Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 13/06/2008, 07:08 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
Wrong. Every small group (quadras, temperaments, clubs, etc) has the same number of similarities and differences with intra-group members as any other small group. This is because each small group is a combination of a certain number of dichotomies which every member of the small group shares in common with each other.
Nonsense. You don't understand what I'm talking about. The quadras are defined by the intertype relations between its members - not by the objectively observable similarities between its members. That's a huge difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3
This is wrong again. She should not be examining club differences precisely because she is already a known NF; you have it reversed. If she already knows she's an NF, then looking at club differences is redundant and irrelevant. She is trying to determine E/I and J/P dichotomies at this point which makes quadras, temperaments, etc. the more pertinent small groups for her to examine.
Are you dumb as a bat? You are only repeating what I said in my post. I made a general point on what one should (not) focus on when typing people, and the quadras should always come at a very late stage in the typing process, and only as a confirmation that the already established type is the correct one. You should never start with the quadras. Period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
It just sounded like he was directing you to look at clubs which to me makes very little sense since your NF status seems fairly well discerned at this point. But it's very possible I misinterpreted.

It is also ironic that I may have misinterpreted Prom (my quasi-identical) in the thread discussing whether quasi-identical relationships are bad.
Okay, now you realize what was happening. Good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanerou View Post
What happens if I end up balanced?
You can't. You can never be balanced between extraversion and introversion, because it is a dichotomy - not a scale.

Last edited by Prometheus; 13/06/2008 at 07:08 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 13/06/2008, 07:57 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanerou View Post
What happens if I end up balanced?
I know for a fact that I am unbalanced
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 13/06/2008, 10:51 AM
kensi's Avatar
kensi kensi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post

You can't. You can never be balanced between extraversion and introversion, because it is a dichotomy - not a scale.
Wow...what just happened?....I actually agree with someting this guy is saying
__________________
Some Sort of Si + Fi valueing type.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 13/06/2008, 11:20 AM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 550
Default

[quote=Prometheus;11924]Nonsense. You don't understand what I'm talking about. The quadras are defined by the intertype relations between its members - not by the objectively observable similarities between its members. That's a huge difference.[quote]

Again, I'll have to clarify things. Prom, you see too much in black and white. Yes, intertype relations are one way of defining the quadras. This method essentially defines the quadras from the top down (by examining Model A). But you are clearly remiss to believe there is just one way of defining a small group. It is more uniform and consistent to define every small group as a combination of the 15 reinin dichotomies (these include the original 4 Jungian dichotomies). In essence, there are multiple ways to define a small group, and I prefer to define up from the fundamental socionics blocks (i.e., the dichotomies) and you prefer to define down (from the intertype relations). I'm not saying you are wrong to do so, I'm just pointing out there is often more than one way to approach something.
Also, you should not be so close-minded to typing people based on quadra values, it is a useful auxiliary typing tool. In fact, dichotomy testing, particularly the J/P dichotomy results, are often inconclusive, and at this point the quadras and temperaments become important tools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
You should never start with the quadras. Period.
I'd think carefully when making these kind of absolute black and white statements. There are often exceptions.
__________________
Sociotype.com

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).

Last edited by RSV3; 13/06/2008 at 11:20 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 13/06/2008, 11:27 AM
kensi's Avatar
kensi kensi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 674
Default

I dont think EXCEPTIONS are part of his vocabulary.... regardless of his state of mind.

He's an interesting fellow though,....wonder if he'll ever pose a pic of himself to confirm his type on some level ?
__________________
Some Sort of Si + Fi valueing type.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 13/06/2008, 12:33 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
You can never be balanced between extraversion and introversion, because it is a dichotomy - not a scale.
Are you talking about Extraverted/Introverted behaviour/attitude or about which function is dominant? I fear lots of people still refer to E/I as an attitude, hence you can be balanced in your attitude.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 13/06/2008, 12:53 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
Again, I'll have to clarify things. Prom, you see too much in black and white.
No. People in general see things too little in black and white. People are afraid of clarity, and that's why they feel a need to put in some gray in the picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3
Yes, intertype relations are one way of defining the quadras. This method essentially defines the quadras from the top down (by examining Model A). But you are clearly remiss to believe there is just one way of defining a small group. It is more uniform and consistent to define every small group as a combination of the 15 reinin dichotomies (these include the original 4 Jungian dichotomies).
Yes, it's possible to do that, but the end result is the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3
In essence, there are multiple ways to define a small group, and I prefer to define up from the fundamental socionics blocks (i.e., the dichotomies) and you prefer to define down (from the intertype relations).
No, I actually prefer dichotomies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3
Also, you should not be so close-minded to typing people based on quadra values, it is a useful auxiliary typing tool.
Only for those who truly understand the types correctly. Most people don't, especially not beginners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3
In fact, dichotomy testing, particularly the J/P dichotomy results, are often inconclusive, and at this point the quadras and temperaments become important tools.
The temperaments are much more useful and accurate (as a typing tool) than the quadras.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3
I'd think carefully when making these kind of absolute black and white statements. There are often exceptions.
No. There are almost never any exceptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
Are you talking about Extraverted/Introverted behaviour/attitude or about which function is dominant? I fear lots of people still refer to E/I as an attitude, hence you can be balanced in your attitude.
It's the same thing. Biologically it is an attitude, socionically it is about which function is dominant. It is still a clear-cut dichotomy. You can never be anything in between extraversion and introversion. People in general are deluded by the structure of personality tests. The types themselves are no mixtures.

