Lawd have mercyOriginally Posted by Poptart
Yes
No
Lawd have mercy
Art
I too would like compensation
Ok but you’ll have to accept your status as a second class citizen (SxI).
No
Wise decision. I think you chose the right path (not that it’s my place as an SxI peasant to say so—I don’t have the Ni to draw such grand conclusions)
Watch with your small SEI intellect as I easily manage to receive compensation and remain a first-class citizen
If basic(!) theory and your practice do not match _regularly_ you should use the typology more appropriately.
Identify types more correctly, take into account other factors which may influence on a behavior.
Welcome to the alpha forum everybody.
Finally, a place where people will accept my superiority because everyone else thinks they're worth about as much as a potato.
You say that until you are deprived of sweet sweet Si. Then who is the superior one
You say that, until you are deprived of sweet sweet Si. Then who is the superior one
hey no one is gonna stop me from a diet consisting entirely of random things I find in the refrigerator.
You say that until a shitty piece of lettuce and a diet cola is staring you in the face and I finished making a hot home cooked stew. Have fun with your fridge and crappy intestines
The cooking thing...
Again, the SEI gets fully immersed / in character with whatever they are doing; this will manifest in them doing things completely and correctly (in *their own* way). Sometimes almost as if they are playing an instrument.
And again, I'm gonna use an example of me vs my dad; this time with making coffee.
I make coffee like a savage; throw some cream and sugar and mix a little stuff. Tastes okay.
My dad,
He will measure out the amount of cream and sugar to particular/exact amounts. He will test taste the coffee and calibrate to the proper bitterness or sweetness. He will take his time in doing this correctly.
His coffees taste AMAZING. Lol
Last edited by peteronfireee2; 07-22-2021 at 03:09 AM.
I think it's subjective what they decide to do correctly right? Like if SEI user doesn't care then they will be sloppy but if they do care then they will be exacting?
Yeah pretty much. What the Si-lead finds particularly important will vary from person to person
I'm using an example of SEIs at their best since we've already discussed fat over-indulging SEIs
Might as well throw yall some bones
Lol this is something I do. I really don't like to cook, but if I have to I'll make sure to take my time because everything has to be perfectly the way I liked it. Sometimes I wish I was one of those people who just threw some shit together but alas, that's not me.
Chronic "grass is always greener" syndrome
And I have given up when it comes to coffee. No way that I consume it.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
So basically before we get sidetracked again from the real discussion topic,
basically Si is a highly subjective function and it can be whatever the Si user wants it to be if I am understanding correctly. A focus on one particular thing (and since this function is subjective that can be whatever the user interprets) as opposed to the whole.
I know that it doesn't mean much but it is all I could take away from this thread so far...
You're just running to the same problem anybody runs into when they try to define socionics. It's essentially random because people don't understand the difference between a pet theory and reality
Alright, then how do we fix it? How do we define the difference between a pet theory and reality?
Do we need to observe human behaviors in a proper setting with a more proper psychological analysis?
Si is when good food
Well the truth will probably take a lot longer to come... As it needs professional (serious) analysis, data, controlled research accounting for variables, etc, to actually make any change... I am not invested in the theory enough to become a full time Socionical analysist. And I don't know anyone who is invested and serious enough in the theory either... So a dead end it may be...
If it makes you feel any better, serious data is hard to come by for any personality theory. I took a class in my uni and I was very surprised about how many different ones out there and how vague they can be. It is very hard to get data on anything subjective and create external measurement. My professor based each theory on a scales if they passed certain attributes of a solid theory. I wish this was taken more seriously and there was more serious funding behind personality theory psychology in general but, it seems until a legitimate analysis and ways of making subjective traits that can be measured in legitimate and external ways. The Big 5 is the main use of personality theory scale that is used by psychologists at the moment. We have a long ways to go.
But the Big 5 isn’t really a theory, is it? It doesn’t seem to have much explaining power at the moment. As I understand, it defines some dichotomies and tries to place people on a scale of them. Which to me sounds about as useful as the Enneagram once you ignore the mysticism; that is, not very much, unless more data is collected and correlated.
The big 5 is weird. Depending on the wording of questions, I either get 0 or 100% agreeableness, no in between. I lose point on openess because I think art is vapid and useless, I can't understand what it has to do with keeping an open mind, it's just stuff or noise.
That's just the problem with all those personality stuff. What is it, what means what, how should what be interpreted... it's just an endless pit of a bunch of perceptions contradicting each others, of people who can't agree on a common vision... but those disagreements and where importance is put are telling of personality in its own way.
Trauma and healing from trauma can also change drasticaly personality it seems, but does it changes it or simply covers it with something else, but can that something else be called personality too...
Note that I paint, draw, and write poetry, sometimes sing, even want to go some lyre someday. My stuff's as vapid and useless as all the rest.
It's the reverse of that. They gave people questions and then noted how people's answers to questions varied together and then put names (agreeableness/extraversion/etc.) to the clumps of correlated answers. So the data isn't made up but the connotations are.
Which amounts to essentially the same thing. There are many subjective questions you could ask that’ll get correlated answers. But interpreting that is another problem.
It’s obvious, I think, there are introverts and extraverts, for instance. But I’m not sure psychology has managed to determine much about this since Jung. And as much as psychology now dismisses Jung and Freud for a lack of empiricism, it doesn’t seem to be getting much better results.
While I personally don’t like the Big 5, it’s been the only scale to actually be able to measure personality traits empirically and the only scale to have witness these 5 traits cross culturally. I think as personality socionics nerds we view it as quite juvenile in comparison due to its lack of complexity. However, we seem to forget that personality theory in itself is not limited to categorizing people. There are some theories that look at the acquisition of traits. The Big 5 is also the only personality scale that is used in empirical psychological research.
While I really wish socionics and even MBTI was taken seriously for research and studying, it is really really hard to actually have people legitimately typed based on perception and the subjective aspect I’ve of it. With the Big 5 we can at least measure the strength of 5 traits and see how strong and weak they are much more objectively. People can also be mistyped. I mean, how much do we argue on here about others peoples types and perceptions? So, Big 5 remains king at the moment, at least in mainstream empirical psychology
Redefining Si seems like a whole new level of rationalization lol
People actually do this a lot to justify their self-typings.Redefining Si seems like a whole new level of rationalization lol
I guess the OP deserves points for phrasing it as a vague question rather than tacitly assuming it and running with it.
It's not my own self typing but my boyfriend's typing of me. sometimes wonder how he does it but of course he can't really explain how he types besides similar vibes and how that person is different in relation to him and his values because of low Fi apparently...
I self type Fe/Ti valuing feeling type. SEI>Beta NF>ESE I just think that I might be deluded in my own perception of Socionics as my boyfriend insists that I am SEI 100% just tbat I am not really caregiving in a physical sense or caring about homeostasis or anything like the descriptions because the descriptions are exaggerations apparently. The problem is that I don't really share all my thoughts and feelings with him because I know he would just be slightly annoyed and not even want to listen to whatever I have to say as he can't understand it and finds it tiring to hear me talk... So I gave up trying and kept my thoughts to myself, I couldn't really express myself in front of him, it just felt super awkward and I felt without support to freely express myself.
Also 2-3 other forum members insist that I am also 100% SEI...
Am I deluded?
Or is the theory at fault for focusing on behavior and not cognitive processes enough?
I just... Sometimes the world seems to be crashing down in on my own thoughts and self, invading me, making me feel small and insignificant and worthless, and I feel defenseless to stop it all and protect myself... As if I am not really much in control of my own self or my own being, as if maybe the only power I truly have left is in some distant dream, to perfect it and attempt to work towards it... In the hopes some small change can be effected before death, otherwise nothing will have truly mattered in my life and I will have been just some even smaller speck... But what if I am not strong enough to command myself externally to focus, what if I am not strong enough to do it all correctly, what if I fail?
There is no one to help me, no one to express myself to, just myself, but that's fine. I just need to accept myself somehow...
I truly think I may be deluded after all...
I thought Si was 'internal fields/statics? of objects' or something which is very much related to how you are you in harmony with the environment and how much you sense that in others. The homeostasis of everything etc. Si appears hard to define because the very nature of Si is so subtle and soothing it slips through most definitions.
The 'it just means you are a soft healer type person' is more of the SEI stereotype but LSE-Te courtroom judges have 3D valued creative Si for example and they are known for being pretty tough and harsh. It is because of how the other functions are aligned in the psyche that a SEI is usually that way- but other types and Deltas value/are strong at Si as well.
A Si/Fi valuer like SLI understands how things harmonize together in the environment very well but they value Fi too so will be more selective on who they show their affection and softness with (more aloof/distant) - not to mention they are thinking types. The innate harshness of their creative Te is also hardening up a lot of their Si.
SEIs have 4D ego Si... but Te polr and they value Fe not Fi so they seem more world wide adorable-ish. And they are feelers.
The stereotype of Si of giving you chicken noodle soup and asking if you've had enough to eat all the time - comes more from ESE's 3D valued creative Si- along with their Fe valuing and not Te valuing of LSE courtroom judge. ((they would ask their heterosexual wife or husband that question- but not the world.))
Male ESEs are less this way due to gender roles but it's like very common to have a ESE male ask you if you'd like another hot dog or beer when he's BBQing. Or I've seem them like laugh and recoil and try to dial back a little bit if they sense they are being too harsh with somebody and breaking up the homeostasis, even if they are naturally asshole males.
LIEs/EIEs don't care about this- with their Si polr they just often come across as prickly abrasive assholes even when they're not and they actually have a lot of sensitivity. LIEs naturally can't process the homeostasis of things very well... that's how they are able to be so successful at business cuz the business world requires being a shark and stepping on toes to get what u want of course (and a lot of Te and extroversion which they also have in spades).
Stereotypes might be uncouth, but you laugh because they're based on truth.
I understand being annoyed at stereotypes but I think people do observe these behaviors, and how people come across in a natural ghetto Se way based on how they are processing and metabiolizing information in their head etc.
Well the SEI I know IRL its not like she asks how everybody is feeling all the time and makes sure others are always comfortable, or makes food for strangers, or will wipe your butt for you- that is weirdly codependent and strange behavior. But just her presence is soft and inviting and accepting of others so naturally or something- she doesn't have to say a word- her body energy doesn't 'push' you away unlike LIE asshole business(wo)man energy.
o btw here's the methodology for the study:
"For the purposes of this work, semantic clusters of white sensing were analyzed by the author on 6663 initial questionnaire questions with known (tested on samples from 300 to 7000 people) socionic typical, characteristic and functional profiles. Clusters were collected further manually from about 1700 selected questions with an experimentally identified extreme (among other socionic functions) load on the BS. The questions were grouped into clusters on the basis of semantic similarity of the question formulations, but with the control of the predominant correlation of the typical profile of the issue under consideration with the profiles of other issues of this particular cluster. Subsequently, the finally obtained 104 semantic clusters of white sensorics were additionally broken down (with the involvement of funds from the EXCEL) by 15 groups (superclusters), but already proceeding from only one sign of similarity of their socionic profiles.
Initial sample profiles of 6663 questions were obtained using several self-paced socio-diagnostic questionnaires. Each typical profile consists of 16 numbers - one number for each of the 16 socionic psychotypes. Each number is equal to the deviation from the average population level (in fractions of the standard deviation of the gene population), which the representatives of this psychotype demonstrate in relation to the level of their agreement with this questionnaire statement. To calculate each number, as a rule, several questionnaires are used in which this questionnaire was tested. In this case, the final number is equal to the weighted average of the results of all questionnaires, taking into account the number of representatives of this type among their respondents. 16 numbers, forming a typical profile of the questionnaire, can be considered as diagnostic coefficients for the subsequent calculation of typical profiles of new respondents answering this and other questions of the next questionnaire. In this case, the complete typical profile of the respondent is formed from 16 linear correlation coefficients calculated between the vector of the respondent's answers to all the questions of the questionnaire (answers that have passed the normalization procedure) and 16 vectors of diagnostic coefficients, for each of the 16 types taken from the known typical profiles of the relevant questionnaire questions.
At the dawn of the author's work with socio-diagnostic questionnaires, namely a few years ago, at the beginning of the research program, the initial diagnostic coefficients of the questionnaires were completely obtained, in a first approximation, on the basis of sociotypes (one of 16 possible), previously announced by the test participants (taking into account also their likelihood, also declared by the respondents, as well as their declared own socionic experience). On the basis of the obtained coefficients, a typical diagnostics of the first stage was carried out, already irrespective of the declared types, which makes it possible to determine the types of all respondents, both having previously declared their types and not having declared them. At this stage, the declared psychotypes, grossly different from the newly diagnosed ones, were rejected, and the training procedure for obtaining diagnostic coefficients from the answers of respondents with pre-declared psychotypes was carried out anew. Then the diagnostics was carried out again using the refined coefficient system. The results of this diagnosis, already for all respondents in the sample, were used again to obtain a system of diagnostic coefficients for the diagnosis of each of the 16 psychotypes, but this was done without taking into account the declared types.
The resulting diagnostic coefficients were used for subsequent questionnaires using the same questions. The material accumulated with the new questionnaires was used to refine the previously obtained system of diagnostic coefficients. At the final stage, when all the material on all questionnaires had already been collected, an additional procedure for symmetrizing the diagnostic coefficients was carried out. The fact is that the system of diagnostic coefficients and the corresponding socionic typical profiles of all respondents obtained with its help deviate greatly from symmetry. This means that socionic features, which are supposed to be orthogonal (that is, correlated with each other with a zero correlation coefficient), in fact, on the array of all respondents, it is by no means orthogonal to be orthogonal - even after correcting (aligning) the sample, using a special mathematical-statistical procedure, for the inequality of the composition of the types represented in it. This deviation from orthogonality, outstanding socionic asymmetry, also applies to the basic (Jungian) features, and to an even greater extent it concerns the so-called. “Weak” 11 socionic signs of Reinin. So, for example, intuition in experience turns out to be strongly correlated with ethics and irrationality. In part, these "parasitic" correlations are justified and true, since they have an understandable physiological background, but in part they are in fact parasitic, since they are caused by imbalances in their psychotypes initially declared by the respondents (for example, some psychotypes are preferred by people more than others,
All these reasons, reflecting both the true asymmetry of socionic parameters, conditioned physiologically, and reflecting only artifacts of human mentality, add up to distortions of socionic features, giving rise to their deviation from mutual orthogonality. If this orthogonality in the system of diagnostic coefficients is completely eliminated artificially, then the average percentage of coincidence of the diagnosed types with the declared ones falls from about 62% to 50%. However, the new, subsequent systems of diagnostic coefficients obtained after this (based on the types newly diagnosed with their help) again gradually lead to the appearance of non-orthogonality of signs. This should already be considered as a true asymmetry of socionic parameters, restoring itself again and again.
Using recurrent procedures and weighted criteria for optimal symmetrization (on the one hand, maximizing the proportion of coincidence of the diagnosed types with the declared ones, and on the other, minimizing the mutual correlations of 15 socionic features), the author managed to arrive at a system of diagnostic coefficients, firstly, resistant to subsequent recurrent procedures of "self-learning" of this system, secondly, providing minimal correlations between socionic features, thirdly, while ensuring the proportion of coincidence between the typical diagnoses received and the types declared by the respondents is not worse than 58-59%. Thus, there is reason to believe that that this final system of diagnostic coefficients and the typical profiles of the subjects obtained with its help on any questionnaires best reflect the true structure of the alignment and relationships of socionic parameters in the population. For the purposes of this work, the socionic profiles of the questionnaire questions were used, obtained with the help of this particular system of diagnostic coefficients (we note, however, immediately that the use of an "uncorrected" system of diagnostic coefficients, based only on the types declared by the respondents and without any adjustments to the revealed characteristic asymmetry , leads to exactly the same conclusions regarding the identified clusters, with very insignificant shifts).
Throughout this article, "correlations" mean linear correlation coefficients.
"
Also I'm bad at reading things, the 1-15 thing isn't actually about how relevant it is, but in what "supercluster" it's in. So if you love animals, you probably love plants, etc. i'm not reading the rest of this though, my brain is not ready to translate the rest of this wall of text in actual english.
Edit: New fun correlations(stuff that if you have one you probably have the other):
Need for sleep and dislike of spicy foods
stretching and restless legs syndrome, and weakened sense of physical time
"He really does not like to formulate answers by answering questions - therefore, in a conversation, he often asks questions himself, so that he does not have to answer something himself and state his position. In conversations, he rarely answers questions - because he avoids declaring his opinion or challenging someone else's, so as not to generate a discussion or so as not to look stupid" and "slow verbal response", and is both are also correlated with hating the color red.
"green is a favorite color, in tune with the strings of the soul (correlated with a love of fiddling with growing plants)" mmm yes not correlated with anything else. Apparently most linked with SLI's and not at all SEI's
Things associated very strongly with SEI specifically:
"craving for comfort, significant concentration around him of all thoughts and interests"
"increased attention to gustatory sensations, their high sensitivity"
"focus on the sensations of your body, attention to all sorts of special sensations (with an emphasis on the dynamics of sensations or their unusualness)"
"a good sense of the signals of your body (with an emphasis on their pragmatism and their momentary statics)"
Like all of group 5, which is basically just apathy and going with the flow.
Last edited by Baqer; 07-22-2021 at 06:37 PM. Reason: i keep having to edit this because i'm bad
If you scroll back to the beginning of this thread it's near there, basically a study talanov did trying to figure out what Si is.
Was the study done to determine what Si is? I thought he was using correlations between types and their responses to his survey to come up with type profiles.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote