You're an example of the Dunning Kruger theory. You got the intelligence, you read, you adjust and say the next profound thing. Kudos. This site needs more folk like youOriginally Posted by Foxy Grandpa
You're an example of the Dunning Kruger theory. You got the intelligence, you read, you adjust and say the next profound thing. Kudos. This site needs more folk like you
You can think what you like. Their literal behavior suggests they do.
It's like a restaurant employee who eats food there and doesn't pay. You can think they're not stealing for a variety of reasons but the facts say they are stealing.
You can also think water is blue but grab a full cup of it and the facts tell you different
I'd say you nailed it in every case, @Foxy Grandpa.
Socionics theory says that EIEs are a negativist type, but Big Five research shows that those who score higher on average in terms of extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are the most positive about the future.
If you type people as EIE who are prone to cherry pick evidence to give their arguments legitimacy, who ostracize those they're unhappy with while building themselves up, and being unable to logically deduce what should or shouldn't be said within a particular social situation, you're not actually determining if they are ultimately EIE. If the evidence suggests otherwise, then faulty type descriptions must be abandoned.
The context is having the humility to admit you don't know everything, thus giving yourself the opportunity to become wiser. In my opinion, you're an example of a person who uses wisdom, yet adds more wisdom simply because you have the humility to understand you don't know everything.
Actually, the fact that you believe EIE to the best type suggest a sort of bias where you likely latch on to their potential qualities while downplaying any of their potential flaws.
If you ever listen to an EIE joke around, you'll hear the negativists connotation in their speech patterns. However, if you have some unresolved psychological need you may ignore those connotations and instead insist that it is EIEs who can, somehow, resolve any your psychological dilemmas.
No one type is better than the other. EIEs are future focused, but also play the victim quite easily. Put them in any "unfair" situation and sense how stubborn they become about changing that victim narrative.
EIEs can certainly be cool but putting them on some type of pedestal is unwise in my opinion
This idea of EIE being the best type, most likely to live happily is funny to me, I've this impression but with EII.
I know it's a flaw in my own thinking and vision of the world that lead to this, there's no reason why a type would make better or happier people beside a cultural living setting that encourages such types to develop.
Even then, here, Fe leads would be the utmost of happy but they aren't.
I don't even think Ti leads fare that well either.
The happiest people I've seen were actually very difficult to type until they got to talking about how they were before.
From an objective level, "good" and "bad" are subjective qualities, so you are correct there.
What is the mechanism by which EIEs are "negativist", "future focused", liable to play the victim etc.? We shouldn't accept the type descriptions uncritically.
The Big Five has the following factors and subscales:
Extroversion
E1. Warmth
E2. Gregariousness
E3. Assertiveness
E4. Activity
E5. Excitement seeking
E6. Positive emotions
Openness
O1. Fantasy
O2. Aesthetics
O3. Feelings
O4. Actions
O5. Ideas
O6. Values
Agreeableness
A1. Trust
A2. Straightforwardness
A3. Altruism
A4. Compliance
A5. Modesty
A6. Tender mindedness
Conscientiousness
C1. Competence
C2. Order
C3. Dutifulness
C4. Achievement striving
C5. Self-discipline
C6. Deliberation
Neuroticism
N1. Anxiety
N2. Angry hostility
N3. Depression
N4. Self-consciousness
N5. Impulsiveness
N6. Vulnerability
As a general trend, I see higher Extroversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and lower Neuroticism to close to an ideal. Maybe it is true that humanity would be in chaos if everyone was this way. Even higher neuroticism for example probably plays some vital role to limit risk-taking or similar.
From reading a lot of psychology research, I get the impression that psychologists also see those factors this way (often explicitly, and with rare dissent).
I think that Socionics is wrong to put "logic" and "ethics" in opposition to each other (there is no rationale for them to be opposites). In addition, I think a lot of what is described in Socionics is actually philosophical outlook and/or values rather than personality (although there may be correlations between the two subjects). I recently made the comment (in the chats?) that ST types (or maybe the ST-NF divide) probably don't exist. Socionics also fails to factor in Neuroticism as a factor.
One of the subscales for Extroversion is "Activity". If behaviour is good, then it is arguably beneficial for there to be a lot of it.
Wow! That will definitely make a whole difference for you once you get the owner of the generator to do something about the noise pollution, @Bethany. Better sleep -> More happy memories, because better hippocampus functioning & Better work performance Perhaps you could discuss with your handsome SLE match if he has tips for you to approach the situation?
Also, you got the theory right in how you apply it to your sleeping problem.
That sounds like shitty therapy, indeed. The whole point of good therapy is how to either change the situation or one's perception of the situation, in order to remedy the problem. If it doesn't even attempt to do that, it's like buying a pen that doesn't write, but that does include a 200-pages book on the history of writing and how it was first invented. Interesting, but not practical. Better get yourself some better therapist than that.
I think too that analogies help in elucidating complex theories. Today I visited a LII-Ne programmer friend and as usual we were discussing how the brain works. In order to converse on the same wavelength I came up with one analogy after another. Analogies help every type to understand complicated theories in my opinion, would it really be true that it is us Ni/Se valuers that really appreciate the true value of analogies?
Yes, I have this EIE pal who turns passive-aggressive when you disagree with his pet theories. He is an international relations student, but always wanted to study philosophy. He wants genes to not influence one's behaviour, because that would curtail his freedom. Instead he clinges to disproved theories that behaviour would be fully explained by an interaction between our "free will" and our environment. When I pointed out how research showed geneXenvironment interactions to for instance predispose towards addiction, he turned sour. He accused me that the whole discussion was unfair to him, because he couldn't get across his theory as well as I could, thanks to my psychology study. This had nothing to do with who presents their theory best and becomes the winner, but with what is true versus untrue.
Last week I prevented the whole discussion from being restarted when I proposed to agree to disagree, when he started claiming that psychology is more of an art than a science. He also is of the opinion that when he is slings a passive-aggressive snal at me I should be asking him if he intended it is as passive-aggressive and why, instead of assuming that he is being passive-aggressive, because according to him it's impossible to deduce the motives behind someone's behaviour. Never mind the fact that I correctly deduced that he was being passive-aggressive, which he admitted later. When he is being passive-aggressive, it's not me, but him who has a problem, so he shouldn't try to make it mine. He especially shouldn't try to do so when I have absolutely nothing to do with his problem, because it turned out that he actually was angry with someone else and that he took it out on me. I'm not his boxing ball, so if he has a beef with someone else, he should talk out with them, instead of arguing with me.
His passive-aggression tires me, so I simply not take the initiative to interact with this EIE for a while, until I have the energy to do so again or my LSI high school friend has time again to join the EIE and me.
Last edited by Armitage; 03-05-2022 at 08:33 PM.
I usually hit it off best with So/Sx creative subtypes of various types who never stop talking
Well, I don't stop talking either.
EIEs are arguably one of the types least likely to psychopathic and Machiavellian, if not the least. I think a common perception of EIEs on this forum is likely wrong.
Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H. and Meijer, E., 2017. The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspectives on psychological science, 12(2), pp.183-204. (direct link to pdf file)
The mechanism? Perhaps listening & observing objectively for your own self, then confirming with an another unbiased party would help.
Some use the scientific method. Right now you seem to looking inward then confirming those inward assumptions with crackpot theories that are just looking to con you. I'm not judging you man, I'm just writing an opinion
No, not really. They are what they are. I have always been the sort of person who does not accept help (Ep, Fi PoLR or something) as I have a overwhelming need to handle it myself.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
So, type X because Y, then type Y because X, therefore X is true. That's circular reasoning.
