Wake Up Call

[Ezra]

A lot of things can centre around reasons for not being good at things, negativity, something i've been looking at is ways an understanding of socionics can impove weak points someone sees in themselves, and group interaction.

A good distinction between the Enneagram and socionics is that while socionics gives a reason for why we do what we do, the Enneagram shows us how we can improve upon ourselves. What I think it lacks is the specific, detailed nature of socionics, but it actually offers what socionics doesn't appear to offer; improvement. In my eyes, socionics basically proclaims that we do y for x reason, and because we like z, we should move towards it, and because we don't like a, we should avoid it. It shows that we're inept in certain ways, and we can't change this, no matter how hard we try (hence the notion of an individual 'concentrating' too much on their PoLR e.g. an LIE who makes a conscious effort to dress exceedingly well, and who goes overboard in some way). The Enneagram shows that we're damaged as opposed to naturally inept, and it is based around the idea of one's being able to repair the damage and transcend any problems we might encounter. And this is why I prefer socionics. I just don't think one can possibly perfect oneself to the level that the Enneagram thinks we can. I think socionics, far from allowing us to be selfish and lazy and not work on our flaws, actually shows reality as it is; that humans are crap and always will be crap at certain things, and, likewise, other humans will also be shit at the things you're good at. That's why there's a theory of intertype relations; people compliment each other.

[discojoe]

...

You're acting like Joy.

[Gilly]

You're acting like Joy.

Should that worry me?

[discojoe]

This topic is so Fe.

[aka-kitsune]

A good distinction between the Enneagram and socionics is that while socionics gives a reason for why we do what we do, the Enneagram shows us how we can improve upon ourselves. What I think it lacks is the specific, detailed nature of socionics, but it actually offers what socionics doesn't appear to offer; improvement. In my eyes, socionics basically proclaims that we do y for x reason, and because we like z, we should move towards it, and because we don't like a, we should avoid it. It shows that we're inept in certain ways, and we can't change this, no matter how hard we try (hence the notion of an individual 'concentrating' too much on their PoLR e.g. an LIE who makes a conscious effort to dress exceedingly well, and who goes overboard in some way). The Enneagram shows that we're damaged as opposed to naturally inept, and it is based around the idea of one's being able to repair the damage and transcend any problems we might encounter. And this is why I prefer socionics. I just don't think one can possibly perfect oneself to the level that the Enneagram thinks we can. I think socionics, far from allowing us to be selfish and lazy and not work on our flaws, actually shows reality as it is; that humans are crap and always will be crap at certain things, and, likewise, other humans will also be shit at the things you're good at. That's why there's a theory of intertype relations; people compliment each other.

There's a word for what you're talking about. Complacency. I am not naturally complacent, so I don't want to limit my experience of life and just cede it to someone else.

Jung's original conception of typology included his (call-it-crazy) notion that people should strive to actually develop the neglected parts of their personality rather than living them out vicariously through others. He viewed the desire that someone could "complete" you (ie: duals) as resisting self-development.

[BLauritson]

He viewed the desire that someone could "complete" you (ie: duals) as resisting self-development.

Not really responding to you directly so much as a similar concept I've seen floating about here and there in various places, but something I thought I'd mention while I thought of it. I've heard people before now saying (and whether this is mere speculation or based on their experiences I honestly don't know) that if you were with your dual constantly, you'd never develop your weak areas. While I can see where they're coming from on this (I wish I had specific examples of people saying this, but it was too long ago and I'm too lazy to do a search for something so trivial), I think whether that would happen in reality is all down to the individual. I'm not denying that having someone cover your weak areas could make one complacent, but I think that it isn't necessarily detrimental to self-development since, if an individual is so inclined, they could actually learn from their dual and improve themselves in that way. Basically what I'm trying to say is that, while I understand where people are coming from in saying that duality can be detrimental to self-development, it doesn't mean it will be. I think it's down to the individual rather than the people around them. Gah I dunno, I just wanted to try and inject a differing view into the sea of self-development concepts. Feel free to ignore it.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

"No IEE would ever major in mathematics."

I agree with you there, Herzy (on how that's not true). My mother, who is probably IEE, not only majored in it, she was partway into a PhD for it and taught basic math at the college level. She also has a math-related side hobby; watching her at it blows my mind.

[FDG]

Well done, Herzy. Much of this tends to be left unsaid for much of the time, with deleterious results on many newcomers which may regard nonsense as good information.

[marooned]

I don't think most people are very vulnerable to regarding nonsense as good information when they come here. In other words, I think most people are pretty effective at filtering nonsense from non-nonsense.

[FDG]

I don't think most people are very vulnerable to regarding nonsense as good information when they come here. In other words, I think most people are pretty effective at filtering nonsense from non-nonsense.

Personally as a complete newbie I've had a lot of trouble in certain fields to understand which sources were reliable and which weren't. People may be good at detecting bullshit said with the intention of lying, but genuine nonsense is hard to distinguish from accurate information when you have next to zero experience.

[aestrivex]

Personally as a complete newbie I've had a lot of trouble in certain fields to understand which sources were reliable and which weren't. People may be good at detecting bullshit said with the intention of lying, but genuine nonsense is hard to distinguish from accurate information when you have next to zero experience.

yeah; if you have no experience or prior knowledge in a subject you could easily get confused.

[Ezra]

This topic is so Fe.

Fi has spoken

Jung's original conception of typology included his (call-it-crazy) notion that people should strive to actually develop the neglected parts of their personality rather than living them out vicariously through others. He viewed the desire that someone could "complete" you (ie: duals) as resisting self-development.

So, contrary to what many here believe (and to what Salawa points out constantly), Myers-Briggs does offer something; a chance to develop one's functions by pinpointing what one is inefficient in.

[marooned]

Personally as a complete newbie I've had a lot of trouble in certain fields to understand which sources were reliable and which weren't. People may be good at detecting bullshit said with the intention of lying, but genuine nonsense is hard to distinguish from accurate information when you have next to zero experience.

yeah; if you have no experience or prior knowledge in a subject you could easily get confused.

I don't know why this doesn't resonate with me. Oh well.

[Aylen]

@Herzy

Your words are what my thoughts would look like all organized. I love this. Seems like perfect timing for a bump. <3

[squark]

@Herzy

Your words are what my thoughts would look like all organized. I love this. Seems like perfect timing for a bump. <3

Hell yes it needs a bump.

[squark]

Dee is a good example for this thread but there are more than just him who will go into a thread and pretty much make their case about something and not even listen to others views or opinions. This makes it almost seem like they have to be correct (to a Noob in socionics or someone similar) in what they are saying and that nobody will ever change whatever views those are. Not constructively that is... It pretty much takes 10 people saying: "you are totally wrong" for some people to even think that what they're saying may actually not be correct. Even then, they'll blame it on the "stupid masses" that make up the rest of this forum outside of their little bubble. This is just sad really.

And what cracka says here too. History repeats itself, just with different people filling the roles it seems.

[wasp]

And what cracka says here too. History repeats itself, just with different people filling the roles it seems.

hah true though. my friend made a funny comparison between social environments and professional wrestling. you see, the new crew may replace the old crew, but members of the new crew merely fill in the "tropes" that members of the old crew left open. same personas, different faces.

[Nehtaro]

This is such gold. Should be pinned/stickied.