Pavlov's types

[machintruc]

Pavlov stipulated two types : Strong and Weak.

One socionist (don't remember his name) said Weak types were IP types, and Strong types all others.

More accurately :

• EJ is Strong, Balanced, and Mobile.
• IJ is Strong, Balanced, and Inert.
• EP is Strong and Non-balanced.
• IP is Weak.

But how are Strong types strong, and Weak types weak ? Is there a difference in conditioning practice between Strong and Weak types ?

[FDG]

I wouldn't say ISTps are weak.

Perhaps he's referring to the 4 temperaments:

EJ - Choleric
IJ - Melancholic
EP - Sanguine
IP - Phlegmatic

[anndelise]

• EJ is Strong, Balanced, and Mobile.
• IJ is Strong, Balanced, and Inert.
• EP is Strong and Non-balanced.
• IP is Weak.

first of all, i'm not sure what is meant by "strong" and "weak"
secondly, i don't get is the sudden change in how it's all listed (other than the obvious J bias)

if we have balanced vs non balanced..ok
mobile vs inert...ok
by why is neither of the p's listed as mobile or inert?
i mean, i could see something kind of like

• EJ is Balanced and Mobile
• IJ is Balanced and Inert
• EP is Non-balanced and Mobile
• IP is Non-balanced and Inert

(Note: I do not agree with this, I'm just pointing out that this is the kind of categorizing I understand better than arbitrary concept assignments that aren't particularly related to each other)

[Creepy-bg]

who wants to bet that Pavlov typed himself as EJ

[machintruc]

I wouldn't say ISTps are weak.

Perhaps he's referring to the 4 temperaments:

EJ - Choleric
IJ - Melancholic
EP - Sanguine
IP - Phlegmatic

Gulenko said :

EJ choleric
EP sanguine
IJ phlegmatic
IP melancholic

[machintruc]

• EJ is Strong, Balanced, and Mobile.
• IJ is Strong, Balanced, and Inert.
• EP is Strong and Non-balanced.
• IP is Weak.

first of all, i'm not sure what is meant by "strong" and "weak"
secondly, i don't get is the sudden change in how it's all listed (other than the obvious J bias)

if we have balanced vs non balanced..ok
mobile vs inert...ok
by why is neither of the p's listed as mobile or inert?
i mean, i could see something kind of like

• EJ is Balanced and Mobile
• IJ is Balanced and Inert
• EP is Non-balanced and Mobile
• IP is Non-balanced and Inert

(Note: I do not agree with this, I'm just pointing out that this is the kind of categorizing I understand better than arbitrary concept assignments that aren't particularly related to each other)

IP would be mobile IMO, because it's dynamic. Socionists call Ip "perceptive-adaptive".

But making a dichotomy which would separate types non-symmetrically seems pretty weird to me. Possibly there could be "irregular" derivative dichotomies, which are non-Jungian and non-Reininian.

Ej Ep Ij / Ip - Strong types / Weak types. 12 against 4.

who wants to bet that Pavlov typed himself as EJ

Ej is what some psychologists should have called "the winner type". Eysenck stipulated four temperaments :

E and N are facors of "Extroversion" and Neuroticism.

E high N low = EJ Sanguine, the winner type
E high N high = EP Choleric
E low N low = IJ Phlegmatic
E low N high = IP Melancholic

(N.B. : Choleric and Sanguine are reversed here)

That means : if you're not EJ, you should work on yourself to become an EJ. I and P are bad traits, and E and J are good traits.

IP neurotic means loser, and introvert means loser ; IP = total loser.
IJ introvert means loser ; IJ = half-loser
EP neurotic means loser ; EP = half-loser
EJ = winner

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[FDG]

I think Extraversion can be a loser traits in many instances. Me and ENTj girl were arguing (and agreeing) just today on how sociability clearly hinders GPA, which is obviously true.

[machintruc]

I think Extraversion can be a loser traits in many instances. Me and ENTj girl were arguing (and agreeing) just today on how sociability clearly hinders GPA, which is obviously true.

I'm actually talking of Eysenck's Extroversion.

If Eysenck could say you're Extrovert and Stable, you would be a Winner.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah !!!!!!!! I'm an EJ !!!!!!! I'm a Winner !!!!!!!!!!!

lolololol

Especially ENFJ, which is the most Winner type... Basically if you're not ENFJ, you're a loser. If you're ENFJ, you're a winner. We should live in a world with only ENFJ's, because ENFJ is the best type LOLOLOL.

Did you know, Integral Type of the Earth was SEI ?

[FDG]

I think Extraversion can be a loser traits in many instances. Me and ENTj girl were arguing (and agreeing) just today on how sociability clearly hinders GPA, which is obviously true.

I'm actually talking of Eysenck's Extroversion.

If Eysenck could say you're Extrovert and Stable, you would be a Winner.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah !!!!!!!! I'm an EJ !!!!!!! I'm a Winner !!!!!!!!!!!

lolololol

Especially ENFJ, which is the most Winner type... Basically if you're not ENFJ, you're a loser. If you're ENFJ, you're a winner. We should live in a world with only ENFJ's, because ENFJ is the best type LOLOLOL.

Did you know, Integral Type of the Earth was SEI ?

/me pats machintruc on the shoulder

[Cone]

OMG I love Pavlov's Typology. Did a bit of research on this in the very far past.

I have a journal article by the same author as the book that makes two possible hypotheses: that the strong-weak dichotomy is the same as extraversion-introversion, or the idea of "equilibrium in dynamism" is.

From the book:

The weak nervous system is more sensitive than the strong: it beings to respond at stimulus intensities which are ineffective for the strong nervous system; throughout the stimulus-intensity continuum its responses are closer to its maximum level of responding than the responses of the strong nervous system; and it displays its maximum response, or the response decrement which follows this maximum, at lower stimulus intensities than the strong nervous system.

These same differences may be expressed by saying that the strong nervous system is more stable than the weak--it is better able to withstand extreme intensities of stimulation, better able to continue responding appropriately and without decrement at high stimulus intensities.

In particular, what is meant by strength of the nervous system is specifically strength of the excitatory process, the ability to react positively to a stimulus (i.e. "arousal"). The paper mainly tries to disprove the link between strong-weak and extravert-introvert.

"Dynamism" refers to the ability to form excitatory or inhibitory conditioned reflexes with more or less rapidity. "Dynamism of the excitatory process" means that an animal will quickly be conditioned to respond to a conditioned stimulus. "Dynamism of the inhibitory process" means that the animal will quickly stop responding to a conditioned stimulus. "Equilibrium in dynamism" tells which process is more prevalent. The paper mainly tries to prove that this is related to the introvert-extrovert dichotomy, where introverts show a dynamism of the excitatory process more than extraverts do.

[Cone]

But how are Strong types strong, and Weak types weak ? Is there a difference in conditioning practice between Strong and Weak types ?

"Strong-weak" technically has nothing to do with conditioning ability, just the relative sensitiveness of the nervous system to stimuli. However, there is some thought that "strong-weak" and "dynamism" may be quite related, because one may imagine that a strong nervous system, which responds less to the same stimuli as a weak one, would also habituate to stimuli easily.

Also I forgot to say: strong-weak, dynamism, and mobility (I forget what this is) both have absolute values for both excitation and inhibition, and a relative value for the equilibrium between excitation and inhibition. So in terms of strong-weak, you can have four types : strong excitation, strong inhibition, equilibrium; strong excitation, weak inhibition, strong (Pavlov found this type of dog to be like a "super-dog"); weak excitation, strong inhibition, weak (Pavlov pitied this type of dog); and weak excitation, weak inhibition, equilibrium.

[Iconoclast IX]

Hmmm...I'm an IP. IPs are supposed to be "losers" ?. What a load of rubbish. I can find many examples of how E or J can be very, very negative traits.

[xyz]

This whole thread reeks of bullshit.

[machintruc]

Hmmm...I'm an IP. IPs are supposed to be "losers" ?. What a load of rubbish. I can find many examples of how E or J can be very, very negative traits.

well, they are SUPPOSED to

[Ezra]

Pavlov stipulated two types : Strong and Weak.

One socionist (don't remember his name) said Weak types were IP types, and Strong types all others.

More accurately :

• EJ is Strong, Balanced, and Mobile.
• IJ is Strong, Balanced, and Inert.
• EP is Strong and Non-balanced.
• IP is Weak.

But how are Strong types strong, and Weak types weak ? Is there a difference in conditioning practice between Strong and Weak types ?

Oh right, so EJs are the gods, and IPs are the pieces of shit that must be annihilated.

[misutii]

Pavlov stipulated two types : Strong and Weak.

One socionist (don't remember his name) said Weak types were IP types, and Strong types all others.

More accurately :

• EJ is Strong, Balanced, and Mobile.
• IJ is Strong, Balanced, and Inert.
• EP is Strong and Non-balanced.
• IP is Weak.

But how are Strong types strong, and Weak types weak ? Is there a difference in conditioning practice between Strong and Weak types ?

I agree that this is confusing. Pavlov was obviously either a logical-type EJ or IJ, and his assumptions seem like a waste of time to discuss in wake of the fact that his emotional retardedness permeates through his conclusions by means of his subjective bias. Labelling types as "Strong" and "Weak" is not going to fly anywhere special. It seems like he was Idealizing EJs and devaluing IPs.

[Cone]

Thanks, dee.

Please, people, read my posts in this thread before I fly off the handle. I will not have my idol's name marred because machintruc failed to do enough research.

[mimisor]

Yeah, i know about this theory - first heard about it in school, so so long ago..now i've read again trough it with this occasion.

Pavlov re-takes the classical 4 temperaments developed originally by Hippocrate and makes a further addition to it, by considering the strength/weakness of the central nervous system.

According to the theory, the distribution is as follows:

Sanguinic (which in socionics corresponds to EJ personality) is strong, balanced and mobile
Choleric (which in socionics corresponds to EP personality) is strong, un-balanced and mobile
Phlegmatic (which in socionics corresponds to IP personality) is strong, balanced and inert
Melancholic (which in socionics corresponds to IJ personality) is weak, un-balanced and inert

where
-strenght is about sensitiveness of the nervous system to stimuli i.e. what dee said "is about dealing with excessive stress"
strong means you are resilient to it
weak means you are not resilient to it "switches easily into protection mode"

-balance is about the repartion of excitation and inhibition -- where there is an equilibrum of the repartition one is a balanced person, where there is no equilibrum one is an un-balanced person.
Cone described it very nicely above to which i added the correlations of types
"So in terms of strong-weak, you can have four types :
strong excitation, strong inhibition, equilibrium; - EJ
strong excitation, weak inhibition, strong (Pavlov found this type of dog to be like a "super-dog"); EP
weak excitation, strong inhibition, weak (Pavlov pitied this type of dog); - IJ
weak excitation, weak inhibition, equilibrium. - IP

Mobility is about how quickly (or less) one goes from a state of excitation to a state of inhibition and inversely i.e. from inhibition to excitation
if it is done quickly then one is mobile (for example just thinking how EP's are so easily fired up, EJ's also follow), when the transition it's done slowly then one is inert (IP's and IJ's are both slowly reacting to stimuli not so sudden)
©by gugu

/edit
And also the melancholic make great team, based on socionics intertype relationships, with the sanguinic
while the phlegmatic make great team with the choleric