Most Big Five and HEXACO traits seem unrelated to the Sociotypes, consequently the Big Five and HEXACO trait correlations with those of the Dark Triad seem to me to be little informative about the Sociotype's propensity towards displaying any of the Dark Triad characteristics. @Subteigh, based on EIE's Sociotype I only see evidence for them exhibiting increased extroversion and perhaps openness to new experiences ( Ni/Se ). In the upper rows, both of these traits display a significant positive correlation with narcissism, but no negative correlations. At best for the EIEs there would be too little in common between Sociotypes and the Big Five/HEXACO traits to derrive any conclusion from, and at worst they would be prone to narcissism. I thus do not see why EIEs would be least prone to the characteristics of the Dark Triad.
Why do I look at the upper rows specifically? Because controlling variance may cause overcorrection and reduces the interpretability of the results, hence I instead look at the raw correlations. Even if there may exist some overlap between the correlation of for instance agreeableness with narcissism and agreeableness with Machiavellianism, one can at least make certain claims about the relationships of these raw correlations. In contrast, it is hard to generalize any conclusions in regard to the controlled correlations, because they only apply in the instance that all three Dark Triad variables are taken into consideration. To summarize, based on the raw correlations I call say that if a person scores 1 unit of agreeableness more on the personality test, they are likely to show about .21 units of narcissism less. I cannot make the same comparison with the controlled correlations, because that only applies to all three dependent variables put together.
Interesting. Your entire frame of thinking is a cognitive bias. No wonder you put EIEs on a pedestal
Last edited by Stray Cat; 03-06-2022 at 06:33 AM.
Every type has all the functions - just in different configurations depending on the type.
Socionics isn't based in any actual evidence.
I believe that is Socionics dogma.
LOL. Why the fuck are you on this site if you actually believe that? Only a moron or a troll continues to post on a site that they personally believe is horseshit.
In my opinion, you discredit socionics cause it doesn't psychologically align with your rose-colored view of how society should work. You probably want the functionality of society to be something fuzzy, simple and void of any psychological complexity.
Perhaps a Big Five forum would be best for your belief system, where EIEs would send e-hugs, open your world and reassure you that the future is bright if, only, you join them in the journey
I mean, if socionics doesn't agree with you that's cool man. That's your choice. However, to say socionics isn't based on any actual psychological evidence is absolutely moronic.
Saying that Socionics has no evidence for it isn't discrediting it. That's the truth. If this is not so, then I suggest you produce the evidence rather than the insults.
Other typologies are not so interested in exploring relationship dynamics, nor do they have a community that I like to discuss such topics. I think there is a lot of hope for Socionics if it gains insights from elsewhere.
Hm, this thread is about wanting others to conform to what one expects of a dual, not who is or isn't your dual?
The evidence for socionics is by observing human behavior and, perhaps, utilizing the scientific method to confirm the theories that socionics community has suggested.
Saying that socionics has no evidence to it is not the truth. You're being categorical & engaging in black or white thinking just so you can avoid the nuance it takes to come to the wisest decision
I have not criticized Big Five yet you sit here & claim that EIEs do not use Se or Ti. You do not operate using logic. It seems your entire philosophy is to search for analogies that bring comfort to your own personal relational biases
In my opinion, you are not open to actual evidence but only the things that confirm your societal narrative
@Subteigh, out of curiosity and a desire to understand, what have your experiences with your duals been like? Who are your duals anyway?
I know it's still a discussion about duals, and I think duals are overrated. Just an ideal, just a fantasy most of the time. I don't expect much of it, or from anyone. It's just like the soulmate fantasy, or finding "the one". Too much emphasis is put on it, and it's not realistically looked at or examined. For some people, it is assumed that they will automatically 'click' with duals, but that is not the case. I think that fixating on duals both gives people unralistic standards to live up to (kinda like how Disney Princesses pure unrealistic standards on kids). It's just an idea, and a concept. Not an absolute. It may be true in some cases, but it may not be true in others. People who are expecting it to explain everything are deluded.
I do not suffer fools gladly.
This thread is kind of an occasion for soul-searching about expectations and duality.
If you don't have such expectations, good for you.
You asked on my opinion about duals, technically so that's mine. Bye.
I do not suffer fools gladly.
In theory, my duals should be LSEs.
I think generally, I have enjoyed the stability of EXXJ temperament types.
The concept of duality in Socionics is that one other person will cover for your weaknesses in ways you appreciate.
I've found that I've never needed to rely on any one person like that, and that I appreciate people of most dispositions in various ways. There's more to a person than personality too - and Model A doesn't cover the important trait of Neuroticism - a trait that tends to make others difficult to live with.
Sure, there could be evidence for Socionics in the future. I don't doubt that.
What I understand by EIEs is that they use "intuition" and "ethics", not "sensing" and "logic". While I don't see intuition as the opposite of sensing not ethics as the opposite of logic, Socionics sees them as polar opposites.
I agree that intuition versus sensing and logic versus ethics in it's common usage are not mutually exclusive, but Socionics uses these terms with different definitions, which is what causes them to be opposites.
I don't see that at all.
I just see them as representing philosophical outlooks that are not contradictory to each other.
Big Five factors and facets associations for healthiness ("General Health"):
This is a strong reason for me to think that EIEs and LIEs in Socionics do not have "Si PoLR".
Source paper: Seeboth, A. and Mõttus, R., 2018. Successful explanations start with accurate descriptions: Questionnaire items as personality markers for more accurate predictions. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), pp.186-201. (direct link to pdf file)
Direct link to the supplementary table partly shown above: https://osf.io/8sjyr/
Socionics views ethics & logics as complimentary not oppositional or, if you prefer, supportive rather than oppositional. There is nuance to the equation but, yes, sensing & intuition do balance each other
Certain functions will hinder one another and some will correct one another.
EIEs do have Si Polr. They are completely fine with being messy & disorderly until an outside impetus indirectly persuades them to do so. Directly enforcing Si values upon them ain't great. Of course, one would do well to observe this behavior in an xIE rather than just reading a book or posting statistics.
For a person to say EIEs do not use Ti suggests that that either doesn't understand Ti or has never had a true conversation with an EIE
I don't know alot of ENFJs, but I know one very well and I can tell you one time we got into an arguement (one of many) and he tried to Se dominate me to agree with him, when I pulled up video evidence and he finally saw he was wrong, you know what he told me? "That's how you know I'm not Jesus." with a straight face! I do agree with alot of the things said here about EIE, I thought for some reason this was just my experience with the type.
Yup, that's exactly how one of my EIE friends would react to to being showed that they were wrong all along. At the same time they would harbour resentment for being proved wrong. They harbour grudges over facts, how illogical of them. Somehow they believe that they can be right simply by spinning a story well, instead of by actually being knowledgeable about the topic.
I hope you are joking.Big Five factors and facets associations for healthiness ("General Health"):
This is a strong reason for me to think that EIEs and LIEs in Socionics do not have "Si PoLR".
Source paper: Seeboth, A. and Mõttus, R., 2018. Successful explanations start with accurate descriptions: Questionnaire items as personality markers for more accurate predictions. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), pp.186-201. (direct link to pdf file)
Direct link to the supplementary table partly shown above: https://osf.io/8sjyr/
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)
It would be better to joke based on evidence than to be serious based on no evidence.
Do you mean the socionics evidence every member of this site continually gets but too lazy to get yourself? It must be pretty easy to draw up statistics from a website, statistics somebody else researched, statistics you claim are legitimate simply because you say they are
Every person on this forum: "I've seen a particular socionics type use a particular socionics function quite a few things times"
Subteigh:. "Socionics has no evidence. Big Five does. Here's a spreadsheet and a Q & A from a random website that proves it. I don't make the careful observations myself but since Big Five gives me good feels I'll believe it anyway."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
