Getting vaccinated against certain sociotypes...

[Hope]

Have you ever felt like you have some antibodies against certain types?

Like when you have had some experiences (long term most likely) with certain type (s) that you start feeling vaccinated against their type program (obviously not your dual).

It means like you met new ppl of that type but soon you start noticing those patterns that you dislike so you break out relations because you already had some antibodies (it happens naturally).

Read this in case you don't understand the analogy:

An antibody (Ab), also known as an immunoglobulin (Ig), is a large, Y-shaped protein produced mainly by plasma cells that is used by the immune system to neutralize pathogens such as pathogenic bacteria and viruses.

[Skepsis]

This might explain the hives and constriction of airways.

[Hope]

Like when you went over exposed to their pathogenic incompatible material that you developed adaptative immunity to their type program (because you survived).

[sbbds]

If you were immune to them, why would you need to break out of relations? Wouldn’t becoming immune make it easier to have relations, or make you more indifferent to the effects of them? I guess maybe for some, becoming stronger means it’s easier to break away and disengage. For me, it’s the opposite; I need the strength to engage.

[Hope]

If you were immune to them, why would you need to break out of relations? Wouldn’t becoming immune make it easier to have relations, or make you more indifferent to the effects of them?

because they feel uncomfortable since you dont give them what they want. You are indifferent so no effect of them in you but it doesnt mean you have no effect in them. That's how antibodies work, the immune system works as a defense.

[sbbds]

because they feel uncomfortable since you dont give them what they want. You are indifferent so no effect of them in you but it doesnt mean you have no effect in them. That's how antibodies work, the immune system works as a defense.

I know how the immune system works. I should hope I do, because I teach science and don’t have good health insurance. It’s just in OP you said “you break out of relations”, implying you yourself do the breaking away like something being acted upon, rather than making them do it.

Now I know what you mean though. Are you asking if we feel like we can stop bad relations from spiraling down after being able to notice patterns with types, and examples of that?

[Lord Panda]

I have never noticed this happening. Because people of the same type can be so different from each other, sometimes it doesn't even register in my mind that they may share a sociotype. As for bad relationship dynamics, yes, I do notice them, but it has nothing/very little to do with typology.

[Hope]

I know how the immune system works. I should hope I do, because I teach science and don’t have good health insurance. It’s just in OP you said “you break out of relations”, implying you yourself do the breaking away like something being acted upon, rather than making them do it.

bad english mb, sorry. Maybe break off or a different word would work better.

Now I know what you mean though. Are you asking if we feel like we can stop bad relations from spiraling down after being able to notice patterns with types, and examples of that?

yes

[Desert Financial]

It means like you met new ppl of that type but soon you start noticing those patterns that you dislike so you break out relations because you already had some antibodies (it happens naturally).

Absolutely. At first the discernment is conscious, but eventually it works its way into muscle memory. Then, it more greatly resembles immunization because it happens more subconsciously.

If this occurs enough, it leads you away from types and personalities that don't mesh with you, and towards compatible relations.

[Singu]

It means like you met new ppl of that type but soon you start noticing those patterns that you dislike so you break out relations because you already had some antibodies (it happens naturally).

Isn't that called a prejudice?

I try not to stereotype people. It's better to try to understand where they're coming from and why they're acting that way, rather than lump them into a category, whether it be a type or a nationality and what not. It's more satisfying that way, and more accurate and truthful.

Categorizing people means they'll always be that way and you can't change them. Understanding means the possibility of control and greater flexibility. Which would mean less frustration for you.

You become a victim of your own categorization. Which is why things like racism and xenophobia exist.

[timber]

Great idea @ OP.

Yes, I have. Which ties into my fear of socionics, and maybe just my fear of aging in general.

*ive been here before*

[sbbds]

Np @Aki . Sorry for asking so many questions.

On one hand being able to predict bad relations and get out of them before problems occur is a good thing, but on the other hand it’s important to keep an open mind because people can surprise you sometimes and Socionics won’t necessarily predict everything. I assume you already know that though and you’re filling in the blanks using your own intuition about people while you’re asking this.

As for my own experience, yeah, I sometimes do get hints of patterns I’ve experienced with people before starting up where I notice and I’m like “oh jeez, not this kind of issue from this kind of person again..”. And yeah, every time this happens, I try to do something different from whatever caused or added to the problem in relations coming up last time if I can. I try to engage other people more and stay away from them. I’m mostly changing my own behaviour still in these cases though. It’s hard if you’re already deep in a relationship with someone and these “patterns” come up later though. It can be pretty stressful then.

[Hope]

Isn't that called a prejudice?

I try not to stereotype people. It's better to try to understand where they're coming from and why they're acting that way, rather than lump them into a category, whether it be a type or a nationality and what not. It's more satisfying that way, and more accurate and truthful.

Categorizing people means they'll always be that way and you can't change them. Understanding means the possibility of control and greater flexibility. Which would mean less frustration for you.

Its not my duty to change ppl, neither I'm interested in it. Influencing perhaps, but thats different. Contrilling ppl? Is not prejudice as you call it, also a way of control?
Who mentioned frustration?

You just try to push your idea about socionics is categorization hence its wrong. You should get at this point that you can't change ppl.

[Singu]

You just try to push your idea about socionics is categorization hence its wrong.

It's not "categorization hence it's wrong", but "categorization hence it can't change". That's the whole point of categorization, since if it changes then it becomes a different category.

The problem is that people are unlike something permanent that exist in nature, but they change over time. Or they're influenced by the environment or even cognition.

[Desert Financial]

Isn't that called a prejudice?

I try not to stereotype people. It's better to try to understand where they're coming from and why they're acting that way, rather than lump them into a category, whether it be a type or a nationality and what not. It's more satisfying that way, and more accurate and truthful.

Categorizing people means they'll always be that way and you can't change them. Understanding means the possibility of control and greater flexibility. Which would mean less frustration for you.

You become a victim of your own categorization. Which is why things like racism and xenophobia exist.

I get significant benefits from categories because they allow me to make informed decisions for myself, not for other people.

Just because someone fits in a category doesn't mean that their category is permanent, since categories are mental constructs and the mind's faculties act independently of the objects being interpreted.

I don't think I'm entitled to change other people to suit my own personal preferences. And even if I was entitled to change people according to my own whims, I don't think I have guaranteed means of controlling the core of someone else. Overall, I view autonomy as valuable because it's based on the relatively accurate idea that individuals have some characteristics that remain impermeable until they die. I don't try to control others anymore than I'd want someone else to control me.

I don't think it's accurate to lump categories like xenophobia and racism in with socionics. Personality types do not equate to superficial characteristics like the color of one's skin, and institutionalized prejudice holds far more gravity than what a bunch of nerds think in terms of an esoteric personality system. I guess if I took socionics more seriously than most of the people who talk about it do, I'd consider equating it to institutionalized prejudice. But even if I considered it, I wouldn't draw that conclusion because typical forms of prejudice and socionics are magnitudes apart in implication and substance. In contrast with race or other superficial characteristics, personality types overlap with character, so even though types aren't the only variables at play in interpersonal relations, I don't fault anyone for factoring them in. I don't fault anyone for factoring in other categories, such as mental health conditions, political alignments, or general personality characteristics, either. Personal standards exist and that's ok; just because someone doesn't meet a standard doesn't mean you hate them or have the negative attitude connotative in the term "prejudice."

Socionics gives reasoning to accept different personalities as they are, but whether that happens depends on how you interpret it (ie. what you personally value), not the system itself. So whether you become a victim is up to you. If you value control, and you attempt to control variables outside your sphere of influence, you will subject yourself to frustration and disappointment.

Additionally, as @Aki suggested, the notion that one group can control another group has facilitated institutionalized prejudice, no?

I mean, I get where you're coming from. Not long after I learned about typology, I spent a lot of time arguing against it because I thought it acted as kind of a mental block against actually getting to know people. But, ironically, once you get to know enough people, you recognize that patterns exist. Your knowledge becomes more crystallized, and it becomes evident that clusters of traits exist among entire samples of people. So, regardless of whether you put any stock in typology, if you have any insight into people, behaviors will eventually become rather predictable. Socionics is just one way of mapping trends out. Academics have some more refined models that include relatively fixed personality traits in the field of personality psychology, but in contrast with your viewpoint, it still revolves around a lot of inductive reasoning and generalized traits.

[Singu]

The whole point of "understanding" is to control something, that's what "science" is. And social sciences like psychology, sociology, are when that's applied to people, society, etc.

For example, you might encounter someone who is rude, and your response is "Well this person is rude! Must be his Fi PoLR... that's just the way it is". It becomes about some core of his being that can't be changed. Or perhaps you can look further and think "Is it due to his upbringing? His culture? Is he having a bad day? Is it something I did, or someone else did?".

Then it becomes a matter of variables. If you change one variable, and if that variable happens to be the right one, then his "rudeness" disappears. If you can control the variable, then theoretically you can control this person. Now "control" seems to be a bit unethical, but that's just what it is.

The key is to find what is a regularity, and what is some variable that could be easily modified.

[Aramas]

I noticed that I had gut reactions for or against certain types, especially if, on some abstract level, a person's features reminded me of someone I knew who looked like them. These were rather automatic and unavoidable instincts. It's hard to say if I developed instincts though, or if I simply started paying attention to what was always there.

[Ryan]

The whole point of "understanding" is to control something, that's what "science" is.

This is nonsense. What the fuck does this even mean?

[Desert Financial]

The whole point of "understanding" is to control something, that's what "science" is. And social sciences like psychology, sociology, are when that's applied to people, society, etc.

For example, you might encounter someone who is rude, and your response is "Well this person is rude! Must be his Fi PoLR... that's just the way it is". It becomes about some core of his being that can't be changed. Or perhaps you can look further and think "Is it due to his upbringing? His culture? Is he having a bad day? Is it something I did, or someone else did?".

Then it becomes a matter of variables. If you change one variable, and if that variable happens to be the right one, then his "rudeness" disappears. If you can control the variable, then theoretically you can control this person. Now "control" seems to be a bit unethical, but that's just what it is.

The key is to find what is a regularity, and what is some variable that could be easily modified.

This is more or less social psychology. Social psychology warms up to the idea that human variables can be augmented according to the notion that people are more or less blank slates. Tabula rasa.

Human variables can be broken down into traits and behaviors, though. Personality traits remain largely consistent throughout a person's life, and determine propensities for behaviors, cognition, and affect, along with the range in which behaviors can occur. Behaviors, on the other hand, are more superficial.

Personality traits exist with relative independence from external factors. For example, twins can be raised in separate cultures, but become uncannily similar in their personality traits in spite of differing external variables. Since they share common genetics, we can infer that their traits surface from genetic causes - causes that are embedded such that ethical social experiments can't control for them so long as the twins are the subjects.

So this is where personality psychology comes in and provides explanations for fundamental differences. It does so in a measurable way because once other variables are removed, we must deduce that personality traits cause certain phenomena. These traits can't be removed without trauma.

Theories like Socionics illustrate personality traits that exist with relative independence from external factors. Different kinds of personalities have preferences for processing information in different ways. For example, some kinds of personalities prefer understanding the world in order to "control", whereas other kinds of personalities enjoy understanding for understanding's sake. @COOL AND MANLY took the words out of my mouth.

[Singu]

This is nonsense. What the fuck does this even mean?

Science is an attempt at understanding how the world works, in order to control it. You obviously have greater control over something when you understand how it works.

This is more or less social psychology. Social psychology warms up to the idea that human variables can be augmented according to the notion that people are more or less blank slates. Tabula rasa.

Yes, it's not even a very good approach, because it lacks explanatory power.

What's likely needed in psychology is an explanatory revolution, like the one Darwin had with biology. He EXPLAINED why all the biological beings are there via the theory of evolution, and suddenly everything made sense and it could be explained from the evolutionary framework. Same thing happened with physics by Newton, when he explained how gravity worked.

Theories like Socionics illustrate personality traits that exist with relative independence from external factors. Different kinds of personalities have preferences for processing information in different ways. For example, some kinds of personalities prefer understanding the world in order to "control", whereas other kinds of personalities enjoy understanding for understanding's sake. @COOL AND MANLY took the words out of my mouth.

Here's a question: how can we know or predict behaviors that we have never seen before? We can't if all we do is rely on previous observations, and expecting that the same observation will keep repeating itself.

[Desert Financial]

Here's a question: how can we know or predict behaviors that we have never seen before? We can't if all we do is rely on previous observations, and expecting that the same observation will keep repeating itself.

If the conditions are similar (the underlying causes and the environment needed for the causes to have a similar effect).

[Singu]

If the conditions are similar (the underlying causes and the environment needed for the causes to have a similar effect).

If the conditions are similar, then why would the behavior be dissimilar? As in, why would it be the kind of behavior that we have never seen or observed before?

[Desert Financial]

If the conditions are similar, then why would the behavior be dissimilar? As in, why would it be the kind of behavior that we have never seen or observed before?

I didn't say it was dissimilar.

Have you ever interacted with someone using similar methods, expecting a different result, but essentially yielding the same result anyway? It happens all the time in my life and with the people I know. People trap themselves in recurring loops of behavior. Couples have the same essential argument, time and time again. Employees attempt to get a raise time and time again. Members of a political party debate the same issues time and time again.

Fundamental traits and environmental constraints determine the outcomes of these cycles, so they often repeat themselves under the same conditions.

Sometimes, cycles make headway or are broken completely. But if this happens independent of environmental causes (ie. direct, physical causes), it's because other traits start to gain ground, as is what happens in effective therapy. Those traits were already there, but a different configuration develops. Like chemical reactions.

Socionics doesn't exactly contradict the notion of personal change. For example, just because a function pair is typically unconscious doesn't mean it can't rise into consciousness. Additionally, Gulenko himself as posited that multiple types could exist in the same person, suggesting more flexibility than the basic Model A. It really depends on how you interpret the system. If you tend to think in a rigid way, then you may interpret the system in a rigid way to the point of disturbance. So, it may help to understand that a myriad of ways exist, which Socionics aims to deliver in some respect... But again, we're back at square 1 if traits prevent flexible interpretation. Change doesn't exactly happen over night.

[Desert Financial]

Long story short: A lot of moving parts are involved, but they frequently produce the same effects under the correct conditions. Were this not the case, the scientific method wouldn't be able to verify aspects of our world.

[sbbds]

The whole point of "understanding" is to control something, that's what "science" is.

Tfw you seek Se Ti so hard it starts bending your view on reality. IEIs.jpg.

[Desert Financial]

Tfw you seek Se Ti so hard it starts bending your view on reality. IEIs.jpg.

[sbbds]

Here's a question: how can we know or predict behaviors that we have never seen before? We can't if all we do is rely on previous observations, and expecting that the same observation will keep repeating itself.

You asking this doesn’t make any sense. Not sure what point you’re trying to prove with this.

That’s sort of the entire point of science and math in science, and how and why it works usually lol. You extrapolate knowledge based off of previously tried and true knowledge and methods. You don’t expect the exact same observation to repeat itself when you do this; that obviously defies the goal of making a prediction lol. You only expect the mechanism underlying its functioning to repeat itself.

[sbbds]

I didn't say it was dissimilar.

Have you ever interacted with someone using similar methods, expecting a different result, but essentially yielding the same result anyway? It happens all the time in my life and with the people I know. People trap themselves in recurring loops of behavior. Couples have the same essential argument, time and time again. Employees attempt to get a raise time and time again. Members of a political party debate the same issues time and time again.

Fundamental traits and environmental constraints determine the outcomes of these cycles, so they often repeat themselves under the same conditions.

Sometimes, cycles make headway or are broken completely. But if this happens independent of environmental causes (ie. direct, physical causes), it's because other traits start to gain ground, as is what happens in effective therapy. Those traits were already there, but a different configuration develops. Like chemical reactions.

Socionics doesn't exactly contradict the notion of personal change. For example, just because a function pair is typically unconscious doesn't mean it can't rise into consciousness. Additionally, Gulenko himself as posited that multiple types could exist in the same person, suggesting more flexibility than the basic Model A. It really depends on how you interpret the system. If you tend to think in a rigid way, then you may interpret the system in a rigid way to the point of disturbance. So, it may help to understand that a myriad of ways exist, which Socionics aims to deliver in some respect... But again, we're back at square 1 if traits prevent flexible interpretation. Change doesn't exactly happen over night.

Pretty explanations like this will go right over Singu’s head because he hasn’t made heads or tails of what he’s really asking or even the basics of what’s going on in reality in the first place.

[Desert Financial]

Pretty explanations like this will go right over Singu’s head because he hasn’t made heads or tails of what he’s really asking or even the basics of what’s going on in reality in the first place.

You called my explanation pretty.

I think he's just trying to reference his own observations without regard for the logic of the conversation or the theory.

But feel free to play the aggressor.

[sbbds]

You called my explanation pretty.

I think he's just trying to reference his own observations without regard for the logic of the conversation or the theory.

But feel free to play the aggressor.

Just like you’re doing without considering your interlocutor?

[Desert Financial]

Just like you’re doing without considering your interlocutor?

[sbbds]

Tfw an ILE starts being themselves around you lol @A Moderator

[Skepsis]

because they feel uncomfortable since you dont give them what they want. You are indifferent so no effect of them in you but it doesnt mean you have no effect in them. That's how antibodies work, the immune system works as a defense.

Like all analogies, this one is very limited. First of all, the immune system does protect, but it completely ingests and destroys the pathogens. Immunological reactions are usually less severe the more one is exposed to a pathogen, but the pathogens usually die, or else the host will.

Case in point: No matter your type, enter my body at your own risk. Your cognitive functions will be dissolved like muraitic acid dissolves aluminum.

[Hope]

Case in point: No matter your type, enter my body at your own risk. Your cognitive functions will be dissolved like muraitic acid dissolves aluminum.

yeah, that's exactly what I was talking about.

[Muddy]

Have you ever felt like you have some antibodies against certain types?

Like when you have had some experiences (long term most likely) with certain type (s) that you start feeling vaccinated against their type program (obviously not your dual).

It means like you met new ppl of that type but soon you start noticing those patterns that you dislike so you break out relations because you already had some antibodies (it happens naturally).

Sounds like the development of people skillz.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I feel this way with too much Ne I guess.