Ask me Socionics junk

[Jeremy8419]

Can enneagram and socionics be similar.. throwing in instinctual variants?

-_- I already talked about this, goofy lol

 

[Numbly Aware]

-_- I already talked about this, goofy lol

I think you are forgetting something.... I am not goofy.
But, buhh, bbuuhhh, but we didn't talk about enneagram and instinctual variants.... :randy:

Well, then, how about introverts "I" correlate from mbti to socionics? I mean, right? Like which introvert wants to be an extrovert out of the blue? Who the fuck does that...

Okay, okay, I won't push it too much.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I think you are forgetting something.... I am not goofy.
But, buhh, bbuuhhh, but we didn't talk about enneagram and instinctual variants.... :randy:

Well, then, how about introverts "I" correlate from mbti to socionics? I mean, right? Like which introvert wants to be an extrovert out of the blue? Who the fuck does that...

Okay, okay, I won't push it too much.

Well, what you type yourself and other people as has no bearing on what other people type you and themselves. Realistically speaking, the best way for two individuals to get an accurate view of themselves is to have both of them type both of them, as they see it, then have a 3rd, objective, party do the same for them. By doing so, they can bridge their different views into appropriate and healthy communication channels. This is basically what couples therapy is, minus the technical typology lingo.

For enneagram, if you utilize the cores and tritypes as your own subjective representation of translation of the elements into enneagram language, then you may use the instinctuals as your own subjective representation of the translation of the functions into enneagram language. So correlates most closely with Ego, Sp correlates most closely with Super-Ego, and Sx crrelates most closely with Super-Id. You may use the counter/contra flows to determine if they are going in the correct/healthy flow of their psyche.

 

[Numbly Aware]

Well, what you type yourself and other people as has no bearing on what other people type you and themselves. Realistically speaking, the best way for two individuals to get an accurate view of themselves is to have both of them type both of them, as they see it, then have a 3rd, objective, party do the same for them. By doing so, they can bridge their different views into appropriate and healthy communication channels. This is basically what couples therapy is, minus the technical typology lingo.

Why can't it be one individual?

For enneagram, if you utilize the cores and tritypes as your own subjective representation of translation of the elements into enneagram language, then you may use the instinctuals as your own subjective representation of the translation of the functions into enneagram language. So correlates most closely with Ego, Sp correlates most closely with Super-Ego, and Sx crrelates most closely with Super-Id. You may use the counter/contra flows to determine if they are going in the correct/healthy flow of their psyche.

What is that? I meant socionics and enneagram... CAN WE USE THEIR FEARS???? I get twisted when I throw in instinctual variants.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Why can't it be one individual?

Because that's idiosyncratic. I may view myself as EII and my spouse as LSE, which has one implication, but she may see us as SEE and LSI, which has a completely different implication. The 3rd party is, hopefully, unbiased and can give a more objective impression.

What is that? I meant socionics and enneagram... CAN WE USE THEIR FEARS???? I get twisted when I throw in instinctual variants.

You could attempt to use fears, if you want. Conscious fears in Socionics are in the Vulnerable function. The variants apply a different dimension other than the base elements when using the cores to elements translations, which allows you to apply a version of the Situation parameter, which is necessary for a true Socionics type.

 

[Jeremy8419]

[MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] figured out the basics yet?

 

[Kierva]

You could attempt to use fears, if you want. Conscious fears in Socionics are in the Vulnerable function. The variants apply a different dimension other than the base elements when using the cores to elements translations, which allows you to apply a version of the Situation parameter, which is necessary for a true Socionics type.

How viable is it to type via PoLR functions?

 

[Jeremy8419]

How viable is it to type via PoLR functions?

According to System School of Socionics, typing by your 1D and 2D functions (PoLR and Role) are the easiest means to type by. Part of the main reason for this is that everyone has at least the 1D of each element, and over 50% of the population will have at least 2D of each element, so the Experience and Norms parameters of each element are widely known and observable. By contrast, the Leading and Demonstrative functions are beyond the conception of the majority of the population, because only 1/16th of the population even has the version of the element as Leading to even experience what is attempted to be described. In example, ESE has 4D Fe+ as leading, yet categorization and classification is Ti and is 1D and preconscious in ESE, so the information on what 4D Fe+ Leading is like is going to be trivial, at best, compared to, say, the 4D Ne+ Leading and 3D Ti- Creative of ILE. This is in contrast to the PoLR, which 1D and contains what at least all types have. Also, the seat of neurosis in a Type is housed in the PoLR. In example, mine is Se-, or in laymen's terms, "Attack." As such, other people's blood bothers me (not my own), I'm highly opposed to graphic violence and mutilation (especially sadistic horror shows), terrified of hurting others, have trypophobia because it reminds me of wounds, turn into a robot (psyche shuts down) if forced into a physical confrontation and then cry to myself later that I hurt someone, feel like a giant walking tip-toeing around flowers (metaphor for weak people), only casually date people because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, etc.