Types and meaning

[strangeling]

In theory, what does each type live for?

And what's your type and what do you live for?

Just wondering because I think a lot of people find something that they latch onto and that kind of drives them more or less through their life. But really for myself anyway, I feel like the idea of living for something to be incredibly scary, like there's all these downsides and narrowness to picking any one path. Or even choosing many paths takes away from the depth of living and it kind of haunts me at times. And I guess that's how I see meaning, as kind of meaningless and haunting, yet it's something that everyone needs to have in order have a sense of being. Once that's gone, it's like everything becomes too abstracted and uncertain.

And I don't think this has been done for socionics, though maybe this has more to do with enneagram, but that's already been done, so...

[Sol]

> In theory, what does each type live for?

For better good for all. Mostly by protecting and development in socium the valued regions, where consciously primarily of ego functions.

[Exodus]

In theory, what does each type live for?

They live to fulfill the goal of their leading function.

For example, the goal of an IEI is to find meaning itself (+Ni).
The goal of an LII is (to put it roughly) to answer questions (-Ti).
The goal of an LSI is order, correctness (+Ti).
The goal of an IEE is to see different perspectives on things (-Ne).
Etc.

[Tallmo]

In theory, what does each type live for?

Well, the type doesn't really live for anything. It is a structure in the mind. It is the individual that is the living entity. He/She tries to fulfill his or her destiny by work, family, hobbies etc.

The base function is important for the individual, but it can sometimes be a challenge to bring it forward into life. It is one of the components of the whole personality

Just wondering because I think a lot of people find something that they latch onto and that kind of drives them more or less through their life. But really for myself anyway, I feel like the idea of living for something to be incredibly scary, like there's all these downsides and narrowness to picking any one path. Or even choosing many paths takes away from the depth of living and it kind of haunts me at times. And I guess that's how I see meaning, as kind of meaningless and haunting, yet it's something that everyone needs to have in order have a sense of being. Once that's gone, it's like everything becomes too abstracted and uncertain.

I get the feeling that this is the main purpose of this thread. I am interested in this because I was just reading about this in development of personality. The personality has an original wholeness when in an undeveloped state (adolescence / childhood). The individual breaks out of this by developing ego and consciousness. Consciousness is itself a narrowness and contradictory to wholeness. The development is experienced as a loss and "sin". The good side of it is that even though it might seem scary, a sacrifice, the benefits are huge, because that's when life opens up in all it's richness and beauty. Because it creates a tension that makes life possible. Not just as imagination, but as a reality. It's like real life does not become visible until you "sin" and step out of wholeness.

Some common "tricks" to do this would be to work, settle for a career. Have a family etc.

If you are interested to read about this I can give you references.

(So I think what you are experiencing is not type related)

[para]

>For example, the goal of an IEI is to find meaning itself (+Ni).
>The goal of an LII is (to put it roughly) to answer questions (-Ti).

Am i correct in understanding that LII seeks answers independent of a whole, to understand in itself, where IEI seeks meaning, which comprises the whole? Does LII see the answering questions as meaning in itself?

Cool post, btw

[para]

Also, is meaning defined as a conscious personal value, or an uncoscious objectification of a percieved absolute value?

[Exodus]

>For example, the goal of an IEI is to find meaning itself (+Ni).
>The goal of an LII is (to put it roughly) to answer questions (-Ti).

Am i correct in understanding that LII seeks answers independent of a whole, to understand in itself, where IEI seeks meaning, which comprises the whole? Does LII see the answering questions as meaning in itself?

Cool post, btw

Yes, generally +Ni implies seeing things holistically whereas answering questions may not necessarily. But -Ti and +Ni are closely related, so you often see LIIs trying to make one all-encompassing system that tie everything together to answer every possible question about the subject matter. Hopefully that is somewhat clear.

I wrote more about this (Model A2) on my article website, but the articles are somewhat outdated at this point.

[strangeling]

Well, the type doesn't really live for anything. It is a structure in the mind. It is the individual that is the living entity. He/She tries to fulfill his or her destiny by work, family, hobbies etc.

The base function is important for the individual, but it can sometimes be a challenge to bring it forward into life. It is one of the components of the whole personality



I get the feeling that this is the main purpose of this thread. I am interested in this because I was just reading about this in development of personality. The personality has an original wholeness when in an undeveloped state (adolescence / childhood). The individual breaks out of this by developing ego and consciousness. Consciousness is itself a narrowness and contradictory to wholeness. The development is experienced as a loss and "sin". The good side of it is that even though it might seem scary, a sacrifice, the benefits are huge, because that's when life opens up in all it's richness and beauty. Because it creates a tension that makes life possible. Not just as imagination, but as a reality. It's like real life does not become visible until you "sin" and step out of wholeness.

Some common "tricks" to do this would be to work, settle for a career. Have a family etc.

If you are interested to read about this I can give you references.

(So I think what you are experiencing is not type related)

So...I just added the personal bit to give my ...perspective I guess you could say.

More or less, I'm just curious what everyone's type is and what they find most meaningful in their lives. But I could also see why a lot of people might not want to share that too. I think it could be interesting to hear what type someone identifies as and what is a central motivator to their lives and why and such.

They live to fulfill the goal of their leading function.

For example, the goal of an IEI is to find meaning itself (+Ni).
The goal of an LII is (to put it roughly) to answer questions (-Ti).
The goal of an LSI is order, correctness (+Ti).
The goal of an IEE is to see different perspectives on things (-Ne).
Etc.

yeah...don't get me wrong...I'm not saying you're wrong and this is interesting to put it this way...but I guess I find it weird to say that people are dictated by their leading function (isn't it the other way around? Or maybe it's both?). Like I don't...I can relate with all of those, depending on what I'm doing, what my goal is, and what I'm thinking about.

[Tallmo]

More or less, I'm just curious what everyone's type is and what they find most meaningful in their lives. But I could also see why a lot of people might not want to share that too. I think it could be interesting to hear what type someone identifies as and what is a central motivator to their lives and why and such.

I think that what's meaningful in life is connected to deeper things in the personality. Things like to do something useful, relationships etc. I don't see it as type related.

Of course a LII for example likes to work with analytical things, but to say that the purpose/meaning in life is directly connected to the base function is imo too much.

I agree with hotelambush on an abstract level. If you make an abstraction and assume the individual = the type, then you can say what he says. But the lives of real people are guided by greater Gods that just the base function.

[Exodus]

yeah...don't get me wrong...I'm not saying you're wrong and this is interesting to put it this way...but I guess I find it weird to say that people are dictated by their leading function (isn't it the other way around? Or maybe it's both?). Like I don't...I can relate with all of those, depending on what I'm doing, what my goal is, and what I'm thinking about.

The leading function is a general outline for your goals in life. They are all extremely general so they can accommodate many goals that will be specific to you as an individual. When you look at someone on the whole though, they will conform to a type.

Plus, everybody uses all the functions and values most of them to some degree.

[schwiftyrickty]

I don't know what I live for really. But if I had to choose one thing it would be...Probably finding an answer to this question lol. Besides that, maybe to make my mark on the world somehow. Be known for something good. Create something to leave behind when I'm gone. On a more abstract level that could be related to socionics, I live to stimulate my brain and learn a little about everything+everyone. And to be a good person.

[Skepsis]

To merge with The Source Jung in the afterlife.

[Muddy]

They live to fulfill the goal of their leading function.

For example, the goal of an IEI is to find meaning itself (+Ni).
The goal of an LII is (to put it roughly) to answer questions (-Ti).
The goal of an LSI is order, correctness (+Ti).
The goal of an IEE is to see different perspectives on things (-Ne).
Etc.

Got a question here if I may. To what degree does a person typically "want" to fulfill their type goal in a pre-meditated, conscious manner, versus just acting in ways that leads them to fulfill the goal without consciously realizing it?

Like, using LSI an example, would you agree that most if not all LSIs should say yes if you asked them in a direct manner if they are in favor of order/rules in general? How possible would it be someone to carry a worldview contrary to their type's goal and still be that type based off behavior and other aspects, like an LSI in favor of anarchy for example?

[Aramas]

They live to fulfill the goal of their leading function.

For example, the goal of an IEI is to find meaning itself (+Ni).
The goal of an LII is (to put it roughly) to answer questions (-Ti).
The goal of an LSI is order, correctness (+Ti).
The goal of an IEE is to see different perspectives on things (-Ne).
Etc.

Sounds pretty banal, man. Maybe you should go back to the drawing board on that one.

[Aramas]

In theory, what does each type live for?

And what's your type and what do you live for?

Just wondering because I think a lot of people find something that they latch onto and that kind of drives them more or less through their life. But really for myself anyway, I feel like the idea of living for something to be incredibly scary, like there's all these downsides and narrowness to picking any one path. Or even choosing many paths takes away from the depth of living and it kind of haunts me at times. And I guess that's how I see meaning, as kind of meaningless and haunting, yet it's something that everyone needs to have in order have a sense of being. Once that's gone, it's like everything becomes too abstracted and uncertain.

And I don't think this has been done for socionics, though maybe this has more to do with enneagram, but that's already been done, so...

I would say the types live for their superid functions rather than their ego functions, contrary to what hotelambush said. Your ego is so natural that it doesn't create any motive in you. Your motives come from your superid. What you "live for" is what you want or desire. Ergo superid.

[Exodus]

Got a question here if I may. To what degree does a person typically "want" to fulfill their type goal in a pre-meditated, conscious manner, versus just acting in ways that leads them to fulfill the goal without consciously realizing it?

Like, using LSI an example, would you agree that most if not all LSIs should say yes if you asked them in a direct manner if they are in favor of order/rules in general?

Good question.

If my experience in the socionics community is any indication, this is not necessarily the case. Even if you present to someone an accurate portrayal of their behavior and values, they may not be willing to accept it. But, in most cases, if you present it in a positive manner, they should see at least that there is some truth to it.

How possible would it be someone to carry a worldview contrary to their type's goal and still be that type based off behavior and other aspects, like an LSI in favor of anarchy for example?

Worldview is a slightly different thing. People's worldviews can be based on culture and things they've learned in life, not just their type. Certainly most LSIs in Western society are not going to be in favor of dictatorship, or possibly not even in favor of a strong central government. The bottom line here is it's easy to change your beliefs, it's not so easy to change your behavior -- an LSI is not generally going to have a spontaneous or carefree approach to their personal life, because this would cause psychological distress on a regular basis.

Sounds pretty banal, man. Maybe you should go back to the drawing board on that one.

It's not banal at all! These goals are exceedingly general and somehow built into the basic fabric of reality.

The way I see it, the superid functions do play a role, but only because they are intrinsically linked with the leading function.