I think developed Ni is necessary to perceive the types in the first place.Originally Posted by Dangerouslandsvape
I think developed Ni is necessary to perceive the types in the first place.
Generally I imagine how I want to be seen, and then follows a strong desire to present myself in that way. It seems like a introjection between myself and a imaginary self or a living being (characteristics from others that I find interesting to incorporate into my persona). I can seem to be like different people from time to time, and in interactions I can constantly become a mirror to another person, like a blurry reflection of other people. The consequence is that I sometimes don't really know who I really am inside. My self dissolve in a bunch of people I have invented. When I look back in time, I see a pattern of constant transformations, and when I compare with who I am today, I get a little perplexed with this identity shifts. Perhaps it is somewhat related to the trait Openness in Big Five that I score very high.
Thanks. There is a generalist nature to Fe. These people seem to get lost in this bunch of nuanced feelings and desires. It can get so broad and expansive that the person dissociate from their deep bottom essence. I think LSIs balance this with Ti, so that EIEs can localize and focus this scattered multiplicity of emotional states.
Certainly DSM is too rigid in its categorizations. They know the symptoms, but not the causes. It is fairly easy to read all those descriptions and identify with many disorders, even when some characteristics are just personality features. Furthermore, there is a weird tendency to arbitrarially put labels in people just because they seemingly show some characteristics of certains psychiatric disorders. We give too much credit to modern psychiatry, even when its methods are sometimes instrinsically flawed.In a socionics sense, an extraverted autistic person sounds antinomic to me. An Fe Dom autistic person sounds beyond reasonable, it's like saying " a 6.2 feet Dwarf" or a deaf submarine sonar operatorNo matter the subtype you can not have an ASD diagnosis and (of all the types !) being an Fe Lead those diagnosis are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, a natural virtuoso of human Emotions like EIE ( 4D Fe come on !!) can not be at the same time naturally unable to understand underlying emotions and facial expressions which is one of the markers of ASD regardless of whether the autistic person is HFA or not.
I have the feeling that Asperger Syndrome™ (obsolet) is over diagnosed, esp in adults which is a nonsense since there are no criteria to do so when it comes to adult. ASD is essentially detected in childhood. A lot of Intuitive thinkers (both introverts and extraverts) people get diagnosed with autism just because of their "difficulties" or disabilities in social communications skills which correlate to low Fe and Fi in socionics. ASD is most and foremost a Handicap, a disorder not a label. There are some articles pretending that Extroverted autism is a thing, pointing as example to some poets and artists etc.. Imho those article were written by Intuitive Extraverts ( probably IEEs) under the light of modern days where one can be anything one wants, which is in itself a good thing of course but not in this case. Again, Autism is not an Identity it's a disorder. I think it's not fair for people struggling with ASD to take their disorder for a "cool" label :
"Hey guys ! My name is Jane, I'm an IEE E279 I work as a social worker ! I'm also a life coach and give advices to people struggling with relationships and by the way, I have Asperger Syndrome! Nice to meet you !"
Aspects in the Valued Functions by Dmitry Golihov
Ni as leading function in IEI (INFp; Esenin) and ILI (INTp; Balzac)
This person considers himself to be very ideological, consistent, principled, and is very conservative in this. Becomes irritated by those who criticize his ideas. He lives by the "wholeness" of the internal situation. Often able to see "through" things, to the inner essence of something or someone. Romantic and idealist. Lives by his internal harmony, tranquility, serenity, is able to draw inspiration within himself, and gets annoyed by those who try to disturb it. Generally does not like when people try to look inside of him, gets frustrated and angry when this happens. Strives to be inwardly calm in all situations and internally consistent. "Fluid like a river": involuntarily adjusts himself to the interlocutor in conversation by taking form of consciousness that is best fitted for the situation. By this he isn't playing a role, his consciousness is simply multifaceted and he is directed by his inner "wholeness". That is, he simply presents a version of himself. Communicating with you, he always feels your moods as if he is living through them together with you, adjusts himself to this. Loves to introspect and to meditate. In case of failure, can make a qualitative self-analysis. Being present in some place he as if tunes himself out, tries to become invisible like a chameleon, especially if he perceives it as a threat to his inner tranquility: for example, in the workplace so that no one bothers him. Can even hide it in some clever way: arrange a barricade of folders so that behind them he is not visible. Does not like restless, internally discordant individuals, as their state can get transmitted to him, will try to escape from their company at any price. This is especially funny in a situation where a male representative of this type flees from ladies, and they pursue him like prey, because they feel that he has something that they so desperately need: inner peace. But for him this inner "wholeness" is not the product but material for inner consumption, so he can only share this with a small number of people, but sometimes someone might snatch a piece - this makes him very angry. Often, especially in circle of family, he becomes a critic, since deviation in behavior away from his principles turns him aggressive. If in another situation he will somehow restrain himself, at home he may allow himself to explode with anger.
Golihov probably mostly describes IEI's Ni here due to Fe adapting to their surroundings while Fi in ILI generally always tries to be itself regardless of the surrounding.
Imho, Self image management and consciousness of the impact said image can have on other is inconsistent with 1D unvalued Fe. You think : Myself + what other will think of me + I want them to think x y or z about me. If you succeed then, 1)you are not PolR Fe 2) your Fe is conscious (mental ring) 3) it's an Ego function since you verbalize those thoughts in this post. (although awareness of socionics can influence it).
I don't know if this is socionics related but it seems to me that this is a manifestation of Fe. I always take the example of the Alien in the movie "Abyss" who can control the water so it takes the shape of its interlocutor. It's a communication skill, I do this too in certain situations and at the end of the conversation my interlocutor thinks that we think alike when sometimes nothing can be further from the truth. I know that this is also an Enneagram 9 trait. The bold part is significant, it suggest Fe>Fi with the consciousness of not being fully "authentic" while wanted to be. I think that the people or characters you created are part of you and like Aristotle said : "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts".I can seem to be like different people from time to time, and in interactions I can constantly become a mirror to another person, like a blurry reflection of other people. The consequence is that I sometimes don't really know who I really am inside. My self dissolve in a bunch of people I have invented.
I feel you. I think you're right about the Openness traits. I consider my Self as a sort of psychic collage of several people who influenced me and of whom I integrated a part, kinda like Cell in DBZ. I also think of the random character in vs fighting games who could be anyone of them. Anyway, I hope you didn't mind my little analysis. I can understand that you may emit a doubts about your ILI typing.When I look back in time, I see a pattern of constant transformations, and when I compare with who I am today, I get a little perplexed with this identity shifts. Perhaps it is somewhat related to the trait Openness in Big Five that I score very high.
Last edited by godslave; 06-07-2022 at 09:39 PM.
I think I saw the bolded part in other ILI's report in the section Thinking vs Feeling part.
This part is interesting, he basically makes ILI-IEI comparison here:
His emotions are not smooth like Lyric's, but abrupt and sometimes inadequate to the situation. This leads me to the conclusion that his ethics of emotion, though accentuated, is a vulnerable function of his psyche (E7).
So I assume G didnt write any section like ILI-C-E only wrote ILI-C part.
@Varlawend as far as G reports go, I only know two people going from DCNH transition, they were going from C to N, so do you know if there is a general order to this DCNH transition if there is no shock factor? or people can be in a transition to anything with equal chance like C to N, C to D, C to H transitions have equal probability of happening?
I would say the most common switch is a downgrade. When Creative subtypes get depressed and become N-subs, or N to H. I think an upgrade is much more unlikely
I was wondering the same thing. Personally, I don't think that there is a fixed sequential order or predictable pattern . I think the only way that would be totally predictable is within a computer simulation or in a fictional writing where we have an absolute control over all the events that could influence a character in his "lifetime". Although our life choices can engage us in a certain path with a predictable course, we can not predict the collateral events that could happen along the way and which can have a significant impact on our psyche. Anyway, that's an interesting question
If there is a life changing event or a shock factor that leads to this transition, we cannot predict what is gonna happen. I just find it odd that two people who were in transition were going from C to N, if anybody knows any other reported transition, I am all ears.I was wondering the same thing. Personally, I don't think that there is a fixed sequential order or predictable pattern . I think the only way that would be totally predictable is within a computer simulation or in a fictional writing where we have an absolute control over all the events that could influence a character in his "lifetime". Although our life choices can engage us in a certain path with a predictable course, we can not predict the collateral events that could happen along the way and which can have a significant impact on our psyche. Anyway, that's an interesting question
I think there can be general pattern, like we have clock of socion theory, it doesnt have to go like that precisely in life, anything could happen but it is there. So I am wondering if there is some kind of an order like D->C->N->H->D, that would make sense to me in terms of transition due to supervision flow.
Good question; there is no general order for DCNH transition. It will depend on the particular priority order of the subtypes within a person. We each have all 4 of the subtypes, but in a different priority order. If someone has a CDNH subtype, then it will be much easier for them to transition into a Dominant subtype than someone with a CNHD subtype (who is unlikely to ever have a dominant subtype). Changing our main subtype isn't easy or something done on a whim in any case; it requires both a large amount of internal motivation (desire to change) combined with the ability to realize the new subtype in a real needed role in the world. So it rarely happens IME, but there are some cases I've seen.
Some subtype switches might be more common because of the values of society and/or age factors. A transition from C to N is probably the most common subtype shift, because the values of society typically prefer conformal, normalizing people well adapted to certain "adult" duties and responsibilities that are seen as a given. Normalizing people typically have more stable marriages and family life as well, so the Normalizing subtype will often have to grow in a person to make such a life work for them. Creative people are more disagreeable, not as interested in peace or stability, and more easily bored, but this can put them at a distance from "getting along" in normal ways or even ways that are useful to them. So unless a person is "up for" or truly desires that kind of life, they may compromise by developing some Normalization as they age or "settle down".
There are other examples of subtype shifts though, just not as much of a general "trope": Carl Jung was probably a Normalizing Inspector in his childhood (NH subtype), but transitioned to a Harmonizing subtype (HN) during a personal crisis of his when he wrote his famous visionary Red Book and had a split with Freud and became more openly interested in the philosophical and mystical. Jeff Bezos was likely a more distant Critic in his younger years, being more of a scholarly inclined person, but in developing Amazon he acquired a Dominant subtype, since this subtype is more suitable for very competitive business success and running a business hard as a centralized authority figure.
I've observed several subtype changes in my life. An example would be an EII-C friend with whom I did a lot in my early twenties. We travelled to japan together etc. He started to work as a train driver and within a year, three people jumped in front of a train he was driving and killed themselves. He got psychiatric help and moved to the country side. I still remember visiting him after months and noticing that he wasn't the person I knew anymore, he became a distant subtype, and the friendship faded away. Another example is my normalizing mother who got into a car accident and became a harmonizing subtype, barely leaves the house anymore. Even without DCNH, the change in behaviour was so drastic that you would immediatly notice it, like they became a different person.
C and N are both ignoring types, so there's probably some ease in transition along this axis.From the interview with Rune you can learn that he works on his mood swings, tries to
keep it under control, strives to bring the things he starts to the end in order to
objectively assess the results. This means that his personality development is going in
the direction of normalizing subtype. In order for C to N transformation to take place,
logic in his character must be supplemented with ethics, which primarily requires a good
attitude of his relatives and friends.
At the time I was focused on a job, analyzing my emotions, bonding with family and coworkers, and trying to align my life with my emotions. Also focusing on what was "mine", which I read is a hallmark of N.
Since then, I started taking medication for depression and OCD. I started to focus less on my emotions and more on my vision of life, so I think there was a pull toward H and even D because I was factoring in the efficiency of everything.
Not sure what DarkAngelFireWolf69 would say about my type at this point, but looking back at old posts I'm confident that I'm less C and more N than I was in 2018. I think @Varlawend is right about the transition to more conformal attitudes and behaviors.
Last edited by Rune; 06-09-2022 at 03:14 AM.
Just on the border of your waking mind,
There lies another time
Where darkness and light are one,
And as you tread the halls of sanity
You feel so glad to be unable to go beyond
I have a message from another time.
Being a creative type means that you are willing to go against societies expectations no matter what. Your parents want you to have children but you don't want them? Your boss and team at work expect you to work overtime because of a very important project? The general population expects that you follow specific norms that are important in your country? You are going to ignore or spit on all these expectations when you are a C-Sub. People are mad at you but you're just calmly saying "no" and ignore what they expect. That's what being a C-Sub means. You don't feel as a part of the society you are in. H-Subs feel the same way but adapt to the pressure instead of opposing it. D an N subs are the society that you are in. They build the infrastructure, they build the rules and norms. C-Sub at most endure these rules for a limited amount of time if they have to but as soon as they have enough resources to be independent they are going to do their own thing again.
Normalizing subtypes excel at fields where you have to know a lot of detailed information. An ethical type that works in a nursery or old folks home for example is going to know all the names of the people there, all their pecularities in behaviour, all the routines that are necessary to keep everything in order, a logical N-Sub is going to know guidelines inside and out, all technical details to keep things working etc. C-Subs only grasp what they see as the important parts and ignore everything else. C-Subs have a vague understanding of a hundred topics, but that's how you make discoveries sometimes. It really depends on the field you are in and what is valued
I think the inherent level of satisfaction and yield of a DCNH subtype depend on how compatible the subtype is with the base Sociotype.
For example, an ILI H can draw upon the base function to complement the tendencies of the Harmonizing subtype. In contrast, an ILI C draws upon 1D Se (a position of stress) and ignoring Ne (unvalued) to complement to tendencies of the Creative subtype. An ILI N can at least draw upon demo Ti (social mission) for good effect to complement the tendencies of the Normalizing subtype. Stephen Wolfram seems to be a good example of an ILI N doing good by his social mission:
I also think that if we consider depression in Socionical terms, we're talking about how well an individual manifests his/her ego functions. Consequently, levels of "Socionical depression" still depend in part on how compatible the DCNH subtype is with the base Sociotype.
Last edited by Rune; 06-09-2022 at 09:56 AM.
Just on the border of your waking mind,
There lies another time
Where darkness and light are one,
And as you tread the halls of sanity
You feel so glad to be unable to go beyond
I have a message from another time.
Valid. N subs focus is in depth. Consequently, they will have a more detailed storehouse of information to work with, but about fewer subjects. C sub is the opposite.
Just on the border of your waking mind,
There lies another time
Where darkness and light are one,
And as you tread the halls of sanity
You feel so glad to be unable to go beyond
I have a message from another time.
Apologies for the pointed question, but how did you come to identify with DA cognition? From what I know of the Cognitive Styles they’re pretty hard to identify with in general, so I’m surprised whenever I see someone feel certain about their own style.
I don’t mean to be interrogative, I’m just wondering if you had your own method/way of finding it out, or if it was just a matter of knowing which ones you’re not.
For me, cognitive styles, read all of them.
Which one makes you wish there was more information. Yours.
Which one has more in it that you identify with. Me, it' s DA. CA is familiar. DA is absolutely me. HP and VS are mysterious.
I don't argue against Jung becoming H, but it is important to remember that he had an intense individuation process, and visions and hallucinations in the Red Book should be understood as that. We are talking about a controlled psychosis were he had to be very focused on the task and avoid mistakes. Dealing with the visions and still maintaining focus on reality, his family, his work. I suspect that this goes beyond socioncs because in individuation the personality becomes more integrated and more complete, but I don't think that means that the subtype would change. But generally, I think a moderate N sub seems suited for such a task. But yes, Jung as an old man could very well have been H.
Jung as an Inspector seems weird to me since his writings and his psychology are full of Ne, and as a fellow Alpha I find it relatively easy to read him.
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)
I don't really have the feeling that a lot of people here understand what Ne really is. It certainly has nothing to do with visions or hallucinations, because that is Ni
It's neither Ne or Ni. It's not related to socionics in this case. In a severe life crisis the unconscious comes alive, and any type can experience it. It's dangerous.
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)
I appreciate your comments in clarification about Jung.
Typology systems should be understood as partly axiomatic and conventional, and partly as referring to something factual and empirical. In terms of SHS Socionics (which is more the focus of this thread), visions and hallucinations would indeed relate much more to Ni than to Ne. At the same time, there may be different conventions in alternative Socionics systems which refer to different aspects of reality, and in those cases, Jung’s psychology may fall more under Alpha quadra (e.g. the Archetype Center types Jung as ILE on the basis of his semantics of speech). There is no contradiction here; this is why I spoke about relativity before, because this issue comes up repeatedly and it’s important to the concrete epistemology of typology. There is no need for essentialism about what Ne or Ni intrinsically “is” (Ne and Ni are really just words used to refer to phenomena which may have clearer and more essential natures beyond the words), or about what Jung’s type “is”.
Jung best fits Inspector in the SHS system because of his Balanced-Stable temperament (confirmed by ocular-motor reactions), Beta quadra exoticism and aristocracy, managerial traits, and right-spinning detailing orientation. I also find Jung to be quite readable and he is someone I admire a lot. Jung's focus on “control” and “not making mistakes” relates to the SHS Structural Logic function, and his focus on mundane reality/work/family relates to the familiar Comfort Sensing function. It’s not surprising that Jung would think in such a way since it is exactly his Social Mission as an Inspector, but I’m curious why you or he would perceive it as a general necessity for having a visionary or mystical experience. I think that attitude may itself relate to the difficulty for Inspector of performing such an Ni-heavy role.
In SHS, Jung had something called an Ni (T) accentuation. This relates to the intense visions he experienced. Accentuations, especially when severe or related to weaker functions (Inspector launcher T is an inflexible and low-dimensional function), can cause serious psychological disturbances and obsessions. Furthermore, a positivist psyche like that of Inspector can’t easily function in an ordinary way under the influence of such problems since it's more difficult for a wholesome positivist psyche to tolerate such internal contradictions (but it has other advantages). Since we are so focused on certain functions during accentuations, we can also become very unique and specialized in that area, especially if we are able to integrate the acquired skills and knowledge into our psyche and human society in a balanced way. A T accentuation can be balanced by a Harmonizing subtype (which involves functions T, R and S), which is one reason I think Jung transitioned from a Normalizing to a Harmonizing subtype at this time in his life. As discussed above, a subtype change is no small thing and leads to a significant change in the personality; it could easily relate to a person’s journey of individuation.
I agree with you fully that Socionics doesn’t describe the entirety of an individuation process of a person. However, I do think it can describe some abstracted, systematic components of it, and some effects of it. In a crucial sense, Socionics deals with form rather than content. INDIVIDUAtion is naturally about the INDIVIDUAl, and Socionics as an abstract theory can’t possibly describe that completely, so I think these experiences RELATE to Socionics without being encapsulated by it (i.e. their content may be unusually profound and include phenomena Socionics can't entirely process or fit into its limited framework).
“Clear and simple though the fundamental principle of the two opposing attitudes may be, nevertheless their concrete reality is complicated and obscure, for every individual is an exception to the rule. Therefore, one can never give a description of a type, no matter how complete, which applies to more than one individual despite the fact that thousands might, in a certain sense, be strikingly described thereby. Conformity is one side of a man, uniqueness is the other.”
-C.G. Jung
Last edited by Varlawend; 06-11-2022 at 02:48 AM.
Thanks for the reply.
I get what you're saying - and it's a very ILI view - but this sounds to me like too much philosophy. The types and functions are in my view essential, basically complexes or structures in the psyche, developed over millions of years. I think the data, the ITR etc show that the types are essential. It's also possible to give surprisingly accurate descriptions of a single function as a psychic phenomenon, as Jung does in Psychological types. However, In individuated people, the type can be blurred because weaker function have been developed. Then it's a matter of also knowing the development in order to type the person.
The stuff you mention here could very well be attributed to an LII also. It's not surprising at all that a Swiss psychiatrist in early 20:th century would be aristocratic. But you could also make the argument for Jung being democratic if you pick some different data from his life. And focus on mundane reality is hardly limited to Si. Si is just a very specific focus. He remained focus on mundane reality, just as any sane person, but he was of course mostly focused on the intellectual work.Jung best fits Inspector in the SHS system because of his Balanced-Stable temperament (confirmed by ocular-motor reactions), Beta quadra exoticism and aristocracy, managerial traits, and right-spinning detailing orientation. I also find Jung to be quite readable and he is someone I admire a lot. Jung's focus on “control” and “not making mistakes” relates to the SHS Structural Logic function, and his focus on mundane reality/work/family relates to the familiar Comfort Sensing function. It’s not surprising that Jung would think in such a way since it is exactly his Social Mission as an Inspector, but I’m curious why you or he would perceive it as a general necessity for having a visionary or mystical experience. I think that attitude may itself relate to the difficulty for Inspector of performing such an Ni-heavy role.
Jung said things like "life is aristocratic". Interesting, so does this mean that he is an "aristocratic" type. The way I see it life is really aristocratic and him saying this shouldn't be understood as some manifestation of Beta values, but of a deep understanding of human life.
I've heard critical voices on how Jung talks about black people and "primitive" peoples. This can be seen as aristocratic /Beta. But western civilization has had a strong development since ancient times, maybe unique in the world. People are different. It's not a coincidence that Beethoven is from Europe and not Ghana. This is not a politically correct topic nowadays, though. And Jung is very understanding of non-western lifestyles, at least intellectually, and he knew personally and appreciated people from primitive societies, as you might know.
I wasn't sure what you meant here. Although "visionary or mystical experience" is often related to Ni, I don't see it as necessary, and you can have people of almost any type who just happen to have an unusually strong connection to the unconscious.but I’m curious why you or he would perceive it as a general necessity for having a visionary or mystical experience.
I don't see how this should be related to any functions at all. Do you need Ni in order to dream at night? Or to hallucinate during fever or when taking drugs? When the ego is hurt or when there is a strong build up in the unconscious it can break through. At that point you don't need intuition anymore, because Mickey Mouse is really sitting there talking to you.In SHS, Jung had something called an Ni (T) accentuation. This relates to the intense visions he experienced. Accentuations, especially when severe or related to weaker functions (Inspector launcher T is an inflexible and low-dimensional function), can cause serious psychological disturbances and obsessions. Furthermore, a positivist psyche like that of Inspector can’t easily function in an ordinary way under the influence of such problems since it's more difficult for a wholesome positivist psyche to tolerate such internal contradictions (but it has other advantages). Since we are so focused on certain functions during accentuations, we can also become very unique and specialized in that area, especially if we are able to integrate the acquired skills and knowledge into our psyche and human society in a balanced way. A T accentuation can be balanced by a Harmonizing subtype (which involves functions T, R and S), which is one reason I think Jung transitioned from a Normalizing to a Harmonizing subtype at this time in his life. As discussed above, a subtype change is no small thing and leads to a significant change in the personality; it could easily relate to a person’s journey of individuation.
The problem I see is that the semantics of the functions are being expanded so that they can explain everything in life. "You need Si to be comfortable and Ni to have visions".
I am skeptic of Ni accentuation in Jung, because a person who individuates has to deal with everything. The ego has to be in good shape and deal with shit on all sides. It's the life of the hero. You need all functions, and an individuated person gives an impression of wholeness and can (ideally) speak the language of all types. I also wonder about Ni accentuation in a therapeutic relation. Might sound surprising, but if you want to genuinely connect with another person you have to be able to really relate by being more like them, it's not just an intellectual thing. But I am no expert on accentuations, just throwing in some doubt.
Of course I agree with that. The individuation process affects the whole being, so naturally also the type, and much more. In the type especially the problem of the suggestive/inferior function. But generally I think the focus is on the life of the individual as a whole, and I don't see Socionics as that important.I agree with you fully that Socionics doesn’t describe the entirety of an individuation process of a person. However, I do think it can describe some abstracted, systematic components of it, and some effects of it. In a crucial sense, Socionics deals with form rather than content. INDIVIDUAtion is naturally about the INDIVIDUAl, and Socionics as an abstract theory can’t possibly describe that completely, so I think these experiences RELATE to Socionics without being encapsulated by it (i.e. their content may be unusually profound and include phenomena Socionics can't entirely process or fit into its limited framework).
Just to be clear: When I say that I see Ne in Jung, I don't mean visions and psychic experiences. I mean his cognition in general, approach to problem solving, therapeutic methods, general way of reasoning, the psychology as a whole.
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)
@qaz00, this is why astrology can get you a lot more money. ツ
This indicates they have opposing views about at least in some aspects of what Ne and Ni is, hence there is a contradiction. I doubt that Archetype typed Jung based on semantics only, Jung's creation of IEs itself contradicts with what a Ne polr is from the view of some socionics theorists.
Ofcourse different typists or people are gonna type people differently and they will have different views about what a certain IE is since typology not just socionics is about a complex subject, human psyche. But at the end, this is socionics, they dont go out and make a full different typology system. Their way of illustrating a type is also not that different although there can be opposing views in details. This is all fine and it can be even enlightening until when this opposing views points to something at the very core of their understanding, this leads a person to only appreciate one of them at least in certain aspects of their understanding.
So I dont think it is valid to accept each typing of different school according to their own system in every case. Each system, understanding cant be equally right, if they clash. Different schools having their own measuring system isnt valid also since measuring system can be wrong or misplaced or not calibrated right.
These are important points imo. DarkAngelFireWolf69's school often doesn't seem separate non-socionics factors (or what some people would classify as non-socionics factors) from type diagnostics. Environmental factors, society, mental illness, physical ailments, etc are all used to justify specific types rather than seen as extraneous. Personally I do not agree with that approach. Ironically in his book there is something along the lines of, "don't take socionics too seriously" or give it more say than it really has. Granted it is up to the beholder to decide, but it seems to me that a lot of things are being explained via socionics that shouldn't be. Compare to someone like Rick DeLong who listed many factors that influence behaviour and personality that are specifically not connected to socionics (hormones, gender, attitude, social conventions, genetics, even something like charisma). These are very different approaches, and one seems more rational and ethical (as much as socionics can be either) to me, at least - seems a bit more nuanced.
This is not fair at all, lots of socionists are doing this, again this can be seen in other typology system besides socionics as well.
Just check here, scroll down you will see like personality disorders like histronic, ocd, antisocial etc being associated with types, this is not G doing this: https://www.the16types.info/info/typesview.htm
Again on Talanov test there were/are lots of questions about bowel movements, hair pulling, various physical and mental illness etc.
This is a common thing, that is happening in typology.
PS: I have no idea who is Rick and I think that also a common thing.
http://socionist.blogspot.com/?m=1
Maybe not a figure now, but a founder in the western socionics community. One of the guys behind wikisocion.
Regardless of how many people are doing it, I disagree with the trend. Talanov measures associations, which is different from explaining things via socionics, at least.
Associations with types, which is literally explaining things via socionics.
Definitely and spesifically not a fan of bowel movement questions, but he reached some great conclusions and carried theory to another level thats why he is a figure and same goes for G.
I see that there is a tendency to explain something in terms of a cog in a machine. It might work with the masses but might fail miserably when it comes to individuals.
To go further with this approach mental illness diagnoses or whatever along those lines are prone to even stronger biases. What a wonderful combination to potentially confuse heck out of you. It is better to keep some things separate if a person seeks answers because I it might point towards underlying confusion.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.
I guess the problem is that there are lots of tendencies that are true as tendencies, and DarkAngelFireWolf69 is using these for typing, but then one should be very careful and check exceptions and look at the individual very carefully. I don't know if G is always doing that. But I haven't followed everything G does.
I remember reading Rick's website back in the day when I learned socionics. It was pretty good, but last time I checked it was gone, and Rick lost his Socionics interest.
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)
Thank you @craizymaisy. I might just go take another look then, and see if anything becomes apparent to me.
Thinking ab getting typed by DarkAngelFireWolf69 but dunno if it’d be worth the money
“Anything is possible. It is night on planet earth and I'm alive. And someday I'll be dead.
Someday I'll just be bones in a box, but right now, I'm not.
And anything is possible.”
I have this half-pet theory/half-ego stroke that Ne valuers are set up to individuate the easiest
Probs if you find SHS interesting or you think that you are weird.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.
I agree that any type can experience it, but I also think it is experienced through Ni, the unconscious coming through that is. This is similar to how immediate contact with reality is experienced through Se.
Accentuation is separate from type and subtype in SHS, so any type can theoretically have any function be accentuated. In the case of contact with the unconscious, it is more likely related to Ni accentuation, in my view. I think accentuation is best understood as being "possessed" by a function, and being "possessed" by Ni means fixation on symbols, dreams, archetypes, etc (even if they are not consciously identified as such by the person experiencing it). Jung talks alot obout how Ni is in touch with unconscious, so I don't even think it's radical to speculate that being possessed by Ni would lead to being possessed by the unconscious. Being in touch with the unconscious is dangerous in cases where it gets extreme, I think. Psychosis can be a consequence in these cases.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote