Socionics Video Questionnaire - Find out your Socionics Type

[OrangeAppled]

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.

See, in Jungian theory, an introverted mindset may consider external things of course, but what make a person introverted is where the thoughts "end up". There is too much judgement here to external things. Feelings to me are not "I like X & not Z", but concepts of value; not what is good, but what does good even mean? Application of judgment to the outer world is done far less, hence not much motivation to act or express feelings. Feeling - or rational valuation - is turned inward then, constructing concepts of value, not categorizing everything into existing values. It's only when something is very close to one of these ideals or violates it that it's really "applied" at all & a connection between a concept & the object is made.

I see a person with Fe as their second function applying their feelings more, as they direct them outwards. They do this because they experience feelings as founded on objective things.

 

[WorldSocionics]

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.)

Alright, that sounds pretty Fi-leading to me.

How would you say you are with coercion by yourself or others? Are you good at pushing people to do things you think right? Are you more about just trying to see the good in others and avoid aggressive conflicts, getting trodden on as a result? Are you more of a martyr or an avenger?

 

[WorldSocionics]

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.

I would agree that there are some pretty big jumps, especially in some of the Reinin dichotomies which I myself do not endorse.

If you look at the basics leading up to Model A, I would say its a mixture of deduction and addition of pretty reasonable factors.

For instance, if we look at any IM element, we can see that it is composed and can be explained entirely by dichotomies...

Extroverted Sensation for instance... Extroverted, Irrational, Static, Involved and External. If you understand each of the dichotomies, you understand Se (the information it metabolises). It is deduced.

Now an example of a reasonable addition is the formulation of Model A, the eight functions that the IM elements slot into. For instance it is reasonable to posit that a person values/subdues and is strong at/weak at metabolising a certain kind of information and that valuing and strength are different qualities and thus different dichotomies. As a result, it is reasonable to form the four blocks that make up Model A

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...

Pretty much what I'm currently going over in my Metaphysics of Science seminar.

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 .

Well, I still wouldn't say it is a reasonable addition like what I defined above.

Mmm... a structure can be attributed but I'd prefer the structure to be deliberate from the beginning.

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.

Well, it's really two dichotomies: Detached/Involved and External/Internal.
Logic would be Detached and External while Ethics would be Involved and Internal. This might be a better way of explaining it. I should probably have included these in the first article, thinking about it.

It is a reasonable addition to say that information is either Internal or External... either originating within oneself (ideas and sentiments) or from the world around us (sensations and structures).

It is a reasonable addition that information is either directly, viscerally involved in our human experience (sensations and sentiments) or distanced from it (ideas and structures)

Looking at it from another side, there are dichotomies for the information aspects listed here http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Information_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?[/QUOTES]

The problem is that not all dichotomy combinations are possible... for instance... How can something be Involved and External i.e. Sensation and also Rational? and then, how can something be Extroverted and Irrational i.e. Ep but Dynamic?

Could we perhaps try and think of a kind of Sensation that is Rational? Isn't it the point that physical experience is perceiving the environment rather than making a judgement on it?

Can we think of Ep working dynamically? Isn't it the point that this temperament jumps suddenly from activity to activity rather than subtlely flowing from one thing into the next?

I would argue that dichotomies like Static/Dynamic are more sufficient than necessary though.

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

Not quite information elements but Elements of Information Metabolism... once we know that there are eight aspects of information, we need eight sorts of metabolising that information i.e. how a person approaches that information, acting on it and integrating it. It's once again a reasonable addition.

Now we could alternatively say that there is just one Metabolising engine that performs eight different jobs at varying levels of efficiency... it would amount to the same result really. Separating it into eight separate things helps explanation in my opinion.

Okay. Where do you see issues with reconciling it with the other stuff about Enneagram?

Well, they seem to be using very similar terminologies to explain rather different things. I'm not entirely sure if they can cooperate or will contradict. I would be more at ease if someone presented both sets of dichotomies together and showed them in a working whole.

Yet, none of it makes sense to me.

I think it will be helpful for you to see Fi in action... here is a portrayal of a pretty famous ESI. See how Fi judgements are put across with a steely Se tenacity.

I see what you mean but I don't think it's a good idea to pre-determine number of factors in this way.

Well, I'm always open to more reasonable additions if people have suggestions. A theory shouldn't be fixed forever if it wants to remain accurate.

