I think DCHN and subtypes refer the strength of IE not its dimensions, I can be wrong about this, however, I couldn't find any article that suggest the otherwise.
Maybe I am, maybe I am just saying that Socionics needs an extreme psychological disorders patch. I don't have a clear opinion about this topic.Ah, so you tacitly admit that Socionics isn't universal in saying that psychopaths can't be typed.
You can be right, I am not sure but I have trouble identifying people who have severe personality disorders. The brain structure of people who suffer from anti-social personality disorder or extreme narcissism, have similarities. Maybe that structure can warp a personality type like you suggest. I am not sure how that would manifest. For example, psychopaths who have different types and similar level of general intelligence, social intelligence and impulsivity, can seem more similar to each other than the healthy version of their type. The structure of their brain that causes the disorder seems like its overriding their own personality. I agree with the rest of your post, "non-Socionoics factors also have an ITR of their own" as you put it.
Well your fears seem to be mostly rooted in the fact that if you stray off from the ITR pattern somehow, then something terrible is going to happen. Which if you accept the premise of Socionics to be true, then that would be true. But that only depends on whether the premise is true or not. Has that actually worked out in practice? You wouldn't know this, unless you take the approach by trying to prove something wrong rather than right, even if you inherently want something to be true.
How would you know? How would you know that just because something terrible happened in the past, it will happen again? This fear isn't easily shaken off, because it's pretty much the root of all traumas. But it can only be dispelled by having the assumption being negated by positive experiences.
You are a champion of finding exceptions. Your consistent deconstructive reasoning on the forums unnerves me, but it's also necessary to test what is true, so I can appreciate that much. As I have said, I am not a veteran of the theory, and I can only speak to the fact that my own personal history, both the best and worst of my relations, has aligned eerily with IR theory. If that is some small measure of confirmation of the theory or simply my own ignorance then so be it. I know whom I have found my strength in.
"We live in an age in which there is no heroic death."
Model A: ESI-Se -
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 1w2, 2w1, 6w7
Instinctual Variant: Sx/So
I don' understand the reference that you made with your post to my quote, that's why I am asking this. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: Adult brain is substantially wired and it is possible to increase our cognitive abilities but we can change a little with lots of training during a long period of time?
...Isn't that how traumas and superstitions work? You can say that for example, you have a fear of a burglar attacking you and assaulting you if you enter a room, unless you carefully examine the room beforehand. And since you perform this ritual every time you enter a room, and every time you do it, you are not actually attacked by a burglar. And therefore, this "confirms" that checking every time you enter a room "works".
I don't really think that people are either inherently creative or uncreative. But since we don't actually know how creativity works, we can't really say much about it yet. All I can say is that people are capable of having any kind of possible thoughts that are allowed by the laws of physics. Which is, again, any kind of possible thought imaginable.
Singu I wasn't talking about creativity or creative thoughts. Your post is about creativity.
I am going to copy pasting my post. Could you please answer to that without mentioning socionics or other things?
I don' understand the reference that you made with your post to my quote, that's why I am asking this. Do you agree or disagree with this statement:Adult brain is substantially wired and it is possible to increase our cognitive abilities but we can change a little with lots of training during a long period of time?
I can appreciate that You're persistent at keeping people on their toes, but You come off like an Ne valuer throwing out what-ifs so as to not inhabit any position at all. Look, I get You're trying to make me think, but You're wasting Your time. Chalk it up to arrogance or ignorance or whatever helps You, but I know who and where I've found growth and strength in, and I certainly know who's drained me the most bending over backwards to accommodate and adapt to. If Socionics IR theory has cemented my bias' or whatever then I suppose time will tell. You also strike me as someone who talks at people instead of to them, which is likely part of my reaction.
"We live in an age in which there is no heroic death."
Model A: ESI-Se -
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 1w2, 2w1, 6w7
Instinctual Variant: Sx/So
Last edited by Singu; 01-03-2019 at 12:41 AM.
You're as cocksure as anyone I've seen on the forums, @Singu, just not on matters of Socionics. In fairness, my Ne statement was conjecture based on personal experiences with Ne's. It's entirely likely they may have a better read of You, I wouldn't know, as I still haven't fully transitioned over from MBTI. Why do You presume all I'm looking for is confirmation? I only learned of IR about 5 months ago. Do You sincerely think it impossible the theory could've lined up with my life's experiences? I can't think of a single time I've seen You amicably agree with anyone on anything substantial as of yet. It's becoming entertaining. I can see why Sb seems to have so much fun with You.
