|
Post by Roshan on Nov 2, 2020 16:17:51 GMT -5
Looks like the jig is up. Defend us, vincent. I'll be watching from the cheap seats with binoculars.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 4, 2020 16:02:26 GMT -5
Ok, now about socionics
Well socionics in a way as opposite qualities and flaws compared to Auburn's system.
It is very Ti heavy, and overall very Ti solid and strong.
It understands that types are a complex matrix that presents a relatively stable underlying architectonic. It tries to capture that complexity by multiplying layers upon layers of dichotomies and entities, to the point that socionics models, in my opinion, all have a tendency to "Ti inflation" and "bloating". But still, most of that "apparatus" is fine. Or at least could potentially be fine, depending on how its used.
Things get weirder and wronger when it comes to Si. Their visual identification (VI) stuff failed to convince me, so far.
Their type descriptions and portraits are vastly unequal, but all a common tendency to go into an absurd amount of details. Some of which seems to be"deduced" or derived from the Axioms, rather than actually observed in the wild.
For similar reasons, socionics function definitions have a tendency to be either too abstract or too narrow and to miss quite a lot of the full spectrum/field of a function.
For example... Fi isn't JUST "relations". and Fe isn't JUST "emotions".
It's more like... Fi is to Fe what "relations" are to "emotions".
In a way, most socionics definitions are "analogically" true, but they still won't work as archetypal definitions or taxonomic categories, which limit their value for typing purposes (and explain why typing discussions on socionics boards tends to go nowhere fast).
Overall, this bent makes socionics pretty good with "intertype" stuff (because it's macro scale / bird's eye view), and pretty bad with "intratype" stuff (at micro scale / shrink view).
Socionics is pretty lacking in its understanding of "the shadow". It lacks an actual model of the way health/unhealth affects functions and slot expressions. etc. Subtypes and patterns of development, when they are used at all, are pretty whacky. The "blocks" (ego, super-ego, id, super-id) are probably an attempt to freudianize Jung stuff ex post facto, but far from a successful one in my opinion. Etc.
On the other hand, most of their intertype relationship stuff is fine. Not fine enough to be accepted "as is". But fine enough.
Our own vision of it, as our own understanding of quadras evolved and diverged from it, but our findings also confirmed a LOT of it.
tbcd.
(ps : i will say something here about Eric Strauss synthesis and maybe about some others too, at some point. I'm going to adress the questions about terminology and ordering in a separate thread soon)
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 23, 2020 13:26:38 GMT -5
am particularly interested, also, in your defense of why you use Beebe's 8-function stacking order with Socionics's function names, rather than using Beebe's ordering & names OR Socionics's ordering & names
PoLR is 4th Trickster is 7th
This thread is the beginning of my reply to your above question. I started with the ordering and will adress the labeling (and the relationship between the two) after that.
It will take some time so "stay tuned"
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Nov 23, 2020 19:37:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Nov 23, 2020 20:00:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Nov 23, 2020 20:28:22 GMT -5
Beebe seems to be using the same slotting order but simply calling the seventh Trickster instead of PolR. I don't see him so far calling the fourth Polr but rather Animus/Anima. Of course these articles aren't written by him.
I don't really have a problem with these names. The fourth, the inferior, is aspirational like the third but because it's the other pole of the main axis its pull is always felt. If you ascribe a + and - 'charge' with say extraversion being the + and introversion the -, the dynamics are similar to animus/anima in relation to he conscious self; this is why there are duals and semi-duals and the pull feels like sexual chemistry, like electromagnetism. +/- charge, yin/yang, seeking the animus/anima in others, this makes sense for the fourth.
I don't have a problem with Trickster for our recently and expediently dubbed Unlucky Seven--which is very commonly called PolR btw, a term we use but I've never cared for all that much. You can see the trickster element in for example Se PolR people who use I'm-weak-ism as negative coercion thus achieving their own negative power agenda, you can see it with Te PolR people whose never-at-the-rright-time-ism throws very concrete monkey wrenches in the works of actual work, thus achieving their own inverse efficiency agenda. The list goes on. Ne PolR, 'nothing new is explored or adventured except the constant clashing due to the forward thrusting into Ni 'oblivion' of the Se second clout.
I don't really see any contradiction here. By Jung's law of psychic equilibrium, we all (unless impaired organically) have all the "contents of the psyche", just some are suppressed, others aren't. That which is suppressed comes out in ways not integrated to the ego, usually not ego-syntonic. That the seventh (PolR) function is said not to be metabolizED does not mean it doesn't metabolize YOU, and via you others. It does. Fe seventh (PolR) 'doesn't metabolize' collective feeling, doesn't know how to partake of the powwow, so to say, but nobody knows better than Fe PolR how to bring wet blankets to put out the campfire. Now that's participation! And the list goes on.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Nov 23, 2020 20:33:23 GMT -5
Unlucky Seven (PolR/Trickster)
Fe -no can powwow, big wet blanket Ne-- nothin' cookin', always seethin' Te--never working, always working it Se--eternal victim, gotchya! etc.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Nov 23, 2020 20:43:09 GMT -5
My supervisee, TeSi, with Ni PolR, me no can do deep sea meaning diving, is somehow often first to come up with shiny pearls of wisdom that encompass all and everything, such as 'We were all put here for a reason', "There are no mistakes'...new born babies put in garbage cans by unwed mothers? No problema! The universe has a bigger plan. All we need to. know is it's a good one. Now THAT's 'temporal convergence.' In its most insidious form come fancy versions of "it's all good" with stock 'dark and mysterious' mythological and literary tropes, billboard style... unlucky Seven "Trickster"...sure, why not?!
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Nov 23, 2020 20:48:07 GMT -5
Si and Ti PolR are somehow hellbent on being their own 'ultimate category' or 'theory of everything'. And you better know it too "or else". NeFi said more with sugar cube in palm extended, SeFi with more visible fist. FeNi and TeNi, it varies. But they all "just know". Details, what me worry? They are the true Ti and Si. You--you think too much.
Fi seventh (PolR, unlucky, trickster) I'll defer on atm.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Nov 23, 2020 21:04:01 GMT -5
All that said I wouldn't use the terms Animus/Anima or Trickster as names for fourth and seventh because I'm not looking for Jungian archetypes to describe slots, but I can certainly see them as the cherry, or anyway a cherry, on top of the cake. And anyway don't know that Beebe uses them as the actual names either as I haven't read anything by him yet.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 24, 2020 11:41:26 GMT -5
Beebe doesn't use PolR at all. It's a socionics (soviet) term.
But the thing is, in (most) socionics models, PolR is the 4th function, not the 7th.
Beebe's 4th function (which is also OUR 4th function) is usually the 5th in socionics.
What bothers hiddenglass is that we use the same ordering Beebe uses, but with names that comes (in part) from socionics (where the ordering is different).
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 24, 2020 11:53:28 GMT -5
All that said I wouldn't use the terms Animus/Anima or Trickster as names for fourth and seventh because I'm not looking for Jungian archetypes to describe slots, but I can certainly see them as the cherry, or anyway a cherry, on top of the cake. And anyway don't know that Beebe uses them as the actual names either as I haven't read anything by him yet.
I agree.
There is some truth to the Heroic Journey model, and animus/anima and Trickster aren't wrong per se.
I've been ponctually using "Critical Parent" for the 6th too.
It captures pretty well the neurotic, super-egoic and potentially unhealthy aspect of that slot. And in some cases, it's just the right term.
But the thing is, this model is mostly an introspective tool. It's useful to understand your type if you already know it. If you don't, it won't help much.
And even then, some people will be able to use it just fine, and will benefit from it. But for many people, it will be a double egded sword, and a pretext for cosplay projections and delusions.
|
|
hiddenglass
Swallow
lay me to rest, take me to sea // read my mind… let me be.
Posts: 179
Enneagram Core Fix: 5⁴
Relationship Status: searching
Occupation(s): idling
Education: ongoing
Interests: growing
Country/Region: chicago
|
Post by hiddenglass on Jan 16, 2021 21:24:18 GMT -5
why is this in building?
|
|
ahmed
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 166
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by ahmed on Feb 12, 2021 10:02:30 GMT -5
#2___________________________________________
Now about the "systems" themselves :
I don't know much about this one.
When i looked into him, briefly and months ago, i failed to see what was so new and different in what he was doing.
If i recall correctly, he was insisting on the fact that a type is a serie of limitations to overcome, rather than a set of traits and strength.
And yeah sure.
But how is that half-empy glass different from the half-full one ?
Anyway (and unless i'm mistaken) this guy is doing something that i wouldn't do, and something i think no one in his right mind should do :
he is doing his OWN thing. Solo.
The main thing that I see as different from other 8 function systems is that he has function continuums (Pi-Pi/Ji-Ji etc) & function axes operating together without a specific "blocking" or slots. His conception of function dynamics & different type configuration is close to how it is here & to MP, a 3D-ish model that can rotate and flip whilst staying within main points. It has problems, a solo endeavor is going to be problematic in the longer run, some manifestations of certain types will be ignored for others...some qualities of functions will not register properly. Not a problem when they are videos explaining a personal understanding but, positioning yourself as an authority offering a "professional typing service" and a consulting one based on type...then it gets very problematic. ngl tho, I lowkey like that a more holistic function model is growing in popularity over other socionics & 8 function models that lack it. Until...who knows heh
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Feb 12, 2021 15:04:22 GMT -5
The main thing that I see as different from other 8 function systems is that he has function continuums (Pi-Pi/Ji-Ji etc) & function axes operating together without a specific "blocking" or slots. His conception of function dynamics & different type configuration is close to how it is here & to MP, a 3D-ish model that can rotate and flip whilst staying within main points.
Hmmm. I see.
Thanks for the infos ahmed Makes me wonder how is typing people then, because, on paper, this is a recipe for pretty wild mistypes.
I mean, even with a more-than-decent understanding of functions, guesstimate of function strength will never be enough to type people accurately. Not by a long shot.
I'll take another look at his stuff when i get the chance.
|
|