AOriginally Posted by To B or to B
-leading type who isn't interested in facts. Maybe we can define
as someone who does not convey emotion while we're at it.
I don't believe in Socionics so I'm finding this thread hilarious.
A
I don't believe in Socionics so I'm finding this thread hilarious.
Appropriating the math definition of proof and generalizing it:
Going back to this:A proof [in mathematics] is a convincing argument that some [mathematical] statement is true. A proof should contain enough [mathematical] detail to be convincing to the person(s) to whom the proof is addressed.
How is that post a convincing proof if you haven't clarified your reasoning, pointing out which parts of its make Maverick's PoLR equal to -Te/+Ti? You've basically been saying that 1+1=2 because 2=1+1. But we basically do not know what 1 is, which is this case could be behaviors or types of speech that Te PoLR presents or whatever else, assuming this is what you used to conclude her PoLR is Te. We can see the behavior you're seeing (which is 1), but we don't see how it adds up to 2 and you haven't clarified it. It's like you're affirming 1+1=3, which could be true, but you'd have to show which logic you're following to say that 1+1=3 (which would be proofing it).
If your proof assumes we know the same things you know, it's not a proof everyone can see.
Oh my god I'm stupid I wanted to edit the post and not reply it. Whatever.
Fix that PoLR Te.
The only polar I like is ice cream and bears and sunglasses.
Black & white is a shallow divide, division is the color that multiplies
Taking things at face value is good only for a spell
To experience is simple, to explain is divine
Hearts of stone are a dead giveaway: no movement
That was my Se PoLR, I'm unaware of my surroundings so I couldn't see my mouse was on the wrong button
Typology should be fun.
It has its merits. It works more or less.
Never let it work you.
Black & white is a shallow divide, division is the color that multiplies
Taking things at face value is good only for a spell
To experience is simple, to explain is divine
Hearts of stone are a dead giveaway: no movement
If I could game 5 socionics tests and successfully get EII results for all of them in the span of 20~ minutes, at that point, even if I'm truly not an EII, I should get the honorary title of 'EII' nevertheless for how well I know them and can impersonate themBut anyways, I'm not sure what subtype tbh. Prob Ne, maybe Normalising in DNCH but I'm not familiar in that system.
Fair enough.
Hmm, I mean, I view 'facts' as falling under the more general umbrella of 'objective evidence' which was the context I was using it in, so I think that's being a bit pedantic/specific in semantics but alright.
Not really, I'm pretty new to this forum, plus I'm not actively seeking to battle-type people, including you. When I battle-type someone, it's usually because that person was battle-typing others and I disagree with their conclusion, but once the other side calms down, I do too pretty quickly. Basically, what I'm trying to say is, I'm not really that interested in debating about your type. If you are LIE, then you are LIE.
Not about Fe, but about Fi sometimes is said nonsense that it's not about emotions.Maybe we can define
> I don't believe in Socionics
To believe is not needed. It needs to be used correctly to notice positive results. Correct theory and types of people. This is the problem.
While to believe is needed in exoterics as religions or astrology - as will not work in other case.
Socionics is psychology about _objective_ phenomenons. It has higher than accidental presence of phenomenons as types, what is seen in typing matches higher than 1/16 (~20% and mb higher for better trained users). IR needs expetimental proof still and it's possibly to do.
There are many (~30% in "civilized" places) of people who do not believe in round Earth or that it moves around the Sun. So, even experimental and open to anyone data may leave up to 1/3 of people who "do not believe" in something objective.
I don't think there can be any way of measuring practical utility of Socionics when there's no agreed upon standard.Not about Fe, but about Fi sometimes is said nonsense that it's not about emotions.
> I don't believe in Socionics
To believe is not needed. It needs to be used correctly to notice positive results. Correct theory and types of people. This is the problem.
While to believe is needed in exoterics as religions or astrology - as will not work in other case.
Socionics is psychology about _objective_ phenomenons. It has higher than accidental presence of phenomenons as types, what is seen in typing matches higher than 1/16 (~20% and mb higher for better trained users). IR needs expetimental proof still and it's possibly to do.
There are many (~30% in "civilized" places) of people who do not believe in round Earth or that it moves around the Sun. So, even experimental and open to anyone data may leave up to 1/3 of people who "do not believe" in something objective.
There is only patterns and data on the patterns.
Te or Ti are thinking modes in opposition and no one can view the cognition in first person on another type.
If you can understand that Te thinking looks like fitment of things logically in the environment like concrete facts, or noticing the room design is out of place and if the doorways were different it would accommodate traffic better.
It's organizing and putting things in the right order and understanding that things have a better idea value than another, because it fits better in that system.
You could say it looks like seeing where things should be by noticing patterns of movement in space.
It's motion thinking, where Ti is looking at the structure in non- moving forms.
There is no transposition of stepping into another types shoes and seeing it first hand.
It's like looking at subatomic particles and predicting what they are doing by models.
There never will be complete closure of modeling Te or Ti, just predicting what a particle is and where will it go.
It gets complicated when you have 8 functions arranged differently, adding in subtypes and Enneagram and you have a system complicated enough to where it takes years to understand fully.
Black & white is a shallow divide, division is the color that multiplies
Taking things at face value is good only for a spell
To experience is simple, to explain is divine
Hearts of stone are a dead giveaway: no movement
Your post gave me a vibe that made me think of this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWGk2R2gHEU
Alas, someone has shown me the error of my ways and revealed to me my One True Type(TM). I am SEI, welcome to my type me thread. I shall be your accommodating host, and you shall be my minions--err, I mean, my lovelies. Be happy with Fe and shit! Weee, mood atmosphere! Comforts for all *showers everyone with french fries*
Nope. Still here hunting you down, here on my own thread.
My. Such a high compliment. Thank you! As certified SEI, this makes me feel like I will be able to sleep very comfortably at night.
You should be comfy, too. Would you like a potato? Many people visit the ER with potatoes stuck in their asses, so I think many people must find sticking them up there to be comfortable.
Last time I checked, rabbits don't hunt eagles.Nope. Still here hunting you down, here on my own thread.
Save your low-level commentary for someone of the caliber that you are accustomed to interacting with. Not me.. Such a high compliment. Thank you! As certified SEI, this makes me feel like I will be able to sleep very comfortably at night.
You should be comfy, too. Would you like a potato? Many people visit the ER with potatoes stuck in their asses, so I think many people must find sticking them up there to be comfortable.
Then, the angel asked her what her name was. She said: "I have none"
How sad this is if she really is ESI-Se... never had this bad interaction with one. I wasn't the one that started it, that's for sure. It is no accomplishment.
Okay. I'm out.
Then, the angel asked her what her name was. She said: "I have none"
If you’re SEI then I’m Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln EII/LII? The guy feel Se polr
It's possibly to do by experiments alike: 1) correlation between skills/common behavior and types, 2) selfreports and physiological traits measure related to emotional state during communication/cooperation/perception, being in a long pair with people in different IR, 3) psyche traits changes from activity related to different 8 variants of functions, 4) how often marriage pairs break and how long stay, what is emotional state there with different IR.
To predict people behavior, abbilities, where they feel emotionally better, what activity influences on them better - examples of practical usefulness for Jung types. Those are possibly to be measured by selfreports and objectively.
To notice that people of concrete types have stable behavior and interests good fiting to theory of types would be possibly for you in case you'd understood types correctly enough. And you'd could to notice IR theory as good working on practice in case you'd understood correctly own type and types of other people. This would be subjective, but also a way to "measure practical utility".
Without correct types (and theory) you make the said "measure" but notice too significant contradictions: people behave not as expected by theory, sympathies exists not as expected by IR. As you can't see theory match, so stays only to believe irrationally or to reject the tool as non-wroking because you could not use it appropriately.
Not rare and mb common situation, as a part of the theory is doubtful indeed (Reinin traits etc), people prefer be limited in info for typing (without nonverbal VI) what reduces the accuracy, people do not check own types by IR with people near (so often mistake in own types and hence can't understand IR). People close eyes and start hit own fingers by a hammer instead of nails, and then say "we do not believe in that hammer".
> when there's no agreed upon standard
Results would relate to the used theory and methods. To concrete variants of Jung types model and its approaches of usage.
The "standard" which allowed me to notice IR as useful theory mainly was Filatova's and Jung's books. The trusty part of the theory is: 4 dichotomies, 8 definitions of functions (expanded interpretations should be filtered to undestandable links with these definitions), strong/weak functions, valued/nonvalued functions, supplementing/opposing functions (IR). In these borders the theory should to work, despite possible secondary minor variations.
To understand correct types is much easier on well-known people. For this is important to use besides logical analysis, nonverbal VI and to give tests for who is possible. The number of people should be >10. Very imporant are types of people which are remembered as most pleasant/annoying. This is enough to notice IR theory as useful - just takes some monthes. While, without appropriate approach you may see a mess as types which you think are often incorrect. To see it for years, as in your case.
Another thing. IR effects perception can be additionally distorted in some cases, - to make harder to notice positive/negative IR effects. I don't know the degree of this and not assured does it exist as were not many cases. The possible tendency can be to prefer (as the factor of additional sympathy) people of same functional clubs above opposite clubs, and mb sometimes to assign themselves wrong types with both opposite functions. The hypothetical example of risk categories for this are people with high egocentrism/narcissism and with homosexual traits.
-
To organise marriage service, where Jung types would be taken into account besides other common. To give people technics to help establish "joined minds" state and good cooperation, for what good IR help.
It will be possibly to calculate how often such pairs break, how long they exist. Mb to evaluate objectively emotional and other important traits of such pairs compared to average level.
This would be enough to show practical usefulness to "finger hiters" and to give the interest to academic psychology to check what happens.
I'd need a duality pair to take part in this to understand better "what it is" and what there to do. The same as I needed to identify types of people who I know good to agree with the theory, understand types and IR, useful methods.
Study to use a tool. Don't try to believe in it.
As you are on this forum - then you have an interest to understand.
Last edited by Sol; 05-13-2023 at 02:30 PM.
ENTJs need to work on being agreeable more. With Fi on the bottom it's either or, and Te knocks down anything antithetical to truth. It's like SLE moving through the environment battlefield to achieve ends with Se, Te knocks down things that are inefficient to Te systems, overall.
In the end it alienates, so i would suggest using Ni to see outcomes.
Those comments about superior and inferior positions are not seeing others as superior in some ways.
It wont win friends.
Last edited by Expansion; 05-13-2023 at 03:25 PM.
Black & white is a shallow divide, division is the color that multiplies
Taking things at face value is good only for a spell
To experience is simple, to explain is divine
Hearts of stone are a dead giveaway: no movement
My bf is LIE-Ni. Wasn't deliberate, sort of just happened. I'm pretty thick-skinned in some ways, but when it comes to my personal relationships, I'm quite sensitive in heart. He used to hurt my feelings a lot, but each time he saw the damage, he learned how to tread a little more softly each time. Simultaneously, I learned to be more patient and understanding with him, learned his personal patterns and struggles (like when he just needs a break to cool off before he will stop being my stubborn little shithead and become more receptive, or what his sensitivities are that I need to be careful with). We learned what approaches work best with each other. I learned to recognize his soft side that was under his Te-ish shell, and he learned to let it come out more. He's grown a lot, and I suppose I have, too. Our relationship used to be a bit toxic, but now we're very warm, tender, and gentle with each other, and I enjoy our relationship very much.
Idk, your post just made me think warmly about him. I miss him like crazy, can't wait until he is out of the army.
Lmao...I'm recalling the times when he would tell me about his conversations with someone else. Sometimes, he had said something insensitive to them (like when someone confided in him or something), and I was just like "WAIT, YOU SAID WHAT?! WHAT THE FUCK!" *Pulls out da Fi whip* He would just be solutions oriented and be overly hard on someone, so I would have to explain why it was fucked up, how that other person was probably feeling, explain the alternate approach they actually needed, show him what was wrong with the approach he took...then he would just sigh, then go back and fix it. I look back on those times and laugh warmly now.
Last edited by Fluffy Princess Unicorn; 05-13-2023 at 03:52 PM.
Keep it rolling. Not trolling. This is more proof you are ESI with LIE at the other end.
If lavos feels you are not ESI, basically because of the polarization, then: i'm polarized by strict SEI types with Fe subtypes. I'm not a rule follower. Half the time i cant remember them and sort of roll into them by accident and i say say, what a miracle i remembered it.
ESE can be knuckle crackers and some i roll with and others would be stifling. *Subtype alert*
Black & white is a shallow divide, division is the color that multiplies
Taking things at face value is good only for a spell
To experience is simple, to explain is divine
Hearts of stone are a dead giveaway: no movement
I wouldn't arrange marriages based on Socionics, nevermind my interpretation of it. There are better ways.
[QUOTE=To B or to B;1566554]Keep it rolling. Not trolling. This is more proof you are ESI with LIE at the other end.
Yeah, lol...tbh, I'm kind of an ESI-Se meme in most aspects. It fits so well that I couldn't possibly see myself as any other type. Even the RL aspects, as well as the internalized aspects (both of which you all are unable to see) almost perfectly describe me, despite the fact that I don't treat Socionics like it's my identity and then go around operating as though Socionics just lives through me, as many people who go too far down the rabbit hole do. I don't esteem any type as superior or inferior, I'm not biased about it like some in the community who take Socionics so seriously that it's practically their religion. I give no fucks what personality type I'm categorized as. Yet...just about everything about ESI-Se describes me with a surprising amount of precision. The walk, gaze, inward/outward dispositions and attitudes toward others, the way I dress, the "undemonstrative" nonverbals, my values, motives, just...practically all of the things that are found in the actual resources. Most people don't even disagree or oppose my type, so I'm guessing that it's obvious to them as well.
The ones who oppopse it are, in general, those who go off the deep end and try to type using their own theories that they invented. It's more like some entirely disparate branch of Socionics that they created. Alive, Sol, Lavos, VewwyScawwyNawcissist, and to some extent Adam, are the main ones who do this on this forum. They seem, to me, to have a vast schism between their minds and reality in general though, usually. I honestly feel empathy toward them in that sense, but I also know there is nothing I can do about it, so I just ignore because it gets annoying.
I'm definitely with you in that one. I sort of just do my own thing. I don't rebel against rules, I don't follow them, I just do my own thing and ignore them. Divergent, autonomous, and critical thinkers who are independent-minded and very outside-of-the-box, are easily misunderstood and frequently tend to be isolated socially.
When you describe them as stifling, are you referring to intimacy levels? I've noticed that ESIs may at times be demanding in that department due to our inner sensitivity.
100% this.
I don't understand how anyone could see it as a good idea to do this. It's such a calculative and impersonal way of handling the personal realm, which is the opposite of how the interpersonal relationship dynamics ought to be managed.
Besides, imagine finding out your partner or you were mistyped, and then you realize you're in love with your conflictor or something. What then, will that be a grounds for breaking up with your partner? What if you don't recognize the mistype for several years and you've gotten married to the person? What will these Socionics duality enthusiasts do in that situation? "Oh, sorry...I realized you're not my dual in some abstract pseudoscientific theory, so now we need to divorce."
The duality enthusiasts are always so clearly disconnected from reality. Their views make that transparent because almost everything they say is theoretical shit that doesn't work in actual practice, so it reveals they scarecely have RL experiences. With virtually no exceptions, they have the problem of spending all their time in their heads without really taking action or experiencing things in RL. The theoretical thinking realm only stays realistic, practical, and grounded, when there isn't an imbalance between mind and body.
ESE= some are strict and will be a critic, because you did the Zoom meeting with boxes behind you, instead of covering the boxes with something. It's Fe protocol stuff, on the surface. " Huff huff, did you see that, he didn't do something socially appropriate here for a meeting."
Other ESE are more flexible.
Black & white is a shallow divide, division is the color that multiplies
Taking things at face value is good only for a spell
To experience is simple, to explain is divine
Hearts of stone are a dead giveaway: no movement
Ahh ok, I see now. That makes more sense, as it's more of a Fe way of being "stifling" than being demanding about intimacy, which probably is more Fi.
Arranging marriages based on religion is expected from every religious people. They all base their marriages on the precepts of their religion. As we all know socionics has its own precepts and holy scriptures, therefore arranging marriages based on socionics might make one to syllogically conclude that socionics is a religion. However, as we all know, @Socionics Is Not A Cult !
@Subteigh
To understand the usefulness of Socionics (including for making emotionally good pairs) is enough to know correct types of well-known people and IR theory.
For this is needed to know popular Socionics texts, Filatova's book in English or a popular book about Socionics in Russian language. Also preferably to read Jung's book (I suspect you did this) to understand what part of the theory is more basic to trust it higher and hence rely opinions more.
Some mistakes in the secondary theory makes harder to understand correct types but do not prevent this. Where the worst nonsense is Reinin traits. Other significant harm is possible from usage of non-Socionics (which are not of Jung and Augustnavichiute) ideas about types.
You knew the needed theory since mid of 2000s and enough to understand the usefulness of nonverbal VI. So you had all the needed to understand correctly types of you, people near you and to check IR theory.
Even if you have additional obstacle to notice IR effects as those are for most of people - you only needed to find more types examples to understand IR. For what you had enough of time of >15 years.
The main reason why you (and others alike) still did not noticed IR theory as useful is because you did not use enough what you know about the typology to understand correct types of you and of needed number of good-known people. You make a couple of tryes instead of tens needed. There are more of mistakes when you are lesser critical to the used theory, when use lesser of useful data if exclude nonverbal VI (do not give tests to who you can), when have lesser of data if suppose types of not well-known people. More of mistakes just needed more of examples to see IR theory as working.
To now you know how to reduce mistakes and may to try to understand what you could not still.
Sometimes I have these moments in which I'm reminded of how much of an absolute fucking ESI meme I am, and then I almost feel somewhat guilty about how harshly I sometimes criticize Socionics.
Sometimes I have these moments in which I'm reminded of how much of an absolute fucking ESI meme I am, and then I almost feel somewhat guilty about how harshly I sometimes criticize Socionics.
I had a feeling you were ESI, you did dislike how I once said stuff as if they were absolutes, Te > Ti in valuing.
Lmao yeah, I don't recall the instances you're talking about, but I generally do hate overgeneralizations, absolutes, etc. I''m curious as to how you perceive this as being connected to Te>Ti valuing, because I haven't noticed any connections there. Wouldn't Te deal more with absolutes (because aren't they pretty much the same things as generalizations)?
Something I noticed in both Adam Strange and my boyfriend, which both type as LIE, is that they tend to overgeneralize a lot when I first meet them. It's REALLY off-putting for me as someone who deeply values diversity and individuality, and particularly dislikes anything that shoves humans into rigid categories. When my boyfriend and I met, I pushed him to learn to assume/generalize less, and listen more to the individual themselves (which, in this instance, was me...but) he has become more adept at patiently listening to people's hearts and minds by approaching them as though they are different and unique individual entities, instead of relying on past observations of patterns and generalizations about "how most people are". If I was going to develop a closer friendship with Adam, I'd (passionately) encourage him to do the same by pointing out why and how it's ethically wrong. It's a process that relies on my own willingness to be vulnerable and allow myself to be unintentionally hurt sometimes, then confront those instances by communicating what's happening and why it's hurtful to me.(I'm rather sensitive once people get close enough to move beyond my colder outer shell.)
If I think about it from a Socionics perspective, I could perceive this as somewhat muting the excessively relied upon Te/Ni a bit by helping to balance it with Fi, because one way the pattern based generalizations could be interpreted, is as if it's almost thinking like it's a collection of generalized data/statistics (Te) based on observations over time (Ni).
Last edited by Fluffy Princess Unicorn; 05-23-2023 at 05:13 PM.
Lately, I've passively noticed how much of a focus I have on Society and social norms. It's led me to suspect that I have Soc IV instinct instead of Sp second.
Anyway, back to Soc IV...in the past, I have often referred to myself as being sentry to others. Lately, though, I'm a bit resentful toward society, so I've been more selfish and calloused.
"I will walk this road forever, and stand guard against your name...I will give all I can offer, I will shoulder all the blame...I am sentry to you now, all your hopes and all your dreams...I will hold you to the light, that's what forever means..."
Last edited by Fluffy Princess Unicorn; 07-01-2023 at 04:28 AM.
Sp suits me more than Sx in this one.
Been thinking about the whole 8 not showing vulnerability thing, and I guess that's part of why I'm colder and harder until there's privacy and closer intimacy in a connection. I don't easily let someone have my softer insides. I'm not emotionally vulnerable from merely openly sharing, either, but I know some do feel that sharing makes them vulnerable. Vulnerability requires emotional investment. If I'm not emotionally invested in you, I just don't care what you think. If you're going to weaponize it, it's annoying, but it's not as though I value your opinion. It only means you're a douche-bag I'd rather delete from my life's journey.
Idk. I'm sort of like a lioness on the surface, but a kitten underneath...I'm cautious about letting others access the inner kitten.
Oh...and fun fact, Lion King lied to you all. Male lions don't run the pack, the lady lionesses do. Kind of was weird when I first learned that, because it basically means that Disney was just setting it up that way because at the time of its creation, the cultural normative way was the male patriarchy. Disney is a fucking sell-out and I've started hating them for it. They'll suck anyone's cock if it gets them attention and dollar bills.
Last edited by Fluffy Princess Unicorn; 07-02-2023 at 03:23 AM.
me but the exact opposite.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
