Constructivism / Emotivism

[Delilah]

I have been wondering about various manifestations of these dichotomies; Please share your understanding of it in your own words/ how you have experienced it as well as any helpful illustrating examples.

Some questions: I have noticed that some moods & states of experiencing the world/an interaction are lingering/sticky for me...would this be related to constructivism...how?

I know that i use many, varied anchors ( as per " For the constructivist emotional "anchors" are important (Connected to a certain place, a book, a film and so on) which resonate with their internal emotional conditions. With their help they keep or strengthen their internal emotional state"), yet i don't know how the sticky mood/state of being can be explained...

Thanks.

[mfckrz]

I hadn't seen this before: https://www.reddit.com/r/JungianTypo...vistemotivist/

No idea yet if helpful, but at least it's something new.

[Exodus]

In my opinion the type dichotomies' meaning derives from combining the function dichotomies with the IM elements.

In this case, constructivist types have contact logic and inert ethics, and emotivist types have contact ethics and inert logic.

The inert functions are, either ones that you use a lot and derive satisfaction from (bold and valued), or ones that you don't like to use and don't have stamina for (unvalued and cautious).

The contact functions by contrast are ones where you switch between them more readily and don't typically have as strong an opinion in conflicts.

Some people at WSS have summed this up by saying that the dichotomy should be called stubborn/flexible -- so constructivists would have stubborn flexible logic while emotivists would have stubborn flexible ethics. I think this makes sense as far as it goes, but I'm not sure it's something that can be observed independently without recognizing one of the two subcategories above.

[strrrng]

IME it comes down to how one connects their states with environmental conditions. I can't speak for every type, but as an IEI, I never completely "know" what state I'm in—even when I'm in it—or what the aspects concerning, or implications of, it are. To me it seems that emotivists function with a more natural element of flux, so given wherever they're at, things simply adapt accordingly; whereas an SLE friend once told me they know exactly what mood they'll be in the next day the night before.

[myresearch]

In my opinion the type dichotomies' meaning derives from combining the function dichotomies with the IM elements.

In this case, constructivist types have contact logic and inert ethics, and emotivist types have contact ethics and inert logic.

The inert functions are, either ones that you use a lot and derive satisfaction from (bold and valued), or ones that you don't like to use and don't have stamina for (unvalued and cautious).

The contact functions by contrast are ones where you switch between them more readily and don't typically have as strong an opinion in conflicts.

Yes.

Some people at WSS have summed this up by saying that the dichotomy should be called stubborn/flexible -- so constructivists would have stubborn logic while emotivists would have stubborn ethics. I think this makes sense as far as it goes, but I'm not sure it's something that can be observed independently without recognizing one of the two subcategories above.

My conclusion is the opposite, maybe you made a typo. Since "contact functions by contrast are ones where you switch between them more readily and don't typically have as strong an opinion in conflicts", emotivists would have flexible ethics since they have contact ethics and constructivists would have flexible logic.

[Exodus]

Yes.



My conclusion is the opposite, maybe you made a typo. Since "contact functions by contrast are ones where you switch between them more readily and don't typically have as strong an opinion in conflicts", emotivists would have flexible ethics since they have contact ethics and constructivists would have flexible logic.

Thanks, that's a typo. So the name refers more to the "flexible" side of the model (which ironically does not include the leading function).

[Sol]

the problem is there are no such dichotomies in Socionics. there is unbased hypothesis only