Agreed. That claim that some people make about Si is completely ridiculous. I think you could stand to practice speaking with more precision. Even the term "extroverted thinker" is ambiguous. Do you mean a person who leads with Te such as ExTJ, anyone who has Te in their first four slots or do you mean anyone who is an extrovert and a T, that is, ESTP, ENTP, ESTJ and ENTJ. We can't understand what you mean if you don't use clear terminology.
I wish people didn't try to use or refer to typology as either a science or pseudo-science. The former term is inaccurate for the reasons you lay out here, and the latter is derogatory enough that some will see it as having no value whatsoever. IMO, it'd be better if people just thought of it as a framework of or system of observations, so that you can point out and name certain behaviors and thinking patterns. The biggest problems I've run into with MBTI communities are that people have very rigid views of the functions, so, to them, an Fi user could never genuinely engage in Fe behavior or vice versa, or a Ti user could never genuinely enagge in Te behavior or vice versa, when that's not true in reality. That's a big reason for why I prefer the 8 function approach. Gives you a more comprehensive, less stereotyped, and less deterministic view of a person, and eliminates arguments about why some functions are "better" than others. Too bad some are not willing to expand beyond Jung himself. Some people also struggle with the idea of personal growth within the framework, thinking a 60 year old INTJ will behave in the same way as and view the world the same as a 16 year old INTJ. That's not even getting into how the types can appear different based on their different, learned enneagram fears. Anyway, great video.
Appreciate the comment. However typology is a pseudo-science. It's interesting to a point but it can get dumber than astrology in most circles. This is precisely because proponents of typology think astrology is a pseudoscience and that typology is not.
@@ArmChairTypology I’m not disagreeing with your conclusion within that framework; I just don’t want to use that framework. Something doesn’t have to be scientific to have intellectual or emotional value. And just because people misuse or don’t understand something, doesn’t mean it’s not valuable either. I had suicidal ideation before coming across typology because I didn’t really understand myself or others, and the generic stuff you hear in therapy or get through cultural platitudes didn’t work for me. I get the issues with the framework, but I’m not going to dismiss something that has worked for me. There are more scientific alternatives, like Big 5, but I find their observations to be shallow, and their conclusions about people to lack social context and be judgmental in a negative way. Currently looking into the hexagon. Maybe that’s the way.
About the comment that said that you have to compare functions within a person, not between types: The argument was about strength of the function. I think that the commenter wanted to communicate that it should be true that every INTJ has (his own) Te stronger than (his own) Fi. But it is not necessarily true that every INTJ will have Fi weaker than every ESFP. So if you want to look whether someone has "strong Te", you can't look against a "global standard". You need to look within the person.
@@ArmChairTypology Socionics is a big beast. It's almost like a name for a field of study instead of one system. Many different people coming at it from different perspectives, sometimes writing papers in opposition (disagreeing) with other papers in socionics. You have a guy who described intertype relations, you have a guy who described the facial features of types (this one doesn't get taken too seriously by most people, but it is part of papers about socionics), there is a guy who came up with the concept of dimensionality (strength) of functions... The dimensionality alone doesn't really mean strength in all aspects. It is an idea that a 1-dimensional function processes experience (you learn it, because you needed it, or you worked a lot with it). 2D adds norms/standards - you know how it is supposed to be, even when you have not worked in this field - you accept common knowledge. 3D - you become creative with it, you want to thinker, you want to figure it yourself (rather to call an "expert") unless it's too time consuming to learn. That leads so situations where a Ti inferior is good with Ti in one area - let's say he works as a programmer and learns various techniques to write code and algorithms. He can achieve a better knowledge than someone with stronger Ti and unskilled in that field. But the Ti inferior will be usually clueless in areas where he has no experience, like "I never studied quantum physics, so I can't criticize someone's model in this field". But someone with strong Ti can parse and criticize Ti in general - he can create his own models and see potential problems in foreign models he has never seen before. Of course, he will be wrong at times, because he lacks knowledge, but he has confidence, and he knows/understands what he is doing. That is the concept of dimensionality/strength as I understand it. From the paper itself it was not presented as something that is a hard rule. It was presented as something that seems to be generally observable and presented as a more reliable way of typing than dichotomies. It still acknowledges that it doesn't work all the time. But I think that it is an interesting and often useful concept. --- Subtypes: I haven't read about them in socionics, but when I saw them used/presented in videos, my feeling is that subtypes in socionics still use the functions of that type, it's just in a different manner - like a Ti subtype of INTJ would be critical (using Ni+Te+Ti to dismantle ideas other people present), an Si subtype would be more mellow - using Ni-Te (Ti) to find harmonizing ways and common way forward. They still prefer their own functions. Unlike Objective Personality, where it is clear that NiFi jumper is supposed to use (and be better at) Fi over Te.
