which type do you dislike the most?

[Alonzo]

Well I'm sure psychopaths aren't the norm and socionics doesn't seem to model human deviances very well anyway. I'd guess the farther from the bell curve, the less relevant socionics becomes.

Socionics may not measure extreme deviances but it's not difficult to extrapolate likely conclusions if we take the functions/information elements far enough. For example, IME, I don't believe I've encountered someone with diagnosed Schizophrenia (delusions, hallucinations, disorganized thinking, abnormal motor behavior) who wasn't an Ne lead or didn't have high D, usually valued Ne, which is all about piercing multiple veils of reality, recognizing ever emergent possibilities and permutations of objects, drawing parallels and associations between seemingly unrelated things, etc.... It shouldn't be difficult to see how Ne gone awry could manifest itself as a distorted perception of reality. Just like any extreme logical type with a 1D ethical function (which can manifest as a biologically induced form of "empathy blindness") could easily be a psychopath (which exists along a spectrum). What makes a disorder a disorder is a disruption of normal physical or mental functions.

One of the things I like about many of the Sociotype profiles is that, unlike MBTI, they give you the pretty and the not to so pretty aspects of how any particular sociotype can manifest--read Strat's harsh take on LIEs and you'll see that she's essentially epitomizing LIE as the "corporate psychopath." lol And whereas I can certainly see glimpses of myself in even her more unflattering descriptions, most of the LIEs I know are not as bad as all that...but some are as bad or worse. But, again, they occupy the extreme margins.

[lkdhf qkb]

For example, IME, I don't believe I've encountered someone with diagnosed Schizophrenia (delusions, hallucinations, disorganized thinking, abnormal motor behavior) who wasn't an Ne lead or didn't have high D, usually valued Ne, which is all about piercing multiple veils of reality, recognizing ever emergent possibilities and permutations of objects, drawing parallels and associations between seemingly unrelated things, etc.... It shouldn't be difficult to see how Ne gone awry could manifest itself as a distorted perception of reality. Just like any extreme logical type with a 1D ethical function (which can manifest as a biologically induced form of "empathy blindness") could easily be a psychopath (which exists along a spectrum). What makes a disorder a disorder is a disruption of normal physical or mental functions.

I highly doubt the facts you're pulling up. Basically, what you're saying are stereotypes like "all rapists are Se-doms" or "all autists are Ni-doms". High, conscious Ne manifests as high awareness of Ne aspects, doesn't mean Ne-doms are controlled by them(might be different for EIE and LIE, since it's unconscious for them). It's not because someone appears scattered and as having bad motor skills that they are Ne-doms. Any type can be schizophrenic, stop your pseudo-science. Actually, you are trying, with some surface level observation, to ascertain the whole psyche of someone, using the "medical gaze". Michel Foucault wrote about that in the The birth of the clinic:

"Foucault coined the term "medical gaze" to denote the dehumanizing medical separation of the patient's body from the patient's person (identity). Through thorough examination (gazing) of a body, a doctor deduces symptom, illness, and cause, therefore achieving unparalleled understanding of the patient—hence, the doctor's medical gaze was believed to penetrate surface illusions, in near-mystical discovery of hidden truth." (from wikipedia)

There is a line between between disease and unhealthy/low cognitive development. Unhealthy Ne-doms may disregard Si and ignore Ni completely and appear all over the place, naively idealistic, and excentric but they'll will never take their hallucinations for reality.

[Alonzo]

I highly doubt the facts you're pulling up. Basically, what you're saying are stereotypes like "all rapists are Se-doms" or "all autists are Ni-doms". High, conscious Ne manifests as high awareness of Ne aspects, doesn't mean Ne-doms are controlled by them(might be different for EIE and LIE, since it's unconscious for them). It's not because someone appears scattered and as having bad motor skills that they are Ne-doms. Any type can be schizophrenic, stop your pseudo-science. Actually, you are trying, with some surface level observation, to ascertain the whole psyche of someone, using the "medical gaze". Michel Foucault wrote about that in the The birth of the clinic:

"Foucault coined the term "medical gaze" to denote the dehumanizing medical separation of the patient's body from the patient's person (identity). Through thorough examination (gazing) of a body, a doctor deduces symptom, illness, and cause, therefore achieving unparalleled understanding of the patient—hence, the doctor's medical gaze was believed to penetrate surface illusions, in near-mystical discovery of hidden truth." (from wikipedia)

There is a line between between disease and unhealthy/low cognitive development. Unhealthy Ne-doms may disregard Si and ignore Ni completely and appear all over the place, naively idealistic, and excentric but they'll will never take their hallucinations for reality.