"We live in an age in which there is no heroic death."
Model A: ESI-Se -
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 1w2, 2w1, 6w7
Instinctual Variant: Sx/So
The theory can line up with any kind of experiences, because the theory says that virtually any kind of behaviors are possible. Which is basically how humans are. I can act in ways that are both Ne PoLR and Ne-valuer behaviors, because those behaviors are well within the possibilities of my possible behaviors. It doesn't contradict anything whether I act like a Ne PoLR or a Ne valuer. It certainly doesn't contradict the theory.
Last edited by Faith; 01-03-2019 at 04:51 AM.
No refunds.
Whatever I have to say on the issue isn't going to be listened to because your prerogative is to suit everything to your preconceptions, which are not based on observable fact.
I have no reason to waste my time convincing you otherwise - you'll even cite this disconnect as proof of "semi-dual ITR." Lol.
At a certain stage, I just have to stop giving a fuck what people on the internet who've never met I think. And I have no reason to consider myself "psychologically close" to people who fail to listen in the most basic ways. I'd find more resonance with a tree stump.
What ? This is not my understanding. Jung said the position of the function don't say anything about his strenght. My understanding is that you could have a "strong" 1d PoLR compared to another individual who would have a "weaker" 1d PoLRStrength and dimensionality are the same thing.
I wouldn't agree with your statement that the common case for being negative to socionics is wrong types. lol It is an obscure theory and most people irl have never heard of it and would not use it to pick friends or lovers. Maybe some people just don't take it as serious as others. The more attached to it you are the more positive or negative your perception of it will be. I am neutral on it these days as are most people I know who have moved on from it and are more focused on their lives and relationships than on the theory of them. There will come a time when you have to go out into the world and experience it instead of theorizing about how relationships work.
If it works for people great but life will still throw them curve balls. Hopefully they have more than a bit of socionics knowledge to deal with them when it does. Otherwise you will see them back here retyping themselves and/or everyone they have ever known during an existential crisis.
Socionics is a concept. It is your perception and use of it is that gives you pain or pleasure. Same with any other system including astrology, tarot, etc...
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I visualize dimensions as vector directions and strength as vector magnitudes.
The-four-voices-span-up-a-four-dimensional-vector-space-of-description-in-analogy-to-a.png
You underesteemate Te approach in your view. I'll explain my point.
Wrong types are often/common as average typing matches are <20%. The mistakes lead to that theory does not work as is expected. This leads to negative relation to the typology.
For example, someone mistypes himself and reads about interests which are at his type, about people which are best for him, - but in reality the type is different, so real interests are other and people with which he'd felt good are other too. There are a lot of people who mistype themselves for years and hence get bad results using the theory. On forums it's probably a half of all - and they can't accept Socionics as should get regular bad results with it. These 50% mb called as a common case.
> I am neutral on it these days as are most people I know who have moved on from it and are more focused on their lives and relationships than on the theory of them.
Jung's types are important factor for abbilities, interests, close friendship relations. While the most people can't even notice this clearly with often mistypings. While to get lesser mistypings needs to develop typing skills what needs efforts which most people never do.
Also texts of types theory describe abstract cases when everything other is equal, while besides types affect different factors on people and relations. So you may meet F type with very high IQ and excellent education among top-ranked physicists, but anyway it's very minority of F types among them. The worse you'll type - the lesser clearly you'll not notice the types factor there.
> Hopefully they have more than a bit of socionics knowledge to deal with them when it does. Otherwise you will see them back here retyping themselves and/or everyone they have ever known during an existential crisis.
The main reason for own retyping is bad typing skills, as the types theory is clear enough to distinguish between types factors and other factors. While when it's not clear is explained above and bad typing skills are easily noticable at people on forums and even among those who try to study others.
>50% of typing mistakes is just common case, according to average matches - it's a lot to make a mess in the results of the usage of the theory. This matches are proved in the known experiments. But are not obscurity theorizing about this situation. It's objective.
While when it's a noob who uses bs theory alike Reinin's traits and instead of reading normal typology books read only bs in some English translated articles with gulenko's subtypes and Augustinavichiute's much doubtful fantasies etc - the mistypings should be some higher. To compare the experience and make conclusions you need to use the comparable cases, at least. And do not forget to take into account that even best typers do a lot of mistakes objectively what is seen in their objective typing matches.
> Socionics is a concept.
In case of many mistypings making hard to see it's a real practice. This makes the main difference in perceptions. The 2nd is inappropriate usage, when people forget about other factors and ignore that descriptions of types and IR are made for abstract cases.
As for Tarot - the situation is similar. There are those who get more correct results and hence value guessings higher as working practical method. The same is with any correct knowledge, - it needs to have it and skills to use it - so then to value and use it.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
All known experiments with real matches, - when types were said when typers did not know the opinions of others beforehand. The quantity of typed ones should be ~10 of higher, and of typers alike. Not 2-3 or statistical mistak would be too high.
I saw such experiments on socioforum by questionnaires, photos, mine with 16 bloggers in 2015 and earlier.
There was a wide known CRT-99 made in 1999 by IRL interview. The article which followed to it had wrongly calculated average match seems ~30-40%, but if to calculate correctly it is ~17%.
Practically, I never saw anyone in experiments or other with real typing matches >50%. Mb more experienced and better typers without heretic bs than in those experiments would got higher average matches, but those results are intersting also as show what is expected in masses - on forums, in clubs, etc. If people studed in the same typology school - the chance to get higher matches should be also. <20% is average, in general.
You may also to look at large lists of actors types of >500 names. The matches drop to ~20% with the size. The problem of lists - there is many not independent matches as typers saw those types at other typers. The larger lists are - the more of their own opinion is there and more new actors. So the match drops closer to real one.
The similar experiments mb repeated, they are not hard. Mb used any typing materials, just it's important that typed ones did not know the Socionics theory to do not play on some types. The optimum would be typing videointerviews of random people. Bloggers seem as 2nd choice - that would be analogue of actors but some better. Even special typing questionnaires gave low matches.
So the Sociotype is capable of producing virtually any kind of behaviors. Which is pretty much what humans are capable of. People are capable of having virtually any kind of thoughts, which may turn to certain behaviors if the person wished to turn it into action, and if there are no restrictions constraining that behavior. What people can do and can't do will be determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature doesn't restrict people to have any kind of thoughts.
You can't predict any kind of human behaviors in this way, because the Sociotype doesn't have any constraints. You can just as well say that "His PoLR is strong" "It's his Dual-seeking function", etc, if he doesn't act like a stereotypical type. Basically, all it's saying is that "People will act in any kind of possible manner in the future". Which is true, but also pointless.
@Sol How would you know when you got typings "correct" and "wrong"? This would be impossible to tell, as there's no criteria for what makes something correct or wrong, and since you're trying to "fit" people into certain descriptions, there's no way that you can be "wrong".
You’re still thinking about it wrong.
It’s like the 4 seasons. You can technically have any type of weather crop up at any time of the year, and in a way the seasons are just approximations and just concepts we created. But does that mean they don’t exist? Does that mean we can’t define our criteria for them to “prove” that they exist?
A lot of us are seeing the same things here. It’s not just coincidence and it’s probably not impossible to prove objectively either.
I liked this post of your accidentally.
Do you know how low the chances of us all making shit up and being wrong about this statistically, would be? Such detailed, complex personal experiences?
Your POV defies basic logic and common sense. Actually ironically it’s paranoid and superstitious like how you’re accusing others of being.
The seasons are explained by the tilting of the Earth's axis, which either hemispheres receive more or less heat from the sun, depending on the location.
We're not interested in "proving" whether seasons really exist or not (or "deriving"), but we're after explaining. We're interested in explaining, why do seasons occur?
Do the existence of types have any such explanations? No. And if you can't explain it, then you can't predict it. The tilting-axis Earth theory can perfectly well predict which seasons will occur in which locations, and when, and even why.
You're only "seeing" the same thing, because that's what the theory tells you to see. You can only see within what the theory says that that's all there is. If you had a different theory, then which data to observe would be completely different, and therefore you'd be seeing completely different things.
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
So I have this theory, that those of us who fight the most against certain systems and theories do so, because it's an ongoing battle at the same time inside of us, and we feel we have more ammunition when we vocalize it or try to fight against it in other people as well. Because changing others' opinion would give us more moral support and belief in that we can - indeed - change our own perception in the long run.
Or it might just be me.
@mrrrmaid Not exactly, but it's funny how well the OP captures that process.
Last edited by Desert Financial; 01-05-2019 at 10:18 PM.