Fair enough Tallmo !Originally Posted by Tallmo
Fair enough Tallmo !
It could be quite helpful with a few premises. At first, you need to understand Socionics and Jung's PT. Then, do not reject someone solely due to the intertype thoery.
Just by coincidence I yesterday read in Scientific American:Fair enough Tallmo !
As if big five was some big improvement. Psychologists don't really know about types, it's easy to dismiss it then. And I wouldn't call Jung an armchair psychologist. He stressed the importance for the psychologist to develop himself and getting out there and live and meet people and expand his consciousness. Jung didn't like modern "objective" statistical methods, because the results they provide are not really interesting in psychology. You just get tons of irrelevant facts.... modern day psychologists take a more multidimensional view of personality. Jung was a pretty sharp guy, but he would have been the first to admit that he was an armchair psychologist. We now know that there are five fundamental dimensions of personality (extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and intellect/imagination), each one on a continuum.
So here again. No, we don't really know more. Psychology has developed in some direction but Jung is still undiscovered by many. Also by the author of this article. One can tell by the way he underestimates Jung's work.But I'm sure even Jung would have been pleased to see how far we've come since his time. Don't get me wrong, we still have a LONG way to go, but we know so much more about the fundamental personality dimensions that exist in the general population, and how they can interact with each other and with the environment/specific situations/triggers to create a personalized individual personality structure.
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 was a pretty sharp guy, but he would have been the first to admit that he was an armchair psychologist.
Jung has seen countless patients as a psychiatrist. In addition, he actively reads books written by various authors and travels around the world to research primitive tribes. It is somewhat surprising that such a scientist is considered by some to be an armchair psychiatrist.
Statistics is a very advanced subject. In fact, statistics was questioned in the past, until the great mathematician Andrey Nikolayevich Kolmogorov used the theory of real analysis to establish an axiomatic probability theory. A deep understanding of statistics requires a very deep mathematical foundation. It is very doubtful whether the large number of "objective" statistical studies nowadays uses statistics correctly.
Moreover, logically, if correct statistics do show that an association does exist, this does not mean that all studies of what actually exists can be confirmed by the available statistical tools. Statistics is only a tool, not the entire tool of research, and there are limits to its capabilities.
I can tell that in France, there is a Freudian "lobby" so Psychoanalysis here takes the Lion's share when it comes to what is commonly known as psychological Therapy or treatment especially in the media and the "Société mondaine" even though modern methods of (cognitive) therapies are available for everyone. I think it's also the case in most european countries and Israel. However Jung's Analytical Psychology is for some reason better accepted in the USA I guess it's because Jung is taught is Academic circles while in France Psychoanalysis is a subject teens have to study the bases of before obtaining their Bacalaureat because Freud is in the school program while Jung is not.(?)
Last edited by godslave; 09-07-2022 at 01:47 PM. Reason: Add four words that were missing...
@godslave what's that gif in your signature? It's strangely hypnotic.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
It's "Rachel" from the Blade Runner Movie one of my favorite movie !!
It's true...the line in the gif. I never used to write poems. I started a while ago and it really does help me to find more meaning in life, even though on a day to day basis I sometimes feel like there isn't much to live for? I could see it becoming a life long hobby. Apparently becoming the archetype of an IEI is what I'm meant to do...fulfilling a stereotype makes life feel more special..? haha
it was one of those things I thought, oh I could never do that...and then suddenly...it becomes an infrequent habit, a bit like running..
think I even thought of it as a bit phoney..like why would a typical average/dull person need to write a poem? but creative self expression helps one to feel like it's all worth it, like we're here for a reason (and I don't mean in a religious way), like we really can live a life we regularly feel blessed to be living, you just have to remind/ inspire yourself by thinking about it in a random, free way..no restrictions, no expectations
and people act all surprised when you write a nice lil poem
Last edited by Bethanyclaire; 09-07-2022 at 02:14 PM.
Rachel seemed so EIE to me, while Decker seemed SLI. I think it contributed to the general feeling of alienation in that movie.
