Socionics Personals
Female
Straight
16-25
Asia
Aries
INTp
Male
Straight
16-25
Eastern Europe
Scorpio
INFj
Female
Straight
26-35
South America
Scorpio
INFj
Join now!


Electromagnetism and Socionics
by Sergei Ganin

I would like to set and explore another perspective for looking at some things in Socionics - Feeling function in particular. And I would like to do so by involving something as irrelevant to Socionics as Electromagnetism.

What is Electromagnetism? Electromagnetism is a fascinating phenomenon. An ...
Bookmark and Share

Your Comments: 1+
C1 Fantastic analogy. I find aggressive or overbearing people to be extremely energy draining. There people tend to have little emotional sensitivity. Around them at work is hard going even when their not really doing or saying anything. Also I notice this more so over the years as I have developed my inferior feeling more so I no doubt give off less of an 'aura' myself but sense it more off others? -- ISTp
C2 I can completely identify with this. I had a friend who complemented me, and there was definite, measurable energy flow between us - we both felt it. -- RA
C3 I like the concept, but I can't find good examples for myself. I as an infj feel emotionally drained by several ppl: 1) people who are merely consumers and try to have fun all the time "Hey, let's go dancing, I know we just been yesterday, but..." 2) ppl who immerse into their work that they seem to disappear, no word is spoken. I can't ignore it, it bothers and confuses me. 3) ppl who are manipulative in a selfish, controlling way. people who merely note the things they themselves like to see and surpress others moods. As a contrast: I like being manipulated to be optimistic, I love a cheery nudge every now and then, but I have the feeling I seldom can give something back, because everyone seems a step ahead with their positive vibes. I am sorry that I can't put those ppl into type context. I am too new. -- Anonymous
C4 Isn't this way over-complicating a very simple phenomenon? Your "currents" in the area of ethics- are better known as "information". You're describing information metabolism, i.e. the entirety of Socionics. Allow me to provide a specific example from your text: "Your internal emotional state, your subjective feelings will create an emotional energy field around you (like a magnetic field) whether you want it or not." That field is your emotional state; people will perceive it to different degrees/different aspects depending on their personality types. So yes, true. Your emotional state will be perceived by others. As will your physical state and your mental state. You would draw the attention of an Si-leading type by being really dehydrated or starved, for example. This article doesn't seem to serve any insightful or expansive purposes-it's just a metaphor for understanding ethical functions. And a poor metaphor for specifying ethics, as it also applies to the other 6 functions. -- Jay Bop
Moderator's comment
Don't expect you to understand, but consider this example... A nervous person can easily make other people around nervous as well, without even saying a word, but hungry person is not going to make anyone around hungry, is it?
C5 Re: Moderator's comment I'm not sure how much that has to do with Socionics as opposed to human nature and biology ...but if one were to apply Socionics theory to biological reactions then I would re-state my thesis that people are perceiving your states to varying degrees. If you're nervous, others around you will pick up that you're nervous (which is a sympathetic reaction, I don't think it's really attributable to Socionics as much as biology- but if it were, it would be an ethical perception) and they will become nervous/anxious due to uncertainty (not knowing why you're nervous). Obviously since someone being hungry isn't an uncertain state (you know why they're hungry: they haven't eaten), it's not really applicable. People will pick up on that state and offer help, but the food in their stomachs won't dissolve or vanish. I think, at best, this article re-explains sympathetic reactions in psychology. But it's pretty far from "the new perspective for looking at things". Especially Socionics. -- Jay Bop
C6 Even if you're right and all this article does is re-explains sympathetic reactions, looking at it from the point of physics and electromagnetism in particular is not a new perspective? Have we been negative for the sake of being negative? -- Moderator
C7 I guess I just expected it to be worth reading ... -- Jay Bop
C8 You can't make everyone happy these days -- Moderator
C9 IEE got an interesting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_theory_(psychology) -- TK
C10 c9, funky. I suppose that could also cover mass hysteria, that sort of thing. Or mass.... hypnosis perhaps the correct expression, like the Germans all going all out mad swept up in Hitler Euphoria in the 30's and 40's. Also given nature of the human - for instance take a group of people and produce a yellow object, if everyone says it's red, when it gets to unsuspecting person, they are likely to say it's red too even although they think it's yellow, just to fit in. I suppose this is what happens when we are in the midst of a socionic emotional 'field'. Thank you for your link. -- ISTP
C11 Can you please elaborate on this: "Apparently the stronger the emotional field you can generate the less your emotional sensitivity." So people who are extremely sensitive to the emotional state of others (I'm thinking NFs) aren't capable of generating a strong emotional field? That seems counter-intuitive; I think of NFs as having more sophisticated emotional intelligence, so shouldn't that mean that it is easier for them to affect other's moods? Also, would someone with a strong emotional field be affected more by an emotionally sensitive person, or by someone with an equally strong emotional field? -- Anonymous
C12 This is really interesting. It's taking something traditionally from the realm of esoteric thought into the world of science. Except, I can't concieve of any way that this kind of "emotional energy" might be measured. Certainly, I think there is something in it... but to be able to take it further, it needs to be measurable. Was the reference to electro magnetic fields implying that there is some kind of such field from the brain, and if so, what evidence is there for this? I'd be fascinated to know. I understand that work with electro magnets has been understood to create "religious experiences" in people, so perhaps that shows the brain is somehow sensitive in this way, but I'd be really interested in any ways of measuring the brain's own capacity to give off such a "field" of current, which others can pick up on. -- Ruth.
Page 1
Would you like to add anything?
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)



Name: (leave blank for "Anonymous")