User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 87

  1. #61
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    I'll throw in an utterly pointless post to counter the previous one written by lemons.
    Socionics sucks when attempting to figure out the individual.
    That is only because it has not been naturalized and humanized toward individuals of your specific culture. For me it is quite easy to understand the patterns within socionics to attribute them to self growth. I see more distinction among people with socionics than I do with MBTI. It might take someone like me who understands the material to naturalize it to thousands upon thousands of people, and that will come in the form of reorganizing the theory and giving it the impression of a fresh approach while keeping all the same principles. To someone like me, all of this has already been materialized.

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    Whatever you choose to believe that I-S-T-P or I-S-T-j represents is meaningless since both MBTI and Socionics can only hook a reader into their way of thinking if the reader only learns by using basic dichotomies.
    Although this idea is quite valid, there are still many in whom I have encountered several dichotomy switches, and it is because neither the functions or dichotomies are exactly the same. Even seeming obvious to you that they are the same, you have to take a fresh approach to the theory and not make any orientation to MBTI. Not everyone is going to have both Tis or both Ses. For that matter I am glad they called it Ti in socioinics and not something else, because now people will easily start to contrast the two, which is what should happen. If they called Ti, "Structural Logic," I am sure there would be more intention to say it is the same thing as Ti in MBTI. But socionics is not some watered down version of MBTI. It is a new level of self-thought and relationships. Unfortunately it has some unofficial extremities in form of obstacles in the way, being formed into hundreds of new theories. It is a good thing, but many of the theories need to stop making branch upon branch. People need to learn to grow their own trees.

  2. #62
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    rely ONLY on the dichotomy (which is statistically good but can go horribly wrong in individual cases), or rely ONLY on understanding of functions. (which starts out as chaotic confusion, but can be forced to match reality someday)
    Or think of your own.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  3. #63
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Mmm... I've spent 2 hours reading this material. I'd like to know whether there is a 'better' method of self-assessment.

    Dichotomies? (Including Reinin)
    Individual profiles?
    Quandras? Betas/IJs/Humanitarians
    Individual Functions?

    There's so many ways to go about this. Where does one even begin or more accurately which foundation does one start with, rather than reading everything in hope that they all interconnect at the end.

  4. #64
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Original self assessment for me was of the quadra. Not necessarily quadra definitions, but functions of that quadra. I figured out that I was Ni/Se valued and Te/Fi valued, and then that my strengths were N and T. (ENTj or INTp) then after I assessed myself in terms of traditional introversion and extroversion: inward towards self or out towards world. "I am talkative and energized by people" is not a valid socionics lead to extroversion.

    People act in ways of peace or stress of peace, or control or lack of control of environment simply based on Si and Se positions for one simplified example of function roles. Sensors often portray both strengths of course, though some can stress these beyond their values, and some can hide their strengths. There have been tendencies like V.I. and the like in which anyone can take notice and agree upon typing, and this happens in forums across the globe. Functions are also divided in terms like object and field, dynamic and static, internal and external. With all these simple terms we can measure ourselves and proceed into the more specific versions of the theory, into personalized self analysis.

    Is this what you're asking?

  5. #65
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lemons View Post
    Although this idea is quite valid, there are still many in whom I have encountered several dichotomy switches, and it is because neither the functions or dichotomies are exactly the same. Even seeming obvious to you that they are the same, you have to take a fresh approach to the theory and not make any orientation to MBTI.
    This is not about MBTI, the approach is to step back from both systems and see them for what they are. I never said that MBTI was better than Socionics. Frankly they both have their good and their very obvious flaws.
    Quote Originally Posted by lemons View Post
    Not everyone is going to have both Tis or both Ses. For that matter I am glad they called it Ti in socioinics and not something else, because now people will easily start to contrast the two, which is what should happen. If they called Ti, "Structural Logic," I am sure there would be more intention to say it is the same thing as Ti in MBTI. But socionics is not some watered down version of MBTI. It is a new level of self-thought and relationships. Unfortunately it has some unofficial extremities in form of obstacles in the way, being formed into hundreds of new theories. It is a good thing, but many of the theories need to stop making branch upon branch. People need to learn to grow their own trees.
    And as I have told followers of the system for years, start with that and build on it. Stop the useless comparisons to MBTI then start stupid arguments of which is better. They are different in their own rights. As for Ti, structural logic, LI, introverted logic or whatever you choose to call it today, if it walks like a duck…… Ti is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti………………….

  6. #66
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    This is not about MBTI, the approach is to step back from both systems and see them for what they are. I never said that MBTI was better than Socionics. Frankly they both have their good and their very obvious flaws.And as I have told followers of the system for years, start with that and build on it. Stop the useless comparisons to MBTI then start stupid arguments of which is better. They are different in their own rights. As for Ti, structural logic, LI, introverted logic or whatever you choose to call it today, if it walks like a duck…… Ti is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti, is Ti………………….
    Yeah, but if you're referring to a system like socionics, only in a quite varied way, I doubt anyone could take you seriously. But it's understood that you have your own system. That is what Ti tries to develop. However upon referring to Ti, people could wonder: what Ti are you talking about? And you have to respond, my own. See I took aspects from both Tis and a little bit of my own, and this is what I think Ti is, and people will notice the originality of that. I've never seen anyone have a perfect idea of what Ti means, nor have I seen two people share the same complete idea. You reach the problem of people saying "I have that," but in fact they don't know what "that" is. If only they could get a few facts straight.

  7. #67
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lemons View Post
    Yeah, but if you're referring to a system like socionics, only in a quite varied way, I doubt anyone could take you seriously. But it's understood that you have your own system. That is what Ti tries to develop. However upon referring to Ti, people could wonder: what Ti are you talking about? And you have to respond, my own. See I took aspects from both Tis and a little bit of my own, and this is what I think Ti is, and people will notice the originality of that. I've never seen anyone have a perfect idea of what Ti means, nor have I seen two people share the same complete idea. You reach the problem of people saying "I have that," but in fact they don't know what "that" is. If only they could get a few facts straight.
    Lemon Ti is Ti is Ti....... As I have told other people at Socionics, dont make claims that the system follows Jung then start saying that the functions are different. I have no vested interest in either system since outside of Jung's work, clearly people who read my posts know that I prefer Berens/Nardi. What can't be taken seriously is the continued argument from Socionics followers that talk outside both sides of the mouth. Either they prescribe to Jung's theory as they advertise or they don't. But don't respond with some silly contention that Socionics does not prescribe to Jung, because I will paste websites all over this damn thread. BRING FORWARD A COGNITIVE DEFINITION (Could care less what you want to name it) THAT DOES NOT ALREADY EXIST AND THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THOSE CREATED BY JUNG.

  8. #68
    Senior Member Moiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    6,020

    Default

    I challenge anyone to tell me how big my triceps are using socionics. And no cop outs!

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lemons View Post
    Original self assessment for me was of the quadra. Not necessarily quadra definitions, but functions of that quadra. I figured out that I was Ni/Se valued and Te/Fi valued, and then that my strengths were N and T. (ENTj or INTp) then after I assessed myself in terms of traditional introversion and extroversion: inward towards self or out towards world. "I am talkative and energized by people" is not a valid socionics lead to extroversion.

    People act in ways of peace or stress of peace, or control or lack of control of environment simply based on Si and Se positions for one simplified example of function roles. Sensors often portray both strengths of course, though some can stress these beyond their values, and some can hide their strengths. There have been tendencies like V.I. and the like in which anyone can take notice and agree upon typing, and this happens in forums across the globe. Functions are also divided in terms like object and field, dynamic and static, internal and external. With all these simple terms we can measure ourselves and proceed into the more specific versions of the theory, into personalized self analysis.

    Is this what you're asking?
    I'm very curious what you mean by this. I think I know where you're going with it, and it might explain my Si vs Se conflict, but I'd like to hear what you have to say about it.

  10. #70
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenity View Post
    I'm very curious what you mean by this. I think I know where you're going with it, and it might explain my Si vs Se conflict, but I'd like to hear what you have to say about it.
    I mean, if you look at the definition of both and , it is said that in socionics, a sensor has strength in both functions, however one is of the Id group, thus mainly unconscious and also unvalued. If one of the positionings is the 8th function, that is when that function can be stressed beyond their values, and you can tell that it is not working out well for that person. It is usually a weakness mixed with a value that gets stressed, such as for an INTp, however stress can also occur when someone is consciously making a false impression even on top of their strengths, and I think this is because they miscalculated as to what they are capable of. It seems to take the image of an overshot then a drastic rebound. Hiding strengths is almost just the opposite, where one takes consciousness of an Id function and tries to dominate it with their ego, such as for an INTp, blackening in . One example could be to purposefully take in just facts without looking at an internal model of how they are laid out, with the notion that you overlooked a possibility where that model can be applied originally, but also in this new area of thought. Hiding strengths is of a tendency to overlook ones potential, just like it is to stress unvalued areas, and both of these ideas are contingencies within the socionics function model. If we speak of weakness, the superego then causes the most stress and other negative emotions, probably much greater than other groups. A type's values will usually hold the first say as far as I know: more significantly the ego.

Similar Threads

  1. Socionics is BAD
    By Mal12345 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 11:45 PM
  2. Type me, for socionics. Is this even where I am supposed to ask this?
    By Evolving Transparency in forum Socionics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-20-2012, 01:42 AM
  3. WOW this girl is amazing.
    By jixmixfix in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-16-2011, 12:37 PM
  4. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-14-2009, 10:42 AM
  5. Is it reasonable to compare Socionics with MBTI?
    By Athenian200 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-15-2007, 09:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO