Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: [MODEL G] LII - CD/DC: A peculiar example

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Post [MODEL G] LII - CD/DC: A peculiar example

    Here you can read my last post analyzing logically a real example of an LII - CD/DC. It was published in r/Socionics.

    I've made some other posts helping to understand Model G if you want to check them. Just search in my profile.

    THE POST

    In the post "socion-quadra-temperament" Mr. WSS answered himself via a fake account with the pseudonym of "onehotsecondplease". So funny!
    Last edited by Reaktor; 01-31-2023 at 10:55 AM.

  2. #2
    Northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    TIM
    ISTP
    Posts
    2,129
    Mentioned
    241 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What's the difference between analizing someone logically as opposed to ethically?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northstar View Post
    What's the difference between analizing someone logically as opposed to ethically?
    Lol you didn't even opened the post yet commented so fast! Nice.

    I will gladly answer this question although I don't have to since I find it so obvious xD. Look, in order for socionics to be a science, you shall be able to define everything in a binary way. No shades of grey shall be made. It's (or-or). You can't analize someone via supositions. You can't analize someone guessing. You must look at deeds, facts, proofs. You must forget every feeling that this person causes you, you must forget every impression that it gives you or every prejudice.

    If you disagree with my point of view, I completely understand it! But please, don't answer. I don't want any debate. Nobody will change his mind. I respect your point of view completely and you should respect mine

    Have a nice day.

  4. #4
    Northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    TIM
    ISTP
    Posts
    2,129
    Mentioned
    241 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaktor View Post
    Lol you didn't even opened the post yet commented so fast! Nice.

    I will gladly answer this question although I don't have to since I find it so obvious xD. Look, in order for socionics to be a science, you shall be able to define everything in a binary way. No shades of grey shall be made. It's (or-or). You can't analize someone via supositions. You can't analize someone guessing. You must look at deeds, facts, proofs. You must forget every feeling that this person causes you, you must forget every impression that it gives you or every prejudice.

    If you disagree with my point of view, I completely understand it! But please, don't answer. I don't want any debate. Nobody will change his mind. I respect your point of view completely and you should respect mine

    Have a nice day.
    Actually I did open the post but I wanted to make the joke about anal-izing. I won't debate you but socionics is always subjective suppositions, prejudices and guessing things based on a limited set of observed behaviors, with probably baseless information elements thrown in.
    That being said, I think the portraits of types are interesting and capture a significant subset of the population, though on a somewhat surface level.
    Adding more dichotomies does increase resolution by splitting into more and more subtypes. All the "mathematical" theorycrafting is really silly to me, though.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northstar View Post
    Actually I did open the post but I wanted to make the joke about anal-izing. I won't debate you but socionics is always subjective suppositions, prejudices and guessing things based on a limited set of observed behaviors, with probably baseless information elements thrown in.
    That being said, I think the portraits of types are interesting and capture a significant subset of the population, though on a somewhat surface level.
    Adding more dichotomies does increase resolution by splitting into more and more subtypes. All the "mathematical" theorycrafting is really silly to me, though.
    Then, I suggest you to abandon socionics research and dedicate your skills to a subject in which you can be remarkable !

    By your way of reasoning I'm sure you already arrived to this conclusion.
    Last edited by Reaktor; 01-31-2023 at 11:05 AM.

  6. #6
    Northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    TIM
    ISTP
    Posts
    2,129
    Mentioned
    241 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaktor View Post
    Then, I suggest you to abandon socionics research and dedicate your skills to a subject in which you can be remarkable !

    By your way of reasoning I'm sure you already arrived to this conclusion.
    Yeah, theoretical socionics research is definitely nothing for me, however I can enjoy reading or hearing descriptions and characterizations of people.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northstar View Post
    Yeah, theoretical socionics research is definitely nothing for me, however I can enjoy reading or hearing descriptions and characterizations of people.
    You reminded me of my SLI roommate and life-long friend. He always love making ironic comments when people (friends only, since he's distant, not contact) make gramatical errors, etc.

    A funny anecdote:

    Some years ago, one friend of us was saying: "My mother always told me that you always have to tell fools they are right" and my SLI friend replied "Yes, you're right". It was so subtle that only a few got the joke

    My SLI friend always had troubles getting typed. He never related to the MBTi description of ISTJ nor the SLI description from Model A. Only when I told him about Model G, he started seeing correlation between him and SLI description according to Model G.
    He's an extremely skeptical individual and he has a lot of trust in his skills (at least that's what he shows). So, him agreeing on something is very strange and usually it is a very nice indicator. But, just like you, he's not interested in Socionics. He is interested in AI and automatized projects in the computer engineering field.

    Reacently I asked him about what's his trigger in order to start doing something. He told me that his trigger in order to gain motivation is to set an objective e.g "I will be in the top 5% of my promotion this year", and just for the sake of pride he MUST accomplish it, but he's aware that it's meaningless, in the end. He also usually procrastinates things until the very last moment. But when he starts working, nobody can stop him. He will spend whatever time it takes in order to fully understand what he's doing. Once he understands it, he's so confident that he will do it right that, for example, if a professor gives him a bad qualification eg (8/10 for him is bad) he will go and demand him to show him the exam because he's positive that the professor must have made a mistake. 9/10 times he's right.

    Do you relate to any of that? He's SLI-NH

  8. #8
    Northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    TIM
    ISTP
    Posts
    2,129
    Mentioned
    241 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaktor View Post
    You reminded me of my SLI roommate and life-long friend. He always love making ironic comments when people (friends only, since he's distant, not contact) make gramatical errors, etc.
    Yeah making fun of spelling and typing errors by taking them literally is pretty fun.

    A funny anecdote:

    Some years ago, one friend of us was saying: "My mother always told me that you always have to tell fools they are right" and my SLI friend replied "Yes, you're right". It was so subtle that only a few got the joke

    My SLI friend always had troubles getting typed. He never related to the MBTi description of ISTJ nor the SLI description from Model A. Only when I told him about Model G, he started seeing correlation between him and SLI description according to Model G.
    I have never related to the mbti ISTJ description at all, but ISTP is a very good fit when it comes to most descriptions of the type. Many SLI descriptions are a bit too much mushroom-picking hippie like, but the SLI-Te desc was pretty fitting as well as the SLI-D one.

    He's an extremely skeptical individual and he has a lot of trust in his skills (at least that's what he shows). So, him agreeing on something is very strange and usually it is a very nice indicator. But, just like you, he's not interested in Socionics. He is interested in AI and automatized projects in the computer engineering field.
    Disagreeing with people is just something I habitually do, usually they're wrong at least on some parts. It's maybe related to not wanting to show enthusiasm. When it comes to skepticism, I don't like being told anything that seems like it's not supported by empirical evidence. I refused to partake in any religion and walked out of religion classes as a kid (this was early 1990s, not sure if those exist anymore). Conspiracy theories usually annoy me greatly. Pseudoscience can be amusing but I take issue when it's tried to clothe as science. Describing people and assigning categories is fine, when it comes to anything mystical I'm out. One reason I don't like Jung. It has to be backed by solid science, not belief or guessing. I have worked with power plant and ship engines, hydraulic controllers, mining robots and now LIDAR data processing. The hype around AI annoys me a bit, it's just a tool and AI is nowhere near sentience.

    Reacently I asked him about what's his trigger in order to start doing something. He told me that his trigger in order to gain motivation is to set an objective e.g "I will be in the top 5% of my promotion this year", and just for the sake of pride he MUST accomplish it, but he's aware that it's meaningless, in the end. He also usually procrastinates things until the very last moment. But when he starts working, nobody can stop him. He will spend whatever time it takes in order to fully understand what he's doing. Once he understands it, he's so confident that he will do it right that, for example, if a professor gives him a bad qualification eg (8/10 for him is bad) he will go and demand him to show him the exam because he's positive that the professor must have made a mistake. 9/10 times he's right.

    Do you relate to any of that? He's SLI-NH
    I'm not sure about the trigger, I guess it's wanting to do good work and be proud of the quality. And being able to do things yourself. Quality is maybe the most important thing. I only buy durable quality items and often repair my cars myself because I don't often trust others to be as motivated to do good work. I can't stand incompetence and delivering subpar quality.
    When it comes to procrastination, that's the usual case. I postpone things to the last minute because it always feels like I still have time left and there's no hurry to do it now, it's more enjoyable to relax. But I will try to always hit deadlines, even if it's the last second. Sometimes it can take too much time because I haven't taken unexpected problems into account but adding margins and buffers is something I've learned with time. If I'm highly motivated to do something, then I will work until it's done even if it takes all night and improvise solutions if tools or parts are not available and stores have closed. I'll usually find a solution even if it seems impossible at first which has gotten me a reputation of a 'Doer' at work. But it's not a stable work output, mostly I just slack off and only energize when something triggers it. If I have to do something I usually try to read all information available about it to know as much as possible about it beforehand. But if those aren't available I might just dive in and figure it out as I go. I prefer to understand the best way to do it in advance, though. I'm a habitual google user and absorb information quickly. I didn't care much about grades in school but usually got good ones especially if it was something I was interested in. I always had top grades in history because I read the book from cover to cover on my own during classes instead of listening to the teacher. But if someone claims I got something wrong when I know I didn't, of course I will dispute that. Doing things right is a matter of pride and I don't let others teach me about it unless I'm absolutely convinced by them, that's rare though.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaktor View Post
    You reminded me of my SLI roommate and life-long friend. He always love making ironic comments when people (friends only, since he's distant, not contact) make gramatical errors, etc.

    A funny anecdote:

    Some years ago, one friend of us was saying: "My mother always told me that you always have to tell fools they are right" and my SLI friend replied "Yes, you're right". It was so subtle that only a few got the joke

    My SLI friend always had troubles getting typed. He never related to the MBTi description of ISTJ nor the SLI description from Model A. Only when I told him about Model G, he started seeing correlation between him and SLI description according to Model G.
    He's an extremely skeptical individual and he has a lot of trust in his skills (at least that's what he shows). So, him agreeing on something is very strange and usually it is a very nice indicator. But, just like you, he's not interested in Socionics. He is interested in AI and automatized projects in the computer engineering field.

    Reacently I asked him about what's his trigger in order to start doing something. He told me that his trigger in order to gain motivation is to set an objective e.g "I will be in the top 5% of my promotion this year", and just for the sake of pride he MUST accomplish it, but he's aware that it's meaningless, in the end. He also usually procrastinates things until the very last moment. But when he starts working, nobody can stop him. He will spend whatever time it takes in order to fully understand what he's doing. Once he understands it, he's so confident that he will do it right that, for example, if a professor gives him a bad qualification eg (8/10 for him is bad) he will go and demand him to show him the exam because he's positive that the professor must have made a mistake. 9/10 times he's right.

    Do you relate to any of that? He's SLI-NH
    An SLI into typology? Interesting, because SLI's are extremely rare in the realm of SHS. If anything, they're the least common type statistically according to SHS. Based on what I'm reading here, your friend's most likely an LSI. I'm seeing a lot of +L in his ideals, especially when it comes to being stubbornly right about his own logical skills in comparison to others. SHS SLI's aren't so stubborn and confident when it comes to their logic, if anything, they're more focused on maximizing their comfort and health.

    "'I will be in the top 5% of my promotion this year', and just for the sake of pride he MUST accomplish it,"
    Most likely a Central type. Central types often crave for something that can put them at the top of the game. Peripheral types aren't so competitive, they aren't that worried about being at top 5% of something, you can see why so many successful are typed Beta/Gamma by Gulenko. Having a strong feeling of confidence could potentially indicate a stronger energy F, which is anti-thesis of SLI's who have the weakest F in Model G alongside SEI's.

    "if a professor gives him a bad qualification eg (8/10 for him is bad) he will go and demand him to show him the exam because he's positive that the professor must have made a mistake. 9/10 times he's right."

    Seems like a competitive guy, definitely more LSI > SLI. LSI's are the ones who will investigate the mistakes of someone else and get proven right at the end of the day (+L lead).

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyNova20 View Post
    An SLI into typology? Interesting, because SLI's are extremely rare in the realm of SHS. If anything, they're the least common type statistically according to SHS. Based on what I'm reading here, your friend's most likely an LSI. I'm seeing a lot of +L in his ideals, especially when it comes to being stubbornly right about his own logical skills in comparison to others. SHS SLI's aren't so stubborn and confident when it comes to their logic, if anything, they're more focused on maximizing their comfort and health.

    "'I will be in the top 5% of my promotion this year', and just for the sake of pride he MUST accomplish it,"
    Most likely a Central type. Central types often crave for something that can put them at the top of the game. Peripheral types aren't so competitive, they aren't that worried about being at top 5% of something, you can see why so many successful are typed Beta/Gamma by Gulenko. Having a strong feeling of confidence could potentially indicate a stronger energy F, which is anti-thesis of SLI's who have the weakest F in Model G alongside SEI's.

    "if a professor gives him a bad qualification eg (8/10 for him is bad) he will go and demand him to show him the exam because he's positive that the professor must have made a mistake. 9/10 times he's right."

    Seems like a competitive guy, definitely more LSI > SLI. LSI's are the ones who will investigate the mistakes of someone else and get proven right at the end of the day (+L lead).
    You have no idea what you're talking about. With all my respect xD
    First of all, learn to read. He's not interested in typology. It's only me talking to him sometimes. He never searches anything on his own.

    Anyways, you can keep thinking whatever you want.
    Last edited by Reaktor; 01-31-2023 at 06:25 PM.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @SkyNova20

    You can either type by guessing, by "it's just that I feel like" or "he seems". And keep thinking that L+ is associated with being competent (At this point L+ can be logics, competitiveness, a shoe, a banana xDDDD)

    Or you can type like me and actually get a consistent result. You can type like ignorants, or you can type like inteligent people. You choose. One path is much easier than the other.

    I might be wrong in some of my typings (mostly the online ones, although nobody has sent me consistent proofs of being wrong yet) but I'm closer to the truth than you. That's for granted.
    Last edited by Reaktor; 01-31-2023 at 06:25 PM.

  12. #12
    Professional IEI Identifier on a peaceful hiatus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII-C
    Posts
    4,366
    Mentioned
    259 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaktor View Post
    You have no idea what you're talking about. With all my respect xD
    you must be over 18 years old to post on this site.
    my ideas about socionics:

    https://soziotypen.de/thoughts-on-socionics/

    the section will be updated ever other month or so.

    this is a VI thread with IEI examples

    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...-(IEI-edition)

    and this is a thread with EIE examples

    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...s-EIE-examples

  13. #13
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,235
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, SLIs seem to have this obsession to correct something. https://youtu.be/E-8EjM3GaYc?t=67

    But to me they usually miss the mark in interpretation of scenarios. Certain words (also in relation) generate alternative branches which might render some of their stuff quite awkward. Obviously there are ways to over complicate things...
    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

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alive View Post
    you must be over 18 years old to post on this site.
    That must be a Ni thing, true?

    Can I be like Cristiano Ronaldo if I manage to get Dominant subtype as an IEI? I'd rlly like that

  15. #15
    Pendulum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2022
    TIM
    the hanged man
    Posts
    44
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I like your posts but you're so quick to show hostility lol chill man, there's polite ways of disagreeing

  16. #16
    Pendulum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2022
    TIM
    the hanged man
    Posts
    44
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also that guy is clearly not Jack.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pendulum View Post
    Also that guy is clearly not Jack.
    In his profile, he usually only answers posts about dr. G, or when he is mentioned. Also he writes using a lot of british grammar, how Jack would do since he's british. He ignored completly the content of the post, only answered the comment in which he saw a personal attack, even changing the quote. When he saw I refered to him as "Jack", he could easily prove he's Not Jack and humiliate me in front of everyone who's reading, but he decided to ignore the post and use an emote. This is a very common way to avoid being questioned when caught lying according to science (to ignore and avoid talking). I took the risk of being "humiliated".

    In some post, he also linked a page made by Lao (This guy appeared as his friend in a debate vs Varlawend, he was the debate host).

    And as a final answer, read this using Jack's voice and tonality in your head:

    "What have you read from Model A? The impression I got from reading Augusta's stuff is that Gulenko's ideas aren't far removed in theory (though type examples are quite different), and personally I don't see a huge gap between A and G. It seems to me like most of the online infighting comes from people who are well-versed in one perspective, and have a rudimentary understanding of others."

    Also that "I don't see a huge gap between A and G" Jack always tells that. Is his main argument. And the pedantic words "rudimentary", "infighting"; "well-versed".

    In addition to all that, his reddit character is very similar to Jack IRL. I'd not be surprised if he was that dumb and made his fake acc looking at his IRL features. + he has no personality type associated, that's pretty strange in r/Socioncis.

    Anyways, this is just a hypothesis. But it's pretty solid.
    Last edited by Reaktor; 02-01-2023 at 11:48 AM.

  18. #18
    May look like an LSI, but -Te. Metaphor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    SEA
    TIM
    Te-LIE-NH
    Posts
    693
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    All of these seem to be theoretical, hypothetical and somewhat superficial methodology of applying DCNH into the realm of write-up. Despite it is true that, especially according to Lacan, the write-up of someone reflects your own personality, that doesn't necessarily mean it is a cogent premise to diagnose someone's Socionics type. As for example, if an LII has the Dominant subtype, it rather implies that they actualize their Te and Se, and accentuate their Fe but then, there is a likelihood to express their Ego-block elements. Hence then, by level-surface, they may appear to be similar akin to LSE, in terms of Socion, but it's rather that their Ego-block is alluded by these Te x Se + Fe elements thus strengthens their Ego to prod their ability in using both of Ti and Ne ego. Therefore, it's the fact that DCNH does not necessarily correlate to Socionics temperament either:

    Dominant: Te x Se + Fe (Ego)
    Creative: Ne x Fe + Se (ID)
    Normalizing: Ti x Si + Fi (Super-Ego)
    Harmonizing: Ni x Fi + Si (Super-ID)
    Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    All of these seem to be theoretical, hypothetical and somewhat superficial methodology of applying DCNH into the realm of write-up. Despite it is true that, especially according to Lacan, the write-up of someone reflects your own personality, that doesn't necessarily mean it is a cogent premise to diagnose someone's Socionics type. As for example, if an LII has the Dominant subtype, it rather implies that they actualize their Te and Se, and accentuate their Fe but then, there is a likelihood to express their Ego-block elements. Hence then, by level-surface, they may appear to be similar akin to LSE, in terms of Socion, but it's rather that their Ego-block is alluded by these Te x Se + Fe elements thus strengthens their Ego to prod their ability in using both of Ti and Ne ego. Therefore, it's the fact that DCNH does not necessarily correlate to Socionics temperament either:
    I really suggest you to stop reading Lacan, or any post-structuralist authors such as Foucault or Derrida. Don't lose your time, 80% of what they say it's bullsh1t. Or, if you read them, read them as if you're reading Harry Potter or LOTR books. Read them as a novel.

    "the write-up of someone reflects your own personality" hahahahaha. hahahaha. I wish Lacan was alive so I could laugh like that in his face. Of course it reflects your personality lmao. It's so obvious. EVERYTHING YOU DO reflects your own personality, because it's done by YOU.

    Look, if you want to buy air, buy it. But don't sell it to me. You won't fool me (to Lacan). If I hear an author saying that the language is useless, I would run as fast as possible from there. It's the same as if now I say, for example: "No, but maths are a social construct. They are subjective, we built them in order to understand reality". I think Einstein himself would come from the deaths and slap me in the face. And what he proposed? What he proposed?? ah? Nothing. It's easy to point out social constructs, and to talk with big pauses, good intonation and to fool the idiots. But you won't fool me, that's for sure (Lacan).

    All languages are tools used for understanding and reading reality. And tools are technologies. So the languages are technologies, and all technologies improve by time, and others dissapear because they are obsolete. What social construct idiot? What social construct? Everything is a social construct then, even what you're saying. And the other idiots "The death of the author"... pffff it just enrages me so much. HOW CAN THE AUTHOR BE DEAD IF HE HAS BUILDED THE IDEAS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK, THESE ARE A REFLEX OF HIS OWN. DOESN'T THAT CONTRADICT THE FIRST SENTENCE?

    In the future I might make a post against post-structuralists, but not now.

    Oh, and also, don't try to understand Model G DCNH through Model A. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. You need to understand Model G functional-energetical-wise. Via supply-demand. LIIs or LSIs with an P-E-F accentuation implies a high energetical comsumption. They will perform worse in the long-term against a LIE with the Dominant subtype, for example.

    And DCNH DOES correlate with Temperaments, omg. Look, let's forget the functions. Let's use our brains: what wants the dominant subtype the most? To reach his goals, to be the first. Which temperament helps reaching goals or being the first as fast as possible? LINEAR- ASSERTIVE

    What's the biggest desire of the creative subtype? To be original, to stand out, to be recognized. Which temperament helps doing that? FLEXIBLE-ADAPTIVE. I think you already understand xD.

    For further reading on the topic of DCNH-TEMPERAMENT:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Socionics/c..._temperaments/

    Edit: Please, don't take this post as an attack. It's the last of my intentions to attack you.
    Last edited by Reaktor; 02-04-2023 at 05:46 AM.

  20. #20
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaktor View Post
    and personally I don't see a huge gap between A and G
    There is an essential gap between A and G. A is mostly inline with Jung. I consider Model A as a development of Jungian typology and A's texts are generally good materials helping us to understand Jung. On the other hand, Model G is not Jungian. Model G, MBTI and Big Five fail to understand what Jung means by introversion and they all hold a similar perspective to Eysenck. So indeed, Model G, MBTI and Big Five are considered as Eysenckian typologies, which are against Jungian typology.

  21. #21
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    LIIs have this stereotype of being conflict-avoidant, non-pugnacious, passive, low-determined, etc.
    Don't read stereotypes. Most stereotypes are not accurate, no matter whether it's in MBTI, Model A or Model G. There are many reasons to reject stereotypes. For example, LIIs in antient times are different from LIIs nowadays in many ways. So stereotypes are highly influenced by the time. Also, stereotypes are highly influenced by cultures.

    I saw people typing him as an "INTJ" from the MyerB. standards
    The most traditional representative of "LII" in Model A is Maximilien Robespierre. I also see people typing him as "INTJ" in MBTI (although MBTI is generally full of errors IMO). Also Robespierre is not as low-determined as your "stereotypes".

    After that, when I firstly began to read wikisocion websyte and a new world of possibilities was unlocked for me, I tried to fit him into some category, but it just didn't made sense. I tried IEI, ILI, LII... but none of these fit him (Model A), there was something missing. None of these convinced me.
    Have you ever thought about why Robespierre is LII?

    when I was first introduced to the Myers-B. community, a year and a half ago or so
    You probably need more time to read Jung and Model A in order to understand Jungian typologies better.

    Model G had to come into rescue, if you split all the dychotomies in Model G + subtype ones, you 10/10 times will end in this diagnosis: LII-CD/DC
    Subtypes do exist. But you could also use subtypes to rescues mistypings. In MBTI there are also many subtype systems and I think it's mostly due to the fact that MBTI fail to type people at all.

    But let's start analizing why he is LII in the first place:
    Have you used Jungian fuctions / Information Elements to analyse him? Oh you believe that functional analysis is not needed. However, you need to understand arithmetic in order to learn algebra. You need to understand high school algebra in order to learn calculus and linear algebra.

    Based on your post it seems that you mostly type according to stereotypes and descriptions.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @CR400AF

    Look, first of all, thank you for your comment. Although I find it very exhausting to read and to answer, because you dedicated so little time in analizing what you were writing, I will still going to answer your criticism here. It will be helpful for future readers.

    In your first message you say Model G is considered and "Eysenckian typology". By who? Maybe by you? And who are you? Where is exactly Hans Eynsenck mentioned by Gulenko as an influence for him?

    Okay, that being said if Model A is so inline with Jung, as you proudly manifest; where is Rationality-Irrationality before Reinin in A? And why these traits are not that important? Why in Model G rationality-irrationality dychotomy is given more protagonism than in Model A, if A is "so inline"?

    And where exactly G. fail to understand "Introversion"? Quote of Gulenko's book: "The introverted type accumulates more energy and information than it gives out. Therefore, the introvert usually makes less-thanaverage effort to achieve a fixed result". How does that differ from Jung's definition of introversion? Maybe you fail to understand what "energy" is in Model G. And if Model G is not jungian, why Jung said that introversion-extraversion are present in every individual, despite one trait being dominant and Model G clearly explained that with "externalities-internalities" dychotomy? And this is not the same as Bold-Cautious.

    Look, if you want to fool yourself and keep standing in the Titanic while it sinks, do it. But don't try to fool me to stay, because I'm already in the lifeboat.

    About your 2nd post:


    "
    Don't read stereotypes. Most stereotypes are not accurate, no matter whether it's in MBTI, Model A or Model G. There are many reasons to reject stereotypes. For example, LIIs in antient times are different from LIIs nowadays in many ways. So stereotypes are highly influenced by the time. Also, stereotypes are highly influenced by cultures."

    In what moment did I read any stereotype and said I took it seriously? Why you're interpreting my words and not read them objectivelly by what they mean. So if some day I say "Hello" to you, you might interpret that as an attack or something? xD. What the fuck are you talking about hahaha. I only mentioned stereotypes as a critique, not as something to take in account when typing someone lol.

    "
    Subtypes do exist. But you could also use subtypes to rescues mistypings. In MBTI there are also many subtype systems and I think it's mostly due to the fact that MBTI fail to type people at all."
    This is a very very nice critique, and I was planning on making a post in the future. For the moment I'll just answer this: Yes, you could rescue mistypings using subtypes wrongly. But, as you cleverly pointed out, subtypes do exist, and the existance of subtypes implies a modification of one's own core type on the surface layers of personality. So, if you look so much at the functions, are you really an LII? Or you're just an individual with accentuated Logic and Intuition? I would like to observe you IRL and prove my point, although I'm honestly 0 interested in that. I'm not willing to lose my time. But time itself will prove my point.

    "
    Have you used Jungian fuctions / Information Elements to analyse him? Oh you believe that functional analysis is not needed. However, you need to understand arithmetic in order to learn algebra. You need to understand high school algebra in order to learn calculus and linear algebra. Based on your post it seems that you mostly type according to stereotypes and descriptions."

    If you've readed my post, I'm sure you've read the "Essential Note nº 2". As the name indicates, it is an essential note to read !! Look, Model G dychotomies and ALL DYCHOTOMIES in socionics are built around functional accentuation. Eg. Holographic form of thinking implies having L-.

    So yes, @CR400AF, I completely agree with you: "
    You probably need more time to read Jung and Model A in order to understand Jungian typologies better.". I guess you made a little mistake on the personal number of the phrase. You used 2nd person instead of 1st person!.

    My conlcusion is that you're very good at interpreting the reality as your own. You and Foucault, Derrida or Nietzche would be really really good friends. But please, If you like to read reality like that, don't criticise people who look at the reality from a materalistic POV, as it is. I suggest you to write books like Harry Potter, LOTR, GoT. Write fiction. And mark what you write as fiction, otherwise, people with low critical capacity will believe you. And that's dangerous, just like some guy in 1930 believed what Nietzche wrote and tried to apply it in reality, with the results we all know. Use your skills wisefully!

    Have a nice day
    Last edited by Reaktor; 02-05-2023 at 05:09 PM.

  23. #23
    May look like an LSI, but -Te. Metaphor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    SEA
    TIM
    Te-LIE-NH
    Posts
    693
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaktor View Post
    I really suggest you to stop reading Lacan, or any post-structuralist authors such as Foucault or Derrida. Don't lose your time, 80% of what they say it's bullsh1t. Or, if you read them, read them as if you're reading Harry Potter or LOTR books. Read them as a novel.

    "the write-up of someone reflects your own personality" hahahahaha. hahahaha. I wish Lacan was alive so I could laugh like that in his face. Of course it reflects your personality lmao. It's so obvious. EVERYTHING YOU DO reflects your own personality, because it's done by YOU.

    Look, if you want to buy air, buy it. But don't sell it to me. You won't fool me (to Lacan). If I hear an author saying that the language is useless, I would run as fast as possible from there. It's the same as if now I say, for example: "No, but maths are a social construct. They are subjective, we built them in order to understand reality". I think Einstein himself would come from the deaths and slap me in the face. And what he proposed? What he proposed?? ah? Nothing. It's easy to point out social constructs, and to talk with big pauses, good intonation and to fool the idiots. But you won't fool me, that's for sure (Lacan).

    All languages are tools used for understanding and reading reality. And tools are technologies. So the languages are technologies, and all technologies improve by time, and others dissapear because they are obsolete. What social construct idiot? What social construct? Everything is a social construct then, even what you're saying. And the other idiots "The death of the author"... pffff it just enrages me so much. HOW CAN THE AUTHOR BE DEAD IF HE HAS BUILDED THE IDEAS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK, THESE ARE A REFLEX OF HIS OWN. DOESN'T THAT CONTRADICT THE FIRST SENTENCE?

    In the future I might make a post against post-structuralists, but not now.

    Oh, and also, don't try to understand Model G DCNH through Model A. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. You need to understand Model G functional-energetical-wise. Via supply-demand. LIIs or LSIs with an P-E-F accentuation implies a high energetical comsumption. They will perform worse in the long-term against a LIE with the Dominant subtype, for example.

