How come that people have different types?
If we picked out 100 people that have the same type, would we eventually get more people of that type or would next generation be the same spread that of today?
If so, it is in the DNA? Or the first years of out life that determent? Maybe it is a bigger construct of what is needed in the society that make us be different types so we can met the challenges and survive as species?
I never had a satisfied answer to this.
I'm sure I read something before about trauma during certain stages of pregnancy being correlated with the quadra you develop into. If I can remember it, I'll post it.
Yea it sounds more likely. I mean u often hear "u look likeur father" or"she looks likeher mother" or aunt oe whatever. We look like our family personalitywise so yeah...Originally Posted by Tigerfadder
you probably punched them in utero.
I wonder if one twin is a reaction to the other?
My parents are Delta LSE and SLI, and I'm LIE (Te-dom from my mother and from my Te-creative father, but probably a submarine trait from my LIE grandfather), I have an LSE sister (from my mother, of course) and an LII sister (same function stack as me, but everything is reversed in orientation - extrovert for introvert, and vice versa). The LII and I really look alike, but the LSE sister is probably a submarine from my father's mother, whom she resembles.
Just as physical resemblances can be inherited, so too can brain structures and a preference for which circuits are more likely to be used.
I think the apples don't fall far from the trees, function-wise.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 02-05-2018 at 05:04 PM.
yeah it's interesting. There is no clear pattern, but there is a tendency to a pattern. It's almost as nature is playing a game
Some parents and their children:
LSI + IEI:
LSI
LSI
LSI
LSE
LSI + ESI:
ESI
ESI
ESI
LSI
LIE + ESI:
IEE
LSI
LSI + ESI:
SEI
ESE
LII + EIE:
LII
LII
LSI + EIE:
LSI
LSI
IEE
LSI + ESE:
SEE
ESE
SEI
LIE + SEE:
ILE
LII
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)
When people see me and 3 of my siblings together they say: Are you sure that you come from the same family (physical traits are somewhat similar)? Has someone swapped you in the hospital when you were born?
Very diverse bunch (4 quadras represented). It is unusual. (2 Ep,1 Ej, 1 Ip).
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
The next generation would have equal need for all eight elements anyways, so I predict it would distribute evenly. Especially as the 100 people of the same type are severely lacking or not fully competent in countless areas. So the idea would be: sociotype allocation depends on compensation.
There is a greater force that determines what types are born.
if everybody was LSE as we now understand LSEs but a 16-personality typing system still existed, we would still find a way to type people according to it. the LSEs who were more introverted, sensitive, and lackadaisical compared to the other LSEs might become SEIs for example.
In DCNH article Gulenko describes D,C, N and H formation. Further he goes on and says that you can continue this further on...
Filling up your roles comes in eventually such as: director, generator, door closer, stabilizer.
Anyways regarding to thinking , I would not expect to happen that much.
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
If he's male, that means not a monozygotic twin, and hence he could be another type entirely. If he was monocygotic, then only two choices would be possible.
I know monozygotic twins...they used to be really similar when younger (like 20), but now I could imagine them being different types...well not really I still think they are both LIEs...mhmhmh
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
So we have two camps basically.One of which is that the human being is complex so that we can not make this rules about them really. Socionics is just a filter applied to the human and if two human are too alike they are automatically the same type. So you got higher change being the same type as one of the parent.
Other camp is that type is a bigger construct and that people kind of randomly or not get different characteristics which serve the bigger purpose of diversity in the human pool. Much like entropy the next generation get different types.
Type seems to be more a result of imprinting. DNA provides core processors and everyone is equipped with identical configuration potential; however processors of various individuals have different efficiencies (information handling capabilities). Even the most effective processors cannot handle all the information that is available from the senses so information has to be pared down significantly in order to cope - hence type is born. Fetuses are aware of and are affected by their environments and start learning in the womb that certain perceptions and processing structures make better use of their processors - and this habituation becomes reinforced and refined throughout the early years of life.
a.k.a. I/O
So while thinking of this a bit further i come to the conclusion it have to be the mother who have the dominant voice in this. It is because when the child is in its first days and months of life some parts of the brain get more attention for reasons than other and thats why we start be developed in a type.
It probably happening while being a fetus.
At this point, all we can do is speculate.
Socionics is, IMO, pseudoscience (albeit fun, or I wouldn't be here), that's not say there's nothing to it, but there is no hard scientific proof that any of this exists in the manner we think, so to tie this in with questions of genetics vs environment is pure speculation.
I don't know.
Alright.
Bless you. An "LIE" who doesn't take fairy tale bullshit to be some scientific reality and run with it to the fucking extreme might actually be Se and Te valuing in my pov
Is that good or bad? Lol.
I'm guessing good or you wouldn't have liked, but the LIE being quotes threw me off.
I guess we'll see you in the astrology threads then. Or be a member here since 1996. Anyway the forum is about socionics, there's nothing wrong with talking about socionics on a socionics forum.
Good!!! I think it indicates that you're smart and sane.
Haha, thanks, I like to think so!
You can talk about socionics with a smart and sane pov. It's possible. Watch Avebury or anybody who doesn't say things like:
"socionics is/will soon be mapped in the brain"
"she wore red shoes, so probably esi"
"he cares about politics, so he's gamma"
Nobody is saying there is.
I just wish there was more we could do to make it into a hard science, and not just theorycraft.
I mean, I'm all for discussing socionics, but you seem to think saying something isn't perfect or ideal in its current state is like rejecting that thing, I'm looking to make it better.
Yeah I just thought it was ironic that someone would be criticizing socionics for not having a scientific backing and being a fairy tale while same person takes part in horoscopes and tarot too, actually all personality 'theories'.
You're free to contribute and offer something better if you see it like that.
All the same to me, that's the difference.
Yeah it begs the question why you're even here, fine if your pals are here and all that stuff, but, if you don't want to take part in socionics discussions/don't see the merit of them, why waste your time being critical of the discussions taking place? That just doesn't make sense.
Because they're bad. You can talk about socionics without being a dumbass. See above
That brings me back to my first point,
If you see a better way to do this, to take part in them, then why don't you take part in them and show us how you think it should be done?
For you,
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...What-s-My-Type
For somebody who's constantly feeling victimized and begging to be put on ignore you sure are a persistent little bitch.
ashlesha
: I'm drunk and actually posting in threads, this is bad
ashlesha
: Not enough chatbox entertainment
I see.
I don't actually feel victimized(another projection?) It would be nice to have a reasonably pleasant conversation with you, but it's OK, do what you've got to do.
All the best.
Bye!
Where are you going? You've been here since 2010.
Hurt me
Go go go
Night night, i'll speak to you in the morning.
In spite of you making it as personal as you can muster every time I disagree with you I still don't give a shit
We don't know. All I know is that type is determined very early in life or at conception. It could be genetic, epigenetic, or environmental, but the fact that type doesn't change later in life would suggest that it's not environmental.
Since we have all the IEs in us (just used in different levels, dimensions) we can think personality is developed in the first stages of infancy. Thats the same thing Freud with his personality model (ego-super ego-id) used in socionics, suggest as the formation of personality.
@Tallmo, thats interesting, have you seen a pattern for LSE-ESE and SLI-IEE?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote