Resisting your suggestive function

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

wait wait wait.

You mean like, we all agree on definitions/understandings/meanings/foundational-knowledge? And go from there?

as opposed to

Everyone has their own interpretation?

Assuming that's what you mean, is it even possible at this point? I'd like it if we could talk about the actual foundations of it all and go from there, but it seems like the typology community doesn't want that.

Something like

Step 1: 8 types -> Leading function -> Start with Chapter X on pyschological Types
Step 2: 16 types -> Adds creative -> Something like Socionics. Talk about what people think Socionics has right or wrong and whether Jung "should" be improved or ignored or whether we are oversimplifying things with Socionics. For example, people often criticize Socionics for having Alpha bias because it was made by Alphas. We could go back to Jung and see how things are wrong or at least talk about it. (But maybe people have already done that and those people are gone, I don't know). At least people could actually say what's "different" between Socionics and Jung, without just saying "it builds upon it, so we can say it's different. Okay, what's different exactly?".
Step 3: 64 type -> Gulenko DCNH -> Build upon the 16. Start to actually explain the differences. Supposedly Dario Nardi supports Gulenko's typing system. But we can't really talk about this, until we talk about the other levels first. I'm open to Gulenko's subtypes, but I've largely ignored them because it's hard enough just trying to talk about Socionics 16 or even Jung's 8 types, let alone DCNH, lol.

It's like learning algrebra before calculus, right? Mathematics.

Isn’t what you are describing something you can do by yourself? Why do you need a typology community to tag along? Isn’t it just a bunch of randomers anyway?

[pzombieLIT]

Uhhh...well...I already do that by myself!

It's like the best way to learn! If you can teach a subject well, then you understand it well! If you can't, then you don't! But teachers don't learn to be good in a vacuum! And things are more fun with other people! (If they are good natured)

Is this making any sense??

[pzombieLIT]

But I get the hint.

[anotherperson]

you can resist your suggestive function in that you will become frustrated if forced to give your opinion on it

example is you have an ESI with suggestive Te, and you try to ask him: "what do you think is the best way to get this done?" he will just shrug. ask him again and he will probably tighten his lip. same goes for every type

[Kurt Gabin]

you can resist your suggestive function in that you will become frustrated if forced to give your opinion on it

example is you have an ESI with suggestive Te, and you try to ask him: "what do you think is the best way to get this done?" he will just shrug. ask him again and he will probably tighten his lip. same goes for every type

Suggestive is weak accepting, not producing function, of course it cannot answer quickly. In such cases producing creative and self-esteem functions replace suggestive, and ESI would be able to answer what can be done physically, which way is harder, or which one is safer. This does not mean that he would refuse to answer at all.

[Tallmo]

wait wait wait.

You mean like, we all agree on definitions/understandings/meanings/foundational-knowledge? And go from there?

as opposed to

Everyone has their own interpretation?

Assuming that's what you mean, is it even possible at this point? I'd like it if we could talk about the actual foundations of it all and go from there, but it seems like the typology community doesn't want that.

Something like

Step 1: 8 types -> Leading function -> Start with Chapter X on pyschological Types
Step 2: 16 types -> Adds creative -> Something like Socionics. Talk about what people think Socionics has right or wrong and whether Jung "should" be improved or ignored or whether we are oversimplifying things with Socionics. For example, people often criticize Socionics for having Alpha bias because it was made by Alphas. We could go back to Jung and see how things are wrong or at least talk about it. (But maybe people have already done that and those people are gone, I don't know). At least people could actually say what's "different" between Socionics and Jung, without just saying "it builds upon it, so we can say it's different. Okay, what's different exactly?".
Step 3: 64 type -> Gulenko DCNH -> Build upon the 16. Start to actually explain the differences. Supposedly Dario Nardi supports Gulenko's typing system. But we can't really talk about this, until we talk about the other levels first. I'm open to Gulenko's subtypes, but I've largely ignored them because it's hard enough just trying to talk about Socionics 16 or even Jung's 8 types, let alone DCNH, lol.

It's like learning algrebra before calculus, right? Mathematics.

Socionics has great stuff, like the relationships and DCNH. But it is too inaccurate in describing the functions. On the other hand, sometimes a dumbed down description can be helpful (for beginners). Socionics is also the only 16-types typology that actually gets the types right.

For learning the functions Jung is a must. He's on another level. But one should already have some experience of Socionics and people in real life to make reading him easier. But I see a lot of misunderstandings also. People who read him and just think that they get it but they never really understand what he's talking about.