    And DCNH DOES correlate with Temperaments, omg. Look, let's forget the functions. Let's use our brains: what wants the dominant subtype the most? To reach his goals, to be the first. Which temperament helps reaching goals or being the first as fast as possible? LINEAR- ASSERTIVE

    What's the biggest desire of the creative subtype? To be original, to stand out, to be recognized. Which temperament helps doing that? FLEXIBLE-ADAPTIVE. I think you already understand xD.

    For further reading on the topic of DCNH-TEMPERAMENT:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Socionics/c..._temperaments/

    Edit: Please, don't take this post as an attack. It's the last of my intentions to attack you.
    I have no intention to argue but then you asked the others, including me, to know what they think about it. Therefore, I gave you yet another critic, which was the one that you have yet responded for no viable reason. Thus, I would suggest you to read Deleuze (in fact, I haven't read Deridda or Foucault), especially about Capitalism and Schizophrenia then think it by yourself, not using these baseless theories as the fundamental understanding for applying Socionics as it is. If you don't accept the criticism constructively, embrace your own shortcoming. It is important to be more open-minded and refrain from criticizing others based on their flaws of their own character as a person, because it is important for one to not be humiliated by the reasoning based on rationality, thus not being offended by such kind of critic that is hardly harmful to damage someone's mentality. Also, to address your own opinion about DCNH correlations, it's the fact that there is something not necessarily accurate about its application, not to mention that around 80-90% of DCNH Socion descriptions aren't inaccurate as it only adds temperaments and boosted functions instead of those trying to describe the quality of each subtype and the way it behaves and I know what I'm talking about on this one. In fact, Beta quadra is considered to be the most common by around 40-45% according to the statistics of world population I have received from G's students. Hence then, it means that there is something wrong about Model G, including that theory about temperament correlates to DCNH. Therefore, by using your logic that a type behaves like a certain temperament, doesn't that mean they are type of temperament, then? Or else, if someone is clearly an IP temperament but then is typed according to Model G as an EIE-H, for instance, doesn't that mean such person isn't an EIE and therefore mistyped, then? Think about it. I never took your post as an attack - discussion is needed to reach the most accurate interpretation.
    Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    I have no intention to argue but then you asked the others, including me, to know what they think about it. Therefore, I gave you yet another critic, which was the one that you have yet responded for no viable reason. Thus, I would suggest you to read Deleuze (in fact, I haven't read Deridda or Foucault), especially about Capitalism and Schizophrenia then think it by yourself, not using these baseless theories as the fundamental understanding for applying Socionics as it is. If you don't accept the criticism constructively, embrace your own shortcoming. It is important to be more open-minded and refrain from criticizing others based on their flaws of their own character as a person, because it is important for one to not be humiliated by the reasoning based on rationality, thus not being offended by such kind of critic that is hardly harmful to damage someone's mentality. Also, to address your own opinion about DCNH correlations, it's the fact that there is something not necessarily accurate about its application, not to mention that around 80-90% of DCNH Socion descriptions aren't inaccurate as it only adds temperaments and boosted functions instead of those trying to describe the quality of each subtype and the way it behaves and I know what I'm talking about on this one. In fact, Beta quadra is considered to be the most common by around 40-45% according to the statistics of world population I have received from G's students. Hence then, it means that there is something wrong about Model G, including that theory about temperament correlates to DCNH. Therefore, by using your logic that a type behaves like a certain temperament, doesn't that mean they are type of temperament, then? Or else, if someone is clearly an IP temperament but then is typed according to Model G as an EIE-H, for instance, doesn't that mean such person isn't an EIE and therefore mistyped, then? Think about it. I never took your post as an attack - discussion is needed to reach the most accurate interpretation.
    Please, learn to write texts more shortly. All that you wrote can be summarised in 3 lines.

    Look, when you post a critique, you must be open to a counter-critique, which I did, and you did not respond. So I guess we can determine which one is more cognitively and argumentatively heavy.

    "Therefore, by using your logic that a type behaves like a certain temperament, doesn't that mean they are type of temperament, then? Or else, if someone is clearly an IP temperament but then is typed according to Model G as an EIE-H, for instance, doesn't that mean such person isn't an EIE and therefore mistyped, then? Think about it. I never took your post as an attack - discussion is needed to reach the most accurate interpretation."

    This is the only nice thing. And I'll answer it now: Look, If you have read Model G, I guess you know how temperaments are formed: Dominant = E+P+(F), etc. And dominant subtype enhances Linear-Assertive temperament. So, it's very logical to think that the linear assertive temperament has something to do with E or P, isn't it? Or it's only me.

    Okay, that being said; Why isn't an EIE, despite having linear-assertive core temperament, necessarily a Dominant subtype?

    Look, I think you understand temperaments as black o white; you either got one or another. That's a reductionism. Individuals are complicated, we have behind us more than 200k years of evolution. Nature shaped us complicatedly. If, for example, you grow up in a competitive world (ours) and your life path places you as a teacher, you being an LSI, you either addapt or die. You either develop Ethic Of Emotions in order to engage your students at a macro-communicative level or you get fired. But developing Ethics of Emotions automatically places u in the Dominant Subtype or Creative Subtype sphere?

    NO!!! Subtypes MUST be understood as an idyosyncracy itself. Dominant has a goal and works to reach it as fast as possible. He wants success in order to achieve that goal or objective. He's though. And what does help that idyosyncracy to succeed? Ethics of Emotions and Business Logic, with Force of Sensation. In the future we will be able to describe Dominant subtype or any other subtypes more precizely and explain what's behind that idyosincracy? Yes. Because for example, SLE has F+P+E pretty avalible on his functional stack but still it's not mandatory that he is a Dominant subtype. The question now is to search what's behind that idyosyncracy. And I have 0 contact with any Gulenko's student or SHS. IT'S PURE REASONING. USE UR BRAIN!!! This conclusion purely came from my rationality.

    Because, I'm sure you're more experienced in socionics than me. 100%. So you yourself must have came to the conclusion that any type can be more active, more passive, more pruporseful etc. Setting appart their own core limitations by the type. (Also, I would love to see an example of someone who has clearly IP temperament being typed as an EIE, in order to see how you understand temperaments xD, becuase there is the definition and I find it quite simple. If you could handle that source please).

    My biggest struggle RN is to understand how to diferentiate the core temperament with the subtype temperament accentuation. In order to type people only visually, ofc if we add an interview, you have the dychotomies in order to unblurr your image.

    "
    In fact, Beta quadra is considered to be the most common by around 40-45% according to the statistics of world population I have received from G's students. Hence then, it means that there is something wrong about Model G"

    "Today the sky was grey, it was no blue. Hence that means that the sky is not blue". Come on, @Metaphor, I though you were more clever than that. How can you make these conclusions without knowing: how is the type formed, where is SHS searching for the types, how big is the population mean, etc.

    So, the fact that in Japan, the vast majority of people at the macro-social level seem to be Normalizing subtypes. Or in California, at the macro-social level everyone seem Creative subtype. And all German population seem boring LSIs, or why people is happier and more opened to people in southern Europe than in Northern europe?

    Look how much variables there are. How is the type formed? How does the sun affect the type formation, how does the diet affect? These statistics are mere hypothesis, we should have the same mean from all arround the world, and to see if Beta is the most common among all countries. And if that was true, what's the problem? Isn't that logic? Why through hystory beta-quadra was the most dominant? Is it a competence factor, or maybe the commonness of this quadra helps too? hmm. Interesting.

    Don't judge Model G without thinking. And no, Model G is not the final result, it's not perfect. But it's the base from which we need to advance.



  25. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Metaphor

    Sorry for my tone. I 100% agree with you that we need discussion in order to advance. Because sometimes our ego makes us defending a theory just for the sake of not accepting that we lost a lot of time studying it and in the end is useless or it has big flaws. Discussion and critiques helps us shaping the best theory. But when I answer, I easily get excited. I have a clear Ethics of Emotions accentuation. Don't mark me as an enemy, please, but as an ally.

  26. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaktor View Post
    Here you can read my last post analyzing logically a real example of an LII
    If you know a human a little, the kind of behavior you may use as the only or main kind is nonverbal. By intuitive impressions from it, pointing to more possible types traits.
    In other cases you lack the important data and the data is doubtful. When also a human knows types theory - he may also filter and distort anything in any degree to trust that.

    With a practice you'd understood the problem. Being a naive novice you perceive the situation as too pinky and so overesteemate results you are geting.
    To identify types (on acceptable level) of not well known people by today methods takes years for tens, sometimes hundreds of people typed IRL, plus trying that for people which have good presense in medias.
    Start with people who you know very good IRL. Watch for monthes how their behavior fits to expected for types, how IR and their effects influence on you and relations between those people. Gather factual data about types of people near you. Only then you may hope adequately to use types in much harder conditions of typing not well-known people, especially known by Internet or medias only. With initial skills you may assume types of anyone, just take into account the possibility to mistake is much higher - alike ~20-40% accuracy against ~80% for well known people.

    "I've made some other posts helping to understand Model G"

    "Model G" is not Socionics. The appropriate place for such hypotheses is "Viewpoints" section.
    If "Model G" will get something objective to trust it - then mb that will become interesting.

  27. #27
    May look like an LSI, but -Te. Metaphor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    SEA
    TIM
    Te-LIE-NH
    Posts
    693
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Please, learn to write texts more shortly. All that you wrote can be summarised in 3 lines."

    There needs to be a process in doing something and it is necessary to get into details of point to explain the main one.

    "Look, when you post a critique, you must be open to a counter-critique, which I did, and you did not respond. So I guess we can determine which one is more cognitively and argumentatively heavy."

    As I said before, I have no intention to argue but sure.


    "This is the only nice thing. And I'll answer it now: Look, If you have read Model G, I guess you know how temperaments are formed: Dominant = E+P+(F), etc. And dominant subtype enhances Linear-Assertive temperament. So, it's very logical to think that the linear assertive temperament has something to do with E or P, isn't it? Or it's only me."

    It changes the behavior of type according to the temperament but it doesn't change the temperament on itself.
    Let just take a case, for example, SEE-H may appear to have an IP behavior at work and or relationship, but is more active than IP types overall.

    "Look, I think you understand temperaments as black o white; you either got one or another. That's a reductionism. Individuals are complicated, we have behind us more than 200k years of evolution. Nature shaped us complicatedly. If, for example, you grow up in a competitive world (ours) and your life path places you as a teacher, you being an LSI, you either addapt or die. You either develop Ethic Of Emotions in order to engage your students at a macro-communicative level or you get fired. But developing Ethics of Emotions automatically places u in the Dominant Subtype or Creative Subtype sphere?"

    This is why OA-Shift theory exists or rather, Adaptive Quadra Socion theory which made upon the premise that the external stimuli of environment affects the society in a form of Quadra thus causes the change of individuals who live on the same group of people. So, for example, when an LSE moves from a society to another, this implies that they would prefer for assuming a role to be accepted into a society. And on that case, depends on Quadra, they take a role that is similar to their own type (e.g. Te-LIE if Gamma Quadra).

    "NO!!! Subtypes MUST be understood as an idyosyncracy itself. Dominant has a goal and works to reach it as fast as possible. He wants success in order to achieve that goal or objective. He's though. And what does help that idyosyncracy to succeed? Ethics of Emotions and Business Logic, with Force of Sensation. In the future we will be able to describe Dominant subtype or any other subtypes more precizely and explain what's behind that idyosincracy? Yes. Because for example, SLE has F+P+E pretty avalible on his functional stack but still it's not mandatory that he is a Dominant subtype. The question now is to search what's behind that idyosyncracy. And I have 0 contact with any Gulenko's student or SHS. IT'S PURE REASONING. USE UR BRAIN!!! This conclusion purely came from my rationality."

    It honestly doesn't work like that. There has to be some observable qualities in each DCNH. Gulenko described that Gamma is mostly suitable for C subtype, in which I don't agree but true to a certain extent because their need of individuality that isn't determined by group or clique. For the details, there also are some articles on wikisocion that explain these 'observable qualities' but concisely, If were to take ILI as for the example, ILI-D at work is the one who innovates a complex system into a more efficient and secure but simple scheme. And from here, you see such figures as Charles Darwin, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Karl Marx for instance. ILI-C is the one who creates new theories that work in practice, and they are called as the inventor that often comes up with interesting ideas such as Marie Curie, Augusta Aushra, and Honore De Balzac. ILI-N is the one who stabilizes the creation of order, or rather, the system on itself, in which Martin Heidegger, G.W.F. Hegel, and Ludwig von Wittgenstein exists as for example. And at last, as for ILI-H, you see one who integrate systems into insightful theories such as Arthur Schopenhauer, Louis Pasteur, and Niels Bohr.

    "Because, I'm sure you're more experienced in socionics than me. 100%. So you yourself must have came to the conclusion that any type can be more active, more passive, more pruporseful etc. Setting appart their own core limitations by the type. (Also, I would love to see an example of someone who has clearly IP temperament being typed as an EIE, in order to see how you understand temperaments xD, becuase there is the definition and I find it quite simple. If you could handle that source please)."

    I would consider myself as new to Socionics and not really an expert thus have been learning for 3-4 years more or less. As for your example, Honore de Balzac, the ILI archetype is typed as an EIE-C by Gulenko. Hence then, there also is one such as Van Gogh, arguably xEI but typed as an EIE-H, Hegel who, I think, is in between LxI/IxI got typed as an EIE-N, and then there is Nietzsche who also typed as an EIE-N despite having a clear IP temperament tendency throughout his life as a person as well.

    "My biggest struggle RN is to understand how to diferentiate the core temperament with the subtype temperament accentuation. In order to type people only visually, ofc if we add an interview, you have the dychotomies in order to unblurr your image."

    This is easier to tackle by separating temperament to DCNH first, because these aren't necessarily the same despite somewhat interlinked to each other.

    "Don't judge Model G without thinking. And no, Model G is not the final result, it's not perfect. But it's the base from which we need to advance."

    I don't judge Model G, I only doubt its validity and how effective it is if someone were to apply it in practice. Because:
    Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    If you know a human a little, the kind of behavior you may use as the only or main kind is nonverbal. By intuitive impressions from it, pointing to more possible types traits.
    In other cases you lack the important data and the data is doubtful. When also a human knows types theory - he may also filter and distort anything in any degree to trust that.

    With a practice you'd understood the problem. Being a naive novice you perceive the situation as too pinky and so overesteemate results you are geting.
    To identify types (on acceptable level) of not well known people by today methods takes years for tens, sometimes hundreds of people typed IRL, plus trying that for people which have good presense in medias.
    Start with people who you know very good IRL. Watch for monthes how their behavior fits to expected for types, how IR and their effects influence on you and relations between those people. Gather factual data about types of people near you. Only then you may hope adequately to use types in much harder conditions of typing not well-known people, especially known by Internet or medias only. With initial skills you may assume types of anyone, just take into account the possibility to mistake is much higher - alike ~20-40% accuracy against ~80% for well known people.

    "I've made some other posts helping to understand Model G"

    "Model G" is not Socionics. The appropriate place for such hypotheses is "Viewpoints" section.
    If "Model G" will get something objective to trust it - then mb that will become interesting.
    Yes, it took several years for you to deduce that PewDiePie and Ellen DeGeneres are ILE or Jimmy Kimmel is SLE. Sorry I'm not searching that type of conclusions. Look, flies spend their whole lives eating the same thing, and I won't say what they eat to avoid flithy things in this post. You can spend 20 years into typolgoy, but if you don't understand what you're studying you will end, ironically, like yourself. The argument of "No, you must spend 10 years in order to type someone correctly". Sorry but are you idiot (allegedly)? The objective of typology is to design such an easy method that everybody reading and understanding the theory, with some IRL examples provided by reliable sources, can type someone 10/10 times the same. And his partners also. Model G for sure accomplishes that.

    I might be wrong? Yes. But prove it instead of crying in the comment section or providing cringy moral and decency lessons.

    So much for crying and feeling envy. Try proving wrong my point . You didn't even gave it a chance!
    Last edited by Reaktor; 02-09-2023 at 08:14 AM.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "It changes the behavior of type according to the temperament but it doesn't change the temperament on itself. Let just take a case, for example, SEE-H may appear to have an IP behavior at work and or relationship, but is more active than IP types overall."

    Thanks for proving my point. You think exactly the same. The core temperament remains unchanged but it morphs into accentuations of the others according to the subtype.

    "
    This is why OA-Shift theory exists or rather, Adaptive Quadra Socion theory which made upon the premise that the external stimuli of environment affects the society in a form of Quadra thus causes the change of individuals who live on the same group of people. So, for example, when an LSE moves from a society to another, this implies that they would prefer for assuming a role to be accepted into a society. And on that case, depends on Quadra, they take a role that is similar to their own type (e.g. Te-LIE if Gamma Quadra)."

    Thanks for proving my point again! I'm really happy because I didn't even knew OA-Shift theory xD. I guess I'm on the correct path

    "
    It honestly doesn't work like that. There has to be some observable qualities in each DCNH. Gulenko described that Gamma is mostly suitable for C subtype, in which I don't agree but true to a certain extent because their need of individuality that isn't determined by group or clique. For the details, there also are some articles on wikisocion that explain these 'observable qualities' but concisely, If were to take ILI as for the example, ILI-D at work is the one who innovates a complex system into a more efficient and secure but simple scheme. And from here, you see such figures as Charles Darwin, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Karl Marx for instance. ILI-C is the one who creates new theories that work in practice, and they are called as the inventor that often comes up with interesting ideas such as Marie Curie, Augusta Aushra, and Honore De Balzac. ILI-N is the one who stabilizes the creation of order, or rather, the system on itself, in which Martin Heidegger, G.W.F. Hegel, and Ludwig von Wittgenstein exists as for example. And at last, as for ILI-H, you see one who integrate systems into insightful theories such as Arthur Schopenhauer, Louis Pasteur, and Niels Bohr."

    No no, Gulenko said that the GAMMA QUADRA description is Creative. Not that Gammas (LIE/ILI/SEE/ESI) are suitable for creative. He said the general idiosyncrasy of gamma reminds us of Creative subt. I don't remember which video he said it exactly, but I'm 1000% confident that he said that. And it's so obvious. Each quadra description resembles us to some DCNH subtype. But the quadra descriptions are radical and only serve as a guide for the big picture. So few people fit in all the values described for his quadra. Subtype affect this, and a lot more things too. ILI-D innovates complex systems, ILI-C creates new theories? etc. Look, @Metaphor xD... Okay, we must begin from 0. xDDD.

    An easy question: How many new systems are created? How many complex systems are innovated and how many systems ae stabilized? through history. Ah? How many? Yes. you're right. Then there are no ILI-C/D/N? they don't exist? xDDD.
    You can manifest Dominant subtype and be like Bill Gates or you can manifest dominant subtype and be the boss in your agricultural commune. And don't you see that each example you provide for the ILI is very one directional? Very black or white? Hmm. You like reductionisms... And one question; from your POV: when innovating a complex system and making it more simple, what does that mean? And what does that imply? I already know the answer, but it's only for you to think about it.

    And about the hystorical figures, I won't even mention them because I will probably not agree in a lot of your typings. If you give me the source and analysis I might, and only might agree, if the analysis is made materialistically and not metaphysically.

    "I would consider myself as new to Socionics and not really an expert thus have been learning for 3-4 years more or less. As for your example, Honore de Balzac, the ILI archetype is typed as an EIE-C by Gulenko. Hence then, there also is one such as Van Gogh, arguably xEI but typed as an EIE-H, Hegel who, I think, is in between LxI/IxI got typed as an EIE-N, and then there is Nietzsche who also typed as an EIE-N despite having a clear IP temperament tendency throughout his life as a person as well."

    But Methaphor, where do you see IP temperament in Nietzche if he's dead? Idk Metaphor, we are so far away in some point of views. Do you really think that an LXI/IXI would write the Übermensch or the aphorisms? Come on bro, that's pure Ethics of Emotions. It's opium for the people. Pure smoke. Only Ethical people enjoy Nietzche really. It's idealism. Logical types are all what you want, but they usually are not idealists. The best example of this is Cervantes vs Shakespeare (the shadow of Cervantes). How can you quote and give as examples only idealists when idealists are ethical types the most. If Nietzche is LSI or LII by any chance then I'm a langostino and live under the sea. The same applies to the other examples but Idk Hegel that much; but I know for sure he's a idealist. In his work the word "Kultur" from a methaphysical even religious POV is mentioned a lot.




  30. #30
    Shadow Squirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Where God decides I should be
    Posts
    1,770
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Reaktor at what age stage does temperament appear clearly? childhood or adulthood?
    Souls know their way back home

  31. #31
    Rusal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    1,064
    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnPocoLoco View Post
    @Reaktor at what age stage does temperament appear clearly? childhood or adulthood?
    As someone with some teaching experience: childhood. At around nine years old it's already visible (some cases more noticeably for me: Ij)
    Sicuramente cercherai il significato di questo.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnPocoLoco View Post
    @Reaktor at what age stage does temperament appear clearly? childhood or adulthood?
    I completely lack the experience or observations to know that. However I can give you my opinion and hypothesis: temperaments are built around functions and functions are linked to the core type. So the temperament associated with the core type will probably appear as soon as the core type is formed. That is probably determined genetically before birth. And my hypothesis is that it's also determined by your family tree and family types. Hardly anything in this world is random. Nothing is random (read chaos theory in a nutshell).
    @Rusal answer clarifies this. And also Gulenko's observations, he states that he could even type babies. You will hardly type babies with informational elements, probably he typed them via temperaments.

  33. #33
    May look like an LSI, but -Te. Metaphor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    SEA
    TIM
    Te-LIE-NH
    Posts
    693
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaktor View Post
    Yes, it took several years for you to deduce that PewDiePie and Ellen DeGeneres are ILE or Jimmy Kimmel is SLE. Sorry I'm not searching that type of conclusions. Look, flies spend their whole lives eating the same thing, and I won't say what they eat to avoid flithy things in this post. You can spend 20 years into typolgoy, but if you don't understand what you're studying you will end, ironically, like yourself. The argument of "No, you must spend 10 years in order to type someone correctly". Sorry but are you idiot (allegedly)? The objective of typology is to design such an easy method that everybody reading and understanding the theory, with some IRL examples provided by reliable sources, can type someone 10/10 times the same. And his partners also. Model G for sure accomplishes that.

    I might be wrong? Yes. But prove it instead of crying in the comment section or providing cringy moral and decency lessons.

    So much for crying and feeling envy. Try proving wrong my point . You didn't even gave it a chance!
    Apologize for interfering the discussion, but I don't understand such accusation that was thrown into @Sol - he did this in a good faith and never meant to condescend your point. So, first of all, it is important to not take everything someone said personally, to have misunderstood his intention of replying to your argument here. Second of all, it has to be understood about the points he was trying to make and be make sure to watch the tone in providing a more mature discussion, not such kind of ad-hominem or name-calling that degrades the quality and productivity of such discussion that is being made. His point was clear, he gave you the examples of such case based on his findings, according to his own empirical standpoint and it is acceptable if, for example, you disagree to his interpretation, feel free but it is important to not condescend anyone in a discussion. Alright, that's all there is but anyway, I would also reply to your questions about temperament and such in this post, too, I suppose.

    "No no, Gulenko said that the GAMMA QUADRA description is Creative. Not that Gammas (LIE/ILI/SEE/ESI) are suitable for creative. He said the general idiosyncrasy of gamma reminds us of Creative subt. I don't remember which video he said it exactly, but I'm 1000% confident that he said that. And it's so obvious. Each quadra description resembles us to some DCNH subtype. But the quadra descriptions are radical and only serve as a guide for the big picture. So few people fit in all the values described for his quadra."

    I know, I'm aware about all of these but I disagree that Gamma represents the Creative subtype. He also stated this on his book, "Why Are People So Different?" but such correlation isn't meant to be taken seriously but with a grain of salt considering that the description of Creative subtype, especially according to Borisova's observation about DCNH from the empirical stand point, overall seems to describe the quality of Alpha quadra in become both creative and fun-loving thus, precisely, indicates ILE (Alpha NT) on that regard, but this is just one of noticeable examples where I disagree to Gulenko's interpretation. Otherwise, it's countless at this point.

    "An easy question: How many new systems are created? How many complex systems are innovated and how many systems ae stabilized? through history. Ah? How many? Yes. you're right. Then there are no ILI-C/D/N? they don't exist?"

    Hold on, did you just miss the point I was trying to make? That's the findings based on practical approach, you couldn't just say they didn't exist just because those complex systems are innovated and stabilized by anyone on earth. It is important to not create such a misleading narrative, considering that this is where the observation using these figures as the examples would add a more realistic nuance to determine someone's personality accurately using reliable and testified methods as well.

    "You can manifest Dominant subtype and be like Bill Gates or you can manifest dominant subtype and be the boss in your agricultural commune. And don't you see that each example you provide for the ILI is very one directional? Very black or white? Hmm. You like reductionisms... And one question; from your POV: when innovating a complex system and making it more simple, what does that mean? And what does that imply? I already know the answer, but it's only for you to think about it."

    I see your point, but I simply laid out the examples, not the entire observation based on findings that have been gathered by myself. And if I were to mention it one by one, it would have been a paragraph being made and I would rather not to do so since it merely was a rebuttal from your 'holistic' viewpoint of Model G on itself.

    "But Methaphor, where do you see IP temperament in Nietzche if he's dead?"

    If someone is dead, then search for their habits and past activities that point out the Socionics temperaments as such.

    "Do you really think that an LXI/IXI would write the Übermensch or the aphorisms? Come on bro, that's pure Ethics of Emotions. It's opium for the people. Pure smoke. Only Ethical people enjoy Nietzche really. It's idealism. Logical types are all what you want, but they usually are not idealists. The best example of this is Cervantes vs Shakespeare (the shadow of Cervantes). How can you quote and give as examples only idealists when idealists are ethical types the most. If Nietzche is LSI or LII by any chance then I'm a langostino and live under the sea. The same applies to the other examples but Idk Hegel that much; but I know for sure he's a idealist. In his work the word "Kultur" from a methaphysical even religious POV is mentioned a lot."

    That's a massive generalization, not every idealist is an Ethical type. Yes, they usually are not idealist but thinking that Nietzsche is an ethical type due to such kind of ideal leads to a simplified conclusion. And by applying this logic, Kant would have been an Ethical type instead of LII and many of logical types that demonstrate idealism cease to exist. However, you were correct about Nietzsche hence then why I proposed IEI instead of EIE. Hence then, I could argue even more about what was his point that seemed as contradictory and ineffective that appeared to be his weakness despite of his level-surface coherent structure but I would rather refrain from such discussion simply this thread isn't served for such purpose. As for Hegel, I already explained this every single time, especially his definition of quality and quantity, including the fact that Hegel didn't demonstrate any single form of structure that appeared to be the 'habit' of Ti-valuer on that regard and instead, described things as they are using science and logic to create such rigorous machine that is known as Hegelian dialectic, or the mediate-immediate-concrete to reach the Absolute Reason.
    Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Metaphor

    "I know, I'm aware about all of these but I disagree that Gamma represents the Creative subtype. He also stated this on his book, "Why Are People So Different?" but such correlation isn't meant to be taken seriously but with a grain of salt considering that the description of Creative subtype, especially according to Borisova's observation about DCNH from the empirical stand point, overall seems to describe the quality of Alpha quadra in become both creative and fun-loving thus, precisely, indicates ILE (Alpha NT) on that regard, but this is just one of noticeable examples where I disagree to Gulenko's interpretation. Otherwise, it's countless at this point."


    And tell me, how many Alpha types; SEI, ESE, ILE, LII have you seen in your life that reminded you of the creative subtype description? I agree ILEs are the exception (although, from the 2 ILEs I know IRL, only 1 could be considered "creative", and that's his subtype). Also, let's make sure that "creative" is well defined. Creative doesn't mean childish, it doesn't mean fun-loving. Fun-loving is fun-loving and creative, is creative. To be creative is to create something. In alpha quadra, what things are created? Where is tangible progress created? True, in Gamma Quadra. Alpha Quadra, in the overall, isn't competitive at all. And only a type (ILE) can't carry the whole stereotype for a Quadra. LIEs and SEEs, even ILIs in the other hand, they do are the perfect representants of the word "creative" (not all of them, but talking quadra-wise, yes). But in the end, remember that we're talking about Quadras. Do you really see Alpha as Creative and Gamma as Harmonizing? Because USA is so harmonizing...


    About the rest of the post, I have nothing else to say. At the moment...


  35. #35
    Professional IEI Identifier on a peaceful hiatus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII-C
    Posts
    4,366
    Mentioned
    259 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I personally find the name 'creative' subtype a bit unfortunate. I think the most important trait of that subtype is that they only care about things they are interested in, and they will go out of their way to avoid things they don't like doing, while the other subtypes will do something even if they don't want to due to societies expectations. Creative subtypes imo grasp things from a broad perspective immediatly, while other subs need more detailed information to evaluate things.
    my ideas about socionics:

    https://soziotypen.de/thoughts-on-socionics/

    the section will be updated ever other month or so.

    this is a VI thread with IEI examples

    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...-(IEI-edition)

    and this is a thread with EIE examples

    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...s-EIE-examples

Posting Permissions

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