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
  #41  
Old 05/09/2009, 05:24 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Thank you for your responses.

To give some final clarification, my thoughts when I wrote this initial post of the thread was to try to describe how I use , and second of all I was thinking of where I was working at the time were there was a lot of things going on, a lot of data to take in.

Basically I would reject the data that did not fit into my systems of working. Also with the ability to contrast data against each other to see what fits in order to argue against the facts if necessary.. to be persuasive on something. Those who see the Ti in this initial quote have done well to interpret my mode of action, and it's pretty cool to spot that I think. Strong Te but certainly valued and much stronger Ti.

The new ideas of working, refining systems and new ideas of doing things, solving problems, new ways of solving problems is my Ne coming from this.

Ti with Ne.

There are also something like a million reasons why i'm in Alpha quadra, the alpha quadra descriptions for instance fit me extremely well. Also even on this forum one can find threads which I have showed a clear Fe seeking/Fe valueing.

If someone wishes to discuss my type further, please pm me. Thank you for your help on this.

fwiw, i'm going to look at the Alpha mirrors INTj and ENTp in the meantime. I may let you know on chatbox or my sig when I decide, if you happen to be interested ...but I am leaning towards INTj out of those two for now.

Cheers.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05/09/2009, 08:20 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Thank you for your responses.

To give some final clarification, my thoughts when I wrote this initial post of the thread was to try to describe how I use , and second of all I was thinking of where I was working at the time were there was a lot of things going on, a lot of data to take in.

Basically I would reject the data that did not fit into my systems of working. Also with the ability to contrast data against each other to see what fits in order to argue against the facts if necessary.. to be persuasive on something. Those who see the Ti in this initial quote have done well to interpret my mode of action, and it's pretty cool to spot that I think. Strong Te but certainly valued and much stronger Ti.

The new ideas of working, refining systems and new ideas of doing things, solving problems, new ways of solving problems is my Ne coming from this.

Ti with Ne.

There are also something like a million reasons why i'm in Alpha quadra, the alpha quadra descriptions for instance fit me extremely well. Also even on this forum one can find threads which I have showed a clear Fe seeking/Fe valueing.

If someone wishes to discuss my type further, please pm me. Thank you for your help on this.

fwiw, i'm going to look at the Alpha mirrors INTj and ENTp in the meantime. I may let you know on chatbox or my sig when I decide, if you happen to be interested ...but I am leaning towards INTj out of those two for now.

Cheers.
An incorrect analysis, as hopefully many of you have realized by now. But the thread is illuminating, and if you have followed it and understand, at least partly, why Cyclops's conclusion is false, then you have increased your overall understanding of Socionics and the types immensely in comparison with the majority of people on socionic forums in the West.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05/09/2009, 09:23 PM
Banter's Avatar
Banter Banter is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 587
Default

Guys please ..... this is a forum where you, the members, can debate Socionics and thus everyone is entitled to express their opinions/views etc. But while members may disagree, let's maintain respectful.

Also remember, we can't all agree on everything and not everyone thinks alike (it would be a boring world, wouldn't it?), and respect that. Thank you!

Mod Banter
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06/09/2009, 01:25 AM
Zeus Zeus is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 106
Default

Just this once. If anyone wishes to have control over who comments on their posts, post in the blog section, this is what they are for. Also PM a mod or admin if you have a problem.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 16/09/2009, 02:02 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

I suppose, in "shortsyne" to summarise to a degree.

It is possible that I am still, or rather I should say am still (or just am) an ISTp.

However, I think that it is also possible that given general life experience, personal growth, and even with that, gaining a better insight and knowledge of the functions (which isn't to say that my knowledge or understanding of the functions is fully "complete"), that we develop ourselves naturally. With this knowledge and experience in general, I don't see why an individual cannot use this, and socionics, to become aware of their weaknesses, what they seek, other functions, in order to develop them, perhaps even develop an awareness of them.

It seems perhaps, I have an understanding of Ti, Te, Si, some "N" qualities, seem to be able to understand somewhat Fi, can appreciate Fe.

From a Model A perspective, this doesn't really "make" me a type per se, as I would supposedly appreciate Fi a lot, and not be somehow capable of grasping or appreciating Fe, for instance.

On focusing on different functions, it seems Gulenko has looked at the variations in type somewhat by the DCNH sub type theory, were for instance one can be an ISTp, but place an emphasis on say, their Fe or even their Ne (which as I recall results in the Fe expression in the first example to be an ISTp which is more expressive of themselves, theoretically in this construct the most expressive an ISTp could get within the context of their type - which in turn would show an ISTp with some ESFj qualities (as emphasis on an Fe function corresponds to "using" it more, and therefore perhaps also demonstrating some more EJ qualities to boot).

Of course in such an example they will not be able to "express" or respond in the same ability as an ESFj, due to apparent limitations of function position - if it is 1st or 4th.

Hmmm, however, that aside, it only looks at an emphasis on one particular function, and why stop at one?

I suppose overall I think that knowing type is a good thing - but - to perhaps think of it "strictly" in terms of a model A approach can perhaps create limitations to personal growth also. There's nothing that I can think of that's set in stone that one can be for instance, an ISTp, but not have the capacity to adapt and develop other facets of themselves - at least to a degree.

So I suppose I'm not sure whether to really label a type upon myself - I could be ISTp within some of the extension perameters I looked at above, I could even be ISFp as a "baseline" type (also even within above parameters), or I could be ENTp ha, but previously focused on some "ISTp" things, or encountered a mis-reading of myself or socionics at some point in the past, or some other type all along.

So overall perhaps... I'm still not sure whether to put myself into a demarcation of type for forum purposes, and i'm also not convinced whether it is congruent to personal growth to think about it strictly within perameters of for instance model A, as demonstrated above (maybe - a repetition of sorts taking perhaps in the last part of the sentence, but I felt like it).

So I see no reason not to leave it as it is for now, that is, do I have to "decide" really? ..........

Edit: and I call that a summary? lol....

Double Edit: If you read all that, well done!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 21/09/2009, 06:44 AM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
It's clearly not , and it's important that people understand why. Like all rational functions rejects information early in the information gathering process. does not take on as many facts as it can, and does not "pull together all the available facts, and use all the facts" it has gathered.
Exactly! Nice one.
keeps everything "pure", avoiding all redundancy or irrelevant from the ground-up.

Merry types do not include any information in the beginning, but they need reasons for each inclusion and analyze each element individually before using or rejecting it.
Serious types include all information as possible, then they remove unnecessary, unfit. Because they're not usually in search of something specific, but something "good", their targets may change easier.

So that he's a Serious (/) type.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
It's +
...
is about systematized logic, what is "correct" what is "false", what "fits" what doesn't. Ti is analytical and structured.

is about practical/efficient logic, the "best" way to do this, what will "work" and what won't. Te is productive and direct.
Through the original post, these things contradict each other. You can see that using "false/correct" is a binary choice to select only what fits for the system.
is continuously gathering facts, it takes as much information as possible then checks what works independently of fitting a presumed system or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by king View Post
My understanding of Ti/Te is certainly not the most advanced.
However the empahasis in the originally quoted statement seems to be on the synthesis of facts over the system the author is creating.
A different formulation of the same thing I tried to express.

@Cyclops: now I see it's about you. To you and other people who talked about "strong" , my opinion is that the OP shows valued , this specific preference you ware talking about makes the difference between Serious and Merry types. It's not the same thing to have in Ego and having it in Id.

Now Cyclops, I noticed you have some skills in analysis, these are required in Socionics more that probably anything, anyway. Those are Information Elements, things that we all people know, we all can learn them in the school or whatever. Considering your OP I am know sure that, besides my opinion you value /, you value / as well.

I'm still maintaining my typing on you, IEE, but I am open to everything / because I have no strong argument of you valuing /, although I find it pretty obvious.

Last edited by mihai_m; 21/09/2009 at 06:44 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 21/09/2009, 10:06 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Well I am working with an IEE just now, so I could test my duality or identity powers with her, unfortunately she is married and pregnant, so I don't feel comfortable chatting her up.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 22/09/2009, 04:31 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m View Post
Exactly! Nice one.
keeps everything "pure", avoiding all redundancy or irrelevant from the ground-up.

Merry types do not include any information in the beginning, but they need reasons for each inclusion and analyze each element individually before using or rejecting it.
Serious types include all information as possible, then they remove unnecessary, unfit. Because they're not usually in search of something specific, but something "good", their targets may change easier.

So that he's a Serious (/) type.


Through the original post, these things contradict each other. You can see that using "false/correct" is a binary choice to select only what fits for the system.
is continuously gathering facts, it takes as much information as possible then checks what works independently of fitting a presumed system or not.

A different formulation of the same thing I tried to express.

@Cyclops: now I see it's about you. To you and other people who talked about "strong" , my opinion is that the OP shows valued , this specific preference you ware talking about makes the difference between Serious and Merry types. It's not the same thing to have in Ego and having it in Id.

Now Cyclops, I noticed you have some skills in analysis, these are required in Socionics more that probably anything, anyway. Those are Information Elements, things that we all people know, we all can learn them in the school or whatever. Considering your OP I am know sure that, besides my opinion you value /, you value / as well.

I'm still maintaining my typing on you, IEE, but I am open to everything / because I have no strong argument of you valuing /, although I find it pretty obvious.
One thing that makes me think i'm not an ethical type is that i'm that I think i'm better at looking at things logically than understanding how people related to each other (people getting on, interpersonal, w/e).

I like a partner who's good at getting on with people, as it's something i'm not always good at. That is, I can put my foot in it often unintentionally, but it impresses me when someone has the skills to negotiate and get on with people quite easily. I think this must mean that I desire someone with F.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 22/09/2009, 06:44 PM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
One thing that makes me think i'm not an ethical type is that i'm that I think i'm better at looking at things logically than understanding how people related to each other (people getting on, interpersonal, w/e).

I like a partner who's good at getting on with people, as it's something i'm not always good at. That is, I can put my foot in it often unintentionally, but it impresses me when someone has the skills to negotiate and get on with people quite easily. I think this must mean that I desire someone with F.
Wrong, Cyclops! Ethics is not limited to people and human relationships. It deals with the unknown but likely (Internal), like Intuition. This is one of the greatest mistakes in Socionics interpretation, I'll write an article on it, but first an explanation in a new thread.

I'm not insisting on your type, you may be anything you want, but your interpretation is incorrect. Actually the IEEs I know have poorer social skills than most other people.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 23/09/2009, 12:25 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

I daresay that all types can have poor social skills.

I think that F types are better at knowingly influencing the environment than T types.

I mean, Fe types could create a lot of drama and stuff, but it's Fe, Fi can make people hate others in an environment, but it's Fi.

In terms of what i'd call social skills, i've actually found some ISFj's having the worst. When they dislike someone, they can really seem to do their best to punish the hell out of that person by mercilessly seperating them from the "collective".

But taking your other post - rather other thread that you mentioned - http://www.socionics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1392 into consideration, it could just as easily be Ti as Fi that makes some decisions like you mention - given they are both subjective (introverted) functions, but however one is internal and the other is external, we're maybe looking at it's "intuitive" component.

I could be IEE, maybe a T PoLR would solve some things, or not, I don't know. I'm not going to just rule it out though fwiw.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 23/09/2009, 01:51 PM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

N and F are rather subjective, as far as I can identify in real life. But in any case, every function with a passive field (either Introverted, Static or Internal) is subjective on that specific field. Study the eight examples about the price (in the other thread), those are very good examples, imo (maybe more variety would be helpful, but not required).
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 29/09/2009, 12:57 PM
Marie84's Avatar
Marie84 Marie84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 84
Default

Quote:
Through the original post, these things contradict each other. You can see that using "false/correct" is a binary choice to select only what fits for the system.
is continuously gathering facts, it takes as much information as possible then checks what works independently of fitting a presumed system or not.
Te does absorb information but it doesn't theorize or systematize, as it finds that to be pointless and unproductive.
There's a reason why they're not a lot of active Te dominants in the Socionic community for that very reason

Quote:
Ethics is not limited to people and human relationships. It deals with the unknown but likely (Internal), like Intuition.
Ethics [in Socionics] is all about human relations, emotions and ethics and nothing to do with the "unknown"
__________________
INFj
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 29/09/2009, 02:38 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Thanks everyone for their input so far.

I'm wondering if I should think that ISTp isn't a bad fit, but i'm really ISFp.

Maybe my interest in systemising comes from a Ti HA, and my general logical/problem solving w/e skills just comes from being clever.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 29/09/2009, 05:09 PM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
Ethics [in Socionics] is all about human relations, emotions and ethics and nothing to do with the "unknown"
This is only your opinion and it is wrong.

Edit: I put some examples in other threads, you may want to check them.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 29/09/2009, 06:19 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
I'm wondering if I should think that ISTp isn't a bad fit, but i'm really ISFp.
Of course not. Don't be a fool.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 30/09/2009, 09:06 AM
Marie84's Avatar
Marie84 Marie84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 84
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m View Post
This is only your opinion and it is wrong.

Edit: I put some examples in other threads, you may want to check them.
My opinion? It's the consensus of the Socionists definitions of ethics. I`ll also include the definitions for Ti and Te as well since it is being argued too

Socionics.org:
Ti: detail, detailed study, carefulness, strictness, place into the hierarchy, the laws, the decisions, the instructions, the selection of the best version, the logic of organization,
Te: benefit, benefit, efficiency, technology, facts, acquisition, accumulation, purchase, economy, the guidance of order, practicalness

Fi:
good relations - love, friendship, sympathy, attraction, heat of relations, sociability, close psychological distance, it is kind, pity
Fe:
positive emotions - happiness, merriment, emotional lift, enthusiasm, laughter, enthusiasm, optimism, a good mood, the experience of happiness


Socionics.us
Ti: "logical relationships between objects: systems of rules and categories, hierarchies, comparisons of quantifiable properties, logical judgments"
Te: "external activity of objects: events (what, how, where), activity, behavior, algorithms"

Fi:
subjective relationships between objects: feelings of attraction and repulsion, like and dislike, need and antipathy; morals, subjective judgments
Fe:
internal activity of objects: internal processes, mood, emotional activity and arousability, emotional content

Socioscope.com (poor Russian translation)
Ti: "intellect and systematic thinking, in the object peace it " introduces” structural order
Te: "concerns mechanisms and methods of the realization of effective actions, skillful and profitable business, business grasp and professionalism."

Fi:
concerns the relations between the people, their desires and interests, morals and skill of people to live in the world with each other.
Fe:
concerns the energy and emotional state of people, mood and skill to act on it.

Socioniko.net
Ti: " Objective regularities, laws. Structure, system, order, analysis of facts (understanding components of the whole).
Te: "Methodology, logical sequence of events, technology, algorithm, action, synthesis of facts ("making a moving machine out of static parts").

Fi: Contents: Love, hate, sympathy, antipathy, feeling of ethicality or non-ethicality of relations, human qualities, desire etc. Manifestation: dividing people into "ours" and "theirs"; improving relations with "ours"; revealing people's qualities; looking for permanent and stable relations; relations are like a game where "ours" understand rules without explaining, while "theirs" will play badly even being given a detailed explanation.
Fe: Contents: Emotions of people, emotional evaluation of their actions. The sense of ethicality of people's internal impulses. Enthusiasm, grief, passion, sense of humor. Manifestation: evaluation of other people by concordance of their emotions to one's own; personal and interested perception of situations, drawing people's attention on other things and people, derision of hollow mental constructions.


socionika.com
Ti: objective, outwardly measurable relationships between objects; laws, regulations, rules, categories, quantifiable properties, logic, analysis, belonging, authorship, hierarchy, subordination, objective judgments
Te: external activity of object; actions, events (what, how, where), facts, activity or work, algorithms, procedures, logic of objects’ measurable outward behavior

Fi:

subjective emotional relationships between objects; attraction vs. repulsion, like vs. dislike, need of each other, love, friendship, antipathy, ethical norms, morals, qualitative properties, subjective judgments
Fe:
internal activity of object; internal processes in object, emotional arousal and arousability of object, emotional life, moods, subjective emotional content
__________________
INFj
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 30/09/2009, 06:21 PM
stanprollyright's Avatar
stanprollyright stanprollyright is offline
The Looks
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
My opinion? It's the consensus of the Socionists definitions of ethics. I`ll also include the definitions for Ti and Te as well since it is being argued too
Good post. A lot of good information in there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m View Post
Actually the IEEs I know have poorer social skills than most other people.
If so, I don't think the IEEs you know are a good representative sample.
__________________
So this one time me an' my bes' frien' Stan, we went to a church service. That preacher was talkin' 'bout hell. So Stan leans over to me an' he says, "I bet hell is like a PoLR hit every day."

An' I says, "Stan, you prolly right."
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 30/09/2009, 07:34 PM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

Marie84: Your copy/paste from the source we all know is useless and proves nothing of what you claim. You said "it's all about" meaning ethics (as in Socionics) is limited to human relationships. But "like/dislike", "emotions", "mood", "happiness", "enthusiasm", etc - these are obviously not limited to human relationships.

stanprollyright: You are taking social activity as social skills.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01/10/2009, 01:45 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
Te does absorb information but it doesn't theorize or systematize, as it finds that to be pointless and unproductive.
There's a reason why they're not a lot of active Te dominants in the Socionic community for that very reason
I disagree with this, in a nutshell, a Te type will theorise or systemise if it happens to be (from your copy/paste descriptions) the most "efficient" and "productive" etc thing to do. You could check out my recent two blogs where I probably go on about it (and some other things) too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84
Ethics [in Socionics] is all about human relations, emotions and ethics and nothing to do with the "unknown"
Have you read this? http://www.socionics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1392

I would suggest that you have to also consider how F works in action, not just on paper.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01/10/2009, 02:07 PM
Marie84's Avatar
Marie84 Marie84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 84
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanprollyright View Post
If so, I don't think the IEEs you know are a good representative sample.
Same. Extroverted Ethical types generally have the best social skills

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m View Post
Marie84: Your copy/paste from the source we all know is useless and proves nothing of what you claim. You said "it's all about" meaning ethics (as in Socionics) is limited to human relationships. But "like/dislike", "emotions", "mood", "happiness", "enthusiasm", etc - these are obviously not limited to human relationships.
I copied-and-pasted to show the actual sources of the information, rather than making gibberish up without any basis for it.
They're what Socionists say, not me

The use of like/dislike, moods, etc, are classified as ethical uses, in Socionics, since they're not based on logic but feelings.
You develop feelings about people and things because of how it makes you feel, not because it's logical.
Everyone can use logic and ethics, regardless of type, but ethical types have an easier time feelings comfortable about their feelings towards people/thing whereas logical types will often question if their feelings make sense.
Same thing for ethical types when it comes to matters of logic

This is where the concept of duality comes in, to assist where the other is weak

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
I disagree with this, in a nutshell, a Te type will theorise or systemise if it happens to be (from your copy/paste descriptions) the most "efficient" and "productive" etc thing to do. You could check out my recent two blogs where I probably go on about it (and some other things) too much.
You're right, but they only use Ti through Te for Te
__________________
INFj

Last edited by Marie84; 01/10/2009 at 02:07 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ego functions, prom is smarter than u


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 05:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 SOCIONICS.COM