The line in the gif came to me a few days ago. I found my other line a bit too long aaha. I was watching a documentary about Baudelaire and I realized that his life was kinda similar to that of Edgar Allan Poe for some reason. That 4-ish aspect stroke me and I thought about how some of the most beautiful writing often come from misery and depression. We all have an idea of what is missing in our life and poets are so used to this feeling of longing that they almost personify it as if lack was a companion as if it was a muse, and so you have it. I found very Ironic that in his last days Baudelaire was aphasic, he had a stroke and failed while he was in a Church, as if life itself played a last trick on him by depriving him of words, of all things, and locked his soul in a sealed sarcophagus. It is said that "Non, Crénon " were the only words he could pronounce after his accident...It's true...the line in the gif. I never used to write poems. I started a while ago and it really does help me to find more meaning in life, even though on a day to day basis I sometimes feel like there isn't much to live for? I could see it becoming a life long hobby. Apparently becoming the archetype of an IEI is what I'm meant to do...fulfilling a stereotype makes life feel more special..? haha
it was one of those things I thought, oh I could never do that...and then suddenly...it becomes an infrequent habit, a bit like running..
think I even thought of it as a bit phoney..like why would a typical average/dull person need to write a poem? but creative self expression helps one to feel like it's all worth it, like we're here for a reason (and I don't mean in a religious way), like we really can live a life we regularly feel blessed to be living, you just have to remind/ inspire yourself by thinking about it in a random, free way..no restrictions, no expectations
and people act all surprised when you write a nice lil poem
Yes you're right, I think that poetry surprises us in the sense that it's very generous. If you just see it, listen to it, it will give you much more than what you ever expected. Most people just don't bother but it's in them too imho. Words are magical, when you write one it attracts a multitude and you find yourself with an abundance of words that you want to organize in an harmonious way like musical notes.
Last edited by godslave; 09-07-2022 at 05:41 PM.
Don't remember seeing that one. Judging by that short clip, it looks like a piece of protracted (science-) fiction melodrama, which isn't exactly my favorite genre. I prefer hardcore drama and comedy, down to earth and realistic stuff more than any sort of far out fiction, particularly sci-fi.
I do like the pensive, melancholic, longing/yearning-like expression in that gif you made. Not that I know anything about reading people's faces... I wouldn't be surprised if she was looking at someone getting murdered (and getting pleasure out of it) in the scene that gif was taken from.
Last edited by Park; 09-09-2022 at 12:10 PM.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Thanks ! I didn't make the gif but it's exactly what I was looking for, I wanted that beautiful scene and that expression of Rachel has a lot of meanings. I highly recommend to watch that movie, it's one of Ridley Scott's master piece base on a Philip .k. Dick novel. Even if you don't like Sci-Fi movies (technically it's an anticipation movie) you will not regret it because the themes developed in the movie go way beyond the context in which they are taking place. It's a very profound movie. I would be surprised if an SLI didn't appreciate it.
As for what did Rachel think in that scene, I will not spoil it but I liked what you have seen in it, that "pensive, melancholic, longing/yearning-like expression" I think you're spot-on. I really love that character and that look in her eyes is the reason why I was looking for that particular gif in the first place.
I feel like I've just been using typology as another excuse to beat myself up and dwell on my inadequacies as opposed to a way to understand myself and other people better
No but it helped me to avoid LIEs
My part time job is Parking Lot Attendant at football games and yesterday I parked a white SUV with two absolutely beautiful (and I mean, TV quality) 40-something female SEIs in it.No but it helped me to avoid LIEs
We talked about nothing for a few minutes to make them feel more comfortable in a strange place. My guess is that they were buddies and divorced and were looking for that single male gentleman SLE-Ti who coaches HS sports and is also single. (He parked ten cars away.)
Their beauty was obvious and their dress and makeup were perfection and their smiles were welcoming and I was trying to be light and clever, but my Conflictor-radar was screaming “Get away! Get away!”, and I think they were a bit confused by my “outwardly friendly, inwardly horrified” demonstration.
Prior to my learning Socionics, my radar wasn’t selective. I was both more superficially easy-to-get-along-with, and more likely to walk further into a bad situation.
After all, back then I married an Si-dom.
No
Socionics helps to find out how close your type of thinking is to the type of thinking of your interlocutor. It helps me understand business partners and colleagues better and explain many things more calmly to my family. Also, on this site, I met a very interesting woman who, by all signs, is very similar to me, and we will be able to build strong relationships. We've already had our first date, and I understand that this is exactly the woman I've been looking for for a long time. So I think Socionics is very useful for each of us.
Last edited by Maggawyld; 09-22-2022 at 08:03 PM.
I cant say Socionics has but MBTI helped me develop a lot, by focusing on MBTI ethics and being more considerate and accommodating of others feelings IRL. I suppose socionics has helped me develop as a person some, looking at Se and Te and learning how to "use" these to be more productive in everyday life.
Socionics is a dangerous thing for a woman like me to have, but I have it.
I can't click “like” on peoples posts due to the poor functionality of the site on my end. Just know that if you quoted me and were nice to me that I’m psychically sending you a like from my heart.
Same but add in astrology too
LIEs can do this too you know. And EIIs can be into hardcore stuff. Just look at Beautiful Sky on here and her ass eating adventures.
Did you ever voice your opinions to her? If so how did she take it?
No it has not helped me with dating or relationships. It would be a really bad idea to try and use Socionics in practice like thatIt would just reduce people's emotional intelligence is how I feel about it.
Generic people knowledge/skills, emotional intelligence, knowledge of psychology etc. are enough for that. Where Socionics would add something where I'm not aware if any other system etc. explains it, it always feels like Socionics just adds a hugely speculative hypothesis anyways with its explanation.
Because how can I know what's really in the other person's head?!
So I only trust explanations from non-Socionics sources and my own conclusions from my own experiences that don't require trying to mind-read in an impossible way.
Also... As I had a bad fall-out with someone who I can see is my supposedly subtype-matching dual (both subtypes matching), I have 100% irrefutable proof that Socionics doesn't explain enough about relationships. The other things I've listed explain the fall-out way more.
Adam wasn't operating normally when he wrote this post. Note the following information:
-The first bolded section analyzes processes by their soundness or theoretical value. He seems to be comparing the soundness of his new approach to the unsoundness (random or unreliable quality) of his old approach.
-The second bolded section isn't well supported by actual evidence. The story attached to it (with an asterisk) describes a life event, then analyzes the theoretical reason why it went wrong. It doesn't provide factual reasons for why his relationships have improved.
-The third bolded section is completely unsupported. He's making assumptions based on his thoughts of other people.
-The whole post lacks any kind of real factual evidence (life events, articles, research papers).
I'd now like to compare this to an older post that Adam made, probably when he was still operating normally.
This post has the following types of content:
-A solid rationale for why Socionics duality isn't a sound system based on his dating experiences (the results of the process he followed).
-A judgement/conclusion about the effectiveness of a process (first bolded section).
-A realization supporting his judgement/conclusion (first bolded section).
-A detailed life event that supports his conclusion.
Between these two posts, Adam stopped supporting his rationales with realizations and tangible evidence. Instead, he seems to have used theoretical support. This doesn't seem like the same cognitive function or information element as the "implications" part of my information processing flow. Instead, the second, third, and fifth bolded section seem like facts from a fact database (they're either the facts he internalized from Socionics, or they're facts that he internalized about his life). The fourth bolded section actually looks like an ethical assumption, which seems to be social in nature. Adam also switched Dichotomies, which isn't supported by any model of Socionics that I know.
To explain this, I'd like to provide some pieces of information about my own life experiences:
-During my early investigation of the system, I was plagued with doubts that I was an INFP instead of an ISTJ. As far as I remember, I looked deeper into the system (updated my internal fact database) in order to find information that would prove that I wasn't. If doubts ("What if I'm an INFP?") can be classified as MBTI Ne, and the internal fact database can be classified as MBTI Si, this is a healthy ISTJ usage of cognitive functions. The dominant Si function is supporting or trying to aid the problems created by inferior Ne.
-However, as far as I remember, I couldn't prove that I wasn't an INFP or really even understand the MBTI system through research. Instead, I tried to type people through observations (such as face reading, how they interact with others). In MBTI, "observations" are also called "tangible evidence". "Tangible evidence" is an aspect of MBTI Se, the opposing function (Beebe Model) to MBTI Si.
-Sometime during the process above, I found out about Socionics. Thinking that it was a good way to figure out my type, I looked through Socionics material. Instead of reading through the material, I decided to try to type myself through the Dichotomies. For whatever reason, I came to the conclusion that I was an EII through the Dichotomies. The realization that I was an EII, which logically meant that I was an INFP, contradicted the fact base that I had about myself (that I was logical). This eventually led to the period that I call my psychological stress period.
-During my psychological stress period, I was haunted by the implications of observations (tangible data) that I experienced. I don't remember this in depth, but basically it was a type of reasoning where I would observe myself generating a possibility, immediately classify it as Ne, and then assume that it meant that I was or could be an ENFP. This follows the reasoning pathway observations -> omplications. We could reasonably assume that this is MBTI Se -> some kind of Ti (since the implications aren't ethical in nature).
-Also during the psychological stress period, I was unaware of the right conduct around other people on a deep or compassionate level. I frequently accidentally hurt my friends and family by being harsh or inconsiderate. I think that this indicates a problem with Fi (Fi became confusing). This both matches Fi PoLR and some descriptions for ISTJ shadow mode (which says that ISTJ's become inconsiderate).
-Due to being unaware of the right conduct around others, I was paranoid about being mean to them. Often times, I would perceive myself as being mean and apologize, which would confuse my family members. The reasoning pathway responsible for this was probably that I observed their facial expressions, classified them as an emotion (sad) according to a system, had an ethical realization (I made them sad). I don't remember whether I had a realization after this. We could say that this reasoning pathway matches Observations (MBTI Se) -> Logical System Classification (MBTI Ti) -> Socially/Mood-Based Ethics (MBTI Fe). This is the reasoning pathway for an ESTP, minus MBTI Ni.
-Before my psychological stress period, I read things in sequence and didn't like to multi-task (fits the Process Dichotomy). During my psychological stress period, I read things randomly and multi-tasked chaotically (fits a sort of Result Dichotomy).
Based on my personal experiences, we can make the following assumptions:
-In the form of psychological stress that I experienced, a MBTI type uses the reasoning pathway of their Beebe-based shadow type.
-During this type of psychological stress, at least some of the Socionics Dichotomies change.
-If we assume that my realization that I was an INFP was MBTI Ni-based, then it would be a case where Ne (the inferior) is a gateway to the shadow or demon function (Ni). I think this matches one of Jung's theories.
In his later post, Adam shows characteristics of the first 2 bullet points I listed above. His post is also uncharacteristic of himself in terms of the style and quality of his reasoning.
I think that if Adam went through the same kind of psychological stress that I did, then doubts related to his Inferior function (Fi) might've been the gateway to his Demon function (Fe). I have no idea what event caused this.
There's also another thing I noticed. In his later post, the story attached to the second bolded section has his usual reasoning in reverse compared to the earlier post. In the earlier post, he states his conclusion, then supports it with a life event. In the story, he says the life event, then states his conclusion. I don't know if this change in reasoning has any meaning, or if he demonstrated this kind of reasoning before.
Edit: To clarify what I mean in the last part of my post, the story attached to bolded section 2 of the later post with an asterisk has the following cognitive function flow: Se (Tangible Data (Life Event)) -> Ni (Realizations) -> Te (Effectiveness Judgement).
I think this can be partly explained by grip stress in MBTI theory. MBTI grip stress causes the cognitive functions to "flip" and become like the opposite type. However, I'm not sure that Adam is showing grip stress characteristics here, since he also seems to use Si and Fe in his post.
Edit 2 (1/19/23, 9:15 pm GMT): I'm almost completely sure that my psychological stress came after the order of events listed here. I think that I remembered the order wrong in my first forum post (A Thought About Socionics).
Edit 3 (Last Edited 2/6/23, 8:44 pm GMT): After some thinking, I came to the conclusion that Adam could've been going through a type of grip stress. I read an ENTJ stress anecdote once where an ENTJ said that she acted like a bad version of an INTP during psychological stress (this was probably a response to a post or source of information about grip stress). The stress that I went through could have similar characteristics, but might not be the same phenomenon.
My conclusion here might be supported by the asterisk content if a pattern exists there that serves as an example of cognitive function flow. As I stated above in the first edit, grip stress causes types to resemble their opposite (the cognitive functions flip). An ENTJ would resemble an ISFP (similar to ISFj/ESI). We might be able to reasonably assume that the cognitive function flow would also reverse.
My conclusion here might also be supported by ENTJ grip stress descriptions and Beebe shadow mode theory. At least one of the ENTJ grip stress descriptions I've read said that ENTJ's experience weird physical symptoms during grip stress. The shadow functions of an ENTJ are Ti, Ne, Si, and Fe. Si is in the trickster position. According to some descriptions, INFP's in shadow mode have unreliable perceptions due to Se trickster. My understanding of the trickster function by these descriptions is that its usage becomes unreliable during shadow mode. Therefore, I think that ENTJ's would experience Si in a similar way during the same type of "shadow mode" (they might have unreliable physical/internal body state sensations). Since the ENTJ grip stress description I described talks about a phenomenon that can be explained by a type of "shadow mode", I think that they could reasonably be the same phenomenon. I think this is pretty speculative.
Edit 4 (2/6/23, 8:47 am GMT): I'd also like to add that I generated hypotheticals and was more emotional during psychological stress. This could correspond to Ne and some type of F in MBTI.
Last edited by Clarke; 02-06-2023 at 07:47 AM.
No
Listening to your gut tells you more
-
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
ITR : not really, there are a lot of other factors that were stronger than socionics and affected my few relationships
Socionics itself yes , of course I haven't gotten the most benefit of it yet, but I have to admit that to some extent it removed the mystery/unknown I feared in others , now I understand how their brains process information
It helps most looking back. Understanding the relationships in my life, so very helpful. Understanding what to expect of new people in my life, so helpful. I followed my gut when I fell for my SLI now-husband, but I wondered WHY I was so attracted since he did not meet the criteria I would have had if I were looking for someone, which I was not. Shortly after that I discovered Socionics and THAT explained it quite well for me!
Also Socionics helps me understand my past relationships, like why did the dynamics go the way they did, and why did I not fall for my Dual instead? The psychology that you tend to fall for the representative of the unresolved/difficult parent was one of the patterns for me. Marrying ESFj when my mom was ISFj made me feel that in my husband I was completing a deficient part of myself. Also I admired his extroverted-ness, which i saw myself as deficient in (a result of growing with "I" parents, with that being valued, I think. And also IEE is the most introverted extrovert they say.) Also understanding NPD helps me understand that one. One's type is still quite clear even when one has a major disorder like that.
@Beautiful sky, I have been wondering how you are faring there in CA with all the rain! How is it going?
Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 01-19-2023 at 06:35 PM.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
To my knowledge, there's at least 4 or 5 other personality systems that categorize people differently. They probably have correlations with each other, but they can also give different "flavors" to the types, which might impact compatibility somehow. Therefore, relying solely on Socionics could lead to relationship problems, even though the relationship should be ideal according to Socionics theory.
I considered Socionics subtypes to be part of Socionics when I wrote the above information, but at least some of them (like DCNH) could probably reasonably be classified as different systems. DCNH, in this case, types and determines compatibility in a way that seems to be outside of normal Socionics.
