Do you think the concept of strong functions makes sense?
-I'm not interested in most of the things happening around me, so I miss a lot of details and take refuge into interesting thoughts, and people stereotypically consider me a weird speculative guy with his head in the clouds.
People would say I'm an introvert and/or an intuitive type.
-I like soccer a lot. When I play matches I tends to be among the best players. I clearly can play the ball better than most others because of my developed sensation.
People would now say I'm a sensor, cause no intuitive type could have such a developed sensation, and intuitives trip over the ball.
People could also say:
-I'm a sensor who likes few sensorish stuff, and only awakens when he's involved activities he likes a lot;
-I'm an intuitive who learned to develop his sensations in some contexts;
-Socionics is too far fetched and functions have no meaning so we are all potentially strong in all fields.
-I'm great at warning others about future consequences and making plans, but when it's about myself I tend to ignore what I know will happen and just stick to my laziness preferring instant gratification instead of future stability;
-I'm very forgetful, but in many cases people have asked me if I got photographic memory.
I don't know. Maybe socionics is pure trash and it's all up to interests.
Yes. You're overthinking it.
When a subject is vague like socionics I think it's difficult to jump to a simple solution. There just is no solid solution to the problem. It's always a "maybe" or if you're lucky, "probably". There are thousands of reasons for each type, and other thousands against each type.
Originally Posted by Bento
Hey, existential type crisis stuff, lol.
If I stop and dissect everything I do and think, yeah, I'd be able to put little pieces in each and every type. I think type is more cognitive than behavioral, i.e. how I go from point A to point B in my head, which is actually similar each time.
Both sensory and intuition are part of how we percieve life, and both feelings and logic should be part of decision making imo.
I don't think socionics is much more than words we use to out a word on certain phenomenon, they are just as good, as bad, as any other.
It's less about raw abilities and more what people tend to verbalize or be mentally preoccupied with.
Originally Posted by Reyne
@Andreas You make an important point that we live in an information explosion nowadays with the internet. People can more easily figure out how to do things they'd naturally be less good at. We also know a lot more about human psychology and how to control ourselves and work with the personalities and psychologies of other people.
@Reyne People spend widely varying amounts of time on certain aspects of their information processing. If by strong, you're referring to spending more time on data acquisition than rationalization (or vice versa) then I would agree but "strong" is a rather misleading word. Being able to play soccer well is like being physically strong and good at weightlifting, both have nothing to do with type. All types can speculate, make plans and warn about future events; it's just that they go about these activities from different approaches and perspectives, which may give them advantages or handicaps but doesn't prevent them from accomplishing things. Socionics is about how one processes information so with equal physical abilities, various types would have different approaches to soccer. Your soccer ability likely doesn't come from your "developed sensation" but rather your ability to stay focused on certain information amongst chaos - but N-types can also do that......