Here we go >

Socionics may not measure extreme deviances but it's not difficult to extrapolate likely conclusions if we take the functions/information elements far enough. For example, IME, I don't believe I've encountered someone with diagnosed Schizophrenia (delusions, hallucinations, disorganized thinking, abnormal motor behavior) who wasn't an Ne lead or didn't have high D, usually valued Ne, which is all about piercing multiple veils of reality, recognizing ever emergent possibilities and permutations of objects, drawing parallels and associations between seemingly unrelated things, etc.... It shouldn't be difficult to see how Ne gone awry could manifest itself as a distorted perception of reality. Just like any extreme logical type with a 1D ethical function (which can manifest as a biologically induced form of "empathy blindness") could easily be a psychopath (which exists along a spectrum). What makes a disorder a disorder is a disruption of normal physical or mental functions.

Which part of the highlighted did you not understand? Unlike you, I speak with nuance and subtlety (see the blue) where as you say ridiculous shit like "unhealthy Ne-doms...will never take their hallucinations for reality." That's a far more unreasonable premise than anything I've said. I'm explicitly speaking of how abnormal, distorted functions might manifest based on their capabilities under normal circumstances. Perhaps your hyper sensitivity is clouding your ability to imagine and make rather obvious associations.

[lkdhf qkb]

Ok there might have been a misunderstanding. I agree that my posts are not very nuanced.
To answer your post, I perfectly understand that this is just a potential connection. What I mean, is, to take your formulation, that this connection is ... ridiculous shit. What has schizophrenia to do with fucking cognitive functions?
1. Most psychiatric diseases are based on PHYSICAL differences in the brain, like hormones and neuronal pathways. I think it's highly probable that schizophrenic people are different from normal people and that it's not a quantitative difference, but a qualitative one.
2. As said previously, symptoms and illnesses are not the same. You can't take some external behaviours observed on Ne-doms, extrapolate them to unhealthy levels, and then compare that to other external observations of schizophrenic people without understanding how the illness works. And you call that a "rather obvious association" lol
3. Socionics is an empirical model based on normal people. How can you expect it to be a valid explanation for diseases? Honestly, linking schizophrenia and Ne-doms is comparing apples and bananas.

Here we go >
Perhaps your hyper sensitivity is clouding your ability to imagine and make rather obvious associations.

Ad-hominem argument. Out of place and below the belt. I'm done with this discussion.

[Protozoa]

3. Socionics is an empirical model based on normal people. How can you expect it to be a valid explanation for diseases? Honestly, linking schizophrenia and Ne-doms is comparing apples and bananas.

Just for the record,
Socionics is just an abstract representation of thought and action. People that understand this don't think it's a valid explanation for anything, except that. So there's nothing inherently wrong with making associations between psychiatry and socionics, if it's only to represent abstract notions of things.

It could be that someone with extreme Ne is a lot like a person with schizophrenia and there's nothing wrong with making that association because it's not intended as an explanation for schizophrenia, just a possible representation of similar or superficial behavior.

Isn't that okay?

[Alonzo]

Ok there might have been a misunderstanding. I agree that my posts are not very nuanced.
To answer your post, I perfectly understand that this is just a potential connection. What I mean, is, to take your formulation, that this connection is ... ridiculous shit. What has schizophrenia to do with fucking cognitive functions?
1. Most psychiatric diseases are based on PHYSICAL differences in the brain, like hormones and neuronal pathways. I think it's highly probable that schizophrenic people are different from normal people and that it's not a quantitative difference, but a qualitative one.
2. As said previously, symptoms and illnesses are not the same. You can't take some external behaviours observed on Ne-doms, extrapolate them to unhealthy levels, and then compare that to other external observations of schizophrenic people without understanding how the illness works. And you call that a "rather obvious association" lol
3. Socionics is an empirical model based on normal people. How can you expect it to be a valid explanation for diseases? Honestly, linking schizophrenia and Ne-doms is comparing apples and bananas.



Ad-hominem argument. Out of place and below the belt. I'm done with this discussion.

I'm glad you're done with the discussion because you brought nothing to it, anyway, which is why you would have been better off not commenting at all. And, unsurprisingly, you inaccurately invoked the ad hominem fallacy--I was not attacking your character (instead of your argument) but legitimately referring to high D Fi's penchant towards touchiness and hypersensitivity, which, theoretically, could certainly obstruct/limit/reduce/minimize phenomena that negatively impacts it, which then might limit your ability to be objective. Perhaps this is what happens when those with a diminished capacity to differentiate Te related information attempt to do so and fail to understand how that information is to be accurately applied. Again, not an adhominem, just positing theoretically assumptions.

[From a Ni and Vortical Synergistic POV] I'm of the mind that typology systems like MBTI/Socionics/Enneagram are, more or less, essentially attempting to label/categorize/describe the same underlying phenomena--it's just each system may have a set of "flaws," idiosyncrasies, and inconsistencies that obscure Ni's ability to adequately reduce them to something more "whole," comprehensive and inclusive. I tend to believe that there are discernible trends and patterns in many systems that point towards something more correlative, in sync, and less messy/inconsistent, which is why I don't find it inherently unreasonable to make certain associations that connect/unite these trends and patterns. And in so much as Socionics attempts to provide a theoretical model for the human psyche (including its biological under pinnings, i.e., information metabolism), a degree of disorder and abnormality (in that these things are intrinsic to the human experience) must exist within that model/framework. Like I've already pointed out in the posts above concerning LIEs, some Socionists have all but directly labeled (according to widely accepted Te criteria) the extreme/potentially "disordered" manifestations of the sociotypes. More of the wonderful Strat, but this time on IEEs and Delta Quadra >

In this way, for example, in an effort to show herself as an outstanding folk healer, one sweet lady of type IEE, Huxley, a physician's assistant with extensive work experience, experimented with the healing properties of raw potatoes on her children and grandchildren, insisting on them being a universal alternative to all existing medicines. Using raw potatoes as a supposed effective remedy for healing wounds, she forbade her children to treat their cuts and wounds with a disinfectant (a solution of alcohol or iodine) and instead made them hold a tampon filled with grated, raw potatoes to their cuts. Many times she has tried this household "curative" remedy, and the result was always the same: an abscess would start, the child suffered, she urged him to be patient and wait a little longer: "The pain will soon pass and you will feel good!". Only when the inflammation was rampant and the children developed a fever, would she send them to a clinic and allow them to get treated there. (Feverish and sick, they had to sit in reception, wait in line for their turn, then explain themselves before the doctors.) Over the years, she ran such experiments alternately on her children and grandchildren, who lived under the same roof with her for a long time, who were under her constant influence, under her watchful medical supervision, fully trusting and obeying her in all, despite the fact that her tips each time brought them to trouble. Ignoring the real, the actual results of this "therapy", she cheerfully reported about the alleged successes to her friends, telling them about the miraculous properties of the raw potato, and urged them to practice this method, referring to the fact that "for her grandson these potato lotions helped". Expanding her circle friends, she announced and asserted herself as a successful folk medicine healer, and continued to use the people in her household as a reserve for new experiments.

I dunno, sounds pretty "delusional" to me. LOL

The feeling of regret left behind by lost hopes and shattered illusions, the dissatisfaction with the surrounding world, the unwillingness to accept it with its rough and brutal realities, the fears and concerns of one's inability to change the world for the better, become the "other side of the coin" - the negative side effect of the dominating in Delta Quadra aspects (+Te +Fi -Ne -Si) - and create the preconditions for a double-standard approach to life. They form the ideological concepts that allow a person to leave this harsh reality for an alternative transcendental world (dominant traits of "aristocracy" and "judiciousness") and simultaneously keep the person in the real world by fear of getting pushed out due to objective reasons (dominant feature of "objectivism"). These factors create tendencies that allow Delta Quadra (intuitive types) to influence the conditions of formation of relationships in the world, in order to ultimately improve them and bring them to a high level of purity and beauty, by means of which it is intended to bring together the real world with the world of the desired (and imaginary), thereby making the real world more welcoming and comfortable for people of the finest spiritual nature.
Failure to reach this goal by simple and accessible means in the foreseeable short periods of time leads ethical intuitive ("child-like") types of Delta Quadra fall into despair, forcing them to resort to searches for new alternative (and often illusory) conditions for existence, in which (in their opinion) the real world won't be much different from the imagined.

...

Lies for saving illusions, hopes, wishful thinking, creative and life plans - is a widespread phenomenon in Delta Quadra (chiefly among the Delta intuitive types), ​​a manifestation of the complex of "clipped wings", a development of protective measures for it, and also a derivative of the program of achieving full happiness by means of "life with rose-colored glasses". This comes from that very same fear of disappointment in the realities of the everyday world, that gets combined with the fear of getting pushed out of cozy and comfortable existence in an idealistic microcosm into the ruthlessly brutal world of harsh surrounding reality.
One only has to embellish one's reality with impressive fictional events, pulling up the actual towards the desired, and adding to this personal conviction in one's correctness, motivating these actions by good intentions, that the intolerably gray and humdrum reality begins to sparkle with bright colors and new bright future prospects. Then imaginary reality will organically merge with the real one, and fruits of the play of imagination will become fruits of artistic creation - and there's nothing wrong with this. The person who by virtue of inexperience or naivete doesn't distinguish the real from the imagined will be at "fault" himself for this error - he will fall victim of his own or another's deception. In any case, the "creator" of the "image" won't consider himself to be "guilty". His job - is to push the boundaries of the reality in order to amend it with another. And if to be successful in this one has to distort facts, either darken or lighten one's prognoses, toss up some long-term plans, there is also nothing wrong with this (in his opinion), especially if it will help a person achieve a lot in life, to believe in himself and in his own strengths, to pick his path. The "creator" is not worried by the fact that a lie is still a lie - with the help of his interpretation it turns into a convenient tool for modeling a new and better reality for himself and for others, it becomes extensive means of psychological manipulation, which become the more justified by good intentions the more opportunities they open in the framework of this new "imaginary" reality, needed by him to achieve personal plans and goals.

Gee, I wonder if taken to the extreme, what type of disorder this behavior might be implicating? LOL Feel free to stay mad.

[Metamorph]

Ok there might have been a misunderstanding. I agree that my posts are not very nuanced.
To answer your post, I perfectly understand that this is just a potential connection. What I mean, is, to take your formulation, that this connection is ... ridiculous shit. What has schizophrenia to do with fucking cognitive functions?
1. Most psychiatric diseases are based on PHYSICAL differences in the brain, like hormones and neuronal pathways. I think it's highly probable that schizophrenic people are different from normal people and that it's not a quantitative difference, but a qualitative one.
2. As said previously, symptoms and illnesses are not the same. You can't take some external behaviours observed on Ne-doms, extrapolate them to unhealthy levels, and then compare that to other external observations of schizophrenic people without understanding how the illness works. And you call that a "rather obvious association" lol
3. Socionics is an empirical model based on normal people. How can you expect it to be a valid explanation for diseases? Honestly, linking schizophrenia and Ne-doms is comparing apples and bananas.



Ad-hominem argument. Out of place and below the belt. I'm done with this discussion.

Aren't types also based on physical differences? All things involve physical differences, but rarely is that the best description. Personally, I consider schizophrenia a neurological illness and things like oppositional defiance disorder are simply moral problems rather than illnesses of any kind.

[Protozoa]

Socionics may not measure extreme deviances but it's not difficult to extrapolate likely conclusions if we take the functions/information elements far enough. For example, IME, I don't believe I've encountered someone with diagnosed Schizophrenia (delusions, hallucinations, disorganized thinking, abnormal motor behavior) who wasn't an Ne lead or didn't have high D, usually valued Ne, which is all about piercing multiple veils of reality, recognizing ever emergent possibilities and permutations of objects, drawing parallels and associations between seemingly unrelated things, etc.... It shouldn't be difficult to see how Ne gone awry could manifest itself as a distorted perception of reality. Just like any extreme logical type with a 1D ethical function (which can manifest as a biologically induced form of "empathy blindness") could easily be a psychopath (which exists along a spectrum). What makes a disorder a disorder is a disruption of normal physical or mental functions.

One of the things I like about many of the Sociotype profiles is that, unlike MBTI, they give you the pretty and the not to so pretty aspects of how any particular sociotype can manifest--read Strat's harsh take on LIEs and you'll see that she's essentially epitomizing LIE as the "corporate psychopath." lol And whereas I can certainly see glimpses of myself in even her more unflattering descriptions, most of the LIEs I know are not as bad as all that...but some are as bad or worse. But, again, they occupy the extreme margins.

Okay, so that's interesting. I think the socionics model is based on or underrided by Jungian dualistic aspects of personality. The idea that we repress certain dualistic aspects of ourselves to serve our egos. And duality has a place in helping with and balancing the repression of complementary egos.

That said, the psychopath I did know well probably fit best into LSI. However, he was very different compared to other LSIs in that he didn't have the emotions they did to begin with. The other LSIs repressed their emotions in favor of being cold rational people. Once you got to know them, there was a warmness they had. The psychopath LSI didn't repress anything and didn't really show a warmness as I got to know him; he also wasn't someone I could jar on an emotional level. He could however be insulted and annoyed by attempts to degrade him. But that was really it. He was okay to have fun with, but there just wasn't any deep emotions there.

So I don't know. But if Strat thinks LIEs are best represented as corporate psychopaths, maybe she's conflating TeNi psychopaths with F repressed LIEs. I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up before? (maybe it has)

[Alonzo]

Okay, so that's interesting. I think the socionics model is based on or underrided by Jungian dualistic aspects of personality. The idea that we repress certain dualistic aspects of ourselves to serve our egos. And duality has a place in helping with and balancing the repression of complementary egos.

That said, the psychopath I did know well probably fit best into LSI. However, he was very different compared to other LSIs in that he didn't have the emotions they did to begin with. The other LSIs repressed their emotions in favor of being cold rational people. Once you got to know them, there was a warmness they had. The psychopath LSI didn't repress anything and didn't really show a warmness as I got to know him; he also wasn't someone I could jar on an emotional level. He could however be insulted and annoyed by attempts to degrade him. But that was really it. He was okay to have fun with, but there just wasn't any deep emotions there.

So I don't know. But if Strat thinks LIEs are best represented as corporate psychopaths, maybe she's conflating TeNi psychopaths with F repressed LIEs. I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up before? (maybe it has)

Yeah, psychopathy exists along a continuum with extents and degrees, though a substantial amount of "empathy blindness" must be present, which is why it could theoretically apply to any sociotype with 1D ethics. Self-described psychopath James Fallon, the author of The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist's Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the Brain, self types as ILE/ENTp--granted, he identifies as "borderline" and "sub-clinical" vs a "categorical" psychopath but he says that the only mitigating circumstance was that he was loved as a child. lol Throughout my life, I'd say that I've most often come across the "sub-clinical" variety who were usually Fi PoLR types (which shouldn't be surprising if you think it through), LSIs (2 of whom were snipers for the US military), and Te leads (LIE > LSE [especially enneagram 8s]). Here is Strat on LIEs>

- The ability to lead a dangerous and risky game with minimal number of chances,
- ability to "come out of the water dry" under most difficult and most complicated circumstances,
- ability to find support (resources, reserves, associates, allies, creditors) in the most critical moment,
- a talent for leadership, ability to favorably predispose people towards himself, to persuade them, to lead them after oneself,
- ability to quickly come into trust and to easily strike up friendships,
- ability to keep imperturbable and to encourage partners by impending good luck and positive prospects in the most desperate, deadend, and hopeless situations,
- ability to almost instantly (with intuitive insight) come up and think through a plan of action,
- ability to make time work to his advantage.

All of these qualities and features of his TIM help the LIE to become extremely successful in all (even if questionable) enterprises.
- allow the LIE to keep a part of the team, even if with his own actions he "drowns" other team members,
- allow the LIE to keep afloat in all cases and under any circumstances, to remain on top and in control of the situation at all times,
- allow him to drive away potential competitors and block the demands for rights of the partners, who have extinguished their material resources as well as their business proactive or creative potential;
- allow the LIE to displace others from his team while not getting driven away himself.

Of course, all of these qualities allow the LIE to succeed where others will inevitably "drown" (or "break their necks").

Gamma Quadra doesn't like entering into competitions and participating in contests and pageants (with the exception of the hungry for a venture, risk-taker and hot-tempered "player" LIE, who is easily drawn into contention)

...

By accusations of inadequacy it is possible (and even then only in the most extreme cases) to bring back to reason and moral sense a degraded, compulsive gambler LIE, Jack, who lives like a parasite on the means of his family and his partner and squanders money with his friends.

...

showing carelessness and deliberate irresponsibility, the LIE depletes the material resources of his partner, redistributing them as "resources of the team" in his favor, and then moves out of his partner's control, playing a role of a self-determined, reckless, uncontrollable, and irresponsible "simpleton", who has no idea about "team relations", thereby attaining unlimited freedom of action (which mutes his own fears on the complex of "tied hands"), and by this simultaneously blocking or hindering the activity of his partner, depriving him or her of financial support, and with it, of the possibility to continue his work further and to control the intentional use of their shared material resources.

...

Striving in all cases to remain in control of the situation, the LIE tries to control ethical relationships and model them in a way that is convenient for him, trying to extract from them maximum benefits for himself and his future plans. Wanting to remove all obstacles and eliminate all hindrances that arise on his way, LIE blocks professional and business activity of his partners, depriving them of financial (and therefore legal) support.
Puzzling his partner and putting him at an impasse with his "wild" and "most absurd" escapades, the LIE often plays the role of an unpredictable, unruly person (with no reason in his head), who, nevertheless, dashes to undertake something, to keep up everywhere, to control everyone, to make friends with all, and to build relations in a clear-cut, organized, and spotless manner (despite his own chaotic and inconsistent behaviors). As a result, all that the LIE achieves on the level of personal agreements, he proceeds to destroy by his own contradictory actions, making an impression of an unprincipled, irresponsible, and dishonest person (especially when it comes to appropriation of the material resources of others).
- But this does not apply absolutely to all members of this TIM ...

lol@the highlighted. Compare all that to what's found here in this rather sensationalist article (written by Robert Hare, the man who created the Hare Psychopathy Checklist and wrote Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go To Work): https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/a...ing-psychopath

In the Snakes in Suits book, Hare notes:

Several abilities – skills, actually – make it difficult to see psychopaths for who they are. First, they are motivated to, and have a talent for, ‘reading people’ and for sizing them up quickly. They identify a person’s likes and dislikes, motives, needs, weak spots, and vulnerabilities… Second, many psychopaths come across as having excellent oral communication skills. In many cases, these skills are more apparent than real because of their readiness to jump right into a conversation without the social inhibitions that hamper most people… Third, they are masters of impression management; their insight into the psyche of others combined with a superficial – but convincing – verbal fluency allows them to change their situation skillfully as it suits the situation and their game plan.


The authors also note that many psychopaths, of course, are not suited for the business environment:


Some do not have enough social or communication skill or education to interact successfully with others, relying instead on threats, coercion, intimidation, and violence to dominate others and to get what they want. Typically, such individuals are manifestly aggressive and rather nasty, and unlikely to charm victims into submission, relying on their bullying approach instead. This book (Snakes in Suits) is less about them than about those who are willing to use their ‘deadly charm’ to con and manipulate others.

IME, Se valuing, especially strong, high D Se valuing psychopathic types are more likely to go down this particular path.