Technically the same thingOriginally Posted by Tallmo
Technically the same thing
Not at all. They appear together in the type but they are completely different in nature. I can explain this to you in detail if you want to.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
makes sense. Roller coasters inspire a greater sense of fear than say, motorways, but statistically speaking they're safer.
I'd imagine SLI fall somewhere in the middle -- not susceptible to tests of courage, but excessive caution would also go against their laid-back demeanour.
An extemporised comparison of types:
My SLI uncle enjoys flying to Canada/Northern US (particularly Alaska) and giving wilderness tours. He's seen a number of large bears and is at risk from exposure, among other things. But to sort of quantify these risks, one must take into account his really crank knowledge about wilderness living, his cool head in emergencies (1S ...4E), adept consideration of practical matters (ST), and (2P) tendency to prepare properly, and decades of experience as well. For a city-dweller like me, wandering about in the wildernesses would be quite fatal, but for him, the risks are more controlled.
Of course 'risk taker' is a judgment which depends on individual assessments of worth as well. SLE are more likely to risk life and limb; LIE are more likely to make risky financial bids; SEE can be goaded into bad judgments in either category... IEI just seem to like danger... I've listed LII as more risk-averse than ILI due to rationality, although upon further consideration, they're less likely to wear lab goggles... idiots
technically different components of Model A, but Jung's Si archetype is described in terms of Se ignoring so they can't be fundamentally disentangled
Jung gave definitions of 4 functions and E/I attitudes. The most important are these definitions from him!
He also gave expanded descritions related to functions in e/i forms and people of some types.
He partly mistaked in _secondary_ interpretations of own theory. Or wrote badly as such can be understood.
Muddy and inconsistent Jung's texts can be linked with many of what.
On other side is the problem, that model's A representing of functions (as many of Augustinavichiute's ideas) are baseless nonsense, which sometimes have contradictions with more basic theory.
Yeah, a lot of them have hedonistic tendencies and minimal fear/high pain tolerance. Excitement/thrills are sensations that someone could subjectively (Si) find pleasant; sometimes the danger/risk is just incidental to whatever they're trying to achieve
Last edited by Averroes; 10-26-2023 at 07:01 PM.
It's so unexpected for you to agree with anyone that I felt a need to confirm my understanding...
I'll try to explain what I mean.
When Si is developed the focus is on the inner, "impressionistic/magical" sensations, as described by Jung. At the same time the direct impact from the object is limited. So two things are going on: indulging in the inner sensations and limiting the impact from without.
The problem is that it's easy for an observer to see that an Si base person can seem aloof, adapting and so on, but this behaviour comes from his negative relation to the object and should be labelled Se ignoring in model A. Si has a positive relation to the inner world of sensations and there is nothing limiting about it, just indulging in it. But this is harder to observe from the outside. When I read the Socionics descriptions I feel that these things have been mixed up. Understandable, because it's not necessary to keep them apart in order to type people correctly. But the type will be misunderstood.
Jung writes about "The introverted sensation type":
I think many people have experienced this with SEIs and SLIs. I can notice this in myself. But this is about handling the influence from the object, a negative phenomenon in this type. Whereas Si is about the influence from the subject.But, where the influence of the object does not entirely succeed, it encounters a benevolent neutrality, disclosing little sympathy, yet constantly striving to reassure and adjust. The too-low is raised a little, the too-high is made a little lower; the enthusiastic is damped, the extravagant restrained; and the unusual brought within the 'correct' formula: all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds.
as Jung says:
Above all, his development estranges him from the reality of the object, handing him over to his subjective perceptions, which orientate his consciousness in accordance with an archaic reality
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I've read all of this, and ftr, it's what most people who had read your previous post would've assumed you'd meant.
My point stands; it seems Jung was proving a sort of Hegelian dialectic when he composed the archetype. This implies a fundamental entanglement of concepts which hypothesis is borne out by his writing on the topic
Appearing together in the psyche means that they are a part of the same process, in my opinion. I don't need or want a detailed explanation, but I don't mind if you post it for others who might enjoy that line of reasoning.
Just because you CAN think of them differently, doesn't mean the they're different. This is kind of a te/ti disagreement. As a te valuing type, I would even say that this idea lacks rationality.
Ti types usually enjoy going down the rabbit hole of discussing every dichotomy
The te valuing types prefer to look at how the theory could be applied, and what the implications would be in every day life.
I could see both
different aspects (Ti) of essentially the same process (Te)
maybe that is what stibnite was trying to get at, although I am not entirely sure what a "hegelian dialectic" is(I did look it up)
There are many descriptions which describe behavior of SLIs as taking risks, doing stupid things out of boredom, trying to get attention for being unique, buying expensive cars and driving fast, etc.
I'm not saying it's a hard rule, as I really do think this aspect can be drastically different in each person, but the d.s. function can be kind of a wild failing thing in some people. (IEEs overeating, going to too many restaurants, hedonisticly overindulging in sex. LSEs giving dating advice, becoming obsessive about attaining someone pure as their partner, - all also supported by classic literature, and fi d.s. online dating coaches).
Again, to be clear, it isn't a hard rule, but it does happen enough to be called out.
Ne ignoring and ne polr can be the most risk averse.
ILI is all into Ni , if it fails then look to Ne to backfill in for options.
Or stressed and over indulge in sensory.
Black & white is a shallow divide, division is the color that multiplies
If you can wash your brain, your brain isn't a wash, it is awash
To experience is simple, to explain is divine
Hearts of stone are a dead giveaway: no movement
Anyone who's interested, this might be a fun ne- ne+ thought experiment
Sorry, I'd specified 'hegelian' because if one looks up 'dialectic' in the dictionary there will be multiple entries. Hegel was a German metaphysical philosopher who between many ideas of Byzantine complexity and dubious quality systematised an ancient (probably socratic) method of discourse. Hegel's system posits that progress and novelty can be reached through a sort of trial by opposites (so thesis and antithesis meet at a point of higher understanding, which takes the best elements of both: synthesis). If you've read Gulenko's cogstyles article, the 'D' in DA cogstyle stands for a hegelian sort of dialecticI could see both
different aspects (Ti) of essentially the same process (Te)
maybe that is what stibnite was trying to get at, although I am not entirely sure what a "hegelian dialectic" is
Another way to look at epistemology -- if you wanted to explore an unlightable room of unknown shape and proportions, you might devote time to choosing a system that would enable you to examine sections of the room methodically, because random exploration would waste time as you'd be more likely to revisit places you'd already been, possibly missing out entire sectors as well. After Decartes' famous declaration of cogito ergo sum, people began to realise that questions such as 'how can we be certain of what we think we know' are not so easily answered. For this reason methods of thinking have also been explored rather exhaustively
(Ofc if one is Hume, aka the most exciting, incendiary philosopher of all time, one would simply ask 'how does one light an unlightable room?')
As for Jung, I think you've exactly the right idea. In the first place, he prefaced his archetypes with a disclaimer that basically reads 'I'm just noodling about, so please, please do not mistake these portraits for a personality system' (which both Briggs-Myers and Augustinaviciute decided perversely to do). But something else becomes plain as one reads Jungian archetypal portraits: these are not sort of random points of light appearing in mostly-empty space; they are connected at such an innate level because he contrived many of them in a deliberately antithetical mode. But, lest I be accused of unfairly slandering personality systems, one thing socionics, MBTI, and others have certainly got right is the notion that the world takes all sorts. Recent ecological modelling has shown conclusively, mathematically, that diversity increases robustness
Sorry for writing a book lol hope that cleared up the terms a bit
Last edited by theum nathair; 10-29-2023 at 12:27 AM. Reason: hume the accursed scot
Yes, if I focus on something I have to ignore/limit something else (the opposite thing). Two sides of the same coin. It's quite natural that if sensation is turned inwards it cannot be turned outwards at the same time. My point was simply that these are still different things, very different experiences and can be kept apart. And the main thing in this type is his inner sensations, that's where the real focus is.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Do you think it's true? Are these descriptions Socionics or some MBTI descriptions? MBTI tends to mistype people. I haven't noticed SLI being risk takers, but on the other hand I don't know that many SLI, a few. I see much more risktaking in extraverts.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I think that it CAN be true. And yes it's socionics. I don't use mbti. As I said in the original comment, it isn't a hard rule of this type. Some of them are like this and some aren't.
I don't think socionics practicing people should get distracted by Jung's ideas and writing when using socionics. I love Jung's work but I like to keep in mind that socionics evolved from Jung's principles, but they haven't remained the same principles -- the same way that a son isn't the father, but part of the father and part something else, which has it's own and separate lineage.
This is a good way of explaining it ����
Here are a few references. Btw, I'm claiming 1. that they enjoy the occasional shake up 2. with some people of this type being a lot more risky than others (casual sex, speeding, high ne or se) 3. Some are unlikely to engage in this behavior (E9, or low ne). 4 and that the dual seeking function can be expressed in an extreme way. (Not like the mobilizing function which is more skilled and used more frequently). None of this should contradict that they're also expert at risk mitigation (probably true for every representative of this type). ILIs mistyped as SLIs will not relate to the below.
