Socionics Video Questionnaire - Find out your Socionics Type

[valaki]

[MENTION=5759]edchidna1000[/MENTION]

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

I do get what you mean there, but my point is, it's the same issue with socionics/MBTI, why stop at X number of dichotomies. The same issue as to why there are 9 fears, why not more or less. Do you disagree and if so why?

Btw I kind of liked this for giving a structure to enneagram: link

And there was a Karen Horney article that also did add some structure to it... this one

 

[WorldSocionics]

[MENTION=5759]edchidna1000[/MENTION]

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

I do get what you mean there, but my point is, it's the same issue with socionics/MBTI, why stop at X number of dichotomies. The same issue as to why there are 9 fears, why not more or less. Do you disagree and if so why?

Btw I kind of liked this for giving a structure to enneagram: link

And there was a Karen Horney article that also did add some structure to it... this one

I'd like to see exactly what university or institution oversaw these serotonin and dopamine experiments...

There is no strong reason why we need to stop at X dichotomies... in fact there are more dichotomies than I have mentioned, they've just been a bit iffy and debatable.

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

With Enneagram it's far more at risk... all I have to do is come up with a 10th fear/desire and I've messed up the system. Hmm... let's see... a fear of being misunderstood... a fear of commitment... a fear of hairy things... etc.

Odd, they're saying that 1 is aggressive? It's meant to be 7.

 

[valaki]

I'd like to see exactly what university or institution oversaw these serotonin and dopamine experiments...

I think it's speculation really, the point for me here was giving a structure to the theory - and it does that even if the underlying reason/cause may not be as neat as this theory about the neurotransmitters. And, as for such underlying reasons, socionics or MBTI fares no better

There is no strong reason why we need to stop at X dichotomies... in fact there are more dichotomies than I have mentioned, they've just been a bit iffy and debatable.

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

I don't see how it being classification of information makes it harder to create a new dichotomy

Anyway sure, if you thought of such a new dichotomy, don't keep it to yourself by any means.

With Enneagram it's far more at risk... all I have to do is come up with a 10th fear/desire and I've messed up the system. Hmm... let's see... a fear of being misunderstood... a fear of commitment... a fear of hairy things... etc.

Fear of hairy things? Doesn't seem like a real deep thing, it's just a phobia. The other two are already handled by enneagram, no?

But sure, it could be messed up, but I don't see it would be easier to mess it up than with MBTI/socionics

Odd, they're saying that 1 is aggressive? It's meant to be 7.

aggressive there means "moving against the world", not assertive triad, I guess it makes a difference?

 

[WorldSocionics]

I think it's speculation really, the point for me here was giving a structure to the theory - and it does that even if the underlying reason/cause may not be as neat as this theory about the neurotransmitters. And, as for such underlying reasons, socionics or MBTI fares no better

I wouldn't say it gives a structure so much as perceives patterns based on empirical observations. Nothing about your the enneatypes can be defined in terms of chemical compositions.

I don't see how it being classification of information makes it harder to create a new dichotomy

Because there are fewer ways in which information can vary compared to how we can vary.

Fear of hairy things? Doesn't seem like a real deep thing, it's just a phobia. The other two are already handled by enneagram, no?

The last one was a tad facetious but if the former two could be explained by the other enneatypes, then we could go the other way... explaining 7 as just being the same as 8... why is a fear of being controlled not the same as a fear of being deprived? I wouldn't say that it is nearly as easy to do this with Jungian typology because the opposites are clearly shown to be opposites.

aggressive there means "moving against the world", not assertive triad, I guess it makes a difference?

Meh

 

[valaki]

I wouldn't say it gives a structure so much as perceives patterns based on empirical observations. Nothing about your the enneatypes can be defined in terms of chemical compositions.

It's as much of a structure as the structure in Socionics. It's no worse in any aspect whatsoever but if you disagree, do let me know why/how.

(Btw when I say structure of enneagram I do mean some more things than just the things at the two links I've given. It sort of has its own model, which isn't model A, but is something)

Because there are fewer ways in which information can vary compared to how we can vary.

Why would you think there is fewer ways for that?

The last one was a tad facetious but if the former two could be explained by the other enneatypes, then we could go the other way... explaining 7 as just being the same as 8... why is a fear of being controlled not the same as a fear of being deprived? I wouldn't say that it is nearly as easy to do this with Jungian typology because the opposites are clearly shown to be opposites.

Ok, 7 vs 8 aren't opposites like dichotomies are but it doesn't mean you can blend them together like that. You can break down these fears "of being controlled" and "of being deprived" into simpler components and those can be set against each other.

There is also the same issue with jungian functions (I mean same as with enneagram fears), they are not just single dichotomies but are built up from them and then a lot of things got added to the concepts of the functions in that process.

Meh

Do you like the article?

 

[011235813]

Hey [MENTION=13147]senza tema[/MENTION]

I can see a typical Receptive-Adaptive temperament from how you sit. You seem relaxed, comfortable just sitting there.

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.

This suggests an IP type with high Si and Ti.

You gave a long answer to your ideal space and spoke with conviction on what makes the physical surroundings feel right to you, indicating someone who has strong, valued Si.

You seem to have Fe as a vulnerable function, really hating your college induction sensation. Such an environment is all about displaying hype and excitement in a way that seems undeserved to an Fe-vulnerable and an unproductive waste of time to someone who values Te. Indeed, you have been called a killjoy by your friends, not being enthusiastic just because the group are and instead assessing things by whether they seem useful or 'dumb'. You also say you are weak at public speaking, disliking having to present yourself to others in a certain way and affect how they feel.

Despite this, you are book smart. You seem to be a hard worker and good with being well-informed on topics, dealing with factual information successfully. This seems to ring true to someone with Te in the Ego block.

You do refer to the importance of your feelings from time to time, also indicating a valuing of Fi, probably as a Mobilising function.

Overall, I'd say this makes you an SLI. I think this is the most likely type for you although it is possible that you are another Delta Introvert, maybe EII.

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/SLI-ISTp/
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ile-by-Gulenko
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...STp-by-Beskova

Heh. Only the first link works.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[OrangeAppled]

Well, if you put it that way, I probably misinterpreted.

I originally saw you as some kind of misanthropic, IEE. Very much absorbed in what they wanted and not caring too much about others except for inconsistent feelings of empathy. A bit like my sister actually.

But from the way you describe yourself now, I'm inclined to look at things from another perspective...

I thought misanthropic IEE was FiNe . I'm not seeing myself that way...

You say you spend a lot of time thinking and daydreaming, being disinterested in your dealings with people.

This suggests a focus on Ni and a rejection of Fe.

I agree with rejection of Fe...

From what you have described here, I would not say EII though. They tend to be good at one-on-one conversations with people, being good at saying the right thing at the right time and fostering good relationships with others. They would rarely be cold towards a person unless they thought they were speaking to a bad person who deserved the cold shoulder.

That's what I said. I do one-on-one conversation okay. I don't "say the right thing at the right time" in a Fe way where it's all the polite protocol. Rather, I seek to understand someone & often say the things others will not. I'm not sure you read my whole giant post now... friends/family come to me a lot for emotional venting, comfort & advice. I doubt if I was cold that they would do that.

I don't "give the cold shoulder", I'm just absent-minded & reserved.

You seem to be someone who does have a fixation on Fi as maybe a Mobilising function i.e. trying to do what they feel is right and staying true to their feelings but having such weak Fe that they just come across as cold to others.

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

I'm starting to suspect socionics was created by an ENTP or something. The grasp of Fi is so bad. There is no Jungian Fi equivalent in socionics, which is why I find it hard to type.

You might have weak Se too, being unable to just go out and do things but being stuck in your head all the time, needing a volitional push from others.

This would all point to ILI...

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

 

[sworm09]

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.

 

[Dr Mobius]

Probably Ne-leading. I'd rather wait until you get a webcam though. I'm looking forward to your video.

Fair enough I suppose the Ne is a tad obvious ; I’ll respond when I can, don’t expect it to be any time soon though.

 

[WorldSocionics]

It's as much of a structure as the structure in Socionics. It's no worse in any aspect whatsoever but if you disagree, do let me know why/how.

It's an accidental structure because it's based on an observed correlation that may or may not be a causation. The structure of Socionics is intrinsic to its make-up i.e. derived throughout from its axioms with the meaning of each part being explained from its structure.

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

(Btw when I say structure of enneagram I do mean some more things than just the things at the two links I've given. It sort of has its own model, which isn't model A, but is something)

There is a model to the Enneagram, namely, the Enneagram itself, the 9 pointed star. This is a structure although one may wonder why it's derived the way it is. Why does a 7 grow to 5 and disintegrate to 1? I can't see any explanation from the site. I might be wrong, in which case I would like to hear these explanations.

Why would you think there is fewer ways for that?

Because information is a more basic thing than a person or physical object. We can say it's either abstract or concrete, objective or personal etc. but how else can we really classify information in such a fundamental way? I'm not talking about arbitrary classifications like distinguishing blue information from ticklish information. Now a person gets up to all sorts of things, there are lots of things a person can do or be that we can use to classify them.

Do you like the article?

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

 

[WorldSocionics]

Heh. Only the first link works.

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

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

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

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

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

I might very well have done. I was also considering EII, which could be a better fit.

Well from this you sound pretty Ethical>Logical.

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

I would say that the SLI profile is a bit funny... I'll try adding the other two again...
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/281-ISTp-The-Craftsman-profile-by-Gulenko
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/94-Gabin-Female-portrait-ISTp-by-Beskova

 

[WorldSocionics]

Heh. Only the first link works.

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

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

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

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

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

I might very well have done. I was also considering EII, which could be a better fit.

Well from this you sound pretty Ethical>Logical.

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

I would say that the SLI profile is a bit funny... I'll try adding the other two again...
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/281-ISTp-The-Craftsman-profile-by-Gulenko
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/94-Gabin-Female-portrait-ISTp-by-Beskova

 

[WorldSocionics]

I thought misanthropic IEE was FiNe . I'm not seeing myself that way...

Oh no, FiNe or EII wouldn't be very misanthropic. They're very much about doing the 'right' thing, being pretty strict with themselves about doing good, moral things for people and seeing the best in others.

That's what I said. I do one-on-one conversation okay. I don't "say the right thing at the right time" in a Fe way where it's all the polite protocol. Rather, I seek to understand someone & often say the things others will not. I'm not sure you read my whole giant post now... friends/family come to me a lot for emotional venting, comfort & advice. I doubt if I was cold that they would do that.

Ok, so it's fair to say you are good at interaction with small groups, being sympathetic to people with their problems and helping them but being a bit unresponsive to big group activity? I can at least say that you're probably a Serious (Fi-valuing) Introvert, so either an Fi-lead (IxFj) or Fi-mobilising (IxTp).

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

I'm starting to suspect socionics was created by an ENTP or something. The grasp of Fi is so bad. There is no Jungian Fi equivalent in socionics, which is why I find it hard to type.

Haha, well an ILE (ENTp) DID create the system.

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

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

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

Ok, this does sound Intuitive Ethical. Weak Te.

How are you with forceful coercion from others? Is this the 'push' you need or something you react badly to?

 

[garbage]

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

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

 

[garbage]

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

I do get what you mean there, but my point is, it's the same issue with socionics/MBTI, why stop at X number of dichotomies. The same issue as to why there are 9 fears, why not more or less. Do you disagree and if so why?

There is no strong reason why we need to stop at X dichotomies... in fact there are more dichotomies than I have mentioned, they've just been a bit iffy and debatable.

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

With Enneagram it's far more at risk... all I have to do is come up with a 10th fear/desire and I've messed up the system. Hmm... let's see... a fear of being misunderstood... a fear of commitment... a fear of hairy things... etc.

I'll expound, because why not

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

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


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

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

 

[011235813]

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

I do both, however, the first predominates over the second by far. I'm not a misanthrope by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't believe that the unworthy deserve my care or attention. I do evaluate people in terms of how I feel about them and keep my distance from those whom I dislike or distrust. "Bad people" sounds a bit cartoonish, but yeah, I have definitely done my best to keep away from people whose behavior and actions I find distasteful. Continuing to remain in their company is difficult for me because my distaste colors everything about the situation and I have a hard time hiding it.

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

 

[valaki]

It's an accidental structure because it's based on an observed correlation that may or may not be a causation. The structure of Socionics is intrinsic to its make-up i.e. derived throughout from its axioms with the meaning of each part being explained from its structure.

I actually prefer Enneagram in terms of that. I mean, if Socionics axioms were less unfounded, more closely connected to reality in a way, then I would be fine with a derived system from such axioms.

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

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

Socionics has similar jumps in logic.

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

There is a model to the Enneagram, namely, the Enneagram itself, the 9 pointed star. This is a structure although one may wonder why it's derived the way it is. Why does a 7 grow to 5 and disintegrate to 1? I can't see any explanation from the site. I might be wrong, in which case I would like to hear these explanations.

I have never seen an explanation for that one, it just seems to build on common sense logic or something. Not that Socionics does not make that mistake in places. (It does.)

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

Because information is a more basic thing than a person or physical object. We can say it's either abstract or concrete, objective or personal etc. but how else can we really classify information in such a fundamental way? I'm not talking about arbitrary classifications like distinguishing blue information from ticklish information. Now a person gets up to all sorts of things, there are lots of things a person can do or be that we can use to classify them.

I see a problem here. When you attempt to classify information as e.g. objective or personal, it will no longer be just direct low level analysis of information in a basic sense but it will be involving higher level concepts that relate more to the complex workings of a person. We might as well start classifying information in the same complex way as we classify people etc.

That's actually an issue I have with Socionics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet, none of it makes sense to me.

Not the MBTI one either

I'll expound, because why not

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

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

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

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

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

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

You could still add more types without changing the currently existing integration/disintegration lines, just make a new group of the new types... like 3-6-9 is a separate group from the other 6 types.

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

 

[valaki]

How are you with forceful coercion from others? Is this the 'push' you need or something you react badly to?

Does anyone want "forceful coercion" from others? Why don't we stick with reality here?

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

 

[011235813]

Does anyone want "forceful coercion" from others? Why don't we stick with reality here?

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

I think he probably means something like tough love when he says forceful coercion, maybe? Some people thrive with tough love and others wilt under the pressure.

 

[valaki]

I think he probably means something like tough love when he says forceful coercion, maybe? Some people thrive with tough love and others wilt under the pressure.

Umm sure maybe it's that... [MENTION=5759]edchidna1000[/MENTION] can let us know

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