User Tag List

First 123

Results 21 to 30 of 30

  1. #21
    Member whateverr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meowcat View Post
    Why isn't Pe gathering collective facts/concepts, and Pi gathering facts/concepts viewed by the self? It makes no sense to stick "organising" on Pi if Pe was "gathering" (i.e. perceiving), with Je and Ji there is consistency that they are both about values/reasons (i.e. judging) with E being collective oriented and I being self-oriented.
    And now I'll add what I thought. Tough competitiveness (and especially social status oriented competitiveness) is Te in mbti but Se in socionics? How the fuck does that work?
    About the 1st paragraph of the quote, it could be a way. But it would still be, instead of a more "mindless gathering" approach, it's more directed to how it makes sense with your subjectiveness. Kinda like the same thing in different words. But i rather use organizing in the nomenclature because it is portrays a more clear distinction between the two in my pov.
    Se= Fire exists
    Si= Fire burns me

    E is gathering the sensory, I organizes it. Perception is not simply a "taking in the world" activity, may i add. Is also about putting what you take in into perspective.

    About the second paragraph, i would advise not to correlate functions with adjectives. I find it is a common way to shoot yourself in the foot. "Competitiveness" could happen for a bunch of reasons. Don't associate it with functions. Otherwise, the next time you see a competitive guy, you will put him in a box, instead of trying to figure out why he would do such a thing. Maybe he is competitive because he hates the idea of being undervalued. That's Fe. Maybe he hates the idea of his actions not being as functions as he thought they would be (Ti). Maybe there is a secret and unconscious social status undertone to the Ti competitive. That would actually be, Ti dom with inf Fe behavior, IxTP. Look for the why in the action, not the action it self. Anyone can do anything in any situation. Yet they chose to do this. Why did they choose to act the way they did? That's where the money is. What drives them to act, instead of what the action was by itself.
    Be careful with that.
    8w9 7w8 3w4

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whateverr View Post
    About the 1st paragraph of the quote, it could be a way. But it would still be, instead of a more "mindless gathering" approach, it's more directed to how it makes sense with your subjectiveness. Kinda like the same thing in different words. But i rather use organizing in the nomenclature because it is portrays a more clear distinction between the two in my pov.
    Se= Fire exists
    Si= Fire burns me

    E is gathering the sensory, I organizes it. Perception is not simply a "taking in the world" activity, may i add. Is also about putting what you take in into perspective.
    As for your last couple sentences I agree yeah, but organisation makes me think of intentional ordering and direction that only J functions are supposed to have so hardly just a perspective seen in a perception. Perception to me seems pretty much "mindless gathering", because it does not have a direction. (You can tell how I am all about direction, lol)


    About the second paragraph, i would advise not to correlate functions with adjectives. I find it is a common way to shoot yourself in the foot. "Competitiveness" could happen for a bunch of reasons. Don't associate it with functions. Otherwise, the next time you see a competitive guy, you will put him in a box, instead of trying to figure out why he would do such a thing. Maybe he is competitive because he hates the idea of being undervalued. That's Fe. Maybe he hates the idea of his actions not being as functions as he thought they would be (Ti). Maybe there is a secret and unconscious social status undertone to the Ti competitive. That would actually be, Ti dom with inf Fe behavior, IxTP. Look for the why in the action, not the action it self. Anyone can do anything in any situation. Yet they chose to do this. Why did they choose to act the way they did? That's where the money is. What drives them to act, instead of what the action was by itself.
    Be careful with that.
    If you notice, I emphasised the motivation: social status. This in MBTI is said to be Te, but Se in Socionics.

  3. #23
    Solivagant Aerix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    4,915

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meowcat View Post
    And now I'll add what I thought. Tough competitiveness (and especially social status oriented competitiveness) is Te in mbti but Se in socionics? How the fuck does that work?
    Aushra Augustinavichute decided to create the coalescence of Carl Jung's work and Information Metabolism Theory by Antoni Kempinski. Unlike this system, the MBTI does not include Information Metabolism Theory, it's just Jung and then all the things Myers' and Briggs' did with Jung's work. The end result? A system that is different, but similar enough to trick everybody who doesn't read enough about it to realize it. There are some similarities, but they are still rather different on a literally foundational level. Socionics deals with information exchange between someone (something). Socionics has blocks.

    Socionics Si is also about things like comfort, but Se in Socionics is about things like force. They are designed to be opposites of each other within the same system instead of being designed to be an exact replica of a completely separate system, so them being different than MBTI cognitive functions is not bizarre.

    See more differences here:
    Model of the Type of Information Metabolism (TIM) | School of System Socionics

    If you want my opinion though, this shit doesn't make sense from the very start. Why did someone bother to waste their time combining two theories that are unsupported by scientific evidence when either one, or both, may be entirely false or even just partially false and send the entire system crumbling down? Shouldn't they have solidified the foundations they were building on first? What, now you have to try to hope to just somehow get lucky and have both of them AND your new pretzel theory proven? Or was it all just intended to be one big nerd fest to pass the time anyway? As for MBTI...why did people decide to make incomplete work easily accessible by the public? Issues within the typology community are explained.
    馃櫉 饾敨饾敩饾敟饾敒饾敮饾敠 馃櫇
    -路- 路- -路路 --- - 路-
    Likes Red Memories liked this post

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hexcoder View Post
    Aushra Augustinavichute decided to create the coalescence of Carl Jung's work and Information Metabolism Theory by Antoni Kempinski. Unlike this system, the MBTI does not include Information Metabolism Theory, it's just Jung and then all the things Myers' and Briggs' did with Jung's work. The end result? A system that is different, but similar enough to trick everybody who doesn't read enough about it to realize it. There are some similarities, but they are still rather different on a literally foundational level. Socionics deals with information exchange between someone (something). Socionics has blocks.

    Socionics Si is also about things like comfort, but Se in Socionics is about things like force. They are designed to be opposites of each other within the same system instead of being designed to be an exact replica of a completely separate system, so them being different than MBTI cognitive functions is not bizarre.

    See more differences here:
    Model of the Type of Information Metabolism (TIM) | School of System Socionics

    If you want my opinion though, this shit doesn't make sense from the very start. Why did someone bother to waste their time combining two theories that are unsupported by scientific evidence when either one, or both, may be entirely false or even just partially false and send the entire system crumbling down? Shouldn't they have solidified the foundations they were building on first? What, now you have to try to hope to just somehow get lucky and have both of them AND your new pretzel theory proven? Or was it all just intended to be one big nerd fest to pass the time anyway? As for MBTI...why did people decide to make incomplete work easily accessible by the public? Issues within the typology community are explained.
    Thanks for the reply/input. I figure they picked the parts of the two systems that made sense to them, so it's not necessarily like just taking the two systems as is, but creating a new one and it can be better just fine. But I'm not saying Socionics is better than Jung or Kempinski, I'm just saying that technically this is also a possibility. I don't really see how they would be supposed to solidify Jung's system or the other system: it would already be a new system at that point. And likely that was their goal with building the Socionics system.

    But yeah, it seems like navel gazing beyond a point. My original question was about how it doesn't make sense to me to take one thing (competitiveness of a type/motivation) and completely re-label it in another system. Makes it look like the reasoning behind is completely arbitrary. And not just solidifying or fixing an existing system. Even if that may have been the original goal. ...

    I didn't understand your last sentence, sorry. Any typo there, or?

  5. #25
    Solivagant Aerix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    4,915

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meowcat View Post
    Thanks for the reply/input. I figure they picked the parts of the two systems that made sense to them, so it's not necessarily like just taking the two systems as is, but creating a new one and it can be better just fine. But I'm not saying Socionics is better than Jung or Kemfpinski, I'm just saying that technically this is also a possibility. I don't really see how they would be supposed to solidify Jung's system or the other system: it would already be a new system at that point. And likely that was their goal with building the Socionics system.

    But yeah, it seems like navel gazing beyond a point. My original question was about how it doesn't make sense to me to take one thing (competitiveness of a type/motivation) and completely re-label it in another system. Makes it look like the reasoning behind is completely arbitrary. And not just solidifying or fixing an existing system. Even if that may have been the original goal. ...

    I didn't understand your last sentence, sorry. Any typo there, or?
    Hmm, I wasn't saying it'd solidify Jung's system, quite opposite...building a new system out of a system that isn't solid gives you a new system that is just as lacking in solidity. As for "socionics being a new system..." it's really not though, lol. It's close enough for the originals to have to be true in order for Socionics to be true. If someone disproved one of those guys' work it'd make the Socionics system crumble apart.

    Personally, I don't like Socionics. I see it as too restricting. Like why are those the only PoLRs? What if mine isn't any of the ones on the list? What if I don't relate to any of the information metabolism elements as they are in the 1st position of the ego block and I only start relating to any of them at position 3, in the Super-ego block, which is lower dimensional? What if I relate more to something like Si in position 1 and Ti in position 2, both of which would be in the Ego Block, and I can't relate well to my options to have both of those as 4D/high-dimensional in the system because I relate less to both Ne and Fe than those two?

    bUt ThaT'S aGAiNsT tHe sOcIOniCs SyStEm's rUUuLeS bECaUsE--
    The division of information metabolism into two phases is loosely based on the analysis of the orienting response. Information metabolism is initiated by the perception of a change in the internal or external environment of the organism. In the first phase, the organism seeks to obtain direct information about the perceived phenomenon. Because of that, it must turn its attention 'outside' to the reality. The perceived phenomenon is then subconsciously evaluated.
    Yes. Exactly though. It's against the rules...and why shouldn't it be? What evidence suggests that there is an extroverted IE and an introverted IE (Information Metabolism Element--those things most people call "functions") in the Ego Block? Why can't someone have two introverted IEs or two extroverted IEs other than bECaUsE sOcIOniCs sAYs sO? What science supports this nomothetic theory? Oh, right...nothing, because it's only derived from yet more psychological theories that are unsupported by empirical data. My views on this are probably only unpopular because people find it fun to dig around and play with the puzzle so they'd like to believe they have a type.

  6. #26
    Solivagant Aerix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    4,915

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meowcat View Post
    I didn't understand your last sentence, sorry. Any typo there, or?
    No, I just didn't fully write out my thoughts and said things in a way that required dots to be connected between the two last sentences.

    Issues within the typology community are explained by the fact that people decided to make incomplete work easily accessible by the public. That's why everyone is arguing about definitions and other information within the nomothetic theories. The Big 5 is backed up the most, but nobody ever even uses it.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hexcoder View Post
    Hmm, I wasn't saying it'd solidify Jung's system, quite opposite...building a new system out of a system that isn't solid gives you a new system that is just as lacking in solidity.
    Yeah I wasn't saying you were saying that. But where I was said something different from you is that the new system can be more solid, depending of course. I'm not saying Socionics is more solid, just that in general it is entirely possible. Since the new system is reorganised compared to the old and has new elements, and all that can be more solid. It's not like just copypasting the old system(s).


    As for "socionics being a new system..." it's really not though, lol. It's close enough for the originals to have to be true in order for Socionics to be true. If someone disproved one of those guys' work it'd make the Socionics system crumble apart.
    Tbh I see Socionics as having gone so far from the original that I don't see them as closely connected any more beyond a point.

    But as far as they are still connected - If some things in the originals are refuted that Socionics did not copy "as is", but enough fundamentals are not disproven, then Socionics can still be true (technically - if you go on with my post you can see I'm not claiming that Socionics must be true whatsoever, as it is really not proven as it is now), but if those fundamentals that Socionics took out of these theories are disproven, then yes Socionics will be disproven too.


    Personally, I don't like Socionics. I see it as too restricting. Like why are those the only PoLRs? What if mine isn't any of the ones on the list? What if I don't relate to any of the information metabolism elements as they are in the 1st position of the ego block and I only start relating to any of them at position 3, in the Super-ego block, which is lower dimensional? What if I relate more to something like Si in position 1 and Ti in position 2, both of which would be in the Ego Block, and I can't relate well to my options to have both of those as 4D/high-dimensional in the system because I relate less to both Ne and Fe than those two?
    I do think it's a big rabbithole at first sight. I know that's disregarding OP, heh sorry to OP.


    bUt ThaT'S aGAiNsT tHe sOcIOniCs SyStEm's rUUuLeS bECaUsE--

    Yes. Exactly though. It's against the rules...and why shouldn't it be? What evidence suggests that there is an extroverted IE and an introverted IE (Information Metabolism Element--those things most people call "functions") in the Ego Block? Why can't someone have two introverted IEs or two extroverted IEs other than bECaUsE sOcIOniCs sAYs sO? What science supports this nomothetic theory? Oh, right...nothing, because it's only derived from yet more psychological theories that are unsupported by empirical data. My views on this are probably only unpopular because people find it fun to dig around and play with the puzzle so they'd like to believe they have a type.
    Afaik Ego block is the ego block not simply because the ego IEs or functions or whatever are strong but because the processing of them is also conscious and not just its results.

    This wasn't part of Jung, or Kempinski, otoh it is hard to prove as it is now. It's not delineated properly, the above idea. So, it's a theory where you can explain anything with any reasoning - unfalsifiable.



    Quote Originally Posted by Hexcoder View Post
    No, I just didn't fully write out my thoughts and said things in a way that required dots to be connected between the two last sentences.

    Issues within the typology community are explained by the fact that people decided to make incomplete work easily accessible by the public. That's why everyone is arguing about definitions and other information within the nomothetic theories. The Big 5 is backed up the most, but nobody ever even uses it.
    Ah gotcha. As for incompleteness...A scientific theory is never complete. I think the issues here are explained by how the theories become unfalsifiable rabbitholes if you go too deep in them. The function dichotomies (the "letters") correlate with Big 5 pretty neatly though.

    ... But then Socionics takes that, and changes the related reasoning completely even for such fundamentals. (Hence my original issue I brought up in the thread)
    Likes Aerix liked this post

  8. #28
    Talk to me. Merced's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    285 so/sp
    Posts
    3,176

    Default

    Reviving this thread too while I'm at it.

    I view MBTI and Enneagram as self improvement tools, how could Socionics be used in a fashion that can't be done through its counterparts?

  9. #29
    AMAB chickpea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,421

    Default

    socionics seems like something i would love, and i have tried so hard to get into it for many years and it just never sticks. i still don't really understand why the functions are different and don't translate between systems, despite being inspired by the same source material and called the same thing.

    the filatova portraits are fantastic though
    Likes Red Memories liked this post

  10. #30
    Tied to a f@$king couch Tactical Turtleneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sp/sx
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    16,726

    Default

    I can鈥檛 get into it. Something about it is 鈥渢hin鈥 to me; vague definitions and fake technobabble under a veneer of science.

    It doesn鈥檛 help that the online communities just feel like glorified dating sites.


    Enneagram and big 5 all the way
    RCOAI 9w8 sp/sx INTP

    Anarchocapitalists aren鈥檛 anarchists; they鈥檙e capitalists opposed to regulatory oversight. So, standard capitalists. In case you were wondering.
    Likes Merced, RadicalDoubt liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Free agent: Sell me on your region of the United States.
    By Tiger Owl in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-25-2017, 10:18 AM
  2. INTP on MBTI, INTJ on Socionics?
    By Triglav in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-03-2009, 08:31 PM
  3. Please to welcoming me on forum?
    By Meatbot in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-25-2008, 03:23 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