about and different associations that it has.
    If "the notion of what constitutes a better explanation is very controversial" then we are really in a bad way, and I'm afraid this conversation won't be very productive. Probably I shouldn't have prolonged it since our last one was similarly unproductive.

    Socionics the way I see it is very simple and very clear. I think most people will be able to see that eventually.
    Last edited by thehotelambush; 03-13-2019 at 08:28 PM.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    450
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrsTortilla View Post
    EIE is not a good typing! Definitely ILI. Reminds me a bit of my ILI uncle when he was young. Also uhhhh let’s just say I zero in on Gamma NT’s and know one when I see one (ie I am attracted to them). Also it is silly to rule out ILI based on the multiple interests; I’m ESI and have always had a ton of interests and trouble developing just one or two. I think many many people are this way for a multitude of reasons. Intellectual curiosity is probably a big impetus for this.
    You have creative Se, so yea you would have multiple interests.

  31. #31
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-H, 594 sp/sx
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    If your goal is to create a consistent system then you need to be able to recognize when you've succeeded, i.e. when a system is consistent. That automatically implies being able to recognize inconsistency because if you can recognize the presence of something then you can recognize its absence too.
    This is all very true IMO. But this is a very LII approach to philosophy, system building (Spinoza, Kant, etc.). It's not the focus of most philosophers, though when LII's do get into philosophy they can be quite good system builders (same as some EIE-N's). But that still doesn't have quite the emphasis on contradictions and constant development that I think EIE and ILI philosophers do. The system building of LII more often has a home in mathematics, science, etc., but it does show up in philosophy sometimes. Philosophy more often is about constantly back and forth debates, questioning, meditating on ancient questions, challenging assumptions, overturning systems, which is not as much the way an LII thinks.

    I'm not able to view the video here but feel free to write what it says.
    Eh, it's not worth the effort for now. I will talk about all these issues at great length later on; if you are interested then, perhaps I will include this snippet.

    Yeah, that's essentially what I've been trying to convey to you but I guess it isn't working.
    You've been saying that your perspective on Ne precludes all others? Or that there are a number of ways to define it? Not sure what you mean.

    It's not controversial to say that duals should generally get along and opposite-quadra types generally shouldn't. And that this is the result of information metabolism, which Model A is based on.
    It's more controversial than you might think. Duals definitely complement each other in every version of Socionics that I've seen, but the nature of the complementation differs considerably. In some schools, they should generally get along. In others, they don't easily get along at all, in some cases it is quite difficult, but once they take the time to recognize their value to each other then it becomes very apparent. Opposite Quadra types definitely have more difficulty getting along in most versions of Socionics too. However, that's all true for Gulenko as well. Therefore, it's not just a result of information metabolism; it can also be a result of energy metabolism, what Model G is based on.

    I'm not treating my interpretation of socionics as "inviolable", but I see socionics interpretations as something that are meant to describe and explain objective reality. It makes no difference to me that there are 100 socionists out there all with different interpretations. What matters is what insight they have into reality and how coherently their interpretation fits together. So far you haven't demonstrated that, just like I apparently haven't conveyed to you why my interpretation makes sense (which, by the way was formed with the input of other socionists whom I respect and have also differed with at times). If someone does demonstrate that, then I would be open to making whatever changes are appropriate. So, you can spare me the accusations of dogmatism.
    The notion of "objective reality" is quite a thorny one, especially if you study Consciousness, Depth Psychology, Quantum Mechanics, Symbolism, Hypnosis, Postmodernism, etc. So, if that's your orientation, it would make sense that we wouldn't easily see eye to eye. That said, I agree with you that I haven't put much effort into explaining my interpretation of things, so I don't just expect you to agree with if you're coming at things differently. That's to come. Your interpretation does actually seem to have some value to me. I've always found the material on your sites interesting ever since I came across them. But, I could say the same of the material of people like Victor Gulenko, who you seem to write off out of hand. Hence, there are definitely some deeper issues I want to address, because I am of the opinion that there is too much sectarianism, too much monolithicism, and too much conflict with the Socionics community and the typology community more broadly. It's not what it could be, and I want to help change that. Every typology isn't going to work for everyone, and I accept that. In my view, these are quite complicated issues.

    I'm glad to hear that you are or have been open to the input of others, even those with whom you disagree. However, in our conversations anyways, what I've generally experienced is my perspective (particularly inasmuch as it relates to Victor Gulenko) being dismissed out of hand for essentially no reason (i.e. due to dogmatism). Well, maybe you'll change your tune eventually, maybe not, but this hasn't struck me as at all open-minded at this point.

    If "the notion of what constitutes a better explanation is very controversial" then we are really in a bad way, and I'm afraid this conversation won't be very productive. Probably I shouldn't have prolonged it since our last one was similarly unproductive.
    I like having difficult conversations. I know they can be painful; they are to me. However, they clarify the pressure points in contentious issues which is necessary for people like me who want to solve or alleviate them. One thing I do appreciate about you is that things never seem to get personal with you. What I can say about better explanations is that sometimes they might be obvious, but what seems like a better explanation to one person might not seem that way to another because they are working from such different understandings which take into account different things, and they have such different experiences. It's one of the many reasons there is so much conflict in the world. This is why I believe that it behooves us to deeply understand the perspectives of many people; it is helpful both for peace and for winning at life. I know that because of this I'll get labeled as Ne-valuing by you; that's not intrinsically wrong. That perspective has a whole fascinating and insightful world behind it, your world of experiences and network of semantic associations and understandings. But there are so many other worlds too that I value. And ultimately, these worlds aren't separate, and the only way we'll know what happens when they crash into one another is understanding all of them.

    Socionics the way I see it is very simple and very clear. I think most people will be able to see that eventually.
    One difference in my approach is that I actually don't see Socionics as one thing. I think your version of Socionics might indeed be quite simple and clear, and maybe people will be able to see that. But, each approach to Socionics isn't for everyone. I think that people, because of their innate orientations, might value different approaches to typology.
    Last edited by Varlawend; 03-14-2019 at 12:07 PM.

  32. #32
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,013
    Mentioned
    281 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    This is all very true IMO. But this is a very LII approach to philosophy, system building (Spinoza, Kant, etc.). It's not the focus of most philosophers, though when LII's do get into philosophy they can be quite good system builders. But that still doesn't have quite the emphasis on contradictions and constant development that I think EIE and ILI philosophers do. More broadly, this is especially the focus of the Normalizing subtype.
    This isn't an "approach", it's a kind of information - which I see as Ti in classical socionics.

    The reason my interpretation is simpler is that I relate everything back to information metabolism (and "energy metabolism" for a reasonable definition of that term, which I think I mentioned before). This is the opposite of introducing new and semi-independent traits like subtypes.

    You've been saying that your perspective on Ne precludes all others? Or that there are a number of ways to define it? Not sure what you mean.
    I'm saying that I'm trying to convey to you why this perspective on Ne makes the most sense (at least, more than Gulenko's/Jung's/any others I've seen).

    The notion of "objective reality" is quite a thorny one, especially if you study Consciousness, Depth Psychology, Quantum Mechanics, Symbolism, Hypnosis, Postmodernism, etc. So, if that's your orientation, it would make sense that we wouldn't easily see eye to eye.

    ... That perspective has a whole fascinating and insightful world behind it, your world of experiences and network of semantic associations and understandings. But there are so many other worlds too that I value. And ultimately, these worlds aren't separate, and the only way we'll know what happens when they crash into one another is understanding all of them.

    One difference in my approach is that I actually don't see Socionics as one thing. I think your version of Socionics might indeed be quite simple and clear, and maybe people will be able to see that. But, each approach to Socionics isn't for everyone. I think that people, because of their innate orientations, might value different approaches to typology.
    "And ultimately, these worlds aren't separate" - Exactly.

    Objective reality is just the intersection of all these worlds. So socionics is indeed "one thing" in terms of its consequences to our shared reality, if it's anything at all. If we aren't talking about that reality at least indirectly then communication is going to break down. My concern is with the One and all it entails.

  33. #33
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-H, 594 sp/sx
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    This isn't an "approach", it's a kind of information - which I see as Ti in classical socionics.
    Well, yes, I think you can absolutely consider it a kind of information. It's both an approach AND a kind of information, and I don't see how those are mutually exclusive.

    The reason my interpretation is simpler is that I relate everything back to information metabolism (and "energy metabolism" for a reasonable definition of that term, which I think I mentioned before). This is the opposite of introducing new and semi-independent traits like subtypes.
    I don't disagree that your approach is simpler, but I don't think that simplicity is all that is valuable. There is also nuance, usefulness and the amount of epistemological issues confronted, and I think Gulenko is far ahead of any other Socionist in that regard. Usefulness is of course something more imbued in subjectivity, so I will say: useful to me and some of my friends at least.

    I'm saying that I'm trying to convey to you why this perspective on Ne makes the most sense (at least, more than Gulenko's/Jung's/any others I've seen).
    I see, well then yes, we don't quite agree on that point. I don't yet see how your given definition of Ne is self-evidently better than that of other Socionists. Perhaps time will tell.

    Objective reality is just the intersection of all these worlds. So socionics is indeed "one thing" in terms of its consequences to our shared reality, if it's anything at all. If we aren't talking about that reality at least indirectly then communication is going to break down. My concern is with the One and all it entails.
    Even then, I still find the notion of Objective reality a thorny issue. Why is reality an object? What if it is better conceived of as a subject? Objectivity seems to me to be an orientation to reality, to consciousness, which can occasionally be useful in an instrumental fashion, but overall, I would describe my viewpoint as more participatory in nature. Is the unity between different facets or perspectives on reality pre-given? And if they disagree, how exactly do they come together? One being "objectively" right, corresponding to some pre-given objective world, displacing another? I don't think it's that simple. I think it is more like an imaginal, virtuous dance.

    It is one thing in a sense, in the sense that this word is one thing. But I think Socionics has sub-systems, where people are using these words in completely (or largely) different ways and actually using different systems which may be said to each have different consequences on our shared reality. In sum total these consequences are one, but you can also look at the separation, and the different ways this separation can go into new unprethinkable harmonies. In dialectics, synagoge and diairesis; both operations are useful and important. But maybe there will never even be agreement about that; strife seems to be an integral component to our reality, our consciousness. Well, we'll see I guess. Strife, eros, pluriverse, universe, war, love, separation, union, force, persuasion.
    Last edited by Varlawend; 03-14-2019 at 12:55 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •