User Tag List

First 71516171819 Last

Results 161 to 170 of 237

Thread: The PoLR Thread

  1. #161
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    You said you checked the Te suggestive in an above post, was it this?

    Everyone is afraid of and loathes being bullied, but what makes you a Vulnerable Se?

    Furthermore, based on objective reasoning outside of the self, why do you believe the Vulnerable function is the Inferior Function?
    I just can't bring myself to hitting someone as if there's some kind of mental block there.

    About the last question why do you believe inferior is suggestive?

  2. #162
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    You said you checked the Te suggestive in an above post, was it this?
    No I checked it in http://www.sociotype.com/ page.

  3. #163
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    @Alea_iacta_est before we move on we need to establish something:

    Which MBTI type does this description sound like?

    Socionics Types: LSI-ISTj

    LSIs are often arduous producers of logical structures, models, principles, rules, and order. In general, their lifestyle is at least partly organized according to the rules they impute to the world, which are paramount to their experiences. They may typically tend to conceptualize the world around them in terms of fixed categories, and can exhibit well-developed preferences for one category of things over another. Often, LSIs' interpretation of the world is directed towards existing social structures; their rules and guidelines pertaining to the behavior and actions of others; if LIIs are stereotypically the abstract physicists, building systems and thought structures that have little to do with "real world" life, LSIs might likewise stereotypically represent hard-line military officers, making sure that everyone stays in line. LSIs can often integrate into their rule-based framework the conventions of the predominant social order, and they may be vocally critical or judgmental of those that fail to follow the real or imagined conventions ascribed to them. LSIs can also sometimes be sticklers for minutiae in rule-based systems; they may have little sympathy or leeway for those individuals who require exemptions (along the lines of "no, sir, this bus must leave exactly at 7:30").

    Many LSIs give off a sense of certitude and absolution. They can quickly and easily schematize what is correct and incorrect according to the systems they are familiar with and may appear to be absolutely certain of their views, unable to represent any ambiguity in the principles that they put forward. This may take the form of stringent intellectual, political, or other viewpoints, or simply in a high degree of confidence in the principles they put forward towards the social environment around them. LSIs, moreso than any other type, are likely to have firmly unchanging views over a long period of time. Even when LSIs do not have firm, unchanging viewpoints, they may parade their current opinions with brash conviction, as though the logic of their thoughts is sound and irrefutable. Of course, many LSIs are much less extreme in their viewpoints, and can instead come across as apathetic about enforcing their viewpoints, or primarily sociable in their orientation.

    Intellectually, LSIs, like other Ti types, are often most interested in determining underlying principles, causal mechanisms, and systems to account for real-world phenomena. They may have a tendency see the principles that they develop as universal and without exception. Additionally, they usually tend to emphasize the consistency and importance of their espoused rules, principles or ideological perspectives to a greater extent than the external evidence supporting these rules, which is often a much less poignant aspect of their thought processes.

  4. #164
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    @Alea_iacta_est before we move on we need to establish something:

    Which MBTI type does this description sound like?

    Socionics Types: LSI-ISTj
    No. Descriptions are shit. Do not use them.

  5. #165
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    No. Descriptions are shit. Do not use them.
    why do you use socionics instead of mbti then?

    is it better than mbti? in what way?

  6. #166
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    I just can't bring myself to hitting someone as if there's some kind of mental block there.

    About the last question why do you believe inferior is suggestive?
    ANIMA (inferior, aspirational)
    What it is about, and which function it encases:

    The collecting place of our sense of "otherness", including life, libido and and instinctual energies. The word means "soul". Shaped largely by the parent of the opposite sex, projected onto those we fall in love with (Duality is based on the Dual-Seeking Suggestive Function), and encases the inferior function.

    We likely feel inferior in both the internal or external orientation, and the functional perspective associated with the inferior. (Role + Suggestive, shadow inferior, inferior, same function preference. One is inferior due to its absence, the other is inferior due to its presence as your main character flaw)

    Possible drawbacks from the emotionally freighted sense of connecting with life:

    We (at least unconsciously) feel we would be best completed in the orientation by someone by our side who somehow fulfills the perspective. (Since this is a projection onto the person, they are not necessarily a type that prefers the function). (Wow, this sounds rather Dual-Seeking, doesn't it?)

    I imagine this might come out in the emotional images that surface when we think of a beautiful romantic day:

    I imagine this might come out in the emotional images that surface when we think of a beautiful romantic day:

    • ISxJ's exploring new possibilities, to "create new memories". (Ne)
    • INxJ's enjoying rigorous tangible experience together, and extracting meaning from it. (Se)
    • IxTP's strolling through a beautiful setting involving an atmosphere colored by other people; admiring technical things. (Fe)
    • IxFP's working side by side at some sort of logical organization with a humanitarian purpose. (Te)
    • ESxP's someone to get lost with in a world of conceptual frameworks such as archetypes and symbolism, and then realizing their dreams. (Ni)
    • ENxP's enjoying nostalgia together, and exploring them as exciting possibilities (Si)
    • ExTJ's someone who gives them a sense of personal integrity, giving them further incentive for their logical ordering. (Fi)
    • ExFJ's exploring technical wonders, and feeling connected through this. (Ti)

    [Does this sound like the Vulnerable function? Enjoyment? Because I think we can file this one under Suggestive.]

    Yet in real life, no one can ever fulfill this ideal companion, so we tend to just find fault with people who use the opposite perspective. (Ego Clinging, for example, INxJ's think that SP's are a bit too impulsive, IxTP's complain about Fe-types attempting to moderate them, while secretly liking it)

    Since in the typical Beebe order where the eight are evenly divided four and four, the inferior usually falls on the "ego-syntonic" side, where the next four are "ego-dystonic" and negative.

    So Berens includes it with the first three as generally positive, having a negative side, rather than generally negative, having positive side.
    (I want you to read this 7 times over, Suggestive over Vulnerable hands down, you cannot argue this point.

    So the "negative" side of this "aspirational" function she calls "projective"; and often the first aspect of it experienced. We "project our fears, shoulds and negativities onto others". What happens, is that it basically shapes ideals we feel inferior in, which are then projected outward at others by thinking of them as what they "should" do. (Probably where the confusion lay, as the Vulnerable Function and Suggestive function are highly similar, but this is indicative of Duality, as we project other's use of the function as somewhat negative, and attempt to help them by providing a complementary insight from the function on the other side of the axis (ego clinging), if someone is using Se recklessly, help them with Ni and have them think about why they are doing what they are doing)

    In reality, it is all the shadows or unconscious complexes that get projected onto others. Of course, this harmonized with standard four-process theory, where the inferior IS considered to be the whole "shadow". (Definitions of Conscious-Unconscious are different in JCF and Socionics, in JCF, "conscious" functions are the ones that are valued, "unconscious functions" are those which are not (except inf., as it is valued and the "gateway to the unconscious", in Socionics, the functions are valued by what you consciously engage (The Strongest Ego Block information and the Weakest Super-Ego Block information) and what has an unconscious influence on you (The Super-Id, The Id)

    So that is another aspect of the inferior projection besides just the opposite gender stuff (Inferior actually doesn't represent the opposite gender for everyone, it can be different for those who are not heterosexual, but this is still indicative of Dual-Seeking Suggestive).

    We see others as completing us (i.e. we're inferior), but we need to see this completeness in ourselves. We need to become better at what we feel inferior at ourselves, rather than placing demands on others. (This is the epitome of the Suggestive Function, this is another point inarguable, as it completely ruins any kind of basis for Vulnerable = Inferior)

    In the deeper Jungian concept, there is also a whole sense of "libido" or "life-giving energy" we tend to project onto the opposite sex (especially men projecting onto women). When we come to see this in ourselves, we will withdraw the projections, and also again gain more access to the unconscious. The anima/animus then becomes a "sage", and ultimately, an inner source of wisdom. There are two links on the anima below (Donald Kalsched, Paul Watsky) which will provide more information on this. (That speaks for itself, though "the unconscious" here is not talking about the shadow complexes)

    What is trying to be brought into consciousness is the need to own the shadow; what is "not I", the ego-dystonic; and a good place to start is with the [yet ego-syntonic] perspective of the opposite function and orientation together.

    Now, to "the shadow" (The Shadow Complexes), proper.
    "The Shadow" was originally (to Jung) a single archetype that gets projected onto our enemies. In this model, it is of course divided into four distinct roles, shadowing the primary archetypes. (In the older model, it is just the inferior itself. So in this model, the inferior or anima/animus is often called "the bridge" to the unconscious). (And there is our Vulnerable Function)
    Source:From Eric B's beautifully presentation of the Beebe Model, and who is more qualified than the both of us put together.

    Oh, and look, he even did something with Socionics and Beebe's Model

    It has also been outlined in Socionics, by:
    Valued (i.e. primary): (The Valued Functions)
    1, 2 Strong (Lead, Creative)
    3, 4 Weak (Mobilizing, Suggestive)
    Subdued (i.e. shadow): (The unvalued functions)
    5, 6 Strong (Ignoring, Demonstrative)
    7, 8 Weak (Vulnerable, Role)
    [Numbers changed to Beebe's stacking order] (i.e., this is what Socionics would look like if Model A were built to look like the Jungian system.)

    Honestly, you could have done a better correlation explanation by simply saying "Role sounds like something a Trickster would do, and Vulnerable sounds like something dear or close, something that needs protecting" (which of course, aren't the case and are completely fucking wrong).

    Suggestive Dual Seeking = Inferior. Hands Down.

  7. #167
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Yet in real life, no one can ever fulfill this ideal companion, so we tend to just find fault with people who use the opposite perspective. (Ego Clinging, for example, INxJ's think that SP's are a bit too impulsive, IxTP's complain about Fe-types attempting to moderate them, while secretly liking it).
    This description of anima is about Se in INxJs. I am irritated by Se especially when used by people of the same sex whereas admire it in opposite sex (perhaps because I subconsciously want to integrate it into my system thru procreation).

    In MBTI INFJs, Se is the inferior (4th) function.

    In socionics INFjs, Se is in the vulnerable function position. So this should mean vulnerable function in socionics is the anima animus as an archetype as well as the inferior function in MBTI.

    Your error is stemming from thinking that INFJ = INFp in socionics.

    You don't rely on type descriptions. So how do you know that MBTI INFJ = Socionics INFp? Just by dominant function?

    I am telling you. The conversion thing is incorrect. Anything based on that conversion is wrong.

    Show me how the conversion from socionics to MBTI hold true, in simple terminology please.

  8. #168
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    This description of anima is about Se in INxJs. I am irritated by Se especially when used by people of the same sex whereas admire it in opposite sex (perhaps because I subconsciously want to integrate it into my system thru procreation).

    In MBTI INFJs, Se is the inferior (4th) function.

    In socionics INFjs, Se is in the vulnerable function position. So this should mean vulnerable function in socionics is the anima animus as an archetype as well as the inferior function in MBTI.

    Your error is stemming from thinking that INFJ = INFp in socionics.

    You don't rely on type descriptions. So how do you know that MBTI INFJ = Socionics INFp? Just by dominant function?

    I am telling you. The conversion thing is incorrect. Anything based on that conversion is wrong.

    Show me how the conversion from socionics to MBTI hold true, in simple terminology please.
    You didn't read anything about that quotation did you? There is no valid argument for Vulnerable = Inferior except from your own personal experience. That is a fallacy.

    In socionics INFjs, Se is in the vulnerable function position. So this should mean vulnerable function in socionics is the anima animus as an archetype as well as the inferior function in MBTI.
    This, specifically, has no actual reasoning. This is simply you clinging to your warped perceptions. All of the provided evidence I have given you CLEARLY puts Suggestive over Vulnerable for Inferior, yet you choose to cling to the incorrect correlation merely because you "identify" with Se being something that is "vulnerable" instead of what the vulnerable and suggestive functions actually entail. (Oh, look, PoLR Te, you've simply glazed past the evidence for what you specifically believe is right based on how you personally relate instead of what actually is)

    In short, you have no true reasoning nor do you have evidence to back up your argument, all you have is personal identification, and you are wrong. I have more evidence and knowledge than you of the system. All you have is the subjective premise that your assumptions of self and understanding of the system is infallible, whereas I have completely dissociated myself from my understanding of the model and have understood the mechanics of the model as it actually is instead of how I specifically harmonize with it.

    You have absolutely no evidence, basis, or reasoning that is correct to justify INFJ = EII, and you haven't even provided an argument other than "I don't personally relate".

    You are wrong.

    I have provided you with reasonable evidence that undoubtedly points to the correlation. Please show me why that evidence is wrong OBJECTIVELY (without relating to yourself) and post your reasoning for why Inferior = Vulnerable.

  9. #169
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    You didn't read anything about that quotation did you? There is no valid argument for Vulnerable = Inferior except from your own personal experience. That is a fallacy.



    This, specifically, has no actual reasoning. This is simply you clinging to your warped perceptions. All of the provided evidence I have given you CLEARLY puts Suggestive over Vulnerable for Inferior, yet you choose to cling to the incorrect correlation merely because you "identify" with Se being something that is "vulnerable" instead of what the vulnerable and suggestive functions actually entail. (Oh, look, PoLR Te, you've simply glazed past the evidence for what you specifically believe is right based on how you personally relate instead of what actually is)

    In short, you have no true reasoning nor do you have evidence to back up your argument, all you have is personal identification, and you are wrong. I have more evidence and knowledge than you of the system. All you have is the subjective premise that your assumptions of self and understanding of the system is infallible, whereas I have completely dissociated my self from understanding the model and have understood the mechanics of the model as it actually is instead of how I specifically harmonize with it.

    You have absolutely no evidence, basis, or reasoning that is correct to justify INFJ = EII, and you haven't even provided an argument other than "I don't personally relate".

    You are wrong.

    I have provided you with reasonable evidence that undoubtedly points to the correlation. Please show me why that evidence is wrong OBJECTIVELY (without relating to yourself) and post your reasoning for why Inferior = Vulnerable.
    Show me how the conversion from socionics to MBTI hold true, in simple terminology please.

    How do you experience you anima IRL?

  10. #170
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    Show me how the conversion from socionics to MBTI hold true, in simple terminology please.

    How do you experience you anima IRL?
    "In simple terminology"

    Suggestive: Valued in opposite or attracted-to-sex, Positive influence to the lead (with negative overtones when ego clinging), Desirable unconsciously
    Anima/Animus: Valued in opposite or attracted-to-sex, Positive influence to the dominant (with negative overtones when ego clinging), Desirable unconsciously

    Of course, you will refute this because you can't come to terms with the fact that you are wrong.

    My turn:

    Objective Evidence for Vulnerable = Inferior. Now. No personal relation. Give me mechanics and impartial knowledge.

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] The haiku thread...
    By anii in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 01-22-2017, 11:03 PM
  2. The Beer Thread
    By Noel in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 309
    Last Post: 02-03-2010, 12:07 PM
  3. The GHOST thread
    By swordpath in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-14-2008, 08:47 AM
  4. The Hundredth Thread
    By Rajah in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 12:22 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