My Personal Insanity

Transigent · #1 29/03/2006, 11:36 PM

Okay, this was originally meant to be funny, but I think it can help type people. (Warning, tard-logic to follow...)

NOTE: all the quantifiers are subjective to the individual "weak" and "strong" is not objective, but one's own assesment of the self.

Intuition, focused on the mind. (Internal/Introverted)

= weak minded

Will accept any garbage given to it, but it is exactly this trait which the other functions can sometimes find something good.

= strong minded

Will resist garbage given to it, and it is exactly this which makes for strong follow through.

Sensing, focused on the body. (External/Extroverted)

= strong in body

Will attack and resist external forces, and focus more on external results then physical settlement.

= weak in body

Will shy away from external forces, and focus more on hedonism then actual results.

Thinking, events. (Internal/Introverted)

= strong memory

Can remember things easily, and learn methods to do things.

= weak memory

Cannot remember things easily, so it needs to simplify things.

Feeling, energy. (External/Extroverted)

= high energy

Higher energy leads to enthusiasm and emotionality.

= low energy

Lower energy leads to actual contemplation of emotionality.

Okay, so taking the PoLR points:

ISxj doesn't want it shown they are weak minded.

ESxj doesn't want it shown they are strong minded.

INxj doesn't want it shown they are strong in body.

ENxj doesn't want it shown they are weak in body.

ExFp doesn't want it shown they have weak memory.

IxFp doesn't want it shown they have strong memory.

ExTp doesn't want it shown they have low energy.

IxTp doesn't want it shown they have high energy.

Alpha/Delta = weak in body and mind
Beta/Gamma = strong in body and mind

Alpha/Beta = high energy / no memory
Gamma/Delta = high memory / no energy

Interesting...

Jonathan · #2 30/03/2006, 04:49 AM

I'm going to break my self-imposed exile to respond to this one.

It seems to me that your definitions of Ne, Ti, Ni and Te are possibly influenced by MBTI?

MBTI-based models equate Ni/Te with strong follow-through, rejecting irrelevant stuff, carrying around a large store of knowledge.

I don't see that in Socionics descriptions. In fact, strong follow-through and rejecting irrelevant stuff seems to be more related to being a rational type than being Ni/Te.

I identify with your descriptions of Ti and Ne, but that would make me an INTj, whereas most people seem to agree that I'm an INTp in the Socionics model.

Prometheus · #3 30/03/2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

It seems to me that your definitions of Ne, Ti, Ni and Te are possibly influenced by MBTI?

That was my very first impression too, at least to some extent for

and

. But now I'm not sure. Much of what is said could be correct.

What does follow-through actually mean? Being an INTp, I would think that I have weak follow-through in practical matters, and that INTjs in general are much better at it. But, on the other hand, in theoretical matters one could possibly say that, in perhaps another sense, I have strong follow-through, since I can seek answers to philosophical and other theoretical problems (in Socionics and other type theories, for example) for years. I'm not sure how INTjs are in that respect.

If I compare myself with ENTps, they are often more weak minded in the sense that they have a tendency to accept new ideas with less critical scrutiny than I do. But, we may have a similar interest in new and unusual ideas, and when I, in some cases, eventually accept the new ideas, I can be more convinced of their truth than the ENTps.

Transigent · #4 30/03/2006, 02:29 PM

Heh, it's been forever since I considered MBTI.

Anyway, I thought I would try to put the functions in the light of what the "opposite sense" function sees it.

Like

would consider

to be just accepting of any silly new idea. That kind of thing.

types have to fit into Beta/Gamma somehow, and they have to accept

, thier mental stubbornness matches up well with the physical stubbornness.

After I posted this, I kinda wanted to just take it down, I didn't qualify enough that it wasn't really serious, in fact, it is kind of mean. (On top of wrong.)

But, as always, there are probably a certain percentage of people that are consistently matching up with this stuff. Which, makes it hard to identify the people who have half a brain, because there is not such a clear line between.

Like, the smart Ni/Te & Te/Ni can accept and create ideas, the mature Fe/Ni & Ni/Fe can sit still, the intellegent Ti/Ne & Ne/Ti can sort through garbage ideas, the cool Si/Te & Te/Si can be pretty driven, etc., etc.

But what sucks is there are ALWAYS those people who characterize certain types perfectly, and only stick to thier 2 main functions, almost ignoring all the rest. Which frustrates sometimes, because you start to wonder "did I type them right?"

I've even gone so far as to seperate people into "Prototypical" and "Normal". It makes it easier. Some people even perfectly fit Gulenko's descriptions, these are the prototypical.

The "Normal" people end up fitting about half a Gulenko description for one type, and half a description for another, while hinting in thier actual life-focus and relationships that they are a completely different type.

Did I write too much? Yes. Does anyone care? No. Do I care? Not really.

Joy · #5 30/03/2006, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cancel:
Feeling, energy. (External/Extroverted)

= high energy

Higher energy leads to enthusiasm and emotionality.

= low energy

Lower energy leads to actual contemplation of emotionality.

My question is on the description of these functions. I had a different idea of what Fi is. Care to elaborate?

Transigent · #6 30/03/2006, 03:53 PM

I don't care what anyone tells me,

is NOT morals and

is NOT logic. Whole functions are not relegated to simple concepts. This would make them stupid, pointless, and retarded.

Anyway, uh, you read my mind on the Fi thingy, check Gilly's thread over on 16types.

Oh, and this thread wasn't really that serious, I was going to "Edit for gayness." but I can't do that here.

SG · #7 30/03/2006, 04:22 PM

introverts are low and weak...EXTROVERTS ARE HIGH AND STRONG!!! How would this help with typing?

Transigent · #8 30/03/2006, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SG:
introverts are low and weak...EXTROVERTS ARE HIGH AND STRONG!!!

Is this statement your interpretation of the post?

Or is this statement your observation of socionics in general?

SG · #9 30/03/2006, 06:38 PM

I had an impression that you were the sharpest knife in the drawer...

Transigent · #10 30/03/2006, 07:26 PM

Damnit Sergei, you are pretty hard to please!

Anyway, I don't really know why I posted this thing. It was kinda meant to be a tounge-in-cheek thing, and if there was no time limit on editing, it would not exist right now.

My reasoning kinda went like this:

I always knew that I simplify things because I have no memory. I hate remembering shit, so I simplify things so I don't have to remember anything. (

over

)

Okay, so once I noticed the nature of

being "accepting" and

being "resisting", I thought "Hey! Maybe this crass, obvious, funny overgeneralization can help someone somewhere sometime."

I mean, knowing that I have zero memory for things pretty much precludes me from being "fact oriented"

in my psyche.

Maybe the same reasoning could be applied to the rest? Maybe not? In any case, the idea is kind of a humerous way to look at strengths and weaknesses I think.

I know you concieve of me as a dancing idiot now, and there isn't really anything I can do about that, but I didn't mean to be too overly serious. Hence the title of the thread.

(sigh)

SG · #11 30/03/2006, 09:32 PM

I would have given you another star if I could!

Epic · #12 31/03/2006, 03:55 AM

awww! you people is so siwwey.

Gronau · #13 31/03/2006, 08:24 AM

Is it possible that Ne and Ni were swapped? In my opinion Ni is weak and Ne should be strong.

Transigent · #14 31/03/2006, 08:51 AM

This entire thread is gay and should be deleted.

I overestimated the ability to notice detail and read between the lines.

I thought that this:

originally meant to be funny,

tard-logic to follow...

"weak" and "strong" is not objective, but one's own assesment of the self.

made it clear enough that this:

I think it can help type people.

was a reference to people that are obvious parodies of thier own types.

Common sense! Who would actually BELEIVE the things in the first post?

I suppose I can say the world is flat and people would think I am serious. LOL