Last edited by Prometheus; 13/06/2008 at 12:53 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 13/06/2008, 01:32 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
It's the same thing. Biologically it is an attitude, socionically it is about which function is dominant. It is still a clear-cut dichotomy. You can never be anything in between extroversion and introversion. People in general are deluded by the structure of personality tests. The types themselves are no mixtures.
I'm talking about THE definition of Extroversion/Introversion as it is described in a dictionary and as it is understood by millions who know nothing about types, when I'm referring to it as an attitude. Since you can be more extroverted as your typical introvert and more introverted than your typical extrovert, you can find yourself in between.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 13/06/2008, 01:46 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
I'm talking about THE definition of Extroversion/Introversion as it is described in a dictionary and as it is understood by millions who know nothing about types, when I'm referring to it as an attitude.
That is irrelevant. Definitions are irrelevant. The phenomenon extraversion/introversion itself is what counts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG
Since you can be more extroverted as your typical introvert and more introverted than your typical extrovert, you can find yourself in between.
Yes, according to your dictionary definition -- which is totally irrelevant in relation to the types.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 13/06/2008, 01:49 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post

Yes, according to your dictionary definition -- which is totally irrelevant in relation to the types.
You said it was the same thing.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 13/06/2008, 01:51 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
You said it was the same thing.
The referent is the same thing. The definitions are different, and the definitions are irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 13/06/2008, 01:57 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default

Extrovert - a gregarious and unreserved person - this is what many associate the word extrovert with.

Now. Are you telling me that this is a direct consequence of a person being functional extrovert and that, what's more, no other type can be a gregarious and unreserved person? Is this your argument Prom, is it?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 13/06/2008, 02:02 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
Extrovert - a gregarious and unreserved person - this is what many associate the word extrovert with.

Now. Are you telling me that this is a direct consequence of a person being functional extrovert
Correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG
and that, what's more, no other type can be a gregarious and unreserved person?
Incorrect.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 13/06/2008, 02:07 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post

Incorrect.
So there is no functional extrovert is the world that is NOT a gregarious and unreserved person? Let me rephrase...according to you EVERY gregarious and unreserved person is an extrovert and vice versa?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 13/06/2008, 02:08 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
So there is no functional extrovert is the world that is NOT a gregarious and unreserved person?
Incorrect. That conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 13/06/2008, 02:20 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Incorrect. That conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Of course it does not, was just a reality check, lol

So you agree that any type can be gregarious and unreserved person, which is considered being extrovert by many.

I can do exactly the same with introversion and you would have to agree again that any type could be shy and reserved, which is considered being introvert by many.

Conclusion? Can you (or others) consider you being neither extrovert nor introvert if you are neither a gregarious and unreserved person nor shy and reserved?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 13/06/2008, 04:01 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
So you agree that any type can be gregarious and unreserved person, which is considered being extrovert by many.
No. It is extremely unlikely, if not totally impossible, for some types to be gregarious and unreserved on a regular basis, that is as their most common behaviour. We must keep in mind that we are not talking about a person's behaviour on a single occasion but as a general pattern of behaviour. It might still be the case that only those with an extraverted leading function can be gregarious and unreserved in that sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG
I can do exactly the same with introversion and you would have to agree again that any type could be shy and reserved, which is considered being introvert by many.
Only occasionally, not as a consistent pattern of behaviour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG
Conclusion? Can you (or others) consider you being neither extrovert nor introvert if you are neither a gregarious and unreserved person nor shy and reserved?
No. Not correctly anyway. You are always only one of those two options -- as a type.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 13/06/2008, 04:24 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default

I get it that you haven't met a person that is neither gregarious and unreserved nor shy and reserved yet, and that all people you've met are extreme one or another. I wonder how you going to justify it for yourself when you meet one, bullet in the head?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 13/06/2008, 04:28 PM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,365
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
I get it that you haven't met a person that is neither gregarious and unreserved nor shy and reserved yet, and that all people you've met are extreme one or another. I wonder how you going to justify it for yourself when you meet one, bullet in the head?
He had, but he forces the facts to the direction that suits him. Gray is pushed to black if the gray leans slightly towards black. And it is pushed towards white if it leans slightly towards white.
__________________
"To live happy, live hidden."
β ST, E6 autopreservation.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 13/06/2008, 04:37 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
I get it that you haven't met a person that is neither gregarious and unreserved nor shy and reserved yet, and that all people you've met are extreme one or another.
Of course I have met some such persons, but they can only correctly be said to be "in the middle" according to your dictionary definition, which is totally irrelevant when we are discussing the types and what extraversion/introversion really is (as a biological phenomenon).

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG
I wonder how you going to justify it for yourself when you meet one, bullet in the head?
That's simple. I just type the person, and from the person's correct type I can logically deduce whether he or she is extraverted or introverted.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM