Hi smilex,
These descriptions match up with some of what I’ve noticed about the types. Nice work, dude.
Hi smilex,
These descriptions match up with some of what I’ve noticed about the types. Nice work, dude.
Thanks a bunch. This could be taken quite a bit further, but at the moment I'm lacking the motivation to write.Originally Posted by Finaplex
Its actually very true what you are saying about business groupings. It plays out along these lines I have seen. What you said about the carnivore grouping is spot on.
A few words about tetartos...
These groups are actually better understood through the nature of their functional properties rather than the types themselves. Why is this?
These groups are about understanding the rules of conduct and cooperation from that perspective. They are in their own way, business relations.
If you have four highly compliant individuals, you have four people, who all want to be the idea person and hate to be the one who actually does something. Yet something needs to happen, so in the end you have a negotiation, somebody's gotta do something. The others have to convince one or more of the individuals that they're getting something worth it in return.
If you have four highly obstinate individuals, the reverse is true. You have four people who all prefer the role of the one who acts and you get competition for that role. Nobody wants to stand aside, but if somebody does, they can negotiate with that.
Being carefree works similarly in the sense that everybody wants to plan, nobody wants to be the one to just live with the results.
Being careful works similarly in the sense that everybody wants to live with the results, nobody wants to be the one to plan how to get there.
These functions are about tradeoffs. And in a way, the playfield is sort of equal. Thing is, if there's a game going on, the negativity-positivity aspect makes winners and losers... In any tetarto group of four types, two are losers and two are winners. It's a zero-sum game.
Or that's how it's perceived. The position that feels worse is not always the worse one. Under dangerous conditions, it is the positive, expansive sorts are more likely to overstep themselves.
If members of these groups are in a larger group, things change. They may form alliances easily because each one has the same priorities. But they may also end up competing for resources.
In this 'game', the types that have the same limiting and liberating functions are more likely to share strategies, capable of supporting each other, but more likely to compete with each other. The other two types have complementary 'playstyles'. Cooperation happens if both types believe they're winning. To a large extent the ability to cooperate depends on the circumstances. But there needs to be respect for 'the game'.
An appropriate tv-series about the Noon Tetarto, is married with children (after the appearance of Jefferson). Most of the appropriate dynamics are beautifully evident.
Just to make it more obvious:
Marcy ESTp
Jefferson INFp
Al ESTj
Peggy INFj
A little bit more about the tetartos 'game' aspect.
I think I've explained enough about the 'compliant' group and how that relates to the concept of costs and trade.
So how do the other defining groups trade?
'Carefree' is kind of ... the blame game. Thinking equals positivity means the people who are allowed to be choosing the path forward are carefree. Ethics equals negativity means the people who suffer the consequences are constrained. As usual, the sensory activity is easiest to observe. The results of one's actions aren't as good as one thought.The cold temperament carefree quality of the ISTj and the ISTp is kind of like... 'This is my choice, so up yours'. ISFj and ISFp are related to this from a perspective of disappointment at having to face realities, perhaps also guilt. ISFps kind of have a feeling of 'lessons learned', they kind of shrink away naturally. ISFjs tend to 'fight back', trying to return to power. But often the results of their activities have soured their allies to them and they're ditched. If not immediately, the carefree activities continue until the disaster is large enough. Meanwhile ENFps and ENFjs are kind of mentally dealing with the results of longer term consequences and separate themselves from any concrete action so as to be far from further consequences. ENFps put themselves to the periphery of society, ENFjs put themselves into the center of power but as the opposition to what's happening. When disappointment in the past activities reigns, the ENTj posit themselves with natural answers to the obstacles faced. But they're also likely to start with enemies, the remnants of the old rule. ENTps are distanced from power so they're kind of considered 'the distant genius'. Since they're distant from the center of activity they're not ready with answers but they just try to push towards a new path. Mileage may vary.
So what's the game? It's certainly not obvious immediately when an individual's turn in authority is over. Who's the thinker you should follow for the new age? Is it Kennedy's Camelot or John Lennon's imagination? Can the socion muster enough forces to actually force Stalin, Nixon, or Erdogan of their podium? How long is Johnny Depp going to fool around? That's the game.
The obstinate game.
This game is 'won' by showing physical signs of victory, and 'lost' by sticking to one's convictions. The loser sit at the sidelines looking weak and droopy while the winners display peacock-like behaviour and gloat.
Whether it's this
or this
or this
or this
The hot temperaments try more to look pretty, meaningful, esthetic or direct physical dominance while the cold types go for show of power in society, dominance.
So, who's got the prettiest jewels, the nicest looking calling card, best scoring record, nicest car, proof you've won.
There's a sort of hobby-like pettiness to the game. I mentioned about how this all relates sports. All the gloating creates spite, which creates more gloating when the other side wins. While I stressed the physical dominance aspect of the matter, the physical signs are really just the visible part of what's happening. The true game is mental and social. Whether you're paralyzed to inaction or doing your own thing.
If 'compliance' is a game about who gets others to do things, 'obstinate' is a game about who gets to do things. If 'compliance' is a game about standing, influence and people who are indebted to you... Obstinate is a game about materialism, independence, willpower, proving a point and rubbing it in.
The game fundamentally exists as a later result of the hot temperament's reactions to victory in physical affairs. This creates feelings of separation in the INTjs and INTps who take it in, fume internally and create a mental construct wherein they have to protect their own interests. ESFjs and ESFps tend to eventually spend their power position. ENFjs kind of become enraged at this loss and start fuming, fighting over things, there's usually an obvious point where things change for them. ENFps tend to bow out in a smoother manner, but never willingly. ISTjs and ISTps show their ability to prove that they 'were in the right' originally. It's a story about growing out of weakness. ISTjs gain this self confidence slower, it comes through a new introvert functional state. For ISTps they get the new feeling from reaching a goal, a new clear state has been undeniably reached, victory.
And the final trade/game. 'Careful'.
Negative thinking, positive ethics. What happens when planning for action is considered hard and not-desirable. What happens after activity is considered desirable. The sensory behaviour is about going through hardship for the purpose of achieving victory. This is a rather simple concept.
'Careful' intuition is about attempting to make choices that avoid the bad effects of others' activities. It starts from a point of view of long-time adaptation to an existing state or model of behaviour. Then from this completely unprepared, 'weak' state, suddenly there's a new threat of change to worse. After the initial signs of this threat, starts the planning. 'Can we go back to what we had?', 'Can we stop this?'. How can this be effective? Either we're talking about INTjs and INTps who spend a lot of time thinking either about how to stop others or how to elevate their own position stronger... or we're talking about INFjs and INFps who generally have either reliable or powerful friends, possibly both. Often enough the very people who think of effecting change are relying on the help and support of these people because they've seemed friendly and supportive... so them simply abandoning the support they've formerly given, may be enough to stop bad things from happening.
If the 'careless' game was about authority over who gets to effect change... the 'careful' game is about 'the spoils' and who gets to keep the rewards.
So we got each tetarto defined by two functions around which there's a 'limiting' or a 'liberating' function.
Some types are classified as 'negative', some as 'positive'.
Let's have a large quote here:"
Positivists (ILE, ESE, LSI, IEI, LIE, SEE, EII, SLI):
- Positivists initially pay attention to what is present in a situation (what exists, what is there) what can realistically occur, what can be interpreted as an affirmative manifestation of surrounding world, situations, possibilities, prospects.
- Positivists are oriented at what any situation or contact with people can potentially bring to them rather than what they could potentially lose (for example, moving is viewed as an opportunity to gain new acquaintances, friends, rather than primarily from point of view of losing existing friends). For them an orientation to success is more characteristic rather than avoidance of failure.
- Positives are better at assimilating affirmative experiences. They are inclined to "convert" negative experiences into positive ones (they try to find the "silver lining").
- They speak more of the positive and try to present negative moments on a positive background ("Yes, this is a problem, but..."—then continue to paint a positive picture). Conversations about the negative (when the other person accentuates deficiencies, absence, impossibility) may be irritating to Positivists.
- In speech of Positivists, one can detect mostly affirmative constructions and intonations. If they are giving instructions to someone else, they present them in positive manner: they talk about what can be done or what should be done in different situations (for example, "You can call him only at this-and-this time") rather than what cannot or should not be done.