Hi I’ll send you a PM <3
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
oops
*Like* [This is my way of hitting "like" because my "like* button doesn't work.]
Also, there is no message here yet but please make mention here when you send it because things get messed up here for me a lot. Also I think you have my email anyway.
_
I will add that the fall-out was BAD ENOUGH for me to see it as irrefutable proof. Socionics was so totally, totally useless for it, that it's just absolutely obviously clear that it's no good. But you can just use common sense logic too to see how Socionics ITR is bullshit
I mean.... There may be something like duality as far as there can be attraction between opposites, but this duality is good for no more than to get interested in each other, the rest afterwards will just depend on emotional intelligence and relationship skills and so on. NOT on Socionics, at all.
A LII friend of mine once expressed this issue as, typology may be explaining a small amount of the variance in happenings (my words, not his, but I think he made this point), but that we would have to check how much it gets lost in noise (his words). He said, if it doesn't get lost in the noise then it could be used for things, like make a dating site based on typology
I mean I agree it sounds like a Socionics zealot's post, who has let Socionics distort his judgment and let it introduce new biases, that are likely worse than the old, usual biases that everyone has got from actual, grounded life experience. @Adam Strange certainly allowed himself to introduce this risk into his daily operations and interactions with people. Not good at all.
However it does sound like that regardless of the bad Socionics biases, he's also been trying to develop emotionally, is my interpretation anyways. Like he's now able to try and see boundaries within which people may act, try to see character, etc. He should really just drop all the Socionics lingo for his observations and evaluations....
I do not follow the rest of your analysis about his posts because it's not enough to just compare two random posts of a person's to see an actual trend.
If I'm allowed to offer my opinion to you. I feel like you are still under psychological stress. I suggest you drop the attempt trying to explain all of it with Socionics, and try to consult with a psychologist or other mental health professional instead. It would be more useful than trying to explain literally everything with Socionics. HTHTo explain this, I'd like to provide some pieces of information about my own life experiences:
(...)
Edit 2 (1/19/23, 9:15 pm GMT): I'm almost completely sure that my psychological stress came after the order of events listed here. I think that I remembered the order wrong in my first forum post (A Thought About Socionics).
(edit: I posted more on that in your type thread, but leaving this here because I feel it's too important to not mention)
A few comments aside from the ones above where it related to you and where I mentioned you. ....The issue with the engineer, you don't need Socionics to know you don't want too much craziness. And yeah so you are getting more selective but you should use emotional insight and try to see the character of people and the big picture or who people are to get selective to avoid bad situations, rather than using Socionics's bullshit ITR. And to facilitate emotional insight and so on, you can use way better sources of information and facts than Socionics....
Which 4-5 personality systems are you referring to? DCNH is indeed more in line with the DISC theory from 1928. But what are the other systems you had in mind here?
He actually used to operate in the way you described. He would interact with others, and then write his observations on the forum. They were highly detailed and highly entertaining stories that also gave a ground-level picture as to how his specific type interacts with other types. He usually typed others through VI (visual identification). In my opinion, some of his posts show that his VI skills are probably reliable.
I agree that the cognitive function flow pattern that I mentioned in this post isn't reliable (due to the number of posts). However, I do think that this post shows 2 qualities about Adam during this time: that he had unusually poor reasoning skills, and that he seemed to use arguments that used a type of reasoning that isn't normal for his type. This seems like it should be significant without the introduction of new posts. These conclusions are also ones that I generated from reading many of his posts (most of which I found while browsing other threads).
The characteristics that led to my psychological stress and the psychological stress characteristics that I demonstrated seem to match MBTI stress models and theories. These models and theories don't necessarily apply to Socionics (we would have to assume that MBTI is the same as Socionics). While MBTI seems to use the same elements as Socionics, the definitions seem to be slightly different (for example, MBTI Si deals with facts and tradition (as well as internal body state/sensations), while Socionics Si deals almost purely with internal body state/sensations).
