Hi guys,
I typed by Gulenko and many others but still can't believe any of them. I really want to find someone who can help me. Finding my type become an hard and exhausting process for me, save me please.
Save me!
I am Looking For Someone who can Type me!
Hi guys,
I typed by Gulenko and many others but still can't believe any of them. I really want to find someone who can help me. Finding my type become an hard and exhausting process for me, save me please.
Save me!
Have you tried giving upOriginally Posted by Batucos
Yep but after a time, the curiosity brings me back to search about socionics. Unfortunately, reading nearly whole wikisocion (or even some pdf books of Filitova etc.) does not work because every socionics professional makes different and very detailed comments about types, which creates uncertainty, I really do not understand what fits to me.
> still can't believe any of them
May help the approach when you suppose types of good known people of alike 10 pcs and check are their behavior and your impressions fit good to IR theory. If yes - then your type is correct with excellent chance and you'll accept it stably.
By logics, nonverbal VI and tests types can be supposed. Theory: 4 dichotomies, 8 e/i variants of 4 functions, strong/weak functions, valued/nonvalued functions.
For theory best English source is Filatova's book. Jung's book.
Some monthes and you may get what you want.
You need to convince about own type by yourself. To gather the data to believe to yourself.
Firstly, there are indeed various theories calling themselves socionics which directly contradict one another, either through insistence on certain traits which no sane individual would have in conjunction, or by weighting aspects (probably according to personal beliefs) so that on balance the IEI here and the IEI there give a noticeably if not profoundly different fundamental image. So it's quite natural that you should be uncertain if you've read all and sundry. Gulenko writes a lot, and a lot of his writings have been translated into English and are, in the main, decipherable. But he is more interested in expanding the theory rather than streamlining it, so not the best pick to reduce confusion. Augustinaviciute invented Model A, but I've never seen her work translated into English. I've not read much of Filatova, but I did like the methods in her book [she typed individuals with extensive questioning, asked whether they agreed, then if so, photographed them, and arrayed similar types together to see if similarities in 'mimicry' would emerge. Quite clever.] I would discard Reinin, Meged, Ovcharov, and Stratyevskaya entirely (although the last has very amusing type portraits, I must say). Jung's work made the archetypes very clear to me, but Jung isn't socionics; he devised a sort of proto-system which he himself has said should not be systematised because it is not all-inclusive.
Because there isn't an objectively correct answer in this case, 'give up' is my sincere advice if socionics intrudes often into your thoughts. For one thing, you will never reach full certainty. For another, it does not appear that those who feel certain about their place in the socion live significantly better lives, unless they're able to con others into paying them for video typings of course.
A side note, a few people, usually at extremes of intelligence which either fail to comprehend or else evolve beyond the typical analytical modalities, might appear rather on the fringes. There is always a possibility your character cannot be described by the system. Of course, it is statistically unlikely for any individual not to tend towards the mean. But character, personality, the 'organised whole' cannot be quantified and graphed in this way; only quantifiable traits could be examined statistically. Still, it seems less likely that a person would be a true maverick, an independent mind, than that he or she would have a collection of personality traits that are not in themselves uncommon, but perhaps do not appear often in that individual's locality (geographical region, intellectual sphere, or temporal locality). All of this is to say that 1) character archetypes should be broadly applicable and yet 2) they will not give a comprehensive picture of the full range of variations. The reasons for this are twofold: first, some traits are maladaptive; second, it is possible for intelligent life to evolve.
Your time would be better spent making friends or finding something that fulfils you. Of course, here I am as well. And that's really everything I could possibly say to help.
I'm thinking you might be one of the Infantile types or, less likely, a Victim.
You can't always get what you want.
You dont need the detailed theory. Just learn the basics, the types, functions, ITR. Then it's just a matter of observing and figuring out this phenomenon in real life. Look at your friends, family, partners. Active dating helps.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Man, don't take it too seriously. I'm years in the game an' still don't know my type. But if you wanna an opinion, post a video you can delete if you feel uncomfortable. Just talk about yourself a little--no need to get too about-yourself-personal, -- just about anything really talk.
Hi! Welcome back.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote