Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: What is Wrong with Socionics? (And Also Model A)

  1. #1
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default What is Wrong with Socionics? (And Also Model A)

    Don't look at this as just plain pessimism toward the theory or the model, as I feel it is very important to think critically about anything you study - including socionics. Therefore, I have thought of a number of ways that socionics could break down or not work:

    About Socionics in General:

    1. Socionics doesn't explain the way people behave at close distance. Don't some people wear masks socially? Aren't there some people who behave one way at work and then differently at home? Don't some people simply want to seem a certain way, when they are very different on the inside? By focusing on things like appearance and social behaviour, socionics misses some of these...

    2. Why only 16 types? Couldn't socionics work, but the number of types be very large?

    3. Don't people change? Socionics assumes that we have one static personality type that does not change throughout our lives, but is that the way it really works? I remember reading about 'person-stages' in philosophy. The notion is that in life, a person doesn't just have one stage they go through, but several different stages where their traits, interests, values, etc. change. Now apply this to socionics: a person may show traits of ILE at 30 years old, but not at 40. And at four years of age, they might have shown signs of being EII. All of this is unusual from a socionics standpoint, but it really seems quite normal to me...

    4. What about cross-types? This is a corollary to 3.: Cross-types are supposed to be unusual, but since people often change, wouldn't it be more natural for people to have a mix of traits, as opposed to fitting Model A?

    About Model A:

    1. Why does the model hold up empirically? There is no clear answer as to the methodology Aushra Augusta used in developing the theory. Did she interview people and keep records of their answers? Did she read something somewhere else and apply it to socionics? Did she just look at a few cases and match people up intuitively? None of these questions can really be answered.

    2. Why does Xe go with Yi? This is a corollary to 1.: why not Ti with Fi or Fi with Fe, for instance? And the same thing with weak functions. I just don't know why these functions are supposed to match up the way they do...

    Anyway, I just wanted you to think critically about the theory. The point isn't to turn you into a hard-nosed skeptic, but to be a little more logical in the way you view it, not taking it simply at face value without thinking about it. The solution is not to give up on the theory, but to take it with a grain of salt...

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    13,053
    Mentioned
    1199 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    16 types is from the number of used psyche traits and their links. It's possibly to add another personal/behavioral traits to Jung types and to get a mix, which to call as "new" typology.

    For example, a typology of Jung types in sexes of people with a name eh... "Jungian Sexonics". About noticed specifics in behavior of some types of different sexes due to biology and today culture. In case such specifics is known and allow practical usefulness.

    I read Jung's book long ago. Seems he used himself previously existed "typology" of extravertion/introvertion accent in people. There also was known a devision of humanitarian and technical knowledge which much relate to Jung's T/F. Was known "spiritual" and "earthy" in people personalities which relate to N and S.
    Jung has mixed something already known and got a thing with new usefulness - he used his types for psychotherapy.
    -

    I'd recommend you to identify own type correctly to relax with the existing theory and to perceive it as more useful.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  3. #3
    myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    726
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    1. Yes, people wear masks, there are explanations how people work at different distances, for example how role functions more prone to work in far distance rather than close distance etc. DCHN also aims to figure out how people can act different in different environments. There are also other typology systems which focuses on how does our mask works, which environments would lead us to prefer one mask to another.

    2. Yes, but that would be another theory or a model. That kind of theory and/or model can also work.

    3. No, brain structure doesn't change after the age of 25 except a few life changing events such as brain damage. Again most of our brain structure is built when we are very little.

    4. Traits aren't equal to psyche. Again those kind of difference could be explained by subtype systems such as DCHN or two subtype system. However, if we want to find the exact root of those differences then enhanced functions would be a way to go. Some traits are doomed to remain NTR.

    About model A:

    1. I don't know her exact method.

    2. It is because socionics is built on complementarility, in other words, atomic parts (IEs) should be complimentary to each other. For example, the core features of Fi are internal static of fields, external dynamic of objects (Te) would be complimentary to that. I am not sure if these things are explicitly and directly expressed in model A. However, when reading Jung or Augusta or model A descriptions or other models that doesn't contradict with this, it can be easily seen. Should a person think this is the truth? No, I won't go on streets and advocate for typology or socionics. It is person's choice to accept whether it is true to them or not.

    Personally if you have confusion about your type, especially if you are undecided between look-a-like types, that could be a result of enhanced role function. You can make solid typing thread or reveal more in terms of how you perceive Ti and Fi, if you want other people's perspective on this area. However, everything serves to our base, the position of IE doesn't change due to enhancement, hence I don't think these kind of enhancements necessarily change how someone operates at core, but surely it changes somethings on the surface.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post

    1. Socionics doesn't explain the way people behave at close distance. Don't some people wear masks socially? Aren't there some people who behave one way at work and then differently at home? Don't some people simply want to seem a certain way, when they are very different on the inside? By focusing on things like appearance and social behaviour, socionics misses some of these...

    Gulenko has done a lot of work on these things. In regards to question number 1, Model G is organized according to external and internal functions. I don't know whether that explains mask usage, nor that socionics should attempt to explain everything. To quote Gulenko's book:

    Do not overestimate the ideas of Socionics, and you will not be disspointed by it.
    It at least adds a bit of nuance to the behavioural understanding of types.


    As for question 3, it really depends on how you define personality type. How do you personally define it? Does your definition allow for change? Perhaps turn it around, and consider that socionics is attempting to measure that which does not change. Traits change, and people grow, mature, or gain experience, but these aren't things that socionics measures. Essentially, socionics is measuring deep-seated preferences and patterns of behaviour. Are those things truly unchangeable? I don't know, but I think it's important to understand the things at play before dismissing the idea that type is changeable.



    A lot of your Model A questions can be answered (hopefully not in a satisfactory way - to be blunt, there are many problems with Socionics, especially in early writings) by reading older work. There's tonnes out there. Here's the Dual Nature of Man (https://translate.google.com/transla...-duality3.html), which answers some of the theoretical questions (or at least provides some context for them).

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Seems he used himself previously existed "typology" of extravertion/introvertion accent in people. There also was known a devision of humanitarian and technical knowledge which much relate to Jung's T/F. Was known "spiritual" and "earthy" in people personalities which relate to N and S.
    Jung has mixed something already known and got a thing with new usefulness - he used his types for psychotherapy.

    Jung invented the terms introversion and extraversion himself.

  6. #6
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    Personally if you have confusion about your type, especially if you are undecided between look-a-like types, that could be a result of enhanced role function. You can make solid typing thread or reveal more in terms of how you perceive Ti and Fi, if you want other people's perspective on this area. However, everything serves to our base, the position of IE doesn't change due to enhancement, hence I don't think these kind of enhancements necessarily change how someone operates at core, but surely it changes somethings on the surface.
    There is no need for this. I have seen plenty of people who type themselves as 'LII' (in videos, on facebook, etc.) who don't fit the stereotypical thin, nasally geek archetype - that kind of precise, thorough LII seems to be more the exception than the rule.

    If people were to type me in a thread, I predict:

    1. I would get plenty of people who type me as 'EII', which is of no interest to me, since I do not value business logic even in the least.
    2. I would get many 'LII' votes, which would just confirm my self-typing.

    Either way, there wouldn't be anything new or interesting to me, so I just won't even bother with it...
    Last edited by jason_m; 05-15-2021 at 04:08 AM.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,603
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You're not going to be finding any of the answers to these questions of "why", because Socionics is a system of observation, not explanation...

    Therefore, you can only fight over who has the most "accurate" observation, which seems pretty futile. When you can be fighting over who can come up with the best explanation instead.

  8. #8
    scientist donkey BrightDemonSheep96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On a toilet, right above you
    TIM
    ILE-H LEVF/omnibeta
    Posts
    6,583
    Mentioned
    281 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    It just largely derived from here. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm
    It makes some some axiomatic assumptions from material.

     

    In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. The are, as it were, only Galtonesque family-portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor. [p. 514]
    For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.
    Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.
    For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through [p. 516] with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgment, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.
    A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition. This peculiarity, however, is of interest only for one who is concerned with the practical psychological treatment of such cases. But for such a man it is important to know about it. For I have frequently observed the way in which a physician, in the case for instance of an exclusively intellectual subject, will do his utmost to develop the feeling function directly out of the unconscious. This attempt must always come to grief, since it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint. Should such a violation succeed, there ensues a really compulsive dependence of the patient upon the physician, a 'transference' which can be amputated only by brutality, because such a violation robs the patient of a standpoint -- his physician becomes his standpoint. But the approach to the unconscious and to the most repressed function is disclosed, as it were, of itself, and with more adequate protection of the conscious standpoint, when the way of development is via the secondary function-thus in the case of a rational type by way of the irrational function. For this lends the conscious standpoint such a range and prospect over what is possible and imminent that consciousness gains an adequate protection against the destructive effect of the unconscious. Conversely, an irrational type demands a stronger development of the rational auxiliary function [p. 517] represented in consciousness, in order to be sufficiently prepared to receive the impact of the unconscious.
    The unconscious functions are in an archaic, animal state. Their symbolical appearances in dreams and phantasies usually represent the battle or coming encounter of two animals or monsters.

    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

  9. #9
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    There is no need for this. I have seen plenty of people who type themselves as 'LII' (in videos, on facebook, etc.) who don't fit the stereotypical thin, nasally geek archetype - that kind of precise, thorough LII seems to be more the exception than the rule.

    If people were to type me in a thread, I predict:

    1. I would get plenty of people who type me as 'EII', which is of no interest to me, since I do not value business logic even in the least.
    2. I would get many 'LII' votes, which would just confirm my self-typing.

    Either way, there wouldn't be anything new or interesting to me, so I just won't even bother with it...
    I was also going to put up a socionics facebook poll asking people for their types (so I could use my powers of observation and deduction to 'test' how well the theory holds up in practice), but I notice almost nobody posts to the main socionics group, so I predict I would get very few responses. Once again, I decide not to to ahead with it...

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    11,898
    Mentioned
    369 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    You're un-aware of how the dual functions go with each other? Challenge accepted!

    Te is about all these moving external logic parts. It goes with Fi because it needs a solid relationship to hold it together or the entire thing is really just going to collapse in on itself. Te is like a flower, and Fi is the gardener. It needs to build a strong moral foundation and a serious relationship in order to sustain itself. It's why Te businesses use Fi 'Pc speak' that is dry and serious and uptight.

    Fe is about being happy and gay. It's about entertainment & neon colors and is both peaceful & provocative. It's about maintaining a positive atmosphere for the group. It's the complete opposite of Te- which is naturally dry, "straight" and business like. It goes with Ti because of comments like "You're just being a selfish narcissistic whore." It's a clear logical category naturally linked with colorful, Fe language. Ti is rigid logic- and facts for their own sake. Te is more adaptable, because it's trying to 'do something' with the facts in a way that appeases the Fi side.

    Ne is about a bunch of possibilities and alternate ways of thinking. It goes with Si because it's so chaotic and erratic you just need something to smooth it all over or it's going to be more of an autistic mess then it already is. The way Ne jumps topics is very jarring and anti-empathetic. (also related why ILE's have Fi polr) Si is like the ultimate balancer or 'healer' - it's stereotypically linked to housewife-y caregiving crap because eating a good meal, getting enough sleep and not getting into arguements - are all things that usually balance the human body to a positive state of equanimity. (but on their own they don't usually bring a lot of professional success cuz Te polr in SEI's lol)

    In a vacuum, Si doesn't really do good with the Te side of change, but it works very well with the Ne side of change. This is probably why SLI's Te is "creative"- because true, functional creativity is always about doing things that go against the system- but it actually ends up working. ((like how SEE gets away with appearing so much more ethical than SLE even though both have the leading Satanic Function of Se.))

    The Se/Ni relationship reminds me of the relationship between actors/actresses and their audience. Famous actors have often said things like 'I don't feel like I really exist unless other people see me.' It's about having a presence that's worthy enough to be analyzed mentally- to notice all the deeply interwoven layers. Se - when taken to extremes can be considered 'dark and evil' but Ni would analyze it and remember a time when the Se-ego bank robber was actually a nice, good person who was innocent and even fragile. Ni insightfully recognizes all the personal motivations, not just the superficial behavior of something.

    In addition to physical carnality, Se is also about personal will-power and doing things because you want to and not because a system told you so. (Further solidifying it's reputation as an 'evil' function as personal will-power is inherently thought by others as "Satanic")

    Ni is pure 'monkey mind' chatter- your own ego and consciousness revealing itself. Ni in a sense is really just controversial gossip. (especially IEI's Ni with creative Fe - but ILI's too) In order to gossip though, one needs a scenery to gossip about. Many times, Se is also thought of as simply just the scenery for that gossip - similar to Si in a sense but more external- it is also known as 'objects at rest.'

    Ni is also about pure fantasy. Whether noble, gentle or heroic or sadistic, and fucked-up and weird. So IEI/ILI's Ni is often so strong- our fantasies become other people's realities. More so with IEI- because we don't have creative Te like ILI that can fool other people that we're being more logical or practical. ((god that creative function is such a Machiavellian manipulator- isn't it)) All 4 Dimensional functions are naturally like this, of course. Especially the lead, base ones. You can't help but fuck other people with them. You're good at it- but you also effectively "assault" other people with it.

  11. #11
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    There is no need for this. I have seen plenty of people who type themselves as 'LII' (in videos, on facebook, etc.) who don't fit the stereotypical thin, nasally geek archetype - that kind of precise, thorough LII seems to be more the exception than the rule.

    If people were to type me in a thread, I predict:

    1. I would get plenty of people who type me as 'EII', which is of no interest to me, since I do not value business logic even in the least.
    2. I would get many 'LII' votes, which would just confirm my self-typing.

    Either way, there wouldn't be anything new or interesting to me, so I just won't even bother with it...
    I was also going to put up a socionics facebook poll asking people for their types (so I could use my powers of observation and deduction to 'test' how well the theory holds up in practice), but I notice almost nobody posts to the main socionics group, so I predict I would get very few responses. Once again, I decide not to to ahead with it...
    I would say that is Ni I am using in those two posts, and that is what I find with it: I can make all kinds of highly accurate forecasts about all sorts of situations - most of which very pessimistic, but accurate. However, because it is accurate, and the outcomes I predict are pessimistic, I can't use it to my advantage at all...

  12. #12
    scientist donkey BrightDemonSheep96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On a toilet, right above you
    TIM
    ILE-H LEVF/omnibeta
    Posts
    6,583
    Mentioned
    281 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Basically model A and model G do not contradict each other if we approach Jung but model A makes further assumptions that model G never makes.

    Ne with thinking. It does not really mention the vertness of thinking. NeT would be like: speculative opportunity through logic and application.

    TiS: Logical practicality aka organization.

    It seems sometimes that models add their own interpretative layer and therefore makes it harder to understand. What happens when build on top of things? You start to loose the grip of it.

    It is funny how much hidden stuff is in the last chapter of Psychological types. It basically states that intuitive feeling may have unconscious practical intellect in unconscious and so on (hence somewhat complementary as we can hear from Jung's interviews). So this system is basically just easily digestible system of Jung's thought that takes liberties in making few extra assumptions in more formalized manner.


    ^Jungian Ne rant with logic because:
    Code:
    while True:
    
    The intuitive is never to be found among the generally recognized reality values, but he is always present where possibilities exist.
    Last edited by BrightDemonSheep96; 05-15-2021 at 08:07 AM.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

  13. #13
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    3,060
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ok, I'll answer some of your question, but it feels like you are trolling, and I am not sure that you have a genuine interest to learn these things. Some of your questions are really basic,

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post

    2. Why only 16 types? Couldn't socionics work, but the number of types be very large?
    Based on observation there are 8 functions. They combine in such way that we get 16 types. As you might know Jung used 8 types (only focus on base function). You can also use only 2 types (extroversion/introversion) if you wish. The basic phenomenon that is studied here are the functions, but if you find some other phenomenon that is typical you could have more or less types, but that depends on what you wish to focus on.

    3. Don't people change?
    Of course they change. But type is not about general personality. It is only about the cognitive functions that have been observed to be typical, and behaviour related to that.

    Some changes even happen to the type itself as we go through life. There is a tendency to develop weaker functions once the base function has been fully developed. So the initial onesidedness becomes more balanced.

    Did she interview people and keep records of their answers? Did she read something somewhere else and apply it to socionics? Did she just look at a few cases and match people up intuitively? None of these questions can really be answered.
    I am sure you know that it is based on Jung. And also years of observation.

    2. Why does Xe go with Yi? This is a corollary to 1.: why not Ti with Fi or Fi with Fe, for instance? And the same thing with weak functions. I just don't know why these functions are supposed to match up the way they do...
    This is a very basic thing in Jung's typology. When you develop something the opposite thing will push into the unconscious. It is related to general balance and dynamics of a system (in this case the psyche). Thinking and Feeling, Sensing and Intuition are opposites on some basic level. If you sense something you have to concentrate on the obvious, concrete, and that goes against the basic nature of intuition, etc.

    This creates the basic compatibility patterns as the "lost" unconscious function can be provided by the partner and thus balance is restored.

    Anyway, I just wanted you to think critically about the theory. The point isn't to turn you into a hard-nosed skeptic, but to be a little more logical in the way you view it, not taking it simply at face value without thinking about it. The solution is not to give up on the theory, but to take it with a grain of salt...
    If you really want to learn, then read more. Try Psychological types.
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)

  14. #14
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo
    This is a very basic thing in Jung's typology. When you develop something the opposite thing will push into the unconscious. It is related to general balance and dynamics of a system (in this case the psyche). Thinking and Feeling, Sensing and Intuition are opposites on some basic level. If you sense something you have to concentrate on the obvious, concrete, and that goes against the basic nature of intuition, etc.

    This creates the basic compatibility patterns as the "lost" unconscious function can be provided by the partner and thus balance is restored.
    This I notice, but in a slightly different way from Jung. For instance, when watching a ball game, I can: 1) attend to my own inner thoughts or 2) watch the game. The problem is: is attending my inner thoughts Ni or Ti or Ne? Is watching the game Se or Si?

    Also, there are times when I am very analytical (i.e., logical function) and when I am very abstract (i.e., intuitive function). However, I find I cannot use both functions at the same time...

    The point: there might be some slight differences to what Jung proposes and how one's psyche really works. i.e., in his model, feelings should be submerged when thinking or using analysis, but this is not what I find...

    Conclusion: there might be some deviation from his model. (Big deal. Jung is not hard science. Life goes on...)



    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo
    If you really want to learn, then read more. Try Psychological types.
    I have owned that book for years. I remember trying to read it in high school (in the 1990s), and having very little grasp of it. I then reread it in the last few years and my conclusion was that Jung was presenting a tentative hypothesis about the way human personality works - similar to Jordan and Spitteler, and therefore the conclusions in the book should be seen as hypotheses as opposed to hard facts... (But that is just my opinion.)

    EDIT: (Way off topic) but if there is a book I would recommend to the forum even more it is called: 'Does God Exist?' by Hans Kung. The man who writes it is a theist, but he provides really good arguments for both theists and atheists in the book. You also get snippets of both Freud's and Jung's theology in it. Freud is a clear atheist, and both Jung and Freud have something very interesting to say about the existence of God. And if one is going to read it, there is a lot of extraneous background information in each chapter. Just skim that and get right to the big arguments. That is the 'meat' of the book... The book is valuable to me because the author presents really clear arguments in the book that support both sides - as opposed to providing one-sided arguments. And although his conclusion is that there is a God, one could easily read the book and draw the opposite conclusion. This is all way off topic, but in my eyes, the book is an outstanding example of 'Ti' - abstract, clear, unbiased, logical thinking - but of course, not everyone is going to agree...

    EDIT2: a great place for books in general - google search 'Books to Borrow' and 'Open Library'.
    Last edited by jason_m; 05-15-2021 at 10:08 AM.

  15. #15
    myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    726
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    There is no need for this. I have seen plenty of people who type themselves as 'LII' (in videos, on facebook, etc.) who don't fit the stereotypical thin, nasally geek archetype - that kind of precise, thorough LII seems to be more the exception than the rule.

    If people were to type me in a thread, I predict:

    1. I would get plenty of people who type me as 'EII', which is of no interest to me, since I do not value business logic even in the least.
    2. I would get many 'LII' votes, which would just confirm my self-typing.

    Either way, there wouldn't be anything new or interesting to me, so I just won't even bother with it...
    Biological features and height/weight has nothing to do with the type. However, I can see why you think some people may type you or others that way. If you think people can have a bias about this, don't post a video, make a typing thread, you don't have to answer some spesific questions, just mention the things that creates doubt in your mind. I think it could be helpful, because it seems like you don't get the answers you want since you are not directly addressing the doubts and having periodical doubts could be bothersome. Socionics is never going to be empirical, objective. If you want to clear any doubt about your type, answering some questions may help: Why do you think you are LII or why you think you may not be, what is Ti and Fi to you, how does Ti-dom and Fi-dom operates?, etc.

  16. #16
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    90
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You can have more types but 16types are the most appropriate. For instance you can have only 2 types: i/e or j/p, you can have only 4 types: quadras etc.

    You can also have more than 16 types by counting subtypes.

    If you want to be the most precise one you could create 1 type for each person thus you have 70 billion types but that's not practical. And this would mean that you don't find the principal patterns in human psychology.

  17. #17
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    3,060
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Is watching the game Se or Si?
    I don't think watching the game requires any specialized function at all.

    feelings should be submerged when thinking or using analysis, but this is not what I find...
    Thinking types can have feelings, or primitive use of the feeling function. That's different. But differentiated, conscious use of the feeling function is another story.

    Conclusion: there might be some deviation from his model. (Big deal. Jung is not hard science. Life goes on...)
    People have all kinds of secondary developments, subtype etc. Jung knew this.

    I have owned that book for years. I remember trying to read it in high school (in the 1990s), and having very little grasp of it. I then reread it in the last few years and my conclusion was that Jung was presenting a tentative hypothesis about the way human personality works - similar to Jordan and Spitteler, and therefore the conclusions in the book should be seen as hypotheses as opposed to hard facts... (But that is just my opinion.)
    Jung simply noticed that there are psychological functions in the psyche that follow some patterns and can be used to formulate a typology. It's not a theory of personality, because personality is so much more complex, but a practical way to classify people.
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)

  18. #18

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,603
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    I don't think watching the game requires any specialized function at all.

    Thinking types can have feelings, or primitive use of the feeling function. That's different. But differentiated, conscious use of the feeling function is another story.

    Jung simply noticed that there are psychological functions in the psyche that follow some patterns and can be used to formulate a typology. It's not a theory of personality, because personality is so much more complex, but a practical way to classify people.
    Well see, the problem with Socionics and all the other Jungian-based systems is having this illusion that we are "utilizing" functions. Such as "We are 'using' Si to watch TV". But what all functions are doing is that they're referring back to observations. Functions are descriptive categorizations of observable external behaviors, not an exploration of explanatory logic hidden underneath the surface that ultimately drive behaviors.

    You can't describe the programming source code by just observing the behavior of the software that appears on the screen. You can only describe the source code by well, looking at the source code. And even then, that requires the understanding of the overall logic of the source code, which ultimately can't be observed.

    So what is the "source code" of the human mind? It's the logic that drives human thoughts and behavior.

  19. #19
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    Biological features and height/weight has nothing to do with the type. However, I can see why you think some people may type you or others that way. If you think people can have a bias about this, don't post a video, make a typing thread, you don't have to answer some spesific questions, just mention the things that creates doubt in your mind. I think it could be helpful, because it seems like you don't get the answers you want since you are not directly addressing the doubts and having periodical doubts could be bothersome. Socionics is never going to be empirical, objective. If you want to clear any doubt about your type, answering some questions may help: Why do you think you are LII or why you think you may not be, what is Ti and Fi to you, how does Ti-dom and Fi-dom operates?, etc.
    Here is why I call myself LII:

    - I really value a form of Fe, but not Te (i.e., Fe-suggestive).
    - I am Se-PoLR.
    - I do not mind Fi, but I supervise IEEs like crazy - and I get along with EIIs.
    - I like Si.
    - There is a form of Ti that I really like.
    - I do not value Te in any way.
    - I really value Ne.
    - Ni is irrelevant.

    If you put these functions into a Model A, the type that pops out is 'LII.'

    The problem:
    - I intuitively know that I don't look or act like stereotypical LIIs at all.
    - Therefore, because I am Se-PoLR, people automatically assume that I am EII.

    My problem with this typing:
    - The EII typing is something I cannot stomach; it is not a typing based on what I like or value or what I'm strong in. It is a typing based entirely on weak functions, because the people typing me that way have their "blinders on" and only notice the weak functions.
    - For instance, ILE is a great fit - except I'm not Fi-PoLR - but many wouldn't type me that way because they want to see me as EII.
    - As EII, I'm not Te-suggestive at all - just like I'm not Fi PoLR for ILE - but of course with their blinders on that argument "doesn't count."
    - Of course, there could be ILE subtypes that are Se-PoLR - just as there are Ti subtypes - and I really value Ne, but these people would not listen, so I don't bother.

    Therefore: the typing of LII stays, and I'm not bothering with a typing thread.
    Last edited by jason_m; 05-20-2021 at 03:06 AM.

  20. #20
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another point: because of job titles in business and software engineering, 'analyst' is often confused with people who have these job titles. In socionics, an 'analyst' is simply someone skilled at deductive reasoning (e.g., see Dario Nardi's 'Deductive Analyst'). In industry, an 'analyst' usually means some kind of 'expert' (i.e., 'business logic'). For instance, a 'financial analyst' is an expert who develops things like business plans. A 'computer systems analyst' is an expert at computer systems and handles a company's software and hardware requirements. I can't help but wonder if this is being confused in socionics, so instead of assuming an analyst is skilled at deductive logic, one assumes that they are some kind of 'precise expert' - i.e., business logic. (Maybe this is even what I am doing subconsciously.) It is therefore associated with 'stamp collecting' types of fields, which I don't think have any intuition in them as well. Anyway, just something to think about...
    Last edited by jason_m; 05-21-2021 at 05:57 AM.

  21. #21
    myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    726
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    If you put these functions into a Model A, the type that pops out is 'LII.'

    The problem:
    - I intuitively know that I don't look or act like stereotypical LIIs at all.
    - Therefore, because I am Se-PoLR, people automatically assume that I am EII.
    Just to clarify, I didn't think you are not LII. I just thought you are in between xII types due to recent and old posts of yours.

    How do you act different than stereotypical LIIs?

    We can all act a bit different due to other typology systems, enhanced IEs or upbring.

    Who are those people that typing you EII?? I don't know much people who know socionics or even mbti so much that they type other people.

    I don't think title matters that much, but ofcourse some people may perceive it differently.

  22. #22
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    Just to clarify, I didn't think you are not LII. I just thought you are in between xII types due to recent and old posts of yours.

    How do you act different than stereotypical LIIs?
    1) I can be somewhat emotional - although I am not a particularly warm person.
    2) I don't seem like a rational type - I often don't plan ahead, etc.

    Therefore, on dichotomy tests, I often get INFp as my result.

    Who are those people that typing you EII?? I don't know much people who know socionics or even mbti so much that they type other people.
    This was in personal messages with a couple of people. I will not name names.

    I don't think title matters that much, but of course some people may perceive it differently.
    I have thought about it: I might be right in between LII and EII like you said... It also might just mean something socially and not reflect things like levels of intelligence, career preferences, etc. as you just stated...

  23. #23
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In this post:

    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...l=1#post987652

    I am clearly an irrational type. That whole notion of 'like' and 'dislike' is what is confusing me.

    E.g.:

    For every Ethical and Logical function, the information being metabolised is based on oughts and shoulds... Ethics tells us how people should feel, what I should do to express my feelings, what is good and what is bad, what I should not say to other people etc. Logic tells us the methodologies by which things ought to be done, whether something is correct or incorrect, what I am legally entitled to have, what should be of use.

    For every Intuitive and Sensory function, we find a distinct absence of these oughts and shoulds. Instead we find affirmations of how things are and will be... This is happening now, this may happen later, we could do this etc. At the same time we have affirmations of our desires for things... I want this, this feels comfortable, that is interesting, I would like to go there.
    Those things in bold are usually what that I mean by liking: "I want this", "this is interesting", "I would like to go there" that some people keep classifying as 'Fi' and it is screwing me up...
    Last edited by jason_m; 05-22-2021 at 08:17 AM.

  24. #24
    Foxhunt inaLim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w9 sx/sp
    Posts
    268
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    When was the last time you went back to the source and read Ausra A's "Dual Nature of Man"? Her re-interpretation of Jung's functions is biased, but it works well enough to get the point across, and doesn't leave much room for Ti ego to be confused about Fi.

    These posts give the impression of confusing "what 16types.info says about Model A" with "what Socionics says" & "what model A is." Say Socionics and Model A are wrong, but at least say it based on what Socionics actually says, not what you heard us say.

  25. #25
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,747
    Mentioned
    147 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Lack of scientific approach to explaining and modelling the observations.

    a.k.a. I/O

  26. #26
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inaLim View Post
    When was the last time you went back to the source and read Ausra A's "Dual Nature of Man"? Her re-interpretation of Jung's functions is biased, but it works well enough to get the point across, and doesn't leave much room for Ti ego to be confused about Fi.

    These posts give the impression of confusing "what 16types.info says about Model A" with "what Socionics says" & "what model A is." Say Socionics and Model A are wrong, but at least say it based on what Socionics actually says, not what you heard us say.

    1) There is no one single interpretation of socionics - and that is essentially the problem with my self-typing.

    2) The thread got derailed about my self-typing - a problem which I did not want to address. The post at the top of the page is the main topic. The parts that I am confusing: 'What you heard us say', etc. has to do with these questions about my self-typing. The post at the top of the page does not address these concerns and clearly addresses the problems with socionics and model A that have nothing to do with my qualms about my personal type. The problems I listed originally are universal, and go back even to 'The Dual Nature of Man.' They are therefore general in nature and have nothing to do with any specific function or type - which are issues that I simply did not want to talk about, but did because they were brought up...
    Last edited by jason_m; 05-23-2021 at 06:11 PM.

  27. #27
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BandD View Post
    You're un-aware of how the dual functions go with each other? Challenge accepted!

    Te is about all these moving external logic parts. It goes with Fi because it needs a solid relationship to hold it together or the entire thing is really just going to collapse in on itself. Te is like a flower, and Fi is the gardener. It needs to build a strong moral foundation and a serious relationship in order to sustain itself. It's why Te businesses use Fi 'Pc speak' that is dry and serious and uptight.
    Neither of the above ring true with me at all...

    EDIT: I've thought about this even more: Fi is to know what one likes, from whom, etc. That sounds like psychology. And that makes perfect sense for people in business - they need people who understand psychology so they know how to sell their products, appeal to people, determine their ideal markets, etc.. People in psychology often care about 'objective analysis', business, money, etc. because it is part of their trade. It makes me wonder if the two types go together because of psychology and business go hand in hand...


    Ne is about a bunch of possibilities and alternate ways of thinking. It goes with Si because it's so chaotic and erratic you just need something to smooth it all over or it's going to be more of an autistic mess then it already is. The way Ne jumps topics is very jarring and anti-empathetic. (also related why ILE's have Fi polr) Si is like the ultimate balancer or 'healer' - it's stereotypically linked to housewife-y caregiving crap because eating a good meal, getting enough sleep and not getting into arguements - are all things that usually balance the human body to a positive state of equanimity. (but on their own they don't usually bring a lot of professional success cuz Te polr in SEI's lol)
    This makes a lot of sense. I welcome people to take care of such things, but I also find that I am quite capable of doing this on my own... I really can go either way here...

    The Se/Ni relationship reminds me of the relationship between actors/actresses and their audience. Famous actors have often said things like 'I don't feel like I really exist unless other people see me.' It's about having a presence that's worthy enough to be analyzed mentally- to notice all the deeply interwoven layers. Se - when taken to extremes can be considered 'dark and evil' but Ni would analyze it and remember a time when the Se-ego bank robber was actually a nice, good person who was innocent and even fragile. Ni insightfully recognizes all the personal motivations, not just the superficial behavior of something.
    This sounds like an ethical function, and I wonder if something is confused in the theory.


    Ni is also about pure fantasy. Whether noble, gentle or heroic or sadistic, and fucked-up and weird. So IEI/ILI's Ni is often so strong- our fantasies become other people's realities. More so with IEI- because we don't have creative Te like ILI that can fool other people that we're being more logical or practical. ((god that creative function is such a Machiavellian manipulator- isn't it)) All 4 Dimensional functions are naturally like this, of course. Especially the lead, base ones. You can't help but fuck other people with them. You're good at it- but you also effectively "assault" other people with it.
    That sounds a lot like me... I have a huge fantasy life, but I come off as really logical on the outside...

    EDIT: Not trying to be a skeptic either... Just saying some of your descriptions resonate with me...
    Last edited by jason_m; 05-25-2021 at 09:52 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •