Ni polr lack foresight and can seem like Ni seeking, please give examples of lack of foresight
Ni polr or Ni seeking
Ni polr lack foresight and can seem like Ni seeking, please give examples of lack of foresight
-
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
Ni polr = Making a "5 year plan" then dismissing any relevant information that contradicts their timeline. Five years later they are somewhat disappointed that things didn't play out the way they had planned. I have given up offering my ESE sister this type of advice. I just tell her I support any decision she makes. It does more harm than good. My way is not better than her's and maybe someone else will offer her information that is more suited to her.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Well for me, personal problems will arise at work and the LSE in charge will propose simple solutions to those problems. Like let's say you have serious management issues at work and there's this whole history of frustration and negative emotions someone has been feeling about it; well the LSE might talk to that person and suggest to not be so serious about work and "get out" more or just talk about it when they feel negative emotions. So they kind of ignore or write-off the nature of the problems and so things get worse, not solved at all, or the people with the problems figure it out on their own or between each other. It's like trying to force something that doesn't fit.
I tend to see LSEs as trying madly to compensate for their Ni polr with a fixation on planning things out the wazoo but failing to account for contingencies, failing to understand how people's behaviors will evolve (or not) over time, failing to notice the cyclical nature of things like markets. They get caught unawares, which can happen to anyone, but they usually don't leave enough allowance for the unforeseeable and uncontrollable, which is not predetermined but does represent a range of events that can occur.
Concrete and vague (lol) examples from LSEs I know:
* Hiring someone when there are (to me) red flags in their application, being directly warned the person will be problematic, being surprised within a few months by the extent of how crazy the person is and how much damage they're doing
* Refusing to deviate from a plan even though the situation is changing, specifically (a) not changing place of residence when most anyone else would, (b) not altering business structure even though about half the people on staff aren't contributing what's really needed to prevent collapse
* Selling real estate prematurely as market rises
* Buying real estate at market peak
* Unwillingness to sell real estate when indications are for a precipitous drop in market
* Not understanding the long-term consequences on relationships of all kinds in treating other people disrespectfully
* Pooh-poohing valid concerns regarding future developments and "forgetting" how they brushed you off once you turn out to be right
Ni-seeking may not be able to do very good forecasting, but they are more likely to know that they don't know how to do it, and solicit and incorporate that kind of information. They will thank you for it, too. To Ni-polr this kind of input makes very little impact, they're practically impervious to it.
Ni-seeking also will learn from past mistakes with Ni. Ni-polr doesn't, they just rinse and repeat.
Last edited by golden; 10-06-2016 at 09:59 PM.
Well, HA tends to be a strong enough function to be useful, but not so natural as the ego ones, and people tend to be drawn toward it, nigh irresistibly. On the other hand, the PoLR tends to drive people away, usually on a subconscious level, due to fear and disgust. People also take advantage of the fact that they're "bad at" the PoLR (e.g.PoLRs who like to act on their lack of empathy).
It would help if you actually read other people's specific real life examples as opposed to regurgitating theory at me which I'm very well versedOriginally Posted by Schildmaid
Well, HA tends to be a strong enough function to be useful, but not so natural as the ego ones, and people tend to be drawn toward it, nigh irresistibly. On the other hand, the PoLR tends to drive people away, usually on a subconscious level, due to fear and disgust. People also take advantage of the fact that they're "bad at" the PoLR (e.g.
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
My specific example is an LSE who takes in a slacker as a roommate and doesn't foresee that the roommate will stop paying rent and thus leaving him in responsibility of a place that he can't afford on his own
Another example is an LSE who lacks foresight and makes up for it by being frugal
Another one is making a long term plan in big events like I'll get a job in LA, then I'll get an apartment, then I'll save up for a car and follows this generized plan
I've seen this happen before
Specifically an LSE who will lose his temper to the point of violence and if it were not for the thoughtfulness of the people around him he would get arrested. This is the result of immediate rage but not synonymous with all LSE, just a trend among the military boys of the older generation
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 10-06-2016 at 08:58 PM.
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
seems like LSI, LSEs are relatively flexible but can't make coherent plans which lead them to make last minute stressful changes adapting to a situation using more energy than is necessary.
ISXX miss possibilities altogether.
INXX types mutually see that their problem could have been solved by careful planning that allows the unnecessary possibilities to be ignored.
LSIs aren't too much like that. This isn't about possibilities, it's about modeling and patterns related to Ni. It is someone throwing out a lot of possibilites that will support the kinds of problems I named here, but that's because the crises happen instead of being avoided in the first place.
Your "Ni" is what I'd class as Ne. Within that problems are negative possibilities LSI and SLI (ISXX generally) all miss these as they don't pay attention to them.
By the way I'm with Gulenko when he has reanalysed
and flipped LSE and LSI's judicious and decisive labels. LSE are decisive as extroverts with a linear assertive temperament + 4D F whilst LSI are judicious as the balanced stable temperament with 4D S.
Well goldenbane probably hasmust be
I wouldn't do what Gulenko did. Judicious and decisive are whole quadra labels and I found they tend to correlate with things like political liberalism/consevatism and tendency for more "rough" sorts of humor that still hold for less prototypical members (like penguins are still birds and have beaks even if they can't fly). Also, if LSI is moved out of my quadra, how can I ever find my dual?I will be forever incomplete and not able to merge into a giant powerful entity and take over the world without my dual...
*sung to a blues tune* Everyone has their dual, but not me (or EIIs...)
Ni PoLR is not so much lack of forecasting (although it is included), but lack of insight into causality.
http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...-and-polr.html
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
This is not a lack of Ni, but a lack of Fi. If an LSE understands the basic untrustworthiness (Fi) of a person, simple conclusions such as this one (Ni) will follow.
Last edited by consentingadult; 10-11-2016 at 09:25 AM.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Since polr is really a volatile function to attempt to type by, and since quick perusal of thread shows it's already avidly discussed, I'm ignoring it in favor of Ni superid
It's hard to lump Ni 5(DS) with Ni6 (agenda) (mirrors can be as different as contraries), but in general Se is capable of implementing and adjusting situations/people in real time while sometimes accepting adjustments in tempo from Ni superid. I once read a description likening Ni to a brain that governs Se brawn—this is specious, because in most cases Se egos are plenty autonomous and Se bases especially resent attempts to control their affairs. But Ni is immersed in the general flow of things (relying I think on the contact Pe function to supply the bulk of new information, which, in the case of Ni bases, can sometimes lead to ignorance of the very input that fuels the Ni foresight/forewarning) and thus can present valuable considerations, at times, for Se egos.
In the case of positivist Ni (LIE IEI) and negativist Se(ESI SLE), Ni egos (VS cog in this case) champion timely and sometimes atypical action. Negativists are generally more cautious (by first accounting for what can go wrong, what has gone wrong, what is missing, etc, they are cognitively more in tune with risk) so the Ni-VS type is supposed to encourage action at the opportune moment, when reward is highest and danger diminished (and the four types in question are all involutionary, thus tending towards precipitous action). Many descriptions say Se allows Ni to pursue its dreams but this is a fantasy—not only are dreams built from the same financial stuff regardless of your valued functions and strengths, but also Ni alone has no currency in a world where one must prove competence before acquiring influence, save the niches of literature and (supposedly) Wall Street. Rather, Se specializes in appraisal of any static slice of time, and the functions work in tandem to their respective strengths (because most people don't delude themselves into thinking they'd better wait for some perfect dual to arrive and fix everything): Ni deriving as much as possible from a small amount of Se information (the door is ajar and voices in the hallway, and yes I recall some mention of a business partner, Mr. Fell, whose retinue must now be twittering in the hall, and this will not end well for my poor family since they are hard upon the end of the quarter and this is the slowest season which Mr. Fell now looks upon as a faint and fair estimate of my poor family's meager business potential [forgive my humor] , at which point a competent IEI mistakenly spills ink all over the ledger "oh how clumsy of me, this will simply take forever to retabulate, yes, best come next quarter" and an overzealous LIE proposes a daring merger which yields Mr. Fell no profit whatsoever but troubles his mind several weeks after he snubs the proposal outright, at which point the smiling pauper LIE has had ample time to consider the various possibilities and outcomes for both businesses, and he rings the bell of Mr. Fell's cottage-coffin, presenting with a winning smile the papers from his family's belly-up industry, which, affixed to Fell's more profitable one, will allow substantial tax breaks at no additional cost to the Fell company (since by now Jack's company has downsized), and anyway, Fell's antiperspirant line which turns such a profit now will become a liability not five years down the road when the FDA announces that a certain number of lab mice have died of Alzheimer's disease after using Fell antiperspirant and requires products to carry a warning label "and unlike cigarettes, dear Fell, people do not become addicted to antiperspirants, and young ladies will fearfully palpate their armpits for neuronal decay you know.") Fell, who by now you must have guessed is one of those gloomy Chicago ESI who actually hail from further east, New York or someplace, will consider Jack's proposal seriously, perhaps employing Se and Fi to evaluate Jack's sharkish smile as the mark of a serial opportunist, for, indeed, he's met a similar type before the initial westward evacuation following some fell business dealings (chatbox insists that this dreamlike deference to something not quite remembered is a sign of Ni, and I insist that in Fell's case the unconscious association can be accounted for most reasonably under the purview of the not weak but still largely unconscious agenda function). Fell denies Jack's proposal, but considering the warning about antipersperants, uses this projected business data (gamma's +Ni) to cautiously diversify over the next five years
(ESI please read Strat well and do not let yourselves be wooed by the risky optimistic Jack, for when his good cheer breaks he will while away his latter days in hotel lobbies as his best suit fades~ observe, too, that socionics duality is a dewy eyed aspiration dreamt up in some other democratic quadra)
Translated articles suppose the four process decisive types to work inversely, with EIE and ILI warning the daring optimistic LSI and the sometimes reckless SEE—the two positivist types—away from danger. The EIE supposedly does this through opera, and the ILI, by daily infusions of molasses into the veins of a hyperactive SEE, cold showers, and numerous contingency plans (unless they fancy they can actually divine the future by gazing into an oversized marble or ruminating over the dregs of their tea, in which case they're fools and they can't help you anyway)
Undeveloped Se may be headstrong and reckless or overcautious and heavy handed, but any mellowing with age can demonstrate development of the superid T
In conclusion, you all lack foresight.
@666 Bravissimo, bravissimo!
Then you would have your own very strange system, not insulting it is what it is. Political leanings aren't linked to quadra but every quadra brings their own flavours to the political label they have an affinity with.Well goldenbane probably has
I wouldn't do what Gulenko did. Judicious and decisive are whole quadra labels and I found they tend to correlate with things like political liberalism/consevatism and tendency for more "rough" sorts of humor that still hold for less prototypical members (like penguins are still birds and have beaks even if they can't fly). Also, if LSI is moved out of my quadra, how can I ever find my dual?
*sung to a blues tune* Everyone has their dual, but not me (or EIIs...)
LSI are judicious, but not friendly - also subtype adds new layers, some get along really well and others are pure cancer.
Which function do you use to judge what Ni must be? Feel free to ramble and free associate whatever comes to you. I will read every word.Well goldenbane probably has
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I use
@Soupman How are political leanings not linked to quadra? I've never seen a beta "social justice warrior", for instance, or an alpha conspiracy theorist (not that they don't exist, they're just so rare I haven't seen one that I can think of now). There are left-wing and right-wing people of all quadras, sure, and even far-left and far-right, but that's not all there is to politics... And I largely think those designations are nonsense as well. For example, radical feminists tend to hate mainstream feminists' guts, yet they're both considered left-wing by most (although I've seen radfems who say they're conservative). We really need to just stop trying to apply French Revolution terminology to everything already...
all weak Ni lack what relates to Ni, including foresight. despite which place in model A it has
> please give examples of lack of foresight
harder to feel better ways
to feel how long time you spend on something
to notice trends, so the situation is percieved as changed more edgily
you are often on reassurance or indifference sides, as it's hard to be sure in the concrete future
...
It's possible to use weak functions and train skills, but it's harder and lesser effective for S types, and to use non-valued weak functions is especially psychically exhaustingly.
Yes, hard to describe but what I was really curious about is how you came to the conclusion that you were Beta, or EIE even. I feel like your version of socionics is a combination of "socionics newwave" and Sandoval's typing system which is different from socionics but interesting nonetheless. If you haven't been to his site, I highly suggest it because he has a different approach that seems like it would be more in alignment with your view of quadras and types. Check it out.I use
Not saying you are not a beta. You do have a similar vibe to @Myst sometimes but she would probably disagree.
If you live long enough you will see all these things, repeatedly. Not rare.
@Soupman How are political leanings not linked to quadra? I've never seen a beta "social justice warrior", for instance, or an alpha conspiracy theorist (not that they don't exist, they're just so rare I haven't seen one that I can think of now). There are left-wing and right-wing people of all quadras, sure, and even far-left and far-right, but that's not all there is to politics... And I largely think those designations are nonsense as well.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I don't know how you personally type so we may have a little bit of misconception on what we conjure up when we imagine the types.I use
@Soupman How are political leanings not linked to quadra? I've never seen a beta "social justice warrior", for instance, or an alpha conspiracy theorist (not that they don't exist, they're just so rare I haven't seen one that I can think of). There are left-wing and right-wing people of all quadras, sure, and even far-left and far-right, but that's not all there is to politics... And I largely think those designations are nonsense as well.
From what I've seen SJWs are Beta - the Dominant Quadra as I like to call them. These are the most assertive and thus disagreeable quadra as they have a hard time putting their feet down.
EIE & IEI habour very strong values they intend to impose upon society as they see themselves as attached to the fabric of society they intend on being a part of. Beta ST only join them if there is a firm goal providing pragmatic means to accomplishing these, they aren't so much into the development, especially LSI the most inert of the group.
Creative quadra seem to go on personal crusades fighting for the underdog but they have no desire to impose their way of thinking as the only way available. They are not inclined to be autocrats.
Harmonisers take a personalised route but it seems to take a lot for them to go on a crusade for their personal beliefs but they are capable of doing so. There won't resemble their quadra however when doind so.
I largely just type based on my personal experience at this point. I just have basically a giant database of people's thoughts and behaviors and I'm largely just fitting socionics to that because it's always driven me crazy to have no terms to describe what's basically at the forefront of my perception. That's probably a bit weird, and I've said I'll make my own system if people are sick of that.Yes, hard to describe but what I was really curious about is how you came to the conclusion that you were Beta, or EIE even. I feel like your version of socionics is a combination of "socionics newwave" and Sandoval's typing system which is different from socionics but interesting nonetheless. If you haven't been to his site, I highly suggest it because he has a different approach that seems like it would be more in alignment with your view of quadras and types. Check it out.
Not saying you are not a beta. You do have a similar vibe to @Myst sometimes but she would probably disagree.
Thanks for the link.
I would never want to discourage you from using your intuition and/or feelings when typing others or in general. In fact I encourage everyone to pay more attention to their intuition than their feelings, because feelings are fickle things, but it often falls on deaf ears. Just remember intuition sharpens with real world experience. At times you can cut through the chaos with laser precision, other times you are kind of in a fog because the database has no experience to compare to. There is no long term pattern involved so you have to form new connections and go from there. I assume you are still in school and from your posts you read a lot of different philosophies then pick and choose what feels right and what doesn't (I do that too). Intuition is not infallible. It takes a lot of discernment to know what is actually intuition and what is just "feeling" or rationalization.
Not saying that any of this is bad. Over time I learned to distinguish pretty well. I just think your database is not as huge as you imagine it to be. Again not saying there is something wrong with that. There is a natural developmental process involved in the unique pairing of elements of a "type". All functions can become more refined, sharper. If you want to create your own system don't be discouraged but do read more about socionics if you want to comprehend where people are coming from here and why your ideas might not match up to the theory. It took me quite awhile to actually start reading the theory after I joined. I am glad I did. It cleared up many misunderstandings for me. A lot of what is posted on the forum is personal experience and may stray far from theory so stick to http://wikisocion.org/ or sociotype.com for the basics. They tend to be the best resources for native English speakers. If you want to have conversations with people who are more serious about socionics you have to know the basic theory and more. I am not that serious about socionics but I am noticing you have vastly different perceptions of quadras, and types, than many here. You aren't gaining anything if you are talking right past each other.
Having said that, reading about people and psychology is not the same as actually experiencing "types" up close and personal. No matter how much I would like to think that all my studying of philosophy and psychology has given me clearer insight into the inner workings of other people it is not what helped me understand people better. Intuition + experience did. I have been wrong about people more times than I would like to admit. People I disliked with a passion ended up being a close friend and vice versa. If I knew socionics then I would have just retyped them and been done with it. lol Now I am not so quick to announce "not my quadra" because of a possible misunderstanding. My database grew in surprising ways. I look back and laugh at 12, 16, 18, 21, 27 and 30 year old versions of me. Sometimes I came off as a little know it all but I was just emulating some of my role models who happen to have been ILI.
Here is like a boring, down to earth perspective on intuition but it's not bad.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
@Aylen I've read most of that stuff that you linked. You have to know stuff to be able to argue about it.
Also, my vastly different perceptions are from my experiences. I just run around like a lunatic and either interact with tons of people or people-watch like all the time. I'm just doing what Buddha said and taking what works and discarding the rest, basically. However, I'm not "picking and choosing" individual bits so much as adjusting a whole system of ideas. I think the main problem with a lot of socionists is that they're too locked up in their rooms to apply the theory in the real world. The other big problem is not enough formal experiments.
Pretty much my motto too too but picking and choosing is what you are doing when adjusting the system. Some of it is conscious and some of it isn't. If the term offends you just read it the other way.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Picking and choosing means that you don't have a system, but take and leave things on an individual basis. I have a system and I can lay it all out and how everything derives from everything else. Words have meanings.
Ah, so you can explain it.
Yes, words carry energy and I choose mine specifically.
Edit: I have a system too.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
What you should to like or dislike in other people related to types does not change. For more than 10 years messing with typing I don't remember when I'd retyped someone IRL after our relations (and hence my feelings) became better or worse. I still liked what I liked in them previously related to type, only additional factors changed my feelings. So with correct understanding of typology and intertype relations, such things could not happen.
The problem of quadras is that you like one things and that other likes other ones. Understanding changes nothing.Now I am not so quick to announce "not my quadra" because of a possible misunderstanding.
Yeah, I disagreeYes, hard to describe but what I was really curious about is how you came to the conclusion that you were Beta, or EIE even. I feel like your version of socionics is a combination of "socionics newwave" and Sandoval's typing system which is different from socionics but interesting nonetheless. If you haven't been to his site, I highly suggest it because he has a different approach that seems like it would be more in alignment with your view of quadras and types. Check it out.
Not saying you are not a beta. You do have a similar vibe to @Myst sometimes but she would probably disagree.I see nothing similar between us. He/she seems Ni ego for sure. ILI>EIE most likely from the few posts I've seen anyway. IEI/LIE aren't likely IMO
What is that vibe like if you can put it into words?
How would you contrast Ne PoLR with this?
The part on "unforeseeable and uncontrollable, which is not predetermined but does represent a range of events that can occur" seems Ne to me.
When would most anyone change place of residence?* Refusing to deviate from a plan even though the situation is changing, specifically (a) not changing place of residence when most anyone else would
That stuff doesn't seem type related. I don't think anyone can really predict these things, when it's actually market peak, etc... in retrospect only* Selling real estate prematurely as market rises
* Buying real estate at market peak
Yeah I try to learn from that once I recognize the trend.Ni-seeking may not be able to do very good forecasting, but they are more likely to know that they don't know how to do it, and solicit and incorporate that kind of information. They will thank you for it, too. To Ni-polr this kind of input makes very little impact, they're practically impervious to it.
Ni-seeking also will learn from past mistakes with Ni. Ni-polr doesn't, they just rinse and repeat.
Modeling in what sense?
That someone does sound like Ne>Ni.
However LSI values Se, so why not Decisive then...
You have really weird ideas on LSIs, why couldn't they be friendly too?
That sounds like Static perception...
That's actually really great exampleNi polr = Making a "5 year plan" then dismissing any relevant information that contradicts their timeline. Five years later they are somewhat disappointed that things didn't play out the way they had planned. I have given up offering my ESE sister this type of advice. I just tell her I support any decision she makes. It does more harm than good. My way is not better than her's and maybe someone else will offer her information that is more suited to her.
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
Don't worry, the "vibe" passed quickly after I read a few posts.Yeah, I disagree
What is that vibe like if you can put it into words?
Perhaps it was just an impression of weaker Fe but I didn't contemplate the reasons why I felt it.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
This is a good question the simple answer is that "F" comes in numerous variations which are quite confusing to people in socionics, especially those worshiping model a.
One definition is having a dominant influence in society, this variety makes sense at the quadral level. Quadra here is the theme of values shared by a group of people as opposed to cognitive speculation - these themes of behaviour has been attributed as a variation of F.
The second variant is informational - abstract in nature but real as the type of information discernment "F" valuing types prefer. This is evident in conversation as the informational style.
They are Coldblooded in communication, they don't focus on warmth or even trying to reassure people with warmth without being creepy. Think of Hillary Clinton in the earlier days - some of the mistakes she made in the 2008 campaign before a new team rectified her interpersonal errors.
However when they have Developed their Superego LSI were the EII mask upon interaction - there they can display the depth mystery of warmth EIIs are capable of.
This isn't an answer
Gulenko just doesn't recognize that even model A is already too limited to explain all the people stuff, using just a few broad categories and lacking too many organizing principles. Attempts at refining these limited ideas further and trying to explain even more people stuff by digging deeper in the rabbithole, creating additional models (incl. model G) inside the same framework... will just lead nowhere. This issue here is a good example of how it leads nowhere - him trying to figure out which types Judicious/Decisive fits, changing it around, never getting the right solution because of not recognizing the limitations of the framework he's basing all his further work on.
You yourself mention these variations of F, it just shows the Socionics model, as it is, is too limited to deal with all of them, failing to provide a full explanation of them and of the mechanisms that may link them or of the mechanisms that separate them.
So they can be friendly after all?...They are Coldblooded in communication, they don't focus on warmth or even trying to reassure people with warmth without being creepy. Think of Hillary Clinton in the earlier days - some of the mistakes she made in the 2008 campaign before a new team rectified her interpersonal errors.
However when they have Developed their Superego LSI were the EII mask upon interaction - there they can display the depth mystery of warmth EIIs are capable of.
Yes but it's not in their nature to be, it's a formal social requirement they can exercise, it's not really in their nature to be like that.
He does recognise the limits of the models which is why he's said to have a habit of changing his mind, further refining his ideas - like a creative subtype is inclined to be. (The most conservative one is the normalising subtype, I'm digressing but it's a fascinating).This isn't an answer
Gulenko just doesn't recognize that even model A is already too limited to explain all the people stuff, using just a few broad categories and lacking too many organizing principles. Attempts at refining these limited ideas further and trying to explain even more people stuff by digging deeper in the rabbithole, creating additional models (incl. model G) inside the same framework... will just lead nowhere. This issue here is a good example of how it leads nowhere - him trying to figure out which types Judicious/Decisive fits, changing it around, never getting the right solution because of not recognizing the limitations of the framework he's basing all his further work on.
You yourself mention these variations of F, it just shows the Socionics model, as it is, is too limited to deal with all of them, failing to provide a full explanation of them and of the mechanisms that may link them or of the mechanisms that separate them.
You are working with his old ideas the ones he had before learning and refinement of his own theory brought him new ones - I guess you are just irritated that there isn't a complete theory from day one you can learn. Unfortunately online this is the case however if you were to go to his school (understanding russian), he'd teach you the most stable revised version of his ideas as off to-date .
Socionics is meant to be a science and not a belief thus, divergence, in theory, shouldn't surprise you, although to minimise the chaos it would be best to not mix theory between different schools since that causes confusion.
Viktor has been in the game for more than 30 years, it can be confusing to keep track of his changes since its not clear what he still accepts and what he rejects.
You got some really black/white cardboard cut-outs in your mind about the types.
If he recognized the limits, he wouldn't be trying to cram everything into these models.He does recognise the limits of the models which is why he's said to have a habit of changing his mind, further refining his ideas - like a creative subtype is inclined to be. (The most conservative one is the normalising subtype, I'm digressing but it's a fascinating).
You are working with his old ideas the ones he had before learning and refinement of his own theory brought him new ones - I guess you are just irritated that there isn't a complete theory from day one you can learn. Unfortunately online this is the case however if you were to go to his school (understanding russian), he'd teach you the most stable revised version of his ideas as off to-date .
Socionics is meant to be a science and not a belief thus, divergence, in theory, shouldn't surprise you, although to minimise the chaos it would be best to not mix theory between different schools since that causes confusion.
I'm not working with much of his ideas, no. Changing things isn't a problem on its own, the problem is he's not going to find any good answer here for those.
No I'm not irritated about the lack of a complete theory like that, don't make assumptions about me. What's irritating is when I see this practice of connecting everything about people to these limited Socionics models without a real reason.
Socionics is meant to be a science? In its current form? Are you joking?
Here you are making assumptions but then go on to criticise - assumptions I conjured. If you take the route that assumptions are bad then you shouldn't either resort to making them yourself.You got some really black/white cardboard cut-outs in your mind about the types.
If he recognized the limits, he wouldn't be trying to cram everything into these models.
Here again, you are making the assumptions that the ideas were conjured without real reason.
Why are you s******ing(edit snegguring - the site mistakenly blocked the word)? What current form? What's with your queries about the current form (that's vague relying on numerous assumptions to comprehend them)?
Am I joking? - No. However, I'm going to answer this with the assumption that you've not looked at the epistemology of science and fully comprehended what makes personality typology difficult to develop a body of knowledge for.
I'm not under any illusion that socionics has a got a long road ahead before it can be considered a respectable science. To me, socionics is a mess, but I hope someone out there can figure a way to rescue it from the laughing stock abyss it has been in.
Not an assumption but a fact - or you didn't seriously mean that all LSIs can never feel any kind of friendliness naturally and they all are just robots always?
Again, not an assumption, there simply is no real reason. Nothing that can be properly anchored to actual reality and fit into a good logical map of it.Here again, you are making the assumptions that the ideas were conjured without real reason.
What's the word?Why are you s******ing(edit snegguring - the site mistakenly blocked the word)?
The rabbithole form. Or what you call it being in the laughing stock abyss in your own reply here.What current form? What's with your queries about the current form (that's vague relying on numerous assumptions to comprehend them)?
What do you mean about my queries?
Congratulations, I never said that anything from which you could've reasonably assumed this.Am I joking? - No. However, I'm going to answer this with the assumption that you've not looked at the epistemology of science and fully comprehended what makes personality typology difficult to develop a body of knowledge for.
If Socionics was a science, it would use the scientific way of thinking. Psychology is a science, and no, it's not easy to answer questions in psychology, and nothing I said indicated that I thought it should be easy, pfft.
No need to "figure a way". Go drop all the speculation, stick with the scientific way of thinking instead. I'm saying this to the socionists in general, not to you personally. (Since I don't know you at all.)I'm not under any illusion that socionics has a got a long road ahead before it can be considered a respectable science. To me, socionics is a mess, but I hope someone out there can figure a way to rescue it from the laughing stock abyss it has been in.
I would love it if someone did this and show and explain more on what this whole model is based on that does have some basis in reality, improving it into a better model, integrating it with other understanding of the mind. I do this myself for my personal understanding of things but that's not the same as researchers actually working on this full time.
Ni polr is like following through with some snobby idea because you thought it would be cool and make you better than everybody else and all sophisticated and less like a "victim" but in reality the experience turns out to be shitty and there are all these awkward/human/emotional and artistic moments that you lost because you tried too hard to make it perfect. (I mean at least in LSE- the Ni polr in ESE is different) And like Golden said, you are impervious to the actual effects of this - so you keep doing it because you can't feel things in the precise accurate ways that IEIs can. You are actually logical in a lazy way. "This must be better, it costs more money!" Te economics are horrid.
Like LSEs will often invite the co-workers to lunch at a fancy expensive restaurant with some foreign name that I don't like to pronounce but Subt and Expat would have some 56 hour long conversation on how to correctly say it, but the food is actually objectively shitty despite it having a more sophisticated atmosphere. Nobody really actually likes it that much, but they don't tell the LSE because they will go off the deep end about it. And the LSE did mean well and they are the ones that are paying for it because Te money. Te is always lined with Fi so it's not like it's the demon or anything. Just the demon for IEIs and SEIs. The Fi in the Te will say "Shut the fuck up you IEI. You know that it's morally wrong to bite the hand that feeds you, so you will pretend to like this pretentious lunch of awful."
For ESE it's the same thing, except it's not so snobby and stuck up but it's still some sort of environment or idea that they executed that actually was shitty. An IEI or Ni person will create something innately more beautiful and better, the idea will actually be good and cool and something amazing that inspires people and not something you think is good but it will really be shit. God I hate Ni polr so much lmao.
"A rough in the diamond" is the perfect way to describe Ni polr.
Last edited by Hot Scalding Gayser; 10-22-2016 at 07:45 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