Negativists (SEI, LII, SLE, EIE, ILI, ESI, IEE, LSE):
- Negativists pay attention to aspects of the situation that are insufficient or lacking, which can be interpreted as seeing the negative prospects of various situations and events.
- Negativists orient at what they could potentially lose as a result of a certain situation or contact with other people, rather than what this situation or contact can bring to them (for example, moving for negativists primarily means losing friends). Negativists focus on avoiding failures (the "positive" development of a situation is the fact that nothing negative has happened so far).
- Negativists are better at assimilating negating, negative experiences. They are inclined to outline negative sides of affairs.
- Negativists are more inclined to speak about negative moments. Positive aspects are presented on a negative background ("Well, this is good, but..."—then mentions what is lacking, what is not right). Negativists are irritated by "excessively positive" attitudes (when another person "forgets" to bring up or haven't even considered the negative aspects of something).
- In speech of negativists there is frequent use of negating expressions (negative pronouns, adverbs, "not" "cannot" "nobody" "never"). For example: "Negative experiences are not always necessary, I don't need them" "There won't be an occasion to do anything" "I cannot say that this is not true" etc. If giving instructions they first of all talk about the things to avoid, what should not be done (For example "If you call them at such a time it will be pointless").
Notes:
Previous research on this dichotomy was reduced to measuring positive/negative in the "everyday" sense of the word. In our opinion, these attitudes are a consequence of a deeper mechanism: one group perceives and describes something by denoting associated properties (Positivists) while the other group denotes properties that are not associated with it. Positivists describe a subject, individual, phenomenon, attempting to describe it through characteristics inherent in the object, while Negativists focus on properties that do not pertain to the object. The cursory impression of optimism/pessimism being the distinguishing feature of this dichotomy occurs because of this. In reality, both Positivists and Negativists possess these two attitudes and talk equally of "good" and "bad" things. The difference is in the form of presentation—for example, on the same topic of shortcomings: "I cannot say that you have no shortcomings" (negativism) and "You have several shortcomings" (positivism).
Hypotheses:
The difference in assimilating experiences between Positivists and Negativists arises because Positivists better remember events when they did transpire, rather than events that did not occur, while Negativists are better at remembering events that did not occur, that were absent or lacking (for the Negativist, this absence constitutes an event in itself, they remember this better and draw conclusions).
Examples:
Positivists: "At first I trust people, distrust needs to be substantiated" "I always believe in a positive outcome. I will most likely talk about positives. I don't issue warnings of possible failures—why bring people down, may be everything will be ok" "It irritates me when people talk only of character flaws and inadequacies in others" "I try not to give instructions on avoidance or failure" "When giving instructions I avoid giving orders like "Don't do it! Don't go!" "Even negative experience can be positive" "I start off by trusting people and then work from there."
Negativists: "My first reaction to everything is "no!" whatever it might be" "I don't speak of the positives" "One must take into account all the negative aspects. It goes without saying that people are capable of anything" "If the mood is too good - something is not right" "In my instructions I always give people "negative" orientation points. I foresee all the negative moments and try to make provisions for them" "People in general are good, but it's better to keep your distance from them" "When I was authoring a textbook, I constructed my proofs "by method of contradiction"" "Most often I bring bad news" "When asked "How's it going?" I answer "Not well." "How am I going to entertain myself? Certainly I wouldn't go to a restaurant, neither a casino ... but somewhere out to nature..." "There will be a building there, but that's not what you're looking for. After that you will see a street, but don't take it, continue on your path. Go around the building and don't use the first two entrances."
Here's another quote:
"The typical symptoms of major depression in a young person include:
Emotional changes:
- Feelings of unhappiness, or moodiness and irritability, and sometimes emptiness or numbness
- Tearfulness or frequent crying
- Feelings of worthlessness and guilt, sadness and/or hopelessness
- Losing interest and pleasure in activities that was once enjoyed
- Tiredness, lack of energy and motivation
- Feeling worried or tense
Cognitive changes:
- Difficulty concentrating and making decisions
- Being self-critical and self-blaming
- Negative body image and low self esteem
- Having dark and gloomy thoughts, including thoughts of death or suicide
Behavioral changes:
- Poor attention to personal hygiene and appearance
- Decreased participation with peers and normally enjoyed activities
- Self harm or deteriorated self-care
- Avoidance of family interactions and activities
- More withdrawn behaviour, including clearly more time spent alone
The idea that there are people who's best state is to exist in the 'negativist' is sick. Any sociologist, psychologist or doctor who advocates permanent accepting of a state of 'negativist' should lose any and all licenses to practise.
Depression is not a personality type.
...
So, with that done...
We know from biology that many animals have a variety in how brave, outgoing etc. the individuals are. Under circumstances that support life, the brave individuals thrive. Under circumstances that are dangerous, the more cowardly individuals survive. So... a relative amount of negativism will allow you to survive and a relative amount of positivism will allow you to thrive.
There's a good amount of selective force against both the center of positivism and the center of negativism. This is a significant force pushing people towards being one subtype or another. And psyche generally pushes people to trying to be on the 'positivist' side of any function. If your choices are e.g. to have resources or to not have resources people choose to have resources.
I think that it's partially true.
As you said in the OP, Socionics is based on observations. It's based on stuff that has actually happened in the past, so it has to be true.
Saying that Duals get along must be true, because two people will have to eventually get along at some point. They may even get along famously.
But it would be more powerful to explain why they get along, rather than just saying there are two kinds of people that will perhaps get along at some point, deterministically or otherwise. It would strengthen the observation, and it might lead to newer understanding of things, to more theories and further speculations.
Of course, there are some people who absolutely hate the role of having to explain things. I don't really know why that is the case, other than that perhaps because it's difficult and it takes too much effort. Or maybe because they were taught in public education that they're not allowed to probe things and ask the question "why".
I think equating depressive thinking patterns with socionics negativism is really missing the concept.
Not equating, correlating though.
I think you mean 'can get along'. Because all types also argue and fight. One professional description describes duality such:"There are at least two conditions to be completed for a successful relationship between Duals. Firstly between the partners there has to be at least a minimal mutual attraction. Secondly and most importantly is that the partners are truly striving for the same or similar things. This may include common interests and/or life goals. Partners that are both seriously thinking about building a family are a good example. Logically saying: two halves of the same whole must not repel or move in the different directions, otherwise the whole will break into pieces. Relations of Duality also go through several stages. The first stage sometimes can be really tense. "
Basically... they're describing the best case scenario when conditions are met. Duality is usually described as a relation that covers your weak spots, hardly ever as something that enhances your good ones. Duality is also often described as something that 'leads to success' or as from the same source ' To have a Dual partner is irreplaceable if you have to compete or survive in a socially dangerous environment'...
Yet dual partners that I observe tend to usually look like... a truce, a cooperation, people trying to balance. But as in the description above, attraction needs to come from somewhere else. Dualism is by its descriptions and nature in real life more of a tool for success than attractive in and of itself.
'Usually during first contact extroverts think about their introvertDual as ordinary and simple, therefore not deserving their personal attention. In return introverts consider their extrovert
Dualism is more of a 'yeah I guess I need this' thing rather than a 'I'm loving this' thing.
It would.But it would be more powerful to explain why they get along, rather than just saying there are two kinds of people that will perhaps get along at some point, deterministically or otherwise. It would strengthen the observation, and it might lead to newer understanding of things, to more theories and further speculations.
I've been wondering for a long time about the survivor season of Tocantins. There's a weird situation where two allies choose to trust another set of two allies instead of working with people they've worked with so far. THey believe there's a kindred spirit there, and they manage to get the second pair to agree on their plan even if the alliance has conflicting quadra values and little that makes sense from the more common viewpoint to relationhips.
A part of my problem was that I had originally mistyped the participants. The individuals actually seem to be:
JT ESFp-Fi
Stephen INTp-Te
Tyson ESFj-Fe
COach ISTj-Ti.
Coach leads the decision to create an alliance, based on his honouring 'warrior ethics' or something. He's described as a soccer coach. Basically, this seems to me to be a case of real life decisions based on 'obstinate' tetarto values. The alliance is not particularly solid, it falls through almost immediately. But it's interesting anyway.
Might as well write a few words about process / result.
So changing the matter towards viergruppes.
First of all there's the aspect of time, not as time = Ni but as in real life progression of time.
The matter of quadra progression is defined by the actual progression of events. And the socionics functions naturally flow in the direction of
N->T->S->F->N. Because planning naturally is followed by activity which is naturally followed by the emotional effects and ethical considerations of said action and so on.
But there's another sequence of causality in socionics, from accepting function to creating function. Using the accepted information to fuel some outcome, the creating function.
So how do these interact?
If a type belongs to the 'process' dichotomy, both the previous flows of causality work in the same direction. Basically, this is the natural evolution of an idea into plan, into action, into feelings all happening inside the psyche of an individual and reflected in their activity.
So... what's the other option, 'results'? Basically, if you've had a very significant experience that defines a large part of your life, you kind of get used to it. You know how it works, there's momentum. The brain naturally repeats same paths unless there's a large reason to change them. 'Results' is your psyche trying to rush through to the same result as previously without starting from the original concept. It's said you can't cross the same river twice, so you can't walk the same evolutionary path to the same result twice, you know the result. You're already at the end of the path. Now if your psyche tries to do it again, it has to look for another beginning to get to the same ending.
Now how do people relate to this. Static types tend to see these states of 'result' as negative'. It's a problematic position, a hang-up, but also a solid state, something to step on, from which, to start a new period of desirable progress. You might even call this sensibilities as seeking the chance to be progressive.
Dynamic types tend to see the natural flow of events as frustratingly slow and like to see things taken to the end. They're capable of accepting the plodding pace of the process but they enjoy the state of 'results', where they can quickly and reliably with little stress the results they desire. They consider this an earned state of either skill or status. These sensibilities may be seen as trending towards conservative.
Connection with political sensibilities? Roots of the term 'business logic'?
Anyway... as time continues to flow, the attempts to maintain a solid desirable state always fall through in the tide of entropy. What some see as progress, others may also see as degeneration.
And the dynamic types find themselves in a new path again seeking something.
Rationals see process as either the conduction of events as defined by an intrinsic system (IJ) or as a process of research to explore how the world works to establish skill and understanding that allow one to in the future achieve easy results (EJ).
For dynamics the process is either a joyous adventure with a continuous flow of new experiences (EP) or continuous pattern of same pointless boring day to day crap which requires someone to change the path of events (IP).
For the hot temperaments the process is a quest, the end of which remains not understood, for the cold temperaments the process is just playing out of a pattern.
Relating to the previous. ...
One of the things that most shows to me the very limited understanding that Aushra had over the patterns that work in people's minds is the following:
This is related to quadra progression and how Fe harmonizes with Ti. Basically she's pointing out that people with high Ti can be stimulated by Fe to turn Ne into Se.
Potential energy Extravert intuition I The transformation of potential into kinetic Extravert ethics E Kinetic energy Extravert sensory F Using the kinetic energy Extravert logic P
Now the point that pisses me off is that she was equating Fe-types as being people with the sole purpose of being tools for the mental progression of herself. She's showing absolute ignorance over what's happening in the mind of the people with Fe.
This is absolutely an error in the naming of things. This is absolutely an enormous mistake from Aushra.
People with Fe in their minds have their own things going on in their own heads. They do not solely exist to push ENTps. They primarily relate to their own experiences and not those of the ENTp. Their experiences rise from Si, not from Ne. The point of Fe is not to flow into Se but to turn into Ni.
Yet people who write things for the first time tend to err. I'm not pissed by the mistake, I'm pissed by the abusive mentality towards socionics the mistake shows, the clear dishonesty and pushing of personal interests ahead of science.
So... process and results, accepting and creating. 1st and 2nd function.
So what kind of a thing are we talking about.
Socionics of Aushra describes the world from the ENTp perspective. She claims the second function is a social function... and it certainly is for ENTps as well as all irrational types. Not so much for the rationals. For rationals the second function is about the direct relation to the world. Oh well... let's focus...
Creating Thinking is a function that seeks a position in life where one may turn ideas into physical action easily enough. In comparison with accepting thinking the individual is usually more well prepared to assume this position as they have sought it, but once achieved, they don't seek to use that position as the position is the point in and of itself. They actively 'supervise' their mirror temperament and 'benefit' their activity temperament.
Accepting Thinking is a function that assumes a position in life where one may turn ideas into physical action easily enough. They take the matter for granted and as such may seem either a trustworthy natural, or an underprepared fool. They assume the position as a mobile position, retaining ability to move to one direction or another. THey accept supervision from their mirror temperament, they accept benefits from their activity partner.
Creating Ethics is a function that seeks a position in life where one may turn physical action into ideas easily enough. In comparison with accepting ethics the individual is usually more well prepared to assume this position as they have sought it, but once achieved, they don't seek to use that position as the position is the point in and of itself. They actively 'supervise' their mirror temperament and 'benefit' their activity temperament.
Creating Sensory is a function that seeks a state of completed action. In comparison with accepting sensory the individual is usually more well prepared to perform the action as they have sought it, but once achieved, they don't seek to use the act as it is the point in and of itself. They actively 'supervise' their mirror temperament and 'benefit' their activity temperament.
Creating Intuition is a function that seeks a state of perfect ideal. In comparison with accepting intuition the the individual has better considered their position as they have gone through experiences that have formed it and once achieved, they don't seek to use the idea as such, as it is the point in and of itself. They actively 'supervise' their mirror temperament and 'benefit' their activity temperament.
The other accepting functions are trivial from above.
One of the most 'wrong' concepts that people tout is that 1st function is stronger than 2nd. This is just safe to ignore.
So, how do these interact? Obviously Creating function competes with the same creating function. Creating function creates a feedback-loop with the same function in its accepting form.
Thinking complements Ethics as always.
Sensory complements Intuition as always.
Creating Thinking and Creating Ethics for example dualize or act as superego. Both are really working for complementary roles. This creates a feeling of success. This is the nature of the 'talking to one's dual' thing.
Creating thinking and accepting Ethics for example, the rhythms don't dualize, they act like ships passing in the night. They seem to miss each other's point. If the interaction is as a mirror temperament, there's a negative surprise as one function is limiting, the other is liberating. If the interaction is as an activity temperament, there's a positive surprise. Both types benefit or are harmed, in synchrony, in a way which confuses both partners.
Last edited by Smilex; 04-14-2019 at 06:28 PM.
Viergruppes are interesting.
They are sort of made of two conflicting activity partnerships. But their nature is that they're defined by contrary partnerships and their harmonising partners.
Most descriptions of contrary partners are kind of lacking in explanations.
I'll just pick an example.
ISTj-ESTj.
They share a club, they use similar concepts and tools.
One type is taciturn, one is narrating.
Both have the similar (process-results) cathegory.
The combination of these traits makes this the most direct discussion in the socion. Both partners share discussion tools, focus and natural supportive discussion structure of two opposite view points.
One partner considers social matters limiting, the other liberating.
One partner considers physical matters limiting, the other liberating.
But they have the two opposite view points. Opposite goals. One of the partners aims to enjoy the discussion and make it last, the other is trying to get to the end. While the aim is the same, the goal is the opposite.
So it's like two people helping each other travel the same road, helping each other, while disagreeing completely.
So this group is sort of about sharing a path.
So how about the harmonisation?
maybe in the next message...
I bet you are good at math dude
ESTp-INFj-ISTp-ENFj. ... Let's call this group Carnivores.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I used to be international math competition winner level good. Not so much after 20 years of not practicing.
But thanks.
RawrESTp-INFj-ISTp-ENFj. ... Let's call this group Carnivores.
I see this process mentality play out lots with LSE. You''l get these long narrations where something can't happen unless this, or that thing happens and then they do said thing in the order they planned. You hear a lkot of slow and steady wins the race, take it at a snails pace (in order to not miss anything).\
I think their duals are set up for this kind of situation. Very thorough , all the bases covered, we did it perfectly and with high quality. Step by step by step. Don't rush it. Take care of the Se blind spot by not even worrying about it.
This is another reason I view them as monolithic.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Back to business.
So the viergruppe is kind of a picture of two types of individuals communicating on a parallel journey, sharing club and process properties.
The ones who harmonize with this, have the opposite club and belong to the results group. They do not share the journey, so how are they harmonizing with this thing anyway?
First of all, why do opposite clubs harmonize? Do they somehow help each other? No. They have the opposite tools. Their point is to not interfere, and to protect the weak spots of the one they harmonize with. So they kind of just bear witness in the sense of the direct events of the journey, but also serve to focus the individual to the journey. How?