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.

Well, 30 facets generalised under 5 traits.

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.

It kinda screws up integration/disintegration though, doesn't it?

 

[011235813]

Alright, that sounds pretty Fi-leading to me.

How would you say you are with coercion by yourself or others? Are you good at pushing people to do things you think right? Are you more about just trying to see the good in others and avoid aggressive conflicts, getting trodden on as a result? Are you more of a martyr or an avenger?

My unsatisfactory answer to this set of questions is that I'm kinda middle of the road on all these issues. First of all: coercion. What do you actually mean by this? I'm generally pretty compliant and I can be a pushover sometimes--because I don't like seeing people upset or in trouble or super stressed and don't like turning down pleas for help (though I do admit that I want at least some appreciation in return). However, I don't react well to bullying and I will not tolerate being spoken to or treated with disrespect.

I've been called sweet and compliant by some people and stern and resolute by others. My boss has said that my manner can come off as a little imperious (which I find hilarious, because she is extremely bossy herself). On the other hand, in my own head, I'm keeping track of what I'm standing my ground on and what I'm ceding and I feel extremely resentful internally if I begin to feel like too much of a pushover in terms of giving way to people.

In terms of pushing people to do the right thing, I've had mixed results. Some people acknowledge that I've made them reconsider their course of action out of guilt while others have flounced and told me that I'm judgy and sanctimonious and proceeded to be obnoxious. I prefer to cut off close emotional dealings with the latter category if the transgressions are severe, because I can't trust them anymore and I know we'll hit another ethical crossroads sooner or later and they'll disappoint me again. Sometimes I hold out hope but I'm still worried that it's futile.

Leading off of that point, it's frustrating for me when those very people whom I find unbearably shady have other stellar qualities because my distaste for the bad stuff leaves me unable to wholeheartedly enjoy the good, even when it's luminous and beautiful. I've tried to separate the two and judge different qualities separately in my mind but it just doesn't work. It's actually kinda painful. :/

I do prefer to stay away from aggressive conflicts though I'm maybe a tad bit scrappier than the typical e9 description would suggest. Mostly because I can't self censor when I'm really unhappy about something and end up making a big deal out of it. I'm really quite contained on the whole though.

The word 'martyr' sends chills down my spine. I prefer the sound of avenger, but I'm not really bad ass enough. I find revenge tales compelling and sympathize with characters who seek revenge, but I also believe to some extent in pacific Buddhist ways and think forgiveness is a profound virtue.

 

[valaki]

My unsatisfactory answer to this set of questions is that I'm kinda middle of the road on all these issues. (...)

this post and another post of yours in this thread sound like ESI > EII, to me anyway.

I can assure you of one thing, your Fi is alien to me In my mind no question that you're strong in valued Fi...

 

[011235813]

this post and another post of yours in this thread sound like ESI > EII, to me anyway.

I can assure you of one thing, your Fi is alien to me In my mind no question that you're strong in valued Fi...

Thanks for the input.

What do you mean about Fi being alien?

 

[valaki]

I would agree that there are some pretty big jumps, especially in some of the Reinin dichotomies which I myself do not endorse.

Glad we agree then to some extent I think I am more sensitive to "smaller" jumps than you, though.

If you look at the basics leading up to Model A, I would say its a mixture of deduction and addition of pretty reasonable factors.

To me "pretty reasonable" isn't good enough.

For instance, if we look at any IM element, we can see that it is composed and can be explained entirely by dichotomies...

Extroverted Sensation for instance... Extroverted, Irrational, Static, Involved and External. If you understand each of the dichotomies, you understand Se (the information it metabolises). It is deduced.

Uh, no, not all of the stuff that's generally attributed to Se is completely deduced by those. If you disagree, do please explicitly explain everything attributed to Se by these dichotomies.

E.g.: "Information about spatial territory, ownership, and influence", "one is powerful or not", etc...

Now an example of a reasonable addition is the formulation of Model A, the eight functions that the IM elements slot into. For instance it is reasonable to posit that a person values/subdues and is strong at/weak at metabolising a certain kind of information and that valuing and strength are different qualities and thus different dichotomies. As a result, it is reasonable to form the four blocks that make up Model A

Oh that word "reasonable"

Pretty much what I'm currently going over in my Metaphysics of Science seminar.

Oh?

Well, I still wouldn't say it is a reasonable addition like what I defined above.

Mmm... a structure can be attributed but I'd prefer the structure to be deliberate from the beginning.

By deliberate structure from the beginning, you mean building up the whole theory on an initial idea of structure right? That's pretty deductive too, I guess my thinking is different, I'm a looot more inductive.

Well, it's really two dichotomies: Detached/Involved and External/Internal.
Logic would be Detached and External while Ethics would be Involved and Internal. This might be a better way of explaining it. I should probably have included these in the first article, thinking about it.

It is a reasonable addition to say that information is either Internal or External... either originating within oneself (ideas and sentiments) or from the world around us (sensations and structures).

It is a reasonable addition that information is either directly, viscerally involved in our human experience (sensations and sentiments) or distanced from it (ideas and structures)

That does sound better

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

The problem is that not all dichotomy combinations are possible... for instance... How can something be Involved and External i.e. Sensation and also Rational? and then, how can something be Extroverted and Irrational i.e. Ep but Dynamic?

Could we perhaps try and think of a kind of Sensation that is Rational? Isn't it the point that physical experience is perceiving the environment rather than making a judgement on it?

Can we think of Ep working dynamically? Isn't it the point that this temperament jumps suddenly from activity to activity rather than subtlely flowing from one thing into the next?

I don't actually see a problem with Extroverted + Irrational + Dynamic... just don't call it EP then

I mean I don't logically see a problem, but don't ask me to make up a new temperament, I'll leave that to you Ne types

I would argue that dichotomies like Static/Dynamic are more sufficient than necessary though.

What do you mean by more sufficient but not necessary?

Not quite information elements but Elements of Information Metabolism... once we know that there are eight aspects of information, we need eight sorts of metabolising that information i.e. how a person approaches that information, acting on it and integrating it. It's once again a reasonable addition.

But how's that working in reality? To me this is a pretty big jump.

I mean the idea of different thinking processes is fine and great but I'm not quite sure that they are divided by information aspects in such a sense. After all what your brain gets as raw input has nothing to do with our high level concept of these "information aspects". It's quite easily possible that the organization and processing of the data is done differently. I once read that these socionics information aspects are believed by some to be actually out there in the world in a sense. Well I would disagree on that.

Well, they seem to be using very similar terminologies to explain rather different things. I'm not entirely sure if they can cooperate or will contradict. I would be more at ease if someone presented both sets of dichotomies together and showed them in a working whole.

Oh well terminology is one thing

You are right though about the "working whole"

I think it will be helpful for you to see Fi in action... here is a portrayal of a pretty famous ESI. See how Fi judgements are put across with a steely Se tenacity.

Well thanks for that link

Well, I'm always open to more reasonable additions if people have suggestions. A theory shouldn't be fixed forever if it wants to remain accurate.

Well said

It kinda screws up integration/disintegration though, doesn't it?

No, say, we add types 10 11 and 12 and then the integration/disintegration lines are like this, ...10->11->12->10...

(Just like with the 3-6-9 group being separate from the other 6 types.)

That doesn't fuck up the already existing ones

 

[valaki]

Thanks for the input.

What do you mean about Fi being alien?

Np

Fi: well, a lot of the things you said in post #164, are things that I just don't do, I don't at all focus on it etc. All these words like "transgressions" and "ethical crossroads", are not things I deal with. In general I don't do this judgement thing about character that you elaborated so much about. And especially the part that your partially "bad" perception of someone's character will ruin everything with them, I can't imagine myself focusing on that sort of stuff. Or, looking at the positive side of your judgements now, "luminous and beautiful" aren't words I ever use to think of someone. All in all, completely foreign way of thinking to me. Oh and "interpersonal/psychological distance", that too, if you get what I mean.

You could ask then how do I view people? Well pretty impersonally most of the time. I look at someone and I just see the external part of them. If I know someone more deeply, I will know about their behaviours, thoughts, opinions, things they like or not, and so on, but I don't try to put some concept of their personality into words. It's more vague than that and more instinctual. I have of course called people by "names" before but that's in the moment and not fixed/static at all and it's usually done out of a strong emotion. Also, often I just focus on the enjoyment of stuff when spending time together, instead of focusing on the other person as a character or whatever the hell . Yes that does come with the side effect that I'm not selective about people in terms of such personal judgements. I'm sometimes selective to a degree but I base that on other criteria. And a lot of the time not discerning at all (not selective). Handling everyone in the same impersonal fashion is more my thing. That doesn't mean I'm not nice or kind or anything, though.

I'm pretty sure that what I just described now is alien to you.

 

[valaki]

[MENTION=5759]edchidna1000[/MENTION]

did you see post #160?


Another thing; I saw this from you in a post "You are also understated in physical movement which would point to Controlled movement and your manner of communication lacks in emotional variation, being quite monotone, indicating Sober communication".

What's this "Sober communication" thing? Another system of yours?

 

[011235813]

[MENTION=5759]edchidna1000[/MENTION]: I'm curious about where you're getting the clumsy, controlled, delicate and tough stuff from. Because it seems instinctively true to me.

 

[WorldSocionics]

See, in Jungian theory, an introverted mindset may consider external things of course, but what make a person introverted is where the thoughts "end up". There is too much judgement here to external things. Feelings to me are not "I like X & not Z", but concepts of value; not what is good, but what does good even mean? Application of judgment to the outer world is done far less, hence not much motivation to act or express feelings. Feeling - or rational valuation - is turned inward then, constructing concepts of value, not categorizing everything into existing values. It's only when something is very close to one of these ideals or violates it that it's really "applied" at all & a connection between a concept & the object is made.

I see a person with Fe as their second function applying their feelings more, as they direct them outwards. They do this because they experience feelings as founded on objective things.

Socionics does make a pretty clear divide between Extroversion and Introversion though...

Extroversion focuses on objects i.e. the things themselves. Introversion focuses on fields i.e. the relations between people and things.

As such, an Fi is about one's feeling towards things i.e. Do I like this? Do I like that? Does this person feel happy about that other person?

Fe on the other hand is about the emotions themselves... What is the mood of the room? How should people be feeling? What am I doing to change how they feel?

I'm trying understand what you are getting at by wondering what good even means. This does not sound like Fi though, indeed I wonder about this myself quite often. Usually Fi does not really focus on trying to make sense of feelings, the feelings are just felt and take priority over any logical order. It is common for a Ti type to insist on feeling making some sort of sense, hence wondering about meaning and either coming up with a concise definition or discarding it as meaningless.

Both kinds of Ethics (Feeling) are seen as 'Internal' rather than 'External'. They are judgements that come from within rather than being sourced from the outside world. Ethics only really exists in our heads.

For an Fi-lead though, everything that draws their attention is judged by Fi. For an Fi type with creative Ne, it will be a lot more Internal, judging ideals and concepts within the mind (Ne) more often than real, concrete things in the outside world (Se). Indeed Intuition is also Internal while Sensation is External.

 

[WorldSocionics]

I want to do this, but like many of the people here I'm hesitant to post a video. I don't like watching myself in video or hearing the sound of my own voice and the thought of other people doing the same really bothers me.

How did you get into typology? What interested you about psychology?
I got into it for self discovery I guess. I sort of wanted to understand my personality and I wanted to find some sort of model or explanation for why I do the things that I do. Psychology interests me because I like being able to explain other people's behaviors and emotions, including me own. I like it when I can explain why I feel the way I do or why other people feel or behave the way they do.

What do you do for a living? What do you do for a college degree? Do you like your job? Is there something you'd prefer to be doing? Why? What are you like when doing your job? Are you much different at home?
Currently I'm an undergrad in Psychology. I guess I like it, I'm sort of indifferent and not really all that ambitious. To be brutally honest, as long as I have the time and freedom to engage in my own personal interests, I'm not really concerned with my career or major or anything like that. When I'm in classes and such around the university I'm pretty reserved, though polite. Public speaking scares me so I never answer questions or take part in discussion or anything like that, even if it's really interesting to me. With my roommate I'm pretty deadpan, I often worry about being too expressive around him or not knowing what to say, so I'm really rigid and stiff around him sometimes. When I'm at home I'm much more relaxed, though still pretty serious and reserved. At home I spend most of my time alone, reading and stuff.

What aspects of your life are you especially good with? What do you feel that you are especially bad at? What have you done to draw admiration or criticism from others?
I'm pretty good at learning new things. I grasp really abstract concepts pretty easily and I'm good at explaining theories and models (like personality typology) to other people. My friends also tend to come to me for advice because I'm good at explaining why they're in the situations that they're in and what they would have to do to change things. I'm pretty bad at dealing with people and my own emotions. I'm very sensitive, but I don't like people to know that, so I'm pretty rigid most of the time. Of course I can be friendly, but I'm not a gregarious person by any stretch of the imagination. Romance is a huge problem for me because I lack initiative and confidence and in a situation where I don't know what to do is pretty scary to me. It's a double edged sword because I lack initiative, but crave romance extremely deeply; though it's not readily apparent. Most people actually feel like I don't care about it, but I really do.

What sort of environment would you feel most at home in? Describe its atmosphere and surroundings, its inhabitants, the conversations or lack thereof, the philosophy of this ideal environment.
Lol a quiet one. I would feel pretty good in an environment that was fairly quiet where I could pursue my interests without worrying about loud people or parties or anything like that. At the same time I'd want everyone to be pretty mature, but not too rigid and cold. I like warm and friendly people, but I also like people who are mature and not goofy. I also would want it to be a place where everyone's feelings are taken into account in the form of manners and politeness. I'm pretty big on politeness. Conversations would be about interesting things; maybe the news, interesting ideas or concepts, or weird theories. I guess I want people that are equally interested in trying to explain stuff so that we can talk about our explanations for stuff.

Sorry about not seeing this post earlier.

You come across as someone of an Introverted Irrational temperament, someone prefers just to focus on their own interests rather than becoming involved with external pressures to advance one's position or career.

You seem to have pretty weak Fe, not being comfortable with expressing your emotions or dealing with emotionally expressive, loud environments brought about by others.

Your ability to grasp abstract concepts and explain them to others, suggests someone who is Intuitive and Logical.

As such, I would say you are probably ILI with SLI as a close second guess.

I'll now take a look at your video for confirmation of this.

 

[sworm09]

Sorry about not seeing this post earlier.

You come across as someone of an Introverted Irrational temperament, someone prefers just to focus on their own interests rather than becoming involved with external pressures to advance one's position or career.

You seem to have pretty weak Fe, not being comfortable with expressing your emotions or dealing with emotionally expressive, loud environments brought about by others.

Your ability to grasp abstract concepts and explain them to others, suggests someone who is Intuitive and Logical.

As such, I would say you are probably ILI with SLI as a close second guess.

I'll now take a look at your video for confirmation of this.

I can't find my video post, so here it is again just in case.

 

[WorldSocionics]

My unsatisfactory answer to this set of questions is that I'm kinda middle of the road on all these issues. First of all: coercion. What do you actually mean by this? I'm generally pretty compliant and I can be a pushover sometimes--because I don't like seeing people upset or in trouble or super stressed and don't like turning down pleas for help (though I do admit that I want at least some appreciation in return). However, I don't react well to bullying and I will not tolerate being spoken to or treated with disrespect.

I've been called sweet and compliant by some people and stern and resolute by others. My boss has said that my manner can come off as a little imperious (which I find hilarious, because she is extremely bossy herself). On the other hand, in my own head, I'm keeping track of what I'm standing my ground on and what I'm ceding and I feel extremely resentful internally if I begin to feel like too much of a pushover in terms of giving way to people.

In terms of pushing people to do the right thing, I've had mixed results. Some people acknowledge that I've made them reconsider their course of action out of guilt while others have flounced and told me that I'm judgy and sanctimonious and proceeded to be obnoxious. I prefer to cut off close emotional dealings with the latter category if the transgressions are severe, because I can't trust them anymore and I know we'll hit another ethical crossroads sooner or later and they'll disappoint me again. Sometimes I hold out hope but I'm still worried that it's futile.

Leading off of that point, it's frustrating for me when those very people whom I find unbearably shady have other stellar qualities because my distaste for the bad stuff leaves me unable to wholeheartedly enjoy the good, even when it's luminous and beautiful. I've tried to separate the two and judge different qualities separately in my mind but it just doesn't work. It's actually kinda painful. :/

I do prefer to stay away from aggressive conflicts though I'm maybe a tad bit scrappier than the typical e9 description would suggest. Mostly because I can't self censor when I'm really unhappy about something and end up making a big deal out of it. I'm really quite contained on the whole though.

The word 'martyr' sends chills down my spine. I prefer the sound of avenger, but I'm not really bad ass enough. I find revenge tales compelling and sympathize with characters who seek revenge, but I also believe to some extent in pacific Buddhist ways and think forgiveness is a profound virtue.

Hmmm... I'm tempted towards EII with this.

By coercion I meant applying your willpower against the will of another person, almost combatively in order to make them change their position. ESI regularly does this to enforce what they feel to be the right thing. They tend to be more absolute though with alternative, unclear points of view being frowned upon.

EII on the other hand is quite against coercion, they can only appeal to the humanity of others, essentially guilt-tripping them into doing the right thing. They think that making someone do something is wrong. They have tendency to consider alternatives however, at least trying to see alternate ways of seeing the wrongdoer in a positive light.

If you look at the video I posted above for Valaki, I showed a pretty good example of an ESI.

For you though, I think EII is a better guess. I do remember putting EII as an alternative to SLI when looking at your video and indeed, you seem to have Delta values over Gamma.

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/EII-INFj/
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/288-INFj-The-Humanist-Profile-by-Gulenko
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/96-Dostoyevsky-Female-portrait-INFj-by-Beskova

 

[WorldSocionics]

Glad we agree then to some extent I think I am more sensitive to "smaller" jumps than you, though.

To me "pretty reasonable" isn't good enough.

I think it's very hard to create a structure without any reasonable additions i.e. things that seem instinctively true.

Uh, no, not all of the stuff that's generally attributed to Se is completely deduced by those. If you disagree, do please explicitly explain everything attributed to Se by these dichotomies.

E.g.: "Information about spatial territory, ownership, and influence", "one is powerful or not", etc...

Let me demonstrate:

We know what Sensation is i.e. It is all information that is External and Involved i.e. the visceral things pressing on us from the outside world like sounds, sights, forces, shape, space, resources etc.

We know that Sensation is Irrational, it just is, we don't decide our Sensations. They are perceived, not judged.

Now we know that Se is Extroverted, it expands outwards, taking on more and more sensory data i.e. increasing our physical territory or space, wanting something in the physical world and taking it etc.


We know that it is Static, it wants something and then snaps to something else. It energetically darts after something, then the next.

Essentially the aggression with see in Se is it being Extroverted about Sensation. It is promiscuous and predatory with real, concrete things. Ne is equally promiscuous and predatory with abstract, conceptual things.

Oh?

Yeah, causal structures.

By deliberate structure from the beginning, you mean building up the whole theory on an initial idea of structure right? That's pretty deductive too, I guess my thinking is different, I'm a looot more inductive.

Well, a reasonable addition is an induction.

I don't actually see a problem with Extroverted + Irrational + Dynamic... just don't call it EP then

Well when I think about making EP dynamic, I get a peculiar situation where going after multiple things but what I want is constantly changing. It would be like running around with a compass but the needle randomly spinning around causing me to run around in a circle. It seems we must be EP in a Static way to ever get what we want.

IP can be Dynamic because it has a few things to continuously waver on.

Can one be Extroverted and Rational but also Static? I think such a person would soon be bound up by too many oughts and regulations to do anything more if each ought remains fixed after it has been taken on. The Dynamic nature is required for the person to slide from oughts in one situation to different oughts in another.

IJ can be static because it only has a few things to stick to.

What do you mean by more sufficient but not necessary?

I think the theory can work without that specific dichotomy but we could remove another dichotomy and the Static/Dynamic would fill its place in the deductive steps.

But how's that working in reality? To me this is a pretty big jump.

I mean the idea of different thinking processes is fine and great but I'm not quite sure that they are divided by information aspects in such a sense. After all what your brain gets as raw input has nothing to do with our high level concept of these "information aspects". It's quite easily possible that the organization and processing of the data is done differently. I once read that these socionics information aspects are believed by some to be actually out there in the world in a sense. Well I would disagree on that.

I agree with you that IM elements are theoretical concepts rather than real things. They are categories of information metabolism which is a bio-psychological process. If there were to actually exist as real, concrete things then they might be parts of the brain or neural networks which we have yet to directly map.

I would not say it is a big jump to say that there are IM elements in the theory if we take into account the law of psychological asymmetry and address the need to categorise our interactions with information rather than categorise just the information itself.

No, say, we add types 10 11 and 12 and then the integration/disintegration lines are like this, ...10->11->12->10...

(Just like with the 3-6-9 group being separate from the other 6 types.)

That doesn't fuck up the already existing ones

That sounds like a clumsy annex on the Enneagram... it would no longer be called the Enneagram though

It would have to be its own core, say the 'Nose core' to not interfere with the Head, Heart, Gut etc. It would be odd to have the lines of integration being entirely integral to its core though when the other lines of integration are inter-core. You would also have to replace 1w9 and 9w1 with 9w10 and 1w12 which would need to be explained.

 

[WorldSocionics]

[MENTION=5759]edchidna1000[/MENTION]

did you see post #160?

Ah yes, basically I mean coercion as in making things happen in the physical environment, pushing people to do things by leaving them no option. It could arise as tough love, I guess. I mean it in terms of being assertive.

Another thing; I saw this from you in a post "You are also understated in physical movement which would point to Controlled movement and your manner of communication lacks in emotional variation, being quite monotone, indicating Sober communication".

What's this "Sober communication" thing? Another system of yours?

Actually Gulenko came up with Communication styles. I call it 'sober' rather than the original 'cold-blooded' because I think the latter sounds a bit mean and I prefer single-word terminologies

 

[WorldSocionics]

[MENTION=5759]edchidna1000[/MENTION]: I'm curious about where you're getting the clumsy, controlled, delicate and tough stuff from. Because it seems instinctively true to me.

I came up with Movement styles to complement Gulenko's Communication styles. It seems instinctively correct but I still think it needs work in terms of knowing how the movements can be interpreted in real life situations.

 

[WorldSocionics]

I can't find my video post, so here it is again just in case.

Thankyou, this helped a lot.

Before I thought you were Fe-vulnerable but I can see from this that you are probably Fe-suggestive. You do care about the feelings of others around you and you seem to feel more of a personal frustration in not being able to do more to affect people's emotions than being criticised about this by others. I get the sense that you need someone else to help you lighten up, rather than needing to stay away from people trying to affect your emotional states.

As such, I am very sure you are a Ti lead. Rigidity is the right word, you talk a lot about what is correct/incorrect to you and try to stick to your own expectations. You even made yourself stick to my 15-20 minute rule, going back and repeating to make sure this was done. You are very much about clarity and enjoy explaining categories and rules to others, despite being a rather dispassionate and serious person.

An IJ temperament is quite clear, you are more of the reactive sort, taking action only when needed and thinking a lot about the few things you feel obligated to do. Sticking quite rigidly to the few oughts is characteristic of someone Introverted, Rational and Static.

I think you are likely Ne Creative, you like abstract concepts and are confident explaining and structuring them. You also seem to dislike loud and noisy environments. Before, I thought this was due to the emotional expressiveness of such backgrounds but now it seems to be more about things being quiet and you being uncoerced and free to do what you want to do i.e. an absence of forceful, visceral Extroverted Sensation.

Indeed, you come across as rigid, but more like glass than stone, more likely to snap under too much pressure. This is typical of the LII.

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/LII-INTj/
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/289-INTj-The-Analyst-Profile-by-Gulenko
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/127-Robespierre-Male-Portrait-INTj-by-Beskova

 

[sworm09]

Thankyou, this helped a lot.

Before I thought you were Fe-vulnerable but I can see from this that you are probably Fe-suggestive. You do care about the feelings of others around you and you seem to feel more of a personal frustration in not being able to do more to affect people's emotions than being criticised about this by others. I get the sense that you need someone else to help you lighten up, rather than needing to stay away from people trying to affect your emotional states.

As such, I am very sure you are a Ti lead. Rigidity is the right word, you talk a lot about what is correct/incorrect to you and try to stick to your own expectations. You even made yourself stick to my 15-20 minute rule, going back and repeating to make sure this was done. You are very much about clarity and enjoy explaining categories and rules to others, despite being a rather dispassionate and serious person.

An IJ temperament is quite clear, you are more of the reactive sort, taking action only when needed and thinking a lot about the few things you feel obligated to do. Sticking quite rigidly to the few oughts is characteristic of someone Introverted, Rational and Static.

I think you are likely Ne Creative, you like abstract concepts and are confident explaining and structuring them. You also seem to dislike loud and noisy environments. Before, I thought this was due to the emotional expressiveness of such backgrounds but now it seems to be more about things being quiet and you being uncoerced and free to do what you want to do i.e. an absence of forceful, visceral Extroverted Sensation.

Indeed, you come across as rigid, but more like glass than stone, more likely to snap under too much pressure. This is typical of the LII.

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/LII-INTj/
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/289-INTj-The-Analyst-Profile-by-Gulenko
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/127-Robespierre-Male-Portrait-INTj-by-Beskova

Thanks a lot!

I'm going to have to read up on those profiles. Thanks again

 

[valaki]

I'm trying understand what you are getting at by wondering what good even means. This does not sound like Fi though, indeed I wonder about this myself quite often. Usually Fi does not really focus on trying to make sense of feelings, the feelings are just felt and take priority over any logical order. It is common for a Ti type to insist on feeling making some sort of sense, hence wondering about meaning and either coming up with a concise definition or discarding it as meaningless.

Is it more Ti leads who want to make sense of feelings? I don't really care to make sense of them beyond knowing the source for them and that's not hard to figure out

I do like to define things in theories, including feelings in psychology theories, but in real life I don't mess with feelings in this way

Hmmm... I'm tempted towards EII with this.

What was EII-ish in it? The part about being too nice to the point of being a pushover sometimes? Does EII mind feeling like one? She talked about tracking where she stands her ground etc etc. I was thinking Fi is still stronger than Se so the Fi ideals would lead the way in terms of that but she does get resentful if she cedes too much. I thought ESI for her also because of how she's so black and white about a person's character. Also it seemed Se valuing over Si valuing in post #146.

I think it's very hard to create a structure without any reasonable additions i.e. things that seem instinctively true.

No, if you work with the right material, it's not hard to create such structures at all. By right material I mean it's directly related to the physical. You don't have to guess at whatever "instinctively true" ideas, you see right in front of you how it works.

I know, Socionics got no chance in that area right now...

Let me demonstrate:

We know what Sensation is i.e. It is all information that is External and Involved i.e. the visceral things pressing on us from the outside world like sounds, sights, forces, shape, space, resources etc.

We know that Sensation is Irrational, it just is, we don't decide our Sensations. They are perceived, not judged.

Okay so far.

Now we know that Se is Extroverted, it expands outwards, taking on more and more sensory data i.e. increasing our physical territory or space, wanting something in the physical world and taking it etc.

Jump...


Do you see what I mean?

We know that it is Static, it wants something and then snaps to something else. It energetically darts after something, then the next.

Ok

Essentially the aggression with see in Se is it being Extroverted about Sensation. It is promiscuous and predatory with real, concrete things. Ne is equally promiscuous and predatory with abstract, conceptual things.

Define aggression in this context?

Well, a reasonable addition is an induction.

I meant a different definition of induction :/

Well when I think about making EP dynamic, I get a peculiar situation where going after multiple things but what I want is constantly changing. It would be like running around with a compass but the needle randomly spinning around causing me to run around in a circle. It seems we must be EP in a Static way to ever get what we want.

IP can be Dynamic because it has a few things to continuously waver on.

Hmm can you elaborate on IP being able to do that?

Can one be Extroverted and Rational but also Static? I think such a person would soon be bound up by too many oughts and regulations to do anything more if each ought remains fixed after it has been taken on. The Dynamic nature is required for the person to slide from oughts in one situation to different oughts in another.

Why does it have to be dynamic to switch from one "ought" to another?

I would not say it is a big jump to say that there are IM elements in the theory if we take into account the law of psychological asymmetry and address the need to categorise our interactions with information rather than categorise just the information itself.

My problem is that when assuming there's one or even eight "IM element modules", you might be using the wrong assumptions about how the brain actually processes the raw incoming data. I'm not sure if I'm clear here, let me know if not.

That sounds like a clumsy annex on the Enneagram... it would no longer be called the Enneagram though

It would have to be its own core, say the 'Nose core' to not interfere with the Head, Heart, Gut etc. It would be odd to have the lines of integration being entirely integral to its core though when the other lines of integration are inter-core. You would also have to replace 1w9 and 9w1 with 9w10 and 1w12 which would need to be explained.

Yeah the wings would change but wings aren't part of the core theory anyway

It perhaps would be odd, sure, but it's odd already

Actually Gulenko came up with Communication styles. I call it 'sober' rather than the original 'cold-blooded' because I think the latter sounds a bit mean and I prefer single-word terminologies

I see, heh, I think I'm a mix of the first three styles, I don't relate to the Soulful one Business one does seem to make sense though.. My sister on the other hand is Soulful