What type does this description sound like?

[Rick]

Abraham Maslow's characteristics of self-actualizing individuals

Perceptions are reality based
Acceptance of self, others, nature
Resistant to acculturation
Spontaneous, simplicity, naturalness
Problem-centered rather than self-centered
Need for privacy and “down time”
Autonomous of environment and culture
Freshness of appreciation of life
Periodic peak experiences
Identification with all humankind
Deep friendships with a few
Acceptance of democratic values
Strong ethical sense
Unhostile sense of humor
Creative

[Expat]

Contradictory. Some of it suggests EII or IEE, but then you have the "reality-based" thingy. So ESI or SEE, but "creative" suggests intuititon, although of course any intelligent person can be creative.

[Jonathan]

Well, "Acceptance of democratic values" suggests that you're invoking the Reinin Democracy/Aristocracy thing; so this combined with "Perceptions are reality based" and "Strong ethical sense" suggests that you're thinking of an SF type. "Deep friendships with a few," "Need for privacy and “down time”," and "Autonomous of environment and culture" appear to suggest introversion. So this narrows things down to SEI and ESI.

Although ESIs can be spontaneous, creative, and have other qualities in common with SEI, a number of things on the list suggest SEI more.

So I'd have have to go with SEI.

But I'd agree with Expat that an EII may possibly appear similar.

[anndelise]

Perceptions are reality based = not NT/TN; so SF/FS, NF/FN; ST/TS

Acceptance of self, others, nature = not beta ST, not SFj, NT/TN; so ISFp, ESFp, ISTp, ESTj, NF/FN

Resistant to acculturation = not type related

Spontaneous, simplicity, naturalness = not type related

Problem-centered rather than self-centered = not type related...many IPs are problem centered though many people say their self centered, many EPs are self-centered, as are many EJs and IJs, as well as some of each being problem centered

Need for privacy and “down time” = not type related, even extroverts and Fs need privacy and downtime

Autonomous of environment and culture = not type related

Freshness of appreciation of life = not type related (the autonomous, freshness, and resistance to acculturation suggests someone who's not been "tested" as a child)

Periodic peak experiences = not type related; not tested

Identification with all humankind = how can they identify with all human kind if they are autonomous of environment, culture, resistant to acculturation? They can think they identify, but it's not really identifying

Deep friendships with a few = not type related, even extroverts and Fs may have only a few deep friendships

Acceptance of democratic values = as in republican vs democrat? or as in democratic vs dictatorship?

Strong ethical sense = not type related (NTs are perhaps the most "ethical" types)

Unhostile sense of humor = not type related (though i'd rule out estps)

Creative = not type related; each type has their own creativite abilities...yes, even istjs

[aestrivex]

in general, it sounds delta NF.

[Jonathan]

= not type related

= not type related

= not type related

Technically, you're right, in the sense that everybody can be this way or that way. In fact, almost anything in any Socionics description isn't type related, because one can always find exceptions. However, there are certain things that are sort of "code words" for type related things; it's when one highlights certain things that one points to type.

Hence, if one says someone is "spontaneous," that's a code word for "p." Naturally, rational types can also be spontaneous. These code words are attempting to get get at some sort of truth that is type related, but unfortunately words fail, because as soon as you put a word to it, then people can say, "Hey, other types are like that too."

[niveK]

= not type related

= not type related

= not type related

Technically, you're right, in the sense that everybody can be this way or that way. In fact, almost anything in any Socionics description isn't type related, because one can always find exceptions. However, there are certain things that are sort of "code words" for type related things; it's when one highlights certain things that one points to type.

Hence, if one says someone is "spontaneous," that's a code word for "p." Naturally, rational types can also be spontaneous. These code words are attempting to get get at some sort of truth that is type related, but unfortunately words fail, because as soon as you put a word to it, then people can say, "Hey, other types are like that too."

Uhh, so you're saying that there's nothing exclusive to any type and any type can act like any other type and the thing that makes a type is what is focused on when describing one type? Why shouldn't I consider this ridiculous and ignore socionics as an overglorified cold reading?

[aestrivex]

= not type related

= not type related

= not type related

Technically, you're right, in the sense that everybody can be this way or that way. In fact, almost anything in any Socionics description isn't type related, because one can always find exceptions. However, there are certain things that are sort of "code words" for type related things; it's when one highlights certain things that one points to type.

Hence, if one says someone is "spontaneous," that's a code word for "p." Naturally, rational types can also be spontaneous. These code words are attempting to get get at some sort of truth that is type related, but unfortunately words fail, because as soon as you put a word to it, then people can say, "Hey, other types are like that too."

well, sure, but if you restrict yourself to working with specificities and eliminating everything that might be characterized as overly general from conversaion than activities like this where you're not dealing with a real person become impossible. obviously, many traits might be too general, but that's a different story.

[anndelise]

= not type related

= not type related

= not type related

Technically, you're right, in the sense that everybody can be this way or that way. In fact, almost anything in any Socionics description isn't type related, because one can always find exceptions. However, there are certain things that are sort of "code words" for type related things; it's when one highlights certain things that one points to type.

Hence, if one says someone is "spontaneous," that's a code word for "p." Naturally, rational types can also be spontaneous. These code words are attempting to get get at some sort of truth that is type related, but unfortunately words fail, because as soon as you put a word to it, then people can say, "Hey, other types are like that too."

the phrases given that i responded to were too general
it'd be better to ask questions like
Creative how? with what?
Strong ethical sense.....which ethical rules? how strong? believe strongly in certain ideals? tolerant of others' "strong ethics"? takes action to promote or possibly push own ethical sense onto others? takes action to force others into following this person's ethics?
Autonomous of environment and culture....what environment? which culture? how autonomous..an outcast? does own thing? rebel?
Needs privacy and downtime...under what conditions? what thresholds prompt the need for downtime? how much privacy? which specific privacies?


when i'm asked to guess at or help determine someone's type, there are three common questions i ask myself.....
Given description A....
1) do all or at least the vast majority (greater than 85%) of a specific type fit description A?
2) are there other types that could also commonly fit description A (greater than 35%)
3) could something other than type be involved regarding description A?

(i don't actually calculate percentages, it's an over general feel....like a balancing weight machine...if i put type A into one side, and type B or more into the other side.....does A's side seem far heavier?)

If there is not a significant difference, then I cannot refer to it as type related.

[Jonathan]

the phrases given that i responded to were too general

Well you're right. From a Ti-like point of view, it's fine to show how the way he phrased it wasn't correct. But it's also possible to understand intuitively what was meant behind the phrases...where Rick was coming from. The phrases themselves don't capture it; you're right there.

I think the most interesting thing in the thread is that it again highlights the perceived similarities between EII and SEI. As artists, these types may seem somewhat similar, valuing Si/Ne and being feeling introverts. What are the major differences between their forms of expression and typical forms of speech and creations?

[science as magic]

what do you attribute to type then? what makes a type cohesive (if anything)?

[mikemex]

NTs are perhaps the most "ethical" types

Yeah. I've been thinking for a while that perhaps I'm a quite ethical ENTp.

[Rick]

OK, let me tell you where I got this list. This is Abraham Maslow's list of characteristics of self-actualizing people.

I thought there might be a slight bit of typocentrism in the list or in the spirit of the terms that the results here may have confirmed. As Anndelise says, they can (at least they are supposed to) be applicable to any type, however, the phrases still seem to ring with certain types (or their common stereotypes) more than others.

Or it's possible that the version of the list I found is a bit biased. This one with explanations, come to think of it, sounds quite a bit better:
http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm

[FDG]

I was certain that it was another one of the Forer tricks. Hasn't this gotten old?

In any case probably a very healthy ESI would be well described by that list.

[Rick]

I was certain that it was another one of the Forer tricks. Hasn't this gotten old?

Gotta keep everyone on their toes . Actually, in this case I am much more interested in talking about whether Maslow's understanding applies to all types equally well or whether there is any typocentrism in it (presumably that would give undo weight to his own type's version of self-actualization) than in tricking people.

[Rick]

Basically, what I'm getting at is, what is self-actualization for the types that are harder to see in the description Maslow gives (LSE, LSI, SLE, etc.)? Or does this list apply to them equally well? (if so, our stereotypes of what the types are supposed to be like are showing)

[FDG]

It's very hard to see SLEs as adhering to some of those proscriptions without actually becoming another type. The same probably applies to all ST types. We are just too rude, brutal, and self-absorbed, really (I won't disagree with this).

[Rick]

It's very hard to see SLEs as adhering to some of those proscriptions without actually becoming another type. The same probably applies to all ST types. We are just too rude, brutal, and self-absorbed, really (I won't disagree with this).

Hm... yeah, especially the SLEs and LSIs. I think SLIs are the mildest of the bunch.

I think that Maslow focused (read these descriptions -- http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm -- they are much clearer) on interpersonal qualities, character, wisdom, and internal serenity but left out common sensing and logical qualities (especially logical) that are probably equally present among these self-actualizing individuals.

Why didn't he write, for example:
- highly intelligent
- highly focused
- highly persistent
etc. ?

Aren't these common characteristics of his list of "SAs" just as much as the traits he writes? I think he's slipping in a little ethics + intuition emphasis.

[FDG]

It's very hard to see SLEs as adhering to some of those proscriptions without actually becoming another type. The same probably applies to all ST types. We are just too rude, brutal, and self-absorbed, really (I won't disagree with this).

Hm... yeah, especially the SLEs and LSIs. I think SLIs are the mildest of the bunch.

Yeah, but still every SLI that I have met has a veeeeery pronounced sense of self-importance, albeit usually very well hidden.

I think that Maslow focused (read these descriptions -- http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm -- they are much clearer) on interpersonal qualities, character, wisdom, and internal serenity but left out common sensing and logical qualities (especially logical) that are probably equally present among these self-actualizing individuals.

Why didn't he write, for example:
- highly intelligent
- highly focused
- highly persistent
etc. ?

Aren't these common characteristics of his list of "SAs" just as much as the traits he writes? I think he's slipping in a little ethics + intuition emphasis.

It's just that in a community the people that present the traits listed by him are the most accepted and liked. Highly persistent individuals need to lose some gentleness, because otherwise they could not be persistent. In doing this they will lose the sympathy of other individuals. A self-actualized individual must have qualities that are universally recognizable as attractive, and thus they can't be ST qualities, simply because they sacrifice attractivness for effectivness.

In any case, what do you think about Maslow's type? The qualities he describes are anti-beta, IMO. Perhaps IEE?

[Rick]

In any case, what do you think about Maslow's type? The qualities he describes are anti-beta, IMO. Perhaps IEE?

That would be my first intuitive guess.

Also, I think Carl Rogers is an IEE or EII. His ability to listen nonjudgmentally was considered phenomenal and made a great impression on the Russians when he visited Moscow in his old age to demonstrate his approach. Also, I knew an IEE who knew Rogers personally and considered him his friend.

[anndelise]

personally, i like the newer link better than the original post of this thread.

here's some of my thoughts on the first three descriptions:

Characteristics of Self Actualizing People

Realistic
Oriented towards realism
Efficient perception of reality
Comfortable relations with reality
Unthreatened and unfrightened by the unknown
Superior ability to reason
Superior ability to see the truth
Is logical and efficient

Many T types would suggest that this suggests a T type.
Many F's know that just because a person is a T type does NOT mean that they have a higher perception of reality, nor a higher ability to reason.
T types, however, WOULD have a higher ability to communicate these things.
NFs are commonly referred to idealistic types, so the realistic orientations would not fit the NF biases. (NFs know better…we are the realistic ones, it's the NTs who are the idealistic ones. )

Self Acceptance
Accepts self as s/he is
Accepts others as they are
Accepts the natural world as it is
Does not see shame nor guilt for being human
Does not regret his enjoyment
Does not apologize for his enjoyment
Has no unnecessary inhibitions

Upon first read, many people might suggest that it's referring to an Fp.

However, this is basically a removal of "shoulds" from one's thoughts. We feel guilt or regret when we feel/tell ourselves that we should be different from what we are, when we tell ourselves we should be doing something which we are not doing, when we feel we should be correct and precise in all things, when we should perfect something, etc. It's the "shoulds" that inhibit our spontaneous actions and expressions.

After knowing about the shoulds, many people would suggest then that this removes ethical types out of the picture. Because we all know that T types aren't ethical and never attempt to establish rules (theories) of behavior/actions. *rolls her eyes*

Spontaneity, Simplicity, Naturalness
Spontaneous in inner life
Thoughts unhampered by convention
Impulses unhampered by convention
Autonomous ethics
Motivated to continual growth

Ok, the first three pretty much say the same thing as the "lack of shoulds" description.

The other two…actually seem to contradict the lack of shoulds description.
Here it's saying that the person has his/her own set of ethics….so basically, the person as his/her own set of shoulds.
On top of that, the person is motivated to continual growth. This could imply that somewhere inside the person, something is shoulding the person into continually growing.

Most people would suggest this description is describing a p trait.
Others might say it's more of an Ep trait.
Others even that it's an E trait.

I figure, even an istj can spontaneously express istjness. Being able to express one's own type is in itself "simplicity" and "naturalness". Why anyone would feel a need to force an expression of their type is beyond me.
-----


i will do the others if requested
but i didn't desire to waste anyone's time/space if it's not particularly desired

[anndelise]

btw
the first two...and possibly the third as well....have a same basic thing
realism vs idealism

when we "should" ourselves or anyone else, we have an ideal in mind as to how we should be, how they should be, how the world should be, etc.
this pulls us out of a focus of how things really are

so basically the first two descriptions..possibly the third..
are suggesting that a self actualized person pays attention to what actually IS rather than what should be.

(this goes along with.....i cant remember her name...some lady who suggested that all neurosis comes from the conflict between how we are...and what our ideal is)

___

also, in discussing this with someone, we figure that to include the description "motivated to continual growth" actually prevents a person from accepting themselves as they are (since they have to keep growing), and thus prevents a person from becoming self-actualized.

[Gilly]

Sounds IP to me. That's about all.

[Topaz]

I would have to agree that Maslow and Rogers both had in mind themselves in an ideal state. Certainly the ideal human from their perspecitve would possess all the qualities that they themselves strived for and would like to embody. It would be interesting to see how each type would describe their version of the ideal person. For example how would and LSI describe a person they feel was most healthy? How would that description differ from the description from an ILI or SLI?

[Rick]

I would have to agree that Maslow and Rogers both had in mind themselves in an ideal state. Certainly the ideal human from their perspecitve would possess all the qualities that they themselves strived for and would like to embody. It would be interesting to see how each type would describe their version of the ideal person. For example how would and LSI describe a person they feel was most healthy? How would that description differ from the description from an ILI or SLI?

Interesting indeed. This is one of the things I am studying. We had a discussion a while ago where we figured that Stephen Covey might well be an LSI. Also, I have typed the mystic Gurdjieff as SLE. There are other philosophers and psychologists I am trying to figure out, too.