This is also something that Adam said earlier. He understood, at that time, that the engineer was a bad character regardless of his Socionics type. According to theory, MBTI types lose access to their reasoning (we could say the reasoning based on their main function (in Adam's case, extroverted logic)) when they enter grip stress and use different functions instead. We could say that they use a different reasoning style that makes use of normally weak or barely-used functions.
My latest theory is that MBTI grip stress, or at least this type of it if there's different types, both flips/reverses the main four functions and uses shadow mode functions. This is supported by an annecdote I read about an ENTJ who went through psychological stress, who said that they resembled an INTP. This also could be supported by the similarity between some of the symptoms of ENTJ grip stress (by online description(s)) and the role of the trickster function during shadow mode. This would explain why Adam, who as far as I know usually seems to be fact and evidence based, decided to reason based on a logical construct instead.
As a side note, I think it's interesting that you call it emotional insight. I would probably classify it as "reasonable thinking" or "instinct" (if I used a word to describe it). I might also call it a "general awareness" or a "general understanding". I think this indicates some kind of perception difference between us, or some kind of difference in how we express thoughts. I don't think that this is necessarily due to Socionics.
Last edited by Clarke; 02-06-2023 at 07:46 AM.
Not really. I'm not the only person to say this: Socionics helps me understand people who value IEs I don't value/dislike using just a little better (for example, Te egos)—in other words, people who lead different lifestyles and have different priorities from me—but I could never use Socionics as some sort of dating guide lol.
At the end of the day, people's personalities can't be summed up by any typology system. I always have to remind myself of this because my Ti is all too happy to bunch people into logical systems that make sense to me, when in reality, doing this is reductive and offensively dismissive of the depth each human being possesses.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk
These are the ones I know of:
-Enneagram (includes standard Enneagram with wings, Tritype, Instinctual Stack).
-SLOAN (Big 5).
-4 Temperaments (similar to DISC).
-Attitudinal Psyche (similar to Psyche Yoga).
As far as I know, DCNH is more in line with the "Temperament Blends" system that comes from 4 Temperaments than DISC. DISC assumes that you can't have characteristics from opposite temperaments (such as Choleric and Phlegmatic). DCNH assumes that you can (you can be DH or NC).
An example of a "Temperament Blends" typing is Choleric-Phlegmatic. Choleric-Phlegmatics primarily have the Choleric temperament, but the Choleric characteristics (aggressiveness, pushy behavior, risk tasking) are tempered by the Phlegmatic characteristics (calm, harmony oriented, likes routine). As a result, the blend you get is an aggressive person who is also not that emotional and likes routine.
Edit (2/6/23, 8:02 am GMT): After some further thinking and research, I realized that DiSC sort of allows for opposite type combinations. To get a DH type combo (corresponds to DS in DiSC), the type would be in the D quarter, but closer to the center of the circle. It would also be exactly the same distance from the edges of the D quarter (its boundaries with its neighbors C and i).
Last edited by Clarke; 02-06-2023 at 07:03 AM.
I wasn't talking about that. No, VI does not work.
No, he used such "reasoning" in other posts too.I agree that the cognitive function flow pattern that I mentioned in this post isn't reliable (due to the number of posts). However, I do think that this post shows 2 qualities about Adam during this time: that he had unusually poor reasoning skills
MBTI stress models are useless and I disagree that your psychological stress is explained by MBTI stress models.The characteristics that led to my psychological stress and the psychological stress characteristics that I demonstrated seem to match MBTI stress models and theories. These models and theories don't necessarily apply to Socionics (we would have to assume that MBTI is the same as Socionics). While MBTI seems to use the same elements as Socionics, the definitions seem to be slightly different (for example, MBTI Si deals with facts and tradition (as well as internal body state/sensations), while Socionics Si deals almost purely with internal body state/sensations).
What I meant was, he got burned over it due to not understanding. And that Socionics isn't needed to avoid this problem.This is also something that Adam said earlier. He understood, at that time, that the engineer was a bad character regardless of his Socionics type.
More useless theoryMy latest theory is that MBTI grip stress, or at least this type of it if there's different types, both flips/reverses the main four functions and uses shadow mode functions. This is supported by an annecdote I read about an ENTJ who went through psychological stress, who said that they resembled an INTP. This also could be supported by the similarity between some of the symptoms of ENTJ grip stress (by online description(s)) and the role of the trickster function during shadow mode. This would explain why Adam, who as far as I know usually seems to be fact and evidence based, decided to reason based on a logical construct instead.
(Not trying to offend but yeah useless)
Well to actually understand a person/people/yourself you do need emotional insight too next to reasonable thinking. This has nothing to do with any perception difference or any other kind of difference between us. As I stated a general fact there. Has nothing to do with my personal perceptions....As a side note, I think it's interesting that you call it emotional insight. I would probably classify it as "reasonable thinking" or "instinct" (if I used a word to describe it). I might also call it a "general awareness" or a "general understanding". I think this indicates some kind of perception difference between us, or some kind of difference in how we express thoughts. I don't think that this is necessarily due to Socionics.
Thanks for the list.
Actually it depends on which DISC variant you use, because in some this is allowed just fine.As far as I know, DCNH is more in line with the "Temperament Blends" system that comes from 4 Temperaments than DISC. DISC assumes that you can't have characteristics from opposite temperaments (such as Choleric and Phlegmatic). DCNH assumes that you can (you can be DH or NC).
This forum is so much less brain-washed than it was ten years ago (from what I have read of old posts). Of course people are still weird, in a mostly endearing way, but I’m really glad the discussion about ‘types’ and ‘ITR’ became more balanced and down to earth
There is still huge problem of correct types.
A good chance to type correctly a human exists when you know him IRL, for significant time, in a variety of situations besides formal ones. Monthes and more of IRL interactions.
You can't trust what someone thinks about own type, as it's rare when people study typology and then check own types good (what includes IR effects with >10 of well-known people). In other cases you may expect the chance of correct opinion about own type close to an average test what mb is ~30-40% accuracy.
You may improve those accuracy issues by skills to type people quicker and with lesser info. But besides methods themsevles are not so good and better skills need years of practice, when you like someone - you get emotions and they distort your abbility to think.
You may communicate for monthes, to gather a lot of data and then mb understand the type is possibly different. Even a little different as one dichotomy may mean a conflictor/superego.
So to use typology the only correct way is to go by classical approach.
If you like someone and suspect good IR. Then you may try to become just good friends (it's when you "join minds" and feel not bad in this state). If you'll do, it's secondary what types are (as matters _general evaluation_ and not only Jung type influences on relations to be good). With some chance it will be good IR, mb even duality.
The problem of classical way - it's practically hard. To know types seems as good to overcome this problem - alike it's much easier to assume who is better for you. But as I've pointed above - not the case of what is today with practice of Jung types. They help anyway, if you have enough typing skills and act carefully - but not so dramatically as novices think.
If you'll jump with types theory by incorrect approach you'll get nice and mb _higher_ chance of get worser IR or not good relations, than when you'd forgot about types theory and just analysed factual impressions from people. "Jumping" will be limited near today tests accuracy - so 70% of people you'll type wrongly and even your own type has <50% chance to be thought correctly = ~20% that IR are as you'll think.
Don't jump in unknown places! To use any tools needs skills and appropriate usage of tools, to do not make worse for you and other people.
In my example, I have an experience of a mistyping. What leaded to expectactions higher than the reality could allow. Expectations which leaded to emotions and then emotional pain and waste of time because of this mistake. Besides my other mistakes.
Jung types can be useful to take them into account, anyway. But this needs a careful approach, including more data about a human. When you notice someone interesting in Internet or public place - communicate IRL for several times at least, before you'll admit a chance that the human may be good for you.
I keep a hope types will help in my case. I'm sure duality is significant positive factor which makes easier to establish "soul friendship" in a pair, among other such ones. My experience with people perception and relations point on this.
The knowledge needs correct usage to be useful.
Posting Permissions