Let's go deeper...
So the activity partner... They harmonize with the emotional quality of the 'journey'. If the process is positive, the activity partner enhances the feelings with their own positivity, both partners seeking to maintain and enjoy the process as long as possible. This is the case with static process individuals and their activity partners.
When the feeling of the process is negative, the other partner is also negative. This leads both partners to desire an end to the process. The activity partners makes the process even more disagreeable advancing the interest to focus on getting to the finish. Pushing forward.
So what about the conflict partnership? If anything, it seems to belong in the group as a way for the 'result' group participants to see two different travellers seeking sort of the same thing, and this allows them understanding of their 'team', what to support, what's the alternative.
where did u get the creating and accepting thing from
Hm, so hard
For someone with Te to have written all this...I still don't get the point. Useless much? >_<
Hm? I come back in a year and it's still top article. The place needed something to push it forward. Still does apparently.
Maybe you are stupid
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
another heretical nonsense which may be useful to rationalize typing mistakes
"TIM ENTj"
"smart one", Te types, having Fi value, do not make so direct personal insults without serious reasons. after so many years you are unable to understand own correct type.
also to use small case for J/P is senseless as Socionics uses _identical_ to MBTI description of this dichotomy as rationality/irrationality. if you are J by MBTI - you are rational in Socionics/Jung without variations, except mistakes in typing and behavior changes due to nontypes influences
Last edited by Sol; 08-06-2020 at 10:54 PM.
Just for you information, you go around this forum constaly insulting / harassing other people. I understand you don't notice that, I don't personally have a problem with it, but basically me and you have a very similar behavior from this point of view.
j/p : semantics. I agree with you. There is not j/p switch between mtbi and socionics.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
This ignores the fact that there is no Te present. While it may serve some use to let off steam and circlejerk, this article lacks logical utility.
If you're not "dumb" yourself, you mean to write "There is no j/p switch between [extraverts in] mtbi and socionics."
Between MBTI and Socionics:
ESTJ = TeSi = LSE/ESTj
ISTJ = SiTe = SLI/ISTp
You're not worth enough to correct.
lmfaooooo
I'm surprised to see some Te here, as in, Smilex understanding the futility of arguing against such a valid point brought on by @NightHawk.
Last edited by cactagon; 08-25-2020 at 11:32 PM. Reason: "they" -> "the"
Idk if anyone realizes, but, like, this is a Socionics forum, so anyone using anything but Socionics should find non-Socionics help elsewhere. That said, @NightHawk stands correct in her statement. While there is no J/P switch among extraverts between MBTI/Socionics, there is obviously one among introverts. In case @FDG or anyone can't understand the shortened Te version @NightHawk was so kind to post...
In MBTI, an ESTJ has Te as their dominant function and Si as their auxiliary/secondary function.
In Socionics, an LSE/ESTj has the same functions in the same place.
ESTJ =ESTj/LSE
However:
In MBTI, an ISTJ has Si as their dominant function and Te as their auxiliary/secondary function.
In Socionics, Si-Te equates to an SLI/ISTp.
The switch occurs for introverts and NOT for extraverts.
I feel @Smilex may not be Te dominate, since Te does well, as in, Te produces/optimizes, it does NOT convolute. This article, and its implications, are literally useless.
Te: There is a switch only for introverts. This isn't something you believe or not. The systems are largely incompatible, but to help newcomers adjust, as a community, we should inform them of this factual switch. Afterwards may they type themselves according to their newly learned Socionics data. My statement isn't odd if you interpret the "elsewhere" as "the designated area" on this forum doe. Not tryn be rudee.
MBTI functions are flawed.
They use the wrong formula to convert from dichotomies to functions.
If they re-invent mbti, reread Jung, they would address the same functions as socionics.
socionics uses the right formula bc its able to explain ITR by comparing functions/partners involved. MBTI cant do this.
logically, it just sounds strange if you call yourself a irrational in MBTI and a rational in socionics.
It's like being a man in the US under this criteria but becoming a woman in China under another criteria
anyway, here's a good visual for correlation between the two systems:
Last edited by Computer Loser; 08-26-2020 at 03:28 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
