http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:...n&ct=clnk&cd=1


The mathematico-mechanical socionics thread was something I was mainly interested as an experimental device.
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=581

The Personal-tracker device thread is something that's so useful and just doesn't fail in practical use that I already consider anyone who disputes it a complete intellectual failure. Just try it. If you understand the functions, you won't fail.
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3514

But then there's some other stuff that's derived from the Reinin material, that I still find interesting on a serious way but of which I'm not quite certain how to interpret it. I must still repeat that the dichotomies as the functions are not completely understood and they require a level of intuition to understand even if there are a number of mechanical tools available.
_________________
- Perfection exists only behind the event horizon.

- Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their life a mimicry, their passions a quotation.

Last edited by Smilingeyes on Tue May 02, 2006 10:24 am; edited 1 time in total

Back to top

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 541

Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 10:10 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a relation with the T/F with actual social activity, social feeling and motivation. The N/S dichotomy seems to instead be mostly an associative, pattern-seeing function.

Basically Fe & Te use people as tools.
Ti and Fi accept roles according to the will of the environment.

The first interpetation seems to be that dynamics are manipulators whereas statics are dutiful.

But there's more.

The EPs require a lot of energy to be able to assume a duty. They get thrills out of sometimes doing something that's wanted from them. But basically they usually just do their own thing.

The IJs are mostly consumed by duty and require a lot of energy to gain release from it.

The IPs usually just analyze the environment and it takes up a lot of energy to manipulate the people in it.

The EJs can't help being social and manipulating things, it takes a lot of energy to make themselves stay away from the situation.

BUT!

The fact that something requires a lot of energy does not mean it's momentary, it can be a basic strategy for a long period. (Personal experience on this, both of own behaviour and behaviour of others.)

Sidenote: I ran into a statement somewhere by someone that introverts are more complete than extroverts. A value-loaded statement, what BS!

Next observation:

Socionics handles social roles, therefore it's interesting to look at what's the modelled response to actual socionics according to each temperament.

EP: Easily just do things and ignore it completely. Use socionics as a way to claim that you're supposed to do what you were already doing. Momentarily try to rechoose your type but quickly return what you remember to give you the best kicks. "A social role feels great!"
Action mode 1: Make others change type by force to supply you with a social role.
Action mode 2: Enjoy the social duty and, keep it up as long as you can.

IJ: Easily pick up a socionic type, the whole environment seems to tell you to keep using the type. Takes up a lot of energy to break type behaviour. "A social role is an all-immersing duty!"
Action mode 1: Keep performing your social role, only change behaviour if the input to do so is overwhelming.
Action mode 2: Act impulsively, chaotically, doing whatever seems best, act out, ignore sociality completely.

IP: Type behaviour seems the smart thing to do in current situation. It's useful to be able to break type behaviour in certain situations and one must be able to do it if it's really needed. "A social role is a necessary skill."
Action mode 1: Seek the absolutely best social role in a situation, perform when feeling certain of the situation.
Action mode 2: Freely act socially, the situation is static and friendly and you're in control.

EJ: Type behaviour seems to be a habit, something that's just natural. Understanding why type behaviour needs to be broken requires a lot of energy. "A social role is a sometimes annoying habit."
Action mode 1: Manipulate others into a suitable social role in relation to yourself. Change role and mode when needed.
Action mode 2: The situation is oppressive, there's nothing you can do but watch, accept that you have no role in what's happening.

From a static's point of view it's a success to maintain type in face of opposition, a sign of power and skill.
From a dynamic's point of view it's a failure to maintain type in face of opposition, a sign of bad character and stupidity.

To a dynamic, the static represents a stable environment that releases him from responsibility of trying to constantly evaluate his social behaviour and someone whose dependent on his judgement of the social situation.
To a static, the dynamic represents a wealth of new possibilities and experiences and a reliable source of social need.

This seems to affect what claims people make about socionics.
As a personal note, I've been experimenting with changing my type for a while now, been doing it for years actually but more conciously after I found the Reinin dichotomies. It feels good and it's something I think might be developed into a form of therapy. Actually I think it already is an underlying principle of behavioural psychotherapy. There's an obvious connection between remaining in a situationally harmful type and many social & psychological illnesses, something that's hinted at in several situations but usually with a severe misunderstanding of what a psychological illness represents. Usually I'd suggest restraining oneself from diagnosing psychological disorders unless it's what your employer pays you for.
_________________
- Perfection exists only behind the event horizon.

- Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their life a mimicry, their passions a quotation.

Back to top

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 541

Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 10:22 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fun stuff about combining dichotomies.
Process, negative & narrator. (and the opposites)

EP: "You suck!" or "Everything I'm doing is perfect, isn't it?"
EJ: "What am I doing wrong?" or "You're great and I bet you could be even better!"
IP: "You're doing this and this wrong, you're hopeless!" or "I'm perfect, aren't I?"
IJ: "Why do I suck so much?" or "I need to show you how it's done!"

Note the glories of dualism on that one!
_________________
- Perfection exists only behind the event horizon.

- Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their life a mimicry, their passions a quotation.

Back to top

CuriousSoul



Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 749
Location: Far Away
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 10:41 am Post subject: IJ Meddling

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited for idiocy.
_________________
A person hears only what they understand.

Last edited by CuriousSoul on Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:47 am; edited 1 time in total

Back to top

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 541

Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject: Re: IJ Meddling

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is it with the strategy-tactical dichotomy and people anyway... So far I've seen people call the following groups strategic:
1. N
2. J
3. TJ + FP
4. STJ + NTP + NFJ + SFP

and their opposites tactical.

Well I've consistently used everywhere the Reinin dichotomy of
NP + SJ = tactical
NJ + SP = strategic
If it would turn out that even Reinin himself had used those names for something else and that that division was wrong in that sense it wouldn't really change anything because those are merely the names of cathegories. You have to be able to understand the actual qualities and attributes and just consistently refer to the same quality with the same name. If someone wishes to link to some original Reinin source that says that Reinin used different names, I'm willing to consider them for the sake of consistency.

I'd like to point out though that even people who use Reinin dichotomies disagree with some of the names of the cathegories. I've seen ie. results-process been called objective-subjective which considering that it's all in one's head anyway and that there's no such thing as objective in our minds is a pretty damn stupid way to name cathegories. Doesn't still make it wrong. Call it the rabbit - tortoise dichotomy if you find it to your liking. Just names.

I personally can only act strategically when I'm doing the ENTj or ENFj thing and am quite tactical when I'm ESTj or ESFj. (Either subtype in all cases.) But that's just observing a quality in myself while acting in a certain way and connecting it to the meaning of the activity within each type.

And about gamma sensorics being strategic... Does anyone really think that ENTjs are tactical???


CuriousSoul wrote:

PS Types do not change.
Your behavior, skills, values etc. may change tremendously - and often the more the better - but the type is fixed by the age of five or six years at latest, and I have never seen anyone change their socionics type.
This is just my opinion, of course.


You wouldnt notice, you're an IJ ;-P

Personally I'm willing to go one better and claim that people can change not just their own type but force others to change theirs.

The temperaments though, I'm having some serious difficulty in acting like an IP, IJ or EP. Might be that's doable as well, but I'd seriously suggest that all the ENTps and INTjs would start considering those four as the immutable types and start searching for reasons why it's so. Might be easier than with 16 types. Even 4 immutable types would be a bit of an aberration though. Nature doesn't usually do modular whereas the human psyche tends to try to cathegorize things in such a way.

Most of the "serious" socionists who claim that type doesn't change are in full defense mode when someone asks them to actually define what they mean about type and refuse to do so. It's basically the only way to maintain the illusion and continue the loony-talk.

Note example how type is examined behaviouristically but yet they claim that type is not a behaviouristic property. The social relations are considered the golden standard of measuring the type but social masks aren't considered and relations that permanently change after some momentous experience changes the behaviour of one person in the relationship. Surprise, even the basic social relations change. The typical example I run into is a patient who used to be a drug addict or criminally inclined in other ways, then a sudden experience like getting religious or finding a good girl friend changes their activity completely. They renounce their old behaviour, their old friends and find behaviour that previously seemed positive and enforcing suddenly negative and a turn-off!
The suggestion that type doesn't change leads into paradoxes, fantasy stories and apparently even visual typing by body traits.

I could go on and on about the faults and errors that the "constant type-hypothesis" creates but I'm not going to. It's a sieve, a turkey, a bucket of suck, a dead horse, an albatross necklace. Type changes
_________________
- Perfection exists only behind the event horizon.

- Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their life a mimicry, their passions a quotation.

Back to top

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 541

Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More pretty things from Reinin...

Strategic + cheerfulness + positivism and their opposites

Alpha + beta are the quadras of upheaval within society, great change, risk and danger while gamma & delta are the conservative upholder quadras.

Within alpha+beta tactical behaviour is positive, whoever gets any short-term victories is a winner because you can't forecast the end-results.
Distrust in the environment.

Within gamma+delta strategic behaviour is positive because the environment doesn't change. You can freely do momentarily harmful things for long-term profit. Trust in the environment.
_________________
- Perfection exists only behind the event horizon.

- Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their life a mimicry, their passions a quotation.

Back to top

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 541

Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 2:00 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolute +

calculating, strategy, obstinacy and narrator and their opposites.

If we consider large-scale social activity (the resolute cathegory) which is close to defining the political environment we find ways of doing politics.

the large-scale planners (strategic) who want to really change things:
Calculating, careful reformer:
EP:
Mode 1 (obstinate taciturn): Obsessed about doing what people want and achieving the most popular result.
Mode 2 (compliant narrator): Tell people whatever seems to work to maintain power. Construct a calculated lie.

Carefree, true believer in his political agenda, major poorly designed changes:
EJ:
Mode 1(compliant narrator): Try out large-scale suggestions until something seems popular. Usually tested with the cabinet until a suitable one is found for public presentation.
Mode 2(obstinate taciturn): Tester of public opinion. Is everyone really along in the boat? Needs demonstrations of public faith to maintain image of power. Uses public opinion to bash opposition to silence.

the political operators who are just seeking their fortune in politics (tactical):
Carefree power-tripping politics:
IJ:
Mode 1(obstinate narrator): The politician uses an iron fist to crush opposition. Victory is about being the only one still functioning on the field.
Mode 2(compliant taciturn): Flailing around, trying to do things one hopes the public would like, trying to milk gratefulness from the public and other politicians.

Calculating careful manipulator of personal interest.
IP:
Mode 1(obstinate narrator): The politician is intent on arguing opposition to submission. A passionate orator who will not act himself if there is any opposition. A leader of reason and sensible causes.
Mode 2(compliant taciturn): Ready to join any power block that gives suitable compensation. A political hang-around and a compromise candidate for opposing parties.


NOTE: Leaders who deny their responsibility of the grand scale events and only want an easy life don't really conform to the above. They don't really realise they're in power and see their mandate just as a chance for self-expression.

EDIT: In situations in which there are only a few important power blocks, important economic factors etc. "judicious" behaviour can be found in the political field. Historically these circumstances were more common even at the top of power. Ironically most political researchers, journalists and historians, not to mention a huge number of the voting populace live under those conditions and therefore have a significant difficulty in understanding what actually DOING politics in a democratic country is like.

Edit 2: If anyone proficient in historical typing (*cough* *cough* Expat *cough*) is interested in suggesting a type for some of the great power gamer politicians (the Iron Chancellor, the Great Cardinal and others) I'd be very interested.
_________________
- Perfection exists only behind the event horizon.

- Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their life a mimicry, their passions a quotation.

Back to top

Jimbean



Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 313
Location: Rockledge, Fl
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 6:13 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

awsome
_________________
ENTp, Beta version

If you don’t control yourself, then believe me, whether you realize it or not somebody else will do it for you.

The power of parasitic elites can only be as strong as the errors in the minds of people.

Back to top

UDP



Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 1817
Location: to a new Earth
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 1:40 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Smilingeyes wrote:
Fun stuff about combining dichotomies.
Process, negative & narrator. (and the opposites)

EP: "You suck!" or "Everything I'm doing is perfect, isn't it?"
EJ: "What am I doing wrong?" or "You're great and I bet you could be even better!"
IP: "You're doing this and this wrong, you're hopeless!" or "I'm perfect, aren't I?"
IJ: "Why do I suck so much?" or "I need to show you how it's done!"

Note the glories of dualism on that one!


I can relate to that
_________________
"One can go so far as to say that on this planet normal equals insane" - Eckhart
SOCIONICS wrote:
-This is a type of a revolutionary or a political conspirator.
-The Analyst loves intellectual development. He pays attention to new theories and technologies.
-He appears extremely uncompromising, often looks down with a piercing look from under his philosopher’s forehead. He toughens himself, training for the cold, starvation, losses and disapproval of others.


Back to top

kopernikus



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 27
Location: europe
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 7:19 am Post subject: Re: IJ Meddling

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CuriousSoul wrote:

PS Types do not change.
Your behavior, skills, values etc. may change tremendously - and often the more the better - but the type is fixed by the age of five or six years at latest, and I have never seen anyone change their socionics type.
This is just my opinion, of course.


I totally agree.

Smilingeyes wrote:

Note example how type is examined behaviouristically but yet they claim that type is not a behaviouristic property. The social relations are considered the golden standard of measuring the type but social masks aren't considered and relations that permanently change after some momentous experience changes the behaviour of one person in the relationship. Surprise, even the basic social relations change. The typical example I run into is a patient who used to be a drug addict or criminally inclined in other ways, then a sudden experience like getting religious or finding a good girl friend changes their activity completely. They renounce their old behaviour, their old friends and find behaviour that previously seemed positive and enforcing suddenly negative and a turn-off!
The suggestion that type doesn't change leads into paradoxes, fantasy stories and apparently even visual typing by body traits.

I could go on and on about the faults and errors that the "constant type-hypothesis" creates but I'm not going to. It's a sieve, a turkey, a bucket of suck, a dead horse, an albatross necklace. Type changes


How can you be so sure this means that they've changed their type though? Socionics only deals with some of the ways people look at their experience. There are other systems that look more of the "narratives" people use to relate to their lives, such as the enneagram. One system can't explain all parts of someone's behaviour. I guess even all of them together can't...

Besides, if psychological systems are about the structure of peoples' experience, the experience itself is going to manifest in radically different ways, since they tell us more about how people do things than what they actually do. That's why forums as these are so useful as they give you insight in countless of permutations of the same basic thing.

And... Are you implying that there is such a thing as "the criminal type" in socionics? If so maybe you can tell me which type is "the hip one with lots of money" is and I'd change to it in an instant...

Back to top

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 541

Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 11:50 am Post subject: Re: IJ Meddling

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Curioussoul...

If you'd like to, please note how Kopernikus provided us with a demonstration of how type changes and social relations with it.

While I was still acting like an ENTj I had pretty good relations with INFps and I liked them. The relations were distant but pretty nice and the ones who had personal contact with me would probably note this also. Now I'm acting like an ESTj.

Suddenly the ESTj behavioural pattern of expressing strong personal opinions seems hostile to the conflictor INFp. He'd prefer to pump up the group-think and maintain dogma that he doesn't really understand himself, he feels it's his duty to protect the peace by twisting and making fun of original ideas that are too complicated for him, trying to gain social power and force people who dare to be different to become part of the beta gang. An ENTj would never have such trouble from INFps. So... does someone think I've been ESTj all along? Or that I'm not ESTj now? Maybe, but they'd have serious trouble providing any evidence for such opinions.

Also I'd like to note how my feeling your INFj behaviour has changed. As an ENTj I thought you were pretty cool and fun but now I'm aggressively trying to show you the merit of personal ideas I find useful and believe in. Damn, it seems that there's actually a need to try to protect you. It feels funny since I know how and why it happens but the feeling's still there. Probably some of it's just subconciously generated, as I expect the relations to change, but whatever the reason, it's affecting my behaviour in a concrete way.

Another point is that it's funny how dual relations often appear abusive because of the intensity involved. I seriously hope I didn't hurt your feelings in any way.
_________________
- Perfection exists only behind the event horizon.

- Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their life a mimicry, their passions a quotation.

Back to top

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 541

Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 11:54 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

kopernikus wrote:

How can you be so sure this means that they've changed their type though? Socionics only deals with .... instant...


kopernikus... actively twisting in-coming information and avoiding questioning your own views doesn't make you smart or all-popular or ethical. It keeps you and your friends all in the same lull of stupidity and unawareness. Group power is only useful if you happen to be in the right group. Otherwise there's just more of you that are doomed to failure. I don't think anybody was impressed by your views, even the ones who you tried to help, because you didn't actually do anything. You didn't state a personal opinion, you didn't bring in new information, you didn't change anyone's mind about anything. You just wasted my and everyone else's time.

If you haven't noticed that the idea that some types are more inclined to get into trouble, even into prison than others is pretty much everywhere in the field of socionics... ... ... Oh, come on now, seriously! Try to read something about the subject before you start "expressing yourself".

(The party line of most socionists is that it's the ESTp that's the criminal type, your dual, congrats. I have no personal evidence of this but you're probably happy with whatever's the popular opinion.)

And that was more of an answer than you deserved and more than I'm going to give to other trolls.
_________________
- Perfection exists only behind the event horizon.

- Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their life a mimicry, their passions a quotation.

Back to top

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 541

Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 12:01 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feeling pissy. Not interested in being helpful at the moment. Bugger off from my thread. Oh damn, It's too easy to slide from ESTj all the way to ESFj. Love you guys. Kisses.
_________________
- Perfection exists only behind the event horizon.

- Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their life a mimicry, their passions a quotation.

Back to top

kopernikus



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 27
Location: europe
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 12:30 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry if I came off as a know-it-all or troll. Not what I was trying to do... Guess I can sound a bit cynical sometimes. But I can't see how I didn't state any opinions? I thought that was all I did...

I'd meet your reply with some arguments, but it seems as though you haven't replied to what I said but resorted to analysis of my behaviour instead.

Back to top

pesto



Joined: 05 Apr 2006
Posts: 176

Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Smilingeyes wrote:
kopernikus wrote:

How can you be so sure this means that they've changed their type though? Socionics only deals with .... instant...


kopernikus... actively twisting in-coming information and avoiding questioning your own views doesn't make you smart or all-popular or ethical. It keeps you and your friends all in the same lull of stupidity and unawareness. Group power is only useful if you happen to be in the right group. Otherwise there's just more of you that are doomed to failure. I don't think anybody was impressed by your views, even the ones who you tried to help, because you didn't actually do anything. You didn't state a personal opinion, you didn't bring in new information, you didn't change anyone's mind about anything. You just wasted my and everyone else's time.

If you haven't noticed that the idea that some types are more inclined to get into trouble, even into prison than others is pretty much everywhere in the field of socionics... ... ... Oh, come on now, seriously! Try to read something about the subject before you start "expressing yourself".

(The party line of most socionists is that it's the ESTp that's the criminal type, your dual, congrats. I have no personal evidence of this but you're probably happy with whatever's the popular opinion.)

And that was more of an answer than you deserved and more than I'm going to give to other trolls.

Regardless of your type, meeting critisism with personal attacks and assumptions about intentions of someone you don't even know is pathetic and nasty.