A
https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/augusta-sli/
"In dangerous situations, SLI stubbornly fears nothing, calmly approaches the source of danger. In safe situations, he is proud and independent"
B
https://daddygulenko4life.blogspot.c...tions.html?m=1
"Sli-c....easily learns new skills. She takes risks for the excitement it brings and tests herself in rapidly changing situations, although she does not lose her mind or cross a dangerous line"
And C
"Included in her work are financial incentives, as well as risky businesses that promise unusual experiences."
D
https://typometrics.tumblr.com/post/...C2%B2%E2%82%84
See the dichotomies: carefree, 3. Enjoy surprises
E
https://socionist.blogspot.com/2008/...ption.html?m=1
"The SLI is an experience-oriented type that welcomes adventure and new impressions while maintaining sensory balance and internal integrity."
F
"his type was SLI, Gabin, her type was IEE, Huxley. They met at a party in the sauna, first came together as sexual partners.".... 'He was already married'
https://wikisocion.github.io/en/inde...iyevskaya.html
G
Some reading about the ways we can express an accentuated function that model A doesn't predict
1. https://varlawend.blogspot.com/2019/...arian.html?m=1
2. https://wikisocion.github.io/en/inde...e=Subtype.html
H
Lastly, here is a short discussion about the ways we might act out our d.s.
https://insightbysocionics.blogspot....eking.html?m=1
I also see some SLI that way. They are experienced in many physical activities and good at it, so they can misjudge the risk (from my pov). Btw ESIs can do it too, i think it's introverted sensors when they are good at something, thet get so engrossed in their activity they cant see the danger. They all share low Ne. Both SLI and ESI can do a lot of reckless stuff when they're young or angry. It's also a big positive point since IEE and LIEs can be surprisingly cautious.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I'm constantly paying attention to what could go wrong. But theoretically 4d ne should at least *look* hectic af. I also see 4d si as having immaculate dexterity (maybe ESI less because F>L)
The types and the functions are the same Jung/Socioncis, so to some extent it's just a new branding of the same thing. Socionics has spelled out the 16 types (8x2), and done a great job in observing and writing descriptions of the intertype relationships, making it easier to learn the types. Socionics has it's own theory of the functions, and I think it's a step back. I don't see people using it much here, something like "Si is the relation between processes taking place at the same time". I've never understood that sort of thing.
When it comes to understanding the functions Jung is much better, it's genious, you can't even compare him to Socionics. In fact, you HAVE to read Jung to get a deeper understanding.
Socionics is both a step forward and a step back, from Jung.
The jungians already knew about things like "duality" they just didn't call it that. It's not that hard to notice after all. But the Jungians drew different conclusions and there is no idealization of duality, at least I havn't found it.
Jung is really hard to understand unless you already know the types and relationships, have experienced duality and so on. On the other hand Socionics gives a shallow understanding of some phenomena, compared to Jung. I think the best solution is to combine both Jung and Socionics.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Jung is a behavioral scientist, not a personality theory
"I'm grateful that I'm Jung and not a jungian."
Ok this is an interesting chart I do find myself less of a risk taker than my IEE friend/bandmate. But as an SLI i find myself to be quite reserved when it comes to risk taking.makes sense. Roller coasters inspire a greater sense of fear than say, motorways, but statistically speaking they're safer.
I'd imagine SLI fall somewhere in the middle -- not susceptible to tests of courage, but excessive caution would also go against their laid-back demeanour.
An extemporised comparison of types:
My SLI uncle enjoys flying to Canada/Northern US (particularly Alaska) and giving wilderness tours. He's seen a number of large bears and is at risk from exposure, among other things. But to sort of quantify these risks, one must take into account his really crank knowledge about wilderness living, his cool head in emergencies (1S ...4E), adept consideration of practical matters (ST), and (2P) tendency to prepare properly, and decades of experience as well. For a city-dweller like me, wandering about in the wildernesses would be quite fatal, but for him, the risks are more controlled.
Of course 'risk taker' is a judgment which depends on individual assessments of worth as well. SLE are more likely to risk life and limb; LIE are more likely to make risky financial bids; SEE can be goaded into bad judgments in either category... IEI just seem to like danger... I've listed LII as more risk-averse than ILI due to rationality, although upon further consideration, they're less likely to wear lab goggles... idiots
"Precision beats power and timing beats speed"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote