User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 56

  1. #31
    Senior Member edchidna1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE Fe
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Official MBTI is not function based. I don't know if it was in the past. Current official site doesn't mention functions (they have something else instead, that's a new development, some sub-factors I think...?)
    http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-p...-attitudes.asp

    This looks pretty function based to me. I don't like the definitions but it's still proof that they use functions.

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    So what happens when the woman's the aggressor type... complicated theory eh
    A manly woman, I guess. In truth, I don't rate this theoretical add-on very highly.

    I will say that the most traditionally 'masculine' types are SLE and LSE while the most traditionally 'feminine' types are EII and IEI. It is often the case that female SLEs and LSEs can come across as rather 'manly'.



    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Honestly... an ENTP or ILE should be able to create new ones :'( Why don't any of you ENTPs or ILEs try to do so?
    Mostly because I find these ones more interesting and I don't think the one's I might create are going to be less arbitrary.

    I have been creating my own add-ons to the theory though. I refined and expanded on Gulenko's work on Temperament and I am working on improving his Communication Styles (strongest Rational IM Element) while creating my own Movement Styles (strongest Irrational IM Element). I'd be a Firm Communicator (4D Te) and a Clumsy Mover (4D Ne).

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    I'm having a hard time seeing the Socionics variables as precisely defined in this sense.
    And you know what, what I see in people all the time is, is that these "variables" get mixed with each other so arbitrarily that it messes up the theory pretty much.[/QUOTE]

    I've found that these variables become quite distinct when you understand their definitions and how they surface in day to day behaviour.




    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Stannis Baratheon? Eh, I thought it was Enneagram. :p
    Enneagram? You mean he's a 1? Probably. 1s are almost always going to be the IJ temperament.

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Anyway, I don't think official Socionics was ever supposed to declare that X thing can be done/said only by Y type. Can you show me an official source that claims this?? I thought only hobbyists were claiming such clearly incorrect things.
    No official source claims that. I should be more clear:

    Of course you have to apply some context. Anyone can say the words he said because anyone can read them off the page. Anyone can recite these words having had them recited. However, only Ti-types can view the world through Ti in such a way that their primary reason for action is based on it being ordained by rules, ordination and logic at the absence of wants and desires. Only one type can say what Stannis said as an accurate communication of their world view. We know this because Ti is defined this way and the Leading function is defined in such a way as to dictate the person's worldview


    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Question, how was Robespierre LII type over LSI? All those executions, seems aggressive to me. I'm not just mocking, I'm honestly curious how the hell that got to be LII type...?
    Good question. I don't know. A lot of the Russian attempts at typing non-Russian people and characters were a little questionable in my opinion. I don't think Don Quixote is a reasonable example of an ILE either, just a schizophrenic.

    [QUOTE=valaki;2210516]

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Lol when I saw that ex-socionist called Rick whatever, typing countries, it kind of reduced his credibility. Some of that credibility did come back when I saw him posting about the issues with Socionics after becoming an ex-socionics. Yeah. Ridiculous idea really, assigning a type to a whole country.
    Well, if you go back to what I said about each type having an inherent world view, if the values of a country strongly coincide with the world view of a particular type, you can give a general type to that country. It doesn't mean the country metabolises information like a person, rather the dominant memes and traditions floating around that country were probably made by people of a certain type and this has effected how people in the country are expected to behave as well as how it is perceived to behave by others. Do you ever feel like your personal worldview conflicts with the worldview of your country?

    It is debatable whether this actually has practical merit (a theory of inter-country relations) or whether Rick was just engaging in intellectual masturbation. I might ask him

    It was when Gulenko started typing furniture that I thought he had gone way too far with this thing. At least a country is made up of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Also, Augusta, the founder of Socionics was ILE so pretty much against Se and Socionics does get this criticism a lot that Se is depicted in such a negative light.

    I do agree with the original post saying there's bias in the theory, though. I wouldn't be able to tell you if it's bias in official theory or bias in hobbyists' interpretations of it.
    If there is bias, it should be fixable. It probably isn't a good thing that the theory has been created by a vast majority of ILEs.

    It is questionable as to whether Se is depicted in a negative light or that the values of the west are anti-Se.

    One could compare Beta values (including Se) to Homeric values and Delta values (anti-Se) to Judaeo-Christian values. After all, I think Se used to be the most important and valued function in the ancient world. The 'hero' was essentially Se idealised.
    Founder and President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  2. #32
    Senior Member edchidna1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE Fe
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Do you trust in the theory that facial expressions or lack thereof can be telling signs about a person's type? Not the VI utter bullshit.
    I trust in the theory but not the methods attempted so far, including my own. It makes sense to say that what one shows on their face can be suggestive of a person's information metabolism although I'd like to research into it more. I do think that if someone is emotionally animated then they are probably not an ILI. Some of it is quite useful in that reading body language can tell you the amount of difficulty a person is having in using certain IM Elements when talking. If someone starts off unemotional but lightens up to another person's emotional input, they may be LxI. Someone who from their body language seems to be charismatically controlling a conversation towards a certain message could be an Fe lead. So yes, facial expressions are one of many ways in which we can collect data about a person and interpret what their likely type is but none of it is definite as of yet. What they say to convey their viewpoints is often more indicative.

    Visual Identification is an area lots of people have jumped at and come to terrible errors, as well as severely alienating Socionics from the world of psychology because www.socionics.com is so misrepresentatively named. I would say that there are certainly patterns that suggest a correlation (not causation) between certain facial/bodily features and type but it will require a lot of work to come to something you could type someone off of.
    Founder and President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  3. #33
    Chaser of Light Dr Mobius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sp/sx
    Posts
    818

    Default

    Hey @edchidna1000 I was going to continue to probe your mind but I find myself honestly exhausted by all of this. Firstly I must say you are far and away the most reasonable and through socionist I’ve ever met, so ill clear up a few points then leave it at that.

    • MBTI really does only pay lip service to JCF; if someone prefers kinaesthetic style activities then S, emotive rather than analytical F, organised J. Most of the in depth reading is considered JCF.
    • the end result of the complex is that you are supposed to be socially conditioned to be attracted to someone like your opposite parent, and Gulenko’s relationship dynamics have always creeped me out due to the similarity.
    • My use of the word arbitrary has to do with the fact that at some point someone decided that this was Ne, Se, and so on. Tying it to actions, which given the time it was developed was always going to be the case.
    • I don’t hold socionics to a higher stand, my umbrage was with the use of empirical which has extremely high standards; had you merely said experiments I wouldn’t have knit picked.
    • The Beta comment was a joke about how guys read that horrid Beskova portrait of male SLE and immediately start acting like jackasses. While IEI often use the socionics portraits to dismiss people on MBTI sites……. despite as far as I am aware socionics has always assumed a relatively equal population of all types; which would mean they should be welcoming people in with open arms.


    Now I admit I was pushing your buttons to see whether you where one of those self-righteous and superior socionists, come to belittle and demean those who reject duality. They always seem a little unhinged, but you seem to reject the more idiotic facets of socionics, which leads to the question what parts do you hold true? You mention writing articles; perhaps you could link me to them?


    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    I never heard of Big Five originating from MBTI. Are you sure? Afaik, researchers to find the Big Five just took words from lexicons and did statistical analysis on them.
    hmmm I take it back I thought I had read an article about how one of the founders had been involved with MBTI before creating The Big Five; but I can’t seem to find.

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    And you honestly believe that there's such a thing as "completely controlled environment"? You're very naive then
    No, but that’s why retesting is so important.

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Psychology is just as empirical as any other science if you choose to use empirical research methods. It's harder to measure things in a proper way, that's the only real difference. (I'm hoping that we will have better tools for that in future, though.) Yes it can also be harder to control the experiment itself because there will be more unknown variables but that's not because it's not science... Otherwise you might as well declare biology as not being science either... have fun doing that... seriously :/
    I probably should have clarified that, I cannot think of a way to empirically test a personality as a whole. I also hope that we will have tools in the future to do this.

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    I guess you're right about this one, about how socionics is apparently trying to mix observable traits and cognitive functioning together. Not the best idea. I've thought of this before, that using cognitive MBTI/JCF for cognitive processing and having Enneagram for various kinds of deep motivations covers most things about personality under the "surface" and then Socionics will only have the task of categorizing of concrete personality traits left... not necessarily a bad thing though.
    That is my mind set as well, though I’m always hopeful that my preconceptions will be overturned.
    “Brighter, now brighter, pay no mind to those who squint, burn with all your heat.”

  4. #34
    Chaser of Light Dr Mobius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sp/sx
    Posts
    818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Anyway, I would be willing to listen to your perspective if you offered anything of merit, but all you are doing is imposing distinctions and differences where they don't need to exist. I can't really see any point you are making other than that.
    The reason you don’t see any points as it is becoming increasingly obvious to me; has to do with the fact you haven’t read in to socionics. At best scratched the surface; perhaps more time spent reading and less time critiquing is in order? Ignorance does make monkeys of men.

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    One question though... are you interested in this stuff for personal development and understanding or merely ego enhancement?
    As for the loaded question; I left my ego after the fall, it no doubt sits waiting in the sands of time. No I’m here for hope; I found so much knowledge and self-awareness from JCF and Enneagram. I want to give socionics a chance, but to deny and ignore the glaring issues I see would be the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty.

    Please don’t bother to respond I’m sure you have a thousand and one witty repartees; but as I am devoid of any merit it would be a complete waste of time, which you could no doubt spend reading.
    “Brighter, now brighter, pay no mind to those who squint, burn with all your heat.”

  5. #35
    Senior Member edchidna1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE Fe
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Mobius View Post
    Hey @edchidna1000 I was going to continue to probe your mind but I find myself honestly exhausted by all of this. Firstly I must say you are far and away the most reasonable and through socionist I’ve ever met, so ill clear up a few points then leave it at that.

    • MBTI really does only pay lip service to JCF; if someone prefers kinaesthetic style activities then S, emotive rather than analytical F, organised J. Most of the in depth reading is considered JCF.
    • the end result of the complex is that you are supposed to be socially conditioned to be attracted to someone like your opposite parent, and Gulenko’s relationship dynamics have always creeped me out due to the similarity.
    • My use of the word arbitrary has to do with the fact that at some point someone decided that this was Ne, Se, and so on. Tying it to actions, which given the time it was developed was always going to be the case.
    • I don’t hold socionics to a higher stand, my umbrage was with the use of empirical which has extremely high standards; had you merely said experiments I wouldn’t have knit picked.
    • The Beta comment was a joke about how guys read that horrid Beskova portrait of male SLE and immediately start acting like jackasses. While IEI often use the socionics portraits to dismiss people on MBTI sites……. despite as far as I am aware socionics has always assumed a relatively equal population of all types; which would mean they should be welcoming people in with open arms.
    Thankyou, @Dr Mobius

    Maybe I just confused 'in-depth reading' with 'the real stuff you actually have to know if you want to understand things on the superficial level'.

    Hmmm... I wouldn't put it past Gulenko. Some of his stuff has been a really valuable contribution to socionics but other attempts have either been interesting but ungrounded or plain wacky. Either way, neither my mother nor my father are anything like an SEI

    Ah, you mean people saying that Se was aggression, Ne novelty etc.? I tried to get away from those as definitions. I now think the best way to understand the essence of an IM Element is in the dichotomies that make it up. Extroverted Intuition would be Extroverted (expanding over a broad range of things), Static (deals with snapshots of discrete entities), Irrational (made up of perceptions, taking in how things are) and Internal (information sourced from introspection/interpretive). When you put these together, you get Extroverted Intuition.... i.e. 'lots of possible states in which things could be' and from there the pursuit of possibilities that the Extroverted Intuition user most enjoys/finds interesting, all the while trying to keep the other possibilities open.

    Beskova's portraits aren't the best. I appreciate her attempt to distinguish observational differences in males and females but I think she was 1. limited to people about 30 years ago in Eastern Europe and 2. limited by her own IEE way of looking at things. I don't appreciate her primitive attempts to talk about physical features, although sometimes she gets them spot on with certain people of those types.

    A socionics evaluation of Pod'lair would say that the movement is very IEI. IEIs tend to approach logical tasks with a slightly compensatory Ti and terrible Te... making dodgy rules and logical assertions with absolutely no factual basis, all the while subtly promoting Beta values such as 'us vs them' mentalities.

    Really, every system has its nuts and the same sort of crazy people who found themselves in MBTI found themselves also in Socionics. If you take a sunday trip down to 16types.info you can see some of these crazy people, prowling the forum, hunting down and feeding on fresh meat. Just don't put your hands through the bars.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Mobius View Post
    Now I admit I was pushing your buttons to see whether you where one of those self-righteous and superior socionists, come to belittle and demean those who reject duality. They always seem a little unhinged, but you seem to reject the more idiotic facets of socionics, which leads to the question what parts do you hold true? You mention writing articles; perhaps you could link me to them?
    There is a strong sentiment among Socionists that MBTI people have a nasty anti-Sensor bias. It's probably a reaction to that.

    I wonder if we know the same unhinged people... I've had arguments in the past with some of them over the theory. One sincerely believed she could type people based on what colours they most enjoyed.

    I've written three articles so far. The first is this thread's OP. The other two are on this subforum a little bit further down. They're all begun with 'An Introduction To Socionics'.

    Here we are:
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ons-model.html
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...relations.html

    What I have written is what I believe in, the rest I do not believe due to a lack of evidence or logical following from what I already believe. I would say that these beliefs stem not from assumptions about people but assumptions about information itself. Information can be classified into eight kinds and ordered in such a way that 16 possible structures come about and these 16 structures are instantiated in the 7 billion people on this planet.
    Founder and President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  6. #36
    Senior Member edchidna1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE Fe
    Posts
    278

    Default

    .................................................. ................
    Last edited by edchidna1000; 01-02-2014 at 11:05 AM. Reason: whoops repeat post
    Founder and President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edchidna1000 View Post
    Ockham's razor requires that things be simplified if they can be while fulfilling the same purpose. Every part of Socionics complexity (at least what I explain in my articles) stems from the system not being able to explain things accurately without this complexity. It is a comprehensive complexity, not a superfluous one. There four different kinds of information which each exists in two forms i.e. 8 different aspects and so we need 8 different IM Elements to process them. As such a model of information metabolism MUST describe each of the 8 for each person. Conventional MBTI fails to increase its complexity when appropriate because this need to describe all 8 IM Elements performing 8 different functions for a person is ignored. For some reason, MBTI refuses to explain how an ENTP uses Te when he clearly does use it.


    In the same way, it would be silly to apply Ockham's razor to things that require complexity to function, like the vast number of names we give things in teh world. Would it be right to call everything in the world a single name like 'table'?

    Table is sitting on a table, responding to table about a table about table - that is essentially the misuse of Ockham's razor you are suggesting.
    You believe in pseudoscience. Your belief goes far beyond the evidence and you will justify it at all costs in order to protect your ego.

  8. #38
    Senior Member edchidna1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE Fe
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funtensity View Post
    You believe in pseudoscience. Your belief goes far beyond the evidence and you will justify it at all costs in order to protect your ego.
    Are you and @badger055 the same person? You show the same inability to tackle my actual responses but continue with dogmatic assertions about my character.

    It's comparable to this example:

    A: "You're a fire-breathing dragon!!!"

    B: "Actually, I'm not. As you can see I have none of the features of a dragon. I don't have scaly skin. I am clearly a bipedal mammal and genetic tests show I am clearly human. I'm not even carnivorous."

    A: "You scaly monster! You fly around and eat people!"

    B: "Umm... no"


    If I believe in pseudoscience, what exactly do you believe in, having been a member of a typology forum for nearly half a year?
    Founder and President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edchidna1000 View Post
    http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-p...-attitudes.asp

    This looks pretty function based to me. I don't like the definitions but it's still proof that they use functions.
    Ah, right, sorry, I didn't know they still have that on the site.

    Well I read somewhere that they were phasing out the functions, introducing new sub factors instead. Probably because of how studies didn't manage to confirm 4-letter dichotomy correlating with the functions too well.


    A manly woman, I guess. In truth, I don't rate this theoretical add-on very highly.
    I will say that the most traditionally 'masculine' types are SLE and LSE while the most traditionally 'feminine' types are EII and IEI. It is often the case that female SLEs and LSEs can come across as rather 'manly'.
    Heh, my point was about how it's mentioned in this theory that female aggressors are different... okay and why? Explanation outside Socionics, I guess.

    LSI, SLI, not as masculine?


    Mostly because I find these ones more interesting and I don't think the one's I might create are going to be less arbitrary.

    I have been creating my own add-ons to the theory though. I refined and expanded on Gulenko's work on Temperament and I am working on improving his Communication Styles (strongest Rational IM Element) while creating my own Movement Styles (strongest Irrational IM Element). I'd be a Firm Communicator (4D Te) and a Clumsy Mover (4D Ne).
    What's this Movement Styles thing exactly?


    And you know what, what I see in people all the time is, is that these "variables" get mixed with each other so arbitrarily that it messes up the theory pretty much.
    I've found that these variables become quite distinct when you understand their definitions and how they surface in day to day behaviour.
    No. It's nothing to do with understanding "the definitions" or not.


    Enneagram? You mean he's a 1? Probably. 1s are almost always going to be the IJ temperament.
    And why would that be?


    No official source claims that. I should be more clear:

    Of course you have to apply some context. Anyone can say the words he said because anyone can read them off the page. Anyone can recite these words having had them recited. However, only Ti-types can view the world through Ti in such a way that their primary reason for action is based on it being ordained by rules, ordination and logic at the absence of wants and desires. Only one type can say what Stannis said as an accurate communication of their world view. We know this because Ti is defined this way and the Leading function is defined in such a way as to dictate the person's worldview
    Thing is how do you know Stannis doesn't have wants and desires over rules and logic in other situations? (Using your original example)

    You don't know...

    I often find in real life that these things are not fixed for people like that. You could say I should only expect such consistency from the leading function but I still see a problem there.


    Good question. I don't know. A lot of the Russian attempts at typing non-Russian people and characters were a little questionable in my opinion. I don't think Don Quixote is a reasonable example of an ILE either, just a schizophrenic.
    Lol yeah


    Well, if you go back to what I said about each type having an inherent world view, if the values of a country strongly coincide with the world view of a particular type, you can give a general type to that country. It doesn't mean the country metabolises information like a person, rather the dominant memes and traditions floating around that country were probably made by people of a certain type and this has effected how people in the country are expected to behave as well as how it is perceived to behave by others. Do you ever feel like your personal worldview conflicts with the worldview of your country?

    It is debatable whether this actually has practical merit (a theory of inter-country relations) or whether Rick was just engaging in intellectual masturbation. I might ask him

    It was when Gulenko started typing furniture that I thought he had gone way too far with this thing. At least a country is made up of people.
    God, typing furniture? O_o

    I recall some other socionist couple ended up only caring about two types (out of the 16). (See http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...d_and_Ovcharov)

    Yeah, this whole theory is dangerous if you masturbate about it too much. :p

    Anyway about typing countries, I don't care about this idea of a country having one specific worldview, so no, I don't feel a conflict with my country in this sense. And sure, there may be traditions but it's not just one group of traditions available, and I'm sure many other countries also have more diversity in tradition lines. I'm sure there's exceptions to this but I'm not really good at using such categories in general so don't ask me which ones...


    If there is bias, it should be fixable. It probably isn't a good thing that the theory has been created by a vast majority of ILEs.

    It is questionable as to whether Se is depicted in a negative light or that the values of the west are anti-Se.

    One could compare Beta values (including Se) to Homeric values and Delta values (anti-Se) to Judaeo-Christian values. After all, I think Se used to be the most important and valued function in the ancient world. The 'hero' was essentially Se idealised.
    As I said it's all subjective )

    How would you sum up the values of the west that are anti-Se? In a more specific fashion than just saying "Judeo-Christian" values

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edchidna1000 View Post
    I trust in the theory but not the methods attempted so far, including my own. It makes sense to say that what one shows on their face can be suggestive of a person's information metabolism although I'd like to research into it more. I do think that if someone is emotionally animated then they are probably not an ILI. Some of it is quite useful in that reading body language can tell you the amount of difficulty a person is having in using certain IM Elements when talking. If someone starts off unemotional but lightens up to another person's emotional input, they may be LxI. Someone who from their body language seems to be charismatically controlling a conversation towards a certain message could be an Fe lead. So yes, facial expressions are one of many ways in which we can collect data about a person and interpret what their likely type is but none of it is definite as of yet. What they say to convey their viewpoints is often more indicative.

    Visual Identification is an area lots of people have jumped at and come to terrible errors, as well as severely alienating Socionics from the world of psychology because www.socionics.com is so misrepresentatively named. I would say that there are certainly patterns that suggest a correlation (not causation) between certain facial/bodily features and type but it will require a lot of work to come to something you could type someone off of.
    I like how you say it's not definitive. I find the idea that VI determines type total BS, but sure, maybe there's some weak correlations.

    A question; if you saw someone who's emotionally animated in a given situation while you know that person's type to be ILI, would you have an explanation for that? If you feel like it, do make this a thought experiment and let me know what explanation it would have.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-19-2017, 05:54 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-10-2014, 08:28 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-10-2014, 11:42 AM
  4. Why you should(nt) live with me. An introduction to doriusrex
    By doriusrex in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-18-2010, 10:10 AM
  5. An introduction to excess
    By wank in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-24-2009, 03:59 PM

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