you know my type when you look at my profile, unless you doubt the type and claims of every person that posts on this website. and again, you're behaving like a normalsing subtype (it contradicts Model A, so it's not valid). sorry for being so direct, but the discussion always plays out the same.
this is the rat experiment that DCNH is based on:
exploiter = dominant subtype. the strongest ones that are able to opress others and force them get food
independent = creative subtype. strong enough to oppose dominants but doesn't care about leading others
workers = normalising subtype. does what dominant subtype tells them to do
whipping boy = harmonsing subtype. to weak to work, looks for crumbs. often beggars or live a very reclusive life with little energy.
But some people don't play by the rules. Some of the biggest gangsters I know are short.
sure my explanation is very simple(but also a general observation I have made), but I just want to get the point across. normalising might create strict rules to gain power, let's say N subs of SEE or SLE.
If it waddles like the duck and it quacks like the duck it follows it must be a SEE. Look it up.
If someone disagrees with some of the Gulenko typings that doesn't necessarily mean they are rejecting Gulenko, all those typed by Gulenko, or socionics itself. It simply means they disagree. If someone doesn't shell out money to be typed by Gulenko, it doesn't necessarily mean any of the above either. That said, the more people try to emotionally manipulate others to get typed by Gulenko, likely the more resistance/rejecting there is going to be. It's great if some people got typed and that works well for them. It doesn't mean everyone has to do it. And before someone says there's no pressure on others to do this emotionally, look at posts saying people are "thin bloods" if they don't, or many of your own statements about how they are mentally ill living in their own identity fantasies. The more you say stuff like this, yes, the more you will be rejected. But not because you were typed by Gulenko--it's because you're behaving like an elitist asswipe.
Likewise, the absolute anti-Gulenko stance, trying to utterly invalidate his ideas (e.g. Model G) and typings is self-serving BS. Gulenko is not full of shit, and is one of the people I learn from. His theories and articles are insightful and interesting, and I think quite favourably of him.
DCNH matters because it explains ITR dynamics that classical socionics doesn't predict. C subs are messy and irresponsible. they feel restricted by rules. N subs prefer order and rules. chaos is a nightmare for them. even if they are duals, how are they supposed to get along? socionics exists for 40 years. people noticed that some duals get along better than others. gulenko's system partly explains why
2) Take the socionics and possibly Jungian literature (regarding functions) and apply it to what I know of myself. There are many open questions regarding how one thing fits wrt to my own personality, but I take what I am sure of and test it against the theory. Which is what I've been tryng to do. For example, Ti base is so weird considering how at my last workplace I fought against excessive rule making and using rules as a way to solve every behavioral problem. In my view, these problems where caused by certain people (which is a character assessment) and not by lack of rules. You could have made a rule for every situation, and the problematic people would have turned it into an advantage, plus it would restrict my own freedom as well to have rules for everything. It's hard to make sense of though. I agree with the argument, posted in this thread that a person can be good at developing a theory and not necessarily good applying it, and vice versa. Also the methodology itself may be flawed, as some have said.
What good is a book that does not even transport us beyond all books?
What I do care about is comprehending how complex systems work, so I'd substitute "rules" for principles or logical patterns. Ti is the logic of fields, by which objects are connected aka the system or "rules". Example how the rainforest works in detail is Ti understanding. Model A and Model G are both products of Ti. It merely seeks to understand how things work. This can be applied to anything. I tend to categorize even people and by default constantly try to figure out how the world works aka "cause and effect relationships". Ti much like Fi is about relationships, logical ones.
This is the only description of LSI I somewhat relate to tbh: https://bestsocionics.com/opisanija-...v/maxim-gorky/
IMO ppl here conflate LSI with MBTI ISTJ and ESTJ, simply due to poor translation. I am MBTI ISTP. "RULES" is not a good word to describe what Ti does due to how limiting the word is, one's imagination goes towards some strict disciplinarian "FOLLOW TH E RULES!".. while any real LSI would disregard and only follow what makes sense by experience.
with this said, you still could be ESI. In my case I was considering that ISTP in MBTI (before coming to the forums), it made much more sense to me after my run-in with several INTPs who in hindsight were clear LIIs. ESI would be MBTI ISFP.
Extract from my link:
^ I do this by default. Just substitute "logical relationships" for "rules" and the limiting factor of the previous word evaporates.Block 1. Logic - accepting, inert, strong
For Maxim Gorky, understanding how the world works and the laws in it, developing one's skills is an important element of a rich, fulfilling life. Such information is processed on an ongoing basis and does not serve any additional purpose. Whereas information about sensations, abilities, events is perceived as a tool that helps to function more effectively in the field of cause-and-effect relationships.
LSI continues to process information about patterns and technologies not only at the moment of contact with it, but also after its perception has ended. This is reflected in his speech, leads to the fact that this type is inclined to think and talk a lot on topics related to the acquisition of various kinds of knowledge and acquisition of skills, to describe in detail the structure of phenomena. To understand new knowledge, he needs time, since he prefers to delve into the issue, and not be limited to superficial consideration of information.
Maxim Gorky has a broad understanding of the laws in the world, which affects not only his life and what he directly encountered, but also various extraneous factors. Forming his idea of the structure and functioning of certain phenomena, he takes into account the maximum amount of information received, including both his own and someone else's experience.
BL - mental, boot, template, value
LSI keeps in mind the general picture of what is happening, while individual details and elements are taken for granted. They are not focused on, they are often omitted in speech, while generalized conclusions and abstract reasoning with a minimum number of examples occupy a key place both in speech and in thinking of this type.
In a critical, stressful situation, Maxim Gorky first of all seeks to understand the situation, to make sure that he correctly understands its causes and essence. This naturally helps him understand what action to take to correct the situation. He also tends to control how other people understand a situation or phenomenon, and, if necessary, help them form the correct picture of reality.
LSI has orderly ideas about the patterns, reasons and how the surrounding world and its various elements work. He relies on these ideas in the formation of his picture of the world, starts from them when it is necessary to choose ways of interacting with reality that are best used in each specific situation.
Information about the reasons, patterns, how the world works, theoretical knowledge that helps to better understand the events taking place around them are desirable and interesting information for Maxim Gorky. It is perceived without tension and is directly related to how the owner of this type looks at the world.
I appreciate you taking the time to write that up.
I'm wondering how you feel about Fi in general, how you would define it (possibly in contrast with Ti) and how it manifests for you. For me, I don't care so much about morality, though I am able to easily see if someone makes me uncomfortable, comfortable, easy to relate to etc. I can also tell who is sketchy and who isn't, based both on my own experience and what I've learned from family at an early age. I know how I feel, who I like, etc, though I also often have trouble admitting who I like or what I really want to myself (and btw G says this last part is typical of Fi as a function). I also make a great effort to communicate with people I care about, to keep the relationship "alive".
I relate to alot of what you say about yourself, like how you want to understand the world and come to a greater understanding of phenomena, philosophy etc, but not sure how structured I actually am in doing this. Perhaps I am structured, and the structure is somewhat informal. It's hard to tell and even though Gulenko saw it, I kind of fail to follow what he sees here. Edit: I follow what you are saying overall, the logic of an LSI does not express itself as formal rules, but as connections between phenomena, patterns and so forth.
What good is a book that does not even transport us beyond all books?
In my case I do care about morality, but it is much harder for me to understand this fully, so I mainly seem to have a rather limited superficial and kind of black and white understanding of relational fields that is immediate to the situation I find myself in. I know what I like, who I dislike, I can read into ppl and discern if they could be harmful to me or not and so on, but there is no clear code or structure behind it, so I am unaware of exactly why I prefer certain things and reject others.
Yeah, its a kind of trying to understand the world via experience and thinking about how everything connects to everything else. Patterns. Ti is highly abstract even in sensors tbh.I relate to alot of what you say about yourself, like how you want to understand the world and come to a greater understanding of phenomena, philosophy etc, but not sure how structured I actually am in doing this. Perhaps I am structured, and the structure is somewhat informal. It's hard to tell and even though Gulenko saw it, I kind of fail to follow what he sees here. Edit: I follow what you are saying overall, the logic of an LSI does not express itself as formal rules, but as connections between phenomena, patterns and so forth.
A good description of Fi as a lead function:
Marceline Abadeer ESI-CBlock 1. Ethics - accepting, inert, strong
For Dreisers, information about values, morality, attitudes, qualities of people, their reactions and behavior is valuable and necessary for the perception of the world in itself. He does not use this information as a tool, since it is of self-sufficient value for him.
ESI tends to be very deeply immersed in thinking about the values of people and their behavior. In this area, he wants not only to receive information, but also to process it, creating new, his own attitudes - new ideas about morality, ethics, etiquette, which may come into conflict with external social attitudes.
This type assimilates a large amount of both his own and someone else's experience in the field of attitudes towards certain things, and this allows him to develop universal moral norms, taking into account many ethical factors.
BE - mental, boot, template, value
Dreisers tend to generalize information and build it into abstract categories. He often uses in his speech non-specific assessments (“good”, “decent”, “wrong”, “mean”) and general descriptions of the qualities of people with a clear evaluative subtext (“human”, “rotten”, “friend”, “enemy” ).
ESI constantly monitors the state of his relationships with others, and seeks to keep them under control. Moreover, he can establish not only his own, but also other people's relations, settle conflicts. In this area, stability is important to him.
This type builds its picture of the world on clear principles, it is typical for it to have a kind of “ethical code”, even if its ideas about morality differ from the generally accepted ones.
He is interested in studying the values of people, posing moral dilemmas to them in order to understand their system of priorities in life. He likes to understand what is important for people and not important, what they think is good and bad, and give his own assessment of this.
CHE - vital, unloading, situational, non-value
A dreiser rarely talks about concrete actions and actions of people, or, for example, retells other people's words and dialogues, since in his area of attention are not the behavioral manifestations of people directly, but conclusions drawn from them - about the qualities of people, about how to evaluate their actions, for example, is this or that act a betrayal.
This type is not characterized by adherence to principles in matters of etiquette, politeness and behavioral norms. The motives of the action are more important to him than the action itself (that is, whether the action was committed maliciously, knowingly or by mistake, whether the person regrets what he did).
ESI, as a rule, approaches behavior quite flexibly, adjusting it to a specific situation and a specific person. At the same time, he may suddenly show his own behavioral attitudes, which are very different from the generally accepted ones. But they do not appear on an ongoing basis, but rather chaotically.
Information about the actions, behavior of people, the rules of decency and etiquette is not interesting to this type in itself, if it does not reveal issues of relationships and human qualities. Interacting with such information causes internal resistance.
This site was a nice find, the SLE desc was also one of the better ones I've read.
my second video ended up being I think about 20 min. long.
so, it seems in the first video they are gauging you to narrow it down to a few possibilities (because it even says on their site in your first video you might look like two different types) and the second video is questions to narrow it down further...and, well, I’m not an expert by an means, but I have basic socionics knowledge, and I felt in the second video I had an idea what they figured my type was (by the first video), and in the second they were trying to narrow down my DCNH. after I watched my second video, I already figured what they’d type me as, and I guessed right.
so I’m sure the length varies, but they ask for 10- 14 minutes, in total. considering the second questions are personalized, and prob can not always easily fit into that time frame (of 5-7min), I suspect most are longer.
just brainstorming here, and I could be wrong, but I suspect from what I’ve read so far, that N (normalizing) types might care more about the rules than say C (creative) types.
Personally, an an ethical Normalizing type, I do try to follow the rules generally, unless I think they are dumb and know I can get away with it, or if I think it’s worth it (example: driving way over the speed limit when I’m in a hurry. Or generally I wear my seatbelt because it’s the law and I don’t want a ticket. I feel it’s usually safer to wear one, but the fact it’s a law pisses me off, and I don’t make every adult that drives with me wear one, if they don’t want to).
enforce consistency to validate the rule. Ethical types are more willing and flexible to make exceptions to the rules due to the nature of being more socially accommodating. There actually isn’t any logical reason to break rules, since rules operate based on stability. It’s the logical types that needs to be informed by authority figures to make any exceptions. The “human component” with decision making is of the ethical realm and as such, is more likely to operate case by case, rather than rules/structure.
So I guess what I'm getting at is,
Identifying that something is caused by people ≠ lack of Ti; it can actually very well be using Ti. It all depends on the thought process one uses to arrive at their conclusion
Last edited by Computer Loser; 12-20-2020 at 03:28 PM.
Rules and pacts between people are social behavior. There are endless logical reasons to break that kind of rules, especially from the point of view of the individual who is doing it. The most logical way (disregarding ethics and social convention) is to act in the way that benefits you the most, sometimes this may be following the rules to avoid negative social consequences, but in many cases it's either subjectively logical or most effective to break them. Obediently following rules even when you won't be caught breaking them is ethical behavior. Of course ethical types can also break rules, in case of Fi types one reason could be because of an Fi bond between people that overrides the social rule, or because their personal moral code disagrees. Or in case of Fe types if the spirit of the most relevant social subgroup disagrees with the general societal rule.
The rules for logical types concern actions (most efficient way of working / method for Te) and objects (internal structure of an object or system for Ti) mainly. They are defined by pure logical correctness (for Ti ego) or pure process efficiency (Te), not by societal conventions. In case of rules of hierarchy, typically the person themselves is considered exempt if the rule doesn't make sense to them. Both Beta ST types gladly enforce rules on others but also think they are above the rules themselves. "What is allowed for Jupiter is not allowed for an ox". It's ethically hypocritical, but that's exactly the point. Ethics plays a much smaller role in the decision-making of logical types.
A logical type could say that you can't break the laws of physics or laws of formal logic. But breaking a code of morality or societal custom / law is an ethical question when the risk consequences of getting caught are removed from the equation. That isn't to say that logical types don't have ethics, but they still prefer their own logic for decision-making.
this is precisely the reason why normalising subtypes who already know about socionics have such difficulties getting into gulenko's school, and why I have such a difficult time with them. the rules I have in my head are easily changeable. I have an easier time creating new systems, because accentuated Ne of my subtype helps me. I switch to new systems on a whim, that's why creative subtypes come up with new ideas. they simply branch out in 20 directions and the more directions you take, the more likely it is that you will discover something new. normalising subtypes, having accentuated Ti, stick to specific rules no matter what. if you find a normalising LII or especially LSI, you will notice that it's almost impossible to convince them of something new if they already made up their mind about something. (base Ti + accentuated Ti because of subtype).Originally Posted by Kiana;1424496[COLOR=#000000
if the subtype of a person (which is based on temperaments) corresponds to the base type of a person, you will have an easier time typing someone. a dominant subtype (which is based on an EJ temperament) LSE will be very easy to type. confident, direct, obsessed with work etc. creative subtype (EP temperament) ILE will appear like doc brown and be easy to type. normalising (IJ temperament) LII or LSI will be boring bookworms with rigid convictions etc.
on the other hand, it can make typing quite difficult, when the type's weakest functions are the strenghts of a subtype. a dominant SEI is such an example. (joe biden imo falls into this type and subtype).
Here’s the general breakdown of functions that gets emphasized through DCNH: Te and Fe for D, Se and Ne for C, Ti and Fi for N, Ni and Si for H.
I don’t really equate anything “good” or “bad” in socionics or if a type is “good” or “bad.” All types have strengths and weaknesses, and in order to realistically assess and address problem areas, you have to look at concepts and apply it through precise and objective lenses. This part is extremely difficult and I don’t believe anyone can get outside of themselves to accurately and objectively critique themselves without self-preservation kicking in which will still throw off the typing. This is the part that I think is crucial to have a trained 3rd party professional analyze your type for you (and you’ll have to think on the reasoning on your own). It’s very likely due to how you’re raised that you develop functions that falls outside of the norm that’s not explained by Model A (is very limiting) and Model G picks up on the nuances of your sociotype. And I don’t mind rigidity and don’t think it’s a negative thing, but I’m used to that because my dad is LSI-N.
you only need to watch a few moments of the video and you already know the type and subtype. compare him to jack from WSS, who is a normalising ILE. he's much more lethargic. the energy difference is clearly visible