User Tag List

First 61415161718 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 207

  1. #151
    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 senza tema View Post
    Heh. Only the first link works.

    There's some stuff that fits here and some that really doesn't. Also, I feel like you've misinterpreted some of the things I've said and attributed them to different motives than I actually have.

    For example, with the Si description, yes I'm aware of physical sensations and how they affect me but it's not my primary focus. I tend to push through unpleasant physical experiences rather than seeking to change them, I guess. I don't think my aesthetic ideals are bizarre and I don't like sloppiness in appearances, definitely not in myself, anyway, because it's always been indicative to me of letting go. The DIY mechanical stuff, I totally suck at, plus it's completely boring. The rest of the Si description about awareness of internal bodily states and knowing where to find resources is more or less true, I guess, it's just not that relevant in my life.

    Now for the other stuff: the Fe description is way off. I'm usually quite sensitive to social conventions and people's emotional responses and I don't appear antagonistic unless I want deliberately to antagonise. I definitely don't think fun, hype and excitement are all bad all the time by any meanshere are definitely a lot of social rituals and ceremonies that I enjoy and think are beautiful and meaningful. The one I described was just particularly inane to me. That doesn't mean I'm bad at participating at things like that if I have to. In fact, I'm usually quite good at moving into new social environments and finding a way to make connections with people and fit in.

    The killjoy label has been acquired mostly from guilting people about stuff they were doing that was wrong or hurtful, which to me is dumb.

    The other thing which I think you misinterpreted a bit: I'm not afraid of public speaking because of a perceived ability to sway people emotionally. In fact, I'd prefer to make an emotional appeal than a logical appeal. That doesn't really work when you have to get up and deliver a lecture on a factual topic (which is what the bulk of my public speaking experience has been). I'm not confident in my ability to organize my thoughts logically or to construct sound arguments at all and I'm afraid people will see the holes in my logic and challenge me on them. I can argue through writing more easily but doing it verbally on the fly is not my forte at all.
    I might very well have done. I was also considering EII, which could be a better fit.

    Well from this you sound pretty Ethical>Logical.

    You said that you tend to guilt trip people over wrong things they have done. Would you say you are very focused on your personal feelings towards people? Alternatively, would you say you are actually into affecting the emotions of others?

    I would say that the SLI profile is a bit funny... I'll try adding the other two again...
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ile-by-Gulenko
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...STp-by-Beskova
    Founder and President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  2. #152
    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 senza tema View Post
    Heh. Only the first link works.

    There's some stuff that fits here and some that really doesn't. Also, I feel like you've misinterpreted some of the things I've said and attributed them to different motives than I actually have.

    For example, with the Si description, yes I'm aware of physical sensations and how they affect me but it's not my primary focus. I tend to push through unpleasant physical experiences rather than seeking to change them, I guess. I don't think my aesthetic ideals are bizarre and I don't like sloppiness in appearances, definitely not in myself, anyway, because it's always been indicative to me of letting go. The DIY mechanical stuff, I totally suck at, plus it's completely boring. The rest of the Si description about awareness of internal bodily states and knowing where to find resources is more or less true, I guess, it's just not that relevant in my life.

    Now for the other stuff: the Fe description is way off. I'm usually quite sensitive to social conventions and people's emotional responses and I don't appear antagonistic unless I want deliberately to antagonise. I definitely don't think fun, hype and excitement are all bad all the time by any meanshere are definitely a lot of social rituals and ceremonies that I enjoy and think are beautiful and meaningful. The one I described was just particularly inane to me. That doesn't mean I'm bad at participating at things like that if I have to. In fact, I'm usually quite good at moving into new social environments and finding a way to make connections with people and fit in.

    The killjoy label has been acquired mostly from guilting people about stuff they were doing that was wrong or hurtful, which to me is dumb.

    The other thing which I think you misinterpreted a bit: I'm not afraid of public speaking because of a perceived ability to sway people emotionally. In fact, I'd prefer to make an emotional appeal than a logical appeal. That doesn't really work when you have to get up and deliver a lecture on a factual topic (which is what the bulk of my public speaking experience has been). I'm not confident in my ability to organize my thoughts logically or to construct sound arguments at all and I'm afraid people will see the holes in my logic and challenge me on them. I can argue through writing more easily but doing it verbally on the fly is not my forte at all.
    I might very well have done. I was also considering EII, which could be a better fit.

    Well from this you sound pretty Ethical>Logical.

    You said that you tend to guilt trip people over wrong things they have done. Would you say you are very focused on your personal feelings towards people and tend to act towards them based on whether you feel that they are good or bad people? Alternatively, would you say you are more into positively affecting the emotions of others and just keeping people happy?

    I would say that the SLI profile is a bit funny... I'll try adding the other two again...
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ile-by-Gulenko
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...STp-by-Beskova
    Founder and President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  3. #153
    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 OrangeAppled View Post
    I thought misanthropic IEE was FiNe . I'm not seeing myself that way...
    Oh no, FiNe or EII wouldn't be very misanthropic. They're very much about doing the 'right' thing, being pretty strict with themselves about doing good, moral things for people and seeing the best in others.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    That's what I said. I do one-on-one conversation okay. I don't "say the right thing at the right time" in a Fe way where it's all the polite protocol. Rather, I seek to understand someone & often say the things others will not. I'm not sure you read my whole giant post now... friends/family come to me a lot for emotional venting, comfort & advice. I doubt if I was cold that they would do that.
    Ok, so it's fair to say you are good at interaction with small groups, being sympathetic to people with their problems and helping them but being a bit unresponsive to big group activity? I can at least say that you're probably a Serious (Fi-valuing) Introvert, so either an Fi-lead (IxFj) or Fi-mobilising (IxTp).

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    You make Fi mentality sound like "it's all about me".
    I come across as cold in group settings more often; smaller or one-on-one, less so because I'm usually more comfortable. A lot of it is shyness & being unaware of my physical environment. I literally just don't "see" people sometimes, even if they're right in front of me. I also don't know how to initiate interaction with people. My awkwardness is masked by a coolness sometimes.

    I'm starting to suspect socionics was created by an ENTP or something. The grasp of Fi is so bad. There is no Jungian Fi equivalent in socionics, which is why I find it hard to type.
    Haha, well an ILE (ENTp) DID create the system.

    Fi in Socionics is all about personal judgement i.e. ascertaining how one feels towards things... whether a person is bad or good, a situation positive or negative, whether the person is attracted or repulsed by something etc.

    As a result, an Fi lead is going to be very particular about their feelings towards things and strive to adhere to these feelings. I wouldn't say that they are selfish because they are very much about adhering to their feelings, only doing what they think is good and adopting a very moralistic attitude. They also have enough Fe ability to not come across as unfriendly in most situations. Usually they will politely say their disagreement and back out of the group activity if they feel negatively towards it.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    I feel like something between IEE & ILI.... ILI is too cold & technical. I'm not a technical person. I'm bad at logistics.
    I think I do need a push from others, but I see it as a "muse". I need a reason outside myself to get out of bed & live. Otherwise I'd just spend my life in fantasy. An even better way of putting it is, I have concepts of what is good/bad/etc, but I don't know how to give them form in reality. When something in reality comes along & hints at containing some element of these concepts, then I'm inspired to pursue it. I use creative outlets a lot, but also humanitarian work. I don't get inspired by survival or social connection a lot.
    Ok, this does sound Intuitive Ethical. Weak Te.

    How are you with forceful coercion from others? Is this the 'push' you need or something you react badly to?
    Founder and President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  4. #154
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Socionics Fi doesn't seem bad at all to me. A keen sense of interpersonal/psychological distance? Internal statics of fields? Morality? Sounds good to me.

    Better than the common interpretation of MBTI Fi as .. well, completely selfish

  5. #155
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Anyway the original issue was this "I also doubt things in the Enneagram like an absence of a nitty gritty structure to determine why there are exactly 9 fears/desires"

    I do get what you mean there, but my point is, it's the same issue with socionics/MBTI, why stop at X number of dichotomies. The same issue as to why there are 9 fears, why not more or less. Do you disagree and if so why?
    Quote Originally Posted by edchidna1000 View Post
    There is no strong reason why we need to stop at X dichotomies... in fact there are more dichotomies than I have mentioned, they've just been a bit iffy and debatable.

    Model A is at risk if there is a reasonable dichotomy that someone could create that, if included into the system, were to muck up how Model A functions. We could attempt this and see where we go but I'd say it's pretty difficult seeing as these basic dichotomies don't really classify people but information.

    With Enneagram it's far more at risk... all I have to do is come up with a 10th fear/desire and I've messed up the system. Hmm... let's see... a fear of being misunderstood... a fear of commitment... a fear of hairy things... etc.
    I'll expound, because why not

    One of the goals of any typology system is to be as comprehensive as possible (for its domain of application)--to explain as much as it can. The number of factors is determined from there. The belief of Socionics is that it can be captured in 2x2x2x2=16 types,* MBTI also in 16, Enneagram in 9-ish types,** and Big Five in .. .. well, 5.. traits.

    They'd require more factors if they weren't comprehensive; and they'd (likely) require less if one factor is correlated with (that is, not independent to) one or more of the others.


    * With the existence of all those Reinin dichotomies hinging upon this configuration. (I personally think the Reinin dichotomies are full of crap, but maybe that's for another thread.)

    ** Enneagram also expresses its types as points on a circle--a continuum of mental disorders (as extreme versions of the types) that loops back around. If it were to lose its points of integration/disintegration, the only thing that really ties it down to 9 types, it could subdivide that circle in a number of ways that'd make sense--it could have more than 9 if more would be useful. If the circle itself isn't comprehensive, then other disorders would need to be able to be mashed into that circle in order for the Enneagram to describe what it's intended to describe.

  6. #156
    011235813
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edchidna1000 View Post
    You said that you tend to guilt trip people over wrong things they have done. Would you say you are very focused on your personal feelings towards people and tend to act towards them based on whether you feel that they are good or bad people? Alternatively, would you say you are more into positively affecting the emotions of others and just keeping people happy?
    I do both, however, the first predominates over the second by far. I'm not a misanthrope by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't believe that the unworthy deserve my care or attention. I do evaluate people in terms of how I feel about them and keep my distance from those whom I dislike or distrust. "Bad people" sounds a bit cartoonish, but yeah, I have definitely done my best to keep away from people whose behavior and actions I find distasteful. Continuing to remain in their company is difficult for me because my distaste colors everything about the situation and I have a hard time hiding it.

    I would say I'm quietly warm with the people I love and their happiness and welfare is important to me, which definitely does involve positively affecting their emotions sometimes though I'm not a natural cheerleader. I tend to adapt to people's moods rather than the other way round (though that might be e9 speaking.)

  7. #157
    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
    It's an accidental structure because it's based on an observed correlation that may or may not be a causation. The structure of Socionics is intrinsic to its make-up i.e. derived throughout from its axioms with the meaning of each part being explained from its structure.
    I actually prefer Enneagram in terms of that. I mean, if Socionics axioms were less unfounded, more closely connected to reality in a way, then I would be fine with a derived system from such axioms.

    Anyway, what I originally meant by Socionics structure being no better than the Enneagram one, it was more about how the basic axioms in Socionics do not lead to such a comprehensive theory on their own. Meaning, correlations do possibly get confused with causation in Socionics. Let me know if you disagree about that but then do please show me how you can derive everything from the axioms without adding observations. Afaik even the Reinin dichotomies came from observation. Or Gulenko's cognitive styles, they also originate from observation. And let's not even talk about Reinin or Gulenko but stick with the definitions of functions and then derivation of Model-A from that. I see several logical jumps there too, adding in stuff that isn't directly derived from the definitions in a strict sense. Do note that associations in general are not considered logical by me.


    It's true that energy and happiness can be explained by the chemical composition of our brains but how in any way does is this chemical composition intrinsic to our fears and desires. How can my serotonin level determine whether I'm afraid of being controlled or of being deprived? An explanation may or may not be provided but it's in no way intrinsic to the Enneagram theory.
    Socionics has similar jumps in logic.

    It doesn't mean serotonin has nothing to do with any of that but clearly it's more complex than just a direct causal link and that's a problem for me yep I prefer seeing the whole chain of causations...


    There is a model to the Enneagram, namely, the Enneagram itself, the 9 pointed star. This is a structure although one may wonder why it's derived the way it is. Why does a 7 grow to 5 and disintegrate to 1? I can't see any explanation from the site. I might be wrong, in which case I would like to hear these explanations.
    I have never seen an explanation for that one, it just seems to build on common sense logic or something. Not that Socionics does not make that mistake in places. (It does.)

    The sites I linked to were just examples to show some of the structures Enneagram theory has, though the Horney one is definitely not that mainstream .


    Because information is a more basic thing than a person or physical object. We can say it's either abstract or concrete, objective or personal etc. but how else can we really classify information in such a fundamental way? I'm not talking about arbitrary classifications like distinguishing blue information from ticklish information. Now a person gets up to all sorts of things, there are lots of things a person can do or be that we can use to classify them.
    I see a problem here. When you attempt to classify information as e.g. objective or personal, it will no longer be just direct low level analysis of information in a basic sense but it will be involving higher level concepts that relate more to the complex workings of a person. We might as well start classifying information in the same complex way as we classify people etc.

    That's actually an issue I have with Socionics

    Looking at it from another side, there are dichotomies for the information aspects listed here http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...mation_element

    They are nice and basic, satisfying my requirement above. Now, you can build more than just 8 information aspects from those, no? Why are there only 8?

    Uh and sure enough, another big jump is how we go from information aspects to supposedly existing processing modules in the brain, so-called information elements


    I like structures, but this is kinda moving against a lot of what I thought I know about Enneagram, I'd need to know how it can be reconciled with the rest of the information, whether it is legitimate given what is the case. It looks like a new set of triads that are different to the triads I already know so I would need more research before I know what I think about it.
    Okay. Where do you see issues with reconciling it with the other stuff about Enneagram?


    Quote Originally Posted by garbage View Post
    Socionics Fi doesn't seem bad at all to me. A keen sense of interpersonal/psychological distance? Internal statics of fields? Morality? Sounds good to me.

    Better than the common interpretation of MBTI Fi as .. well, completely selfish
    Yet, none of it makes sense to me. O_o

    Not the MBTI one either :P


    Quote Originally Posted by garbage View Post
    I'll expound, because why not

    One of the goals of any typology system is to be as comprehensive as possible (for its domain of application)--to explain as much as it can. The number of factors is determined from there. The belief of Socionics is that it can be captured in 2x2x2x2=16 types,* MBTI also in 16, Enneagram in 9-ish types,** and Big Five in .. .. well, 5.. traits.

    They'd require more factors if they weren't comprehensive; and they'd (likely) require less if one factor is correlated with (that is, not independent to) one or more of the others.
    I see what you mean but I don't think it's a good idea to pre-determine number of factors in this way.

    Btw... Big Five theory actually isn't about just 5 traits, it's just the five ones at the top of all analysed personality traits structured in a way.

    As for the issue of correlations between factors, MBTI has that issue. Maybe the others too.


    ** Enneagram also expresses its types as points on a circle--a continuum of mental disorders (as extreme versions of the types) that loops back around. If it were to lose its points of integration/disintegration, the only thing that really ties it down to 9 types, it could subdivide that circle in a number of ways that'd make sense--it could have more than 9 if more would be useful. If the circle itself isn't comprehensive, then other disorders would need to be able to be mashed into that circle in order for the Enneagram to describe what it's intended to describe.
    You could still add more types without changing the currently existing integration/disintegration lines, just make a new group of the new types... like 3-6-9 is a separate group from the other 6 types.

    What did you mean about subdividing the circle in ways that would make sense?

  8. #158
    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
    How are you with forceful coercion from others? Is this the 'push' you need or something you react badly to?
    Does anyone want "forceful coercion" from others? Why don't we stick with reality here?

    (I'm not trying to attack you here or anything... just this sounded so weird)

  9. #159
    011235813
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Does anyone want "forceful coercion" from others? Why don't we stick with reality here?

    (I'm not trying to attack you here or anything... just this sounded so weird)
    I think he probably means something like tough love when he says forceful coercion, maybe? Some people thrive with tough love and others wilt under the pressure.

  10. #160
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by senza tema View Post
    I think he probably means something like tough love when he says forceful coercion, maybe? Some people thrive with tough love and others wilt under the pressure.
    Umm sure maybe it's that... @edchidna1000 can let us know

    As for myself, I don't need "tough love" from anyone.

Similar Threads

  1. Find Out Your MBTI Type [ProProfs]
    By Nørrsken in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 08-21-2017, 06:17 AM
  2. Easy Function Descriptions! Totally legit! Figure out your true type! etc.
    By Jeremy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 12-09-2016, 07:30 PM
  3. Is there a test you can do to find out your friends type?
    By Thinkaboutit in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-03-2010, 03:58 PM
  4. A simple way to figure out your Enneagram type
    By evilrobot in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-29-2010, 06:50 PM
  5. How did you find out your type?
    By Economica in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-15-2007, 03:14 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