I don't necessarily think they're trolling as to they're just extremely shallow and try to put everyone in a box. Objectifying people in a sense. Their lack of self-awareness on top of their rigidity and stubbornness keeps them deluded to the point of having no optimism or understanding others perspectives. Plus, isn't MBTI a way of cognitive understanding and realizing everyone is different rather than equal subsets towards a path to growth? I also like when people try to use their type to justify their shitty behavior akin to astrology users. "Oh, I'm a Gemini." "Oh It's because I'm an INFJ..." Etc.
Let's engage a bit more. Hopefully you take it as a debate (exploration of ideas) and not like we are attacking each other. 😉 To address my comments: 1) Yeah, intuition is a thing, so we will take a little detour and compare our communication to a pattern: 😋 I would say that "Men are physically stronger than women." And that is not true in every case (even though I don't mention it - it's a way of communication. You need to dig deeper to see the nuances. I only throw a basic idea at you.). But the generalization is evident enough to me and it is useful in life. We can make rules for work on how much you should strain an average women to accommodate that they can't perform that heavily. Or you can split sport into men and women so that you don't have a woman in the first 100 people only once in 500 years. But your argument is that "That statement is not true. People use no Te. The state of genderology is pseudo-science, because look at people - they think that that every woman is weaker than a man. Like you can see that someone is a woman and know everything about their life.". Do you see a bit of yourself in this example? It might be Ti critic at work - you want to point out imprecisions in ideas and take them to extremities to get a point across (maybe in favor of Te?). I get your points and I understand the message (hopefully most of the time) even when you are (sometimes, as all humans) not precise about it. 2) You have Ti imprecision too - I have stated that Si is not (just) memory, and I would say that if we correlate it to memory, it is mostly episodic memory. They are not good at other kinds of memory. I can see (subjectively) how Ni doms (in general) have better Ni memory (they remember or can access better and/or more predictive information and similar patterns), Fi doms (in general) have better Fi memory (they remember better and/or more things related to Fi), and so on... 3) I have also stated that none of my arguments are scientific/provable. They are observations, generalizations, anecdotes, intuitions - about what links there might be about biology and type. Sure, they need to be tested and almost surely none of them is completely right in the exact way I have "intuited it? / made it up? / called out a possibility?". But there's so many of those nuggets that are observable in an average person (and sure, there are many exceptions - some people are straightforward, other people you can't type properly for a year...). I can tell that someone is a "woman" and have benefit from this information even though my ideas/observations are not perfect/scientific. ... Now... I understand that it is natural to take my comment and take it as if I claimed everything to be true, because that is a pattern of how people communicate and you wanted to point that out. It is a reasonable way to argue, so I take your point as valid - it has value/it is a meaningful message. ---- One more thing about Te. You map Te too much on precision, science... Both thinking functions are good at being correct in some ways and both have weaknesses that make them incorrect in other ways. Te is not always "science". At times, Te will ignore/throw away what is provable, because instead it prefers more resources/time/usefulness. Te doms are not those people who go around being right all the time. They sometimes take what works and don't care whether it is scientific (whether someone wrote a scientific paper and was peer reviewed). That is not a property of Te (or any other function). It works for them, so why throw it away? If something better comes along, they will switch.
Agreed. That claim that some people make about Si is completely ridiculous.
I think you could stand to practice speaking with more precision. Even the term "extroverted thinker" is ambiguous. Do you mean a person who leads with Te such as ExTJ, anyone who has Te in their first four slots or do you mean anyone who is an extrovert and a T, that is, ESTP, ENTP, ESTJ and ENTJ. We can't understand what you mean if you don't use clear terminology.
By extroverted thinker I mean INFJ
@@ArmChairTypology I get it xD
I wish people didn't try to use or refer to typology as either a science or pseudo-science. The former term is inaccurate for the reasons you lay out here, and the latter is derogatory enough that some will see it as having no value whatsoever. IMO, it'd be better if people just thought of it as a framework of or system of observations, so that you can point out and name certain behaviors and thinking patterns. The biggest problems I've run into with MBTI communities are that people have very rigid views of the functions, so, to them, an Fi user could never genuinely engage in Fe behavior or vice versa, or a Ti user could never genuinely enagge in Te behavior or vice versa, when that's not true in reality. That's a big reason for why I prefer the 8 function approach. Gives you a more comprehensive, less stereotyped, and less deterministic view of a person, and eliminates arguments about why some functions are "better" than others. Too bad some are not willing to expand beyond Jung himself. Some people also struggle with the idea of personal growth within the framework, thinking a 60 year old INTJ will behave in the same way as and view the world the same as a 16 year old INTJ. That's not even getting into how the types can appear different based on their different, learned enneagram fears. Anyway, great video.
Appreciate the comment. However typology is a pseudo-science. It's interesting to a point but it can get dumber than astrology in most circles. This is precisely because proponents of typology think astrology is a pseudoscience and that typology is not.
@@ArmChairTypology I’m not disagreeing with your conclusion within that framework; I just don’t want to use that framework. Something doesn’t have to be scientific to have intellectual or emotional value. And just because people misuse or don’t understand something, doesn’t mean it’s not valuable either. I had suicidal ideation before coming across typology because I didn’t really understand myself or others, and the generic stuff you hear in therapy or get through cultural platitudes didn’t work for me. I get the issues with the framework, but I’m not going to dismiss something that has worked for me. There are more scientific alternatives, like Big 5, but I find their observations to be shallow, and their conclusions about people to lack social context and be judgmental in a negative way. Currently looking into the hexagon. Maybe that’s the way.
About the comment that said that you have to compare functions within a person, not between types:
The argument was about strength of the function. I think that the commenter wanted to communicate that it should be true that every INTJ has (his own) Te stronger than (his own) Fi. But it is not necessarily true that every INTJ will have Fi weaker than every ESFP. So if you want to look whether someone has "strong Te", you can't look against a "global standard". You need to look within the person.
This is nonsense even using different typology systems rather than real life. For example socionics maintains that there are "subtypes".
@@ArmChairTypology Socionics is a big beast. It's almost like a name for a field of study instead of one system. Many different people coming at it from different perspectives, sometimes writing papers in opposition (disagreeing) with other papers in socionics. You have a guy who described intertype relations, you have a guy who described the facial features of types (this one doesn't get taken too seriously by most people, but it is part of papers about socionics), there is a guy who came up with the concept of dimensionality (strength) of functions...
The dimensionality alone doesn't really mean strength in all aspects. It is an idea that a 1-dimensional function processes experience (you learn it, because you needed it, or you worked a lot with it). 2D adds norms/standards - you know how it is supposed to be, even when you have not worked in this field - you accept common knowledge. 3D - you become creative with it, you want to thinker, you want to figure it yourself (rather to call an "expert") unless it's too time consuming to learn.
That leads so situations where a Ti inferior is good with Ti in one area - let's say he works as a programmer and learns various techniques to write code and algorithms. He can achieve a better knowledge than someone with stronger Ti and unskilled in that field. But the Ti inferior will be usually clueless in areas where he has no experience, like "I never studied quantum physics, so I can't criticize someone's model in this field". But someone with strong Ti can parse and criticize Ti in general - he can create his own models and see potential problems in foreign models he has never seen before. Of course, he will be wrong at times, because he lacks knowledge, but he has confidence, and he knows/understands what he is doing.
That is the concept of dimensionality/strength as I understand it. From the paper itself it was not presented as something that is a hard rule. It was presented as something that seems to be generally observable and presented as a more reliable way of typing than dichotomies. It still acknowledges that it doesn't work all the time. But I think that it is an interesting and often useful concept.
---
Subtypes: I haven't read about them in socionics, but when I saw them used/presented in videos, my feeling is that subtypes in socionics still use the functions of that type, it's just in a different manner - like a Ti subtype of INTJ would be critical (using Ni+Te+Ti to dismantle ideas other people present), an Si subtype would be more mellow - using Ni-Te (Ti) to find harmonizing ways and common way forward. They still prefer their own functions. Unlike Objective Personality, where it is clear that NiFi jumper is supposed to use (and be better at) Fi over Te.
How to keep SE doms from finishing the video…. Have that turning signal go off every 10 seconds. Damn that’s distracting
I don't necessarily think they're trolling as to they're just extremely shallow and try to put everyone in a box. Objectifying people in a sense. Their lack of self-awareness on top of their rigidity and stubbornness keeps them deluded to the point of having no optimism or understanding others perspectives. Plus, isn't MBTI a way of cognitive understanding and realizing everyone is different rather than equal subsets towards a path to growth? I also like when people try to use their type to justify their shitty behavior akin to astrology users. "Oh, I'm a Gemini." "Oh It's because I'm an INFJ..." Etc.
Let's engage a bit more. Hopefully you take it as a debate (exploration of ideas) and not like we are attacking each other. 😉
To address my comments:
1) Yeah, intuition is a thing, so we will take a little detour and compare our communication to a pattern: 😋
I would say that "Men are physically stronger than women." And that is not true in every case (even though I don't mention it - it's a way of communication. You need to dig deeper to see the nuances. I only throw a basic idea at you.). But the generalization is evident enough to me and it is useful in life. We can make rules for work on how much you should strain an average women to accommodate that they can't perform that heavily. Or you can split sport into men and women so that you don't have a woman in the first 100 people only once in 500 years.
But your argument is that "That statement is not true. People use no Te. The state of genderology is pseudo-science, because look at people - they think that that every woman is weaker than a man. Like you can see that someone is a woman and know everything about their life.". Do you see a bit of yourself in this example? It might be Ti critic at work - you want to point out imprecisions in ideas and take them to extremities to get a point across (maybe in favor of Te?). I get your points and I understand the message (hopefully most of the time) even when you are (sometimes, as all humans) not precise about it.
2) You have Ti imprecision too - I have stated that Si is not (just) memory, and I would say that if we correlate it to memory, it is mostly episodic memory. They are not good at other kinds of memory. I can see (subjectively) how Ni doms (in general) have better Ni memory (they remember or can access better and/or more predictive information and similar patterns), Fi doms (in general) have better Fi memory (they remember better and/or more things related to Fi), and so on...
3) I have also stated that none of my arguments are scientific/provable. They are observations, generalizations, anecdotes, intuitions - about what links there might be about biology and type. Sure, they need to be tested and almost surely none of them is completely right in the exact way I have "intuited it? / made it up? / called out a possibility?". But there's so many of those nuggets that are observable in an average person (and sure, there are many exceptions - some people are straightforward, other people you can't type properly for a year...). I can tell that someone is a "woman" and have benefit from this information even though my ideas/observations are not perfect/scientific.
... Now... I understand that it is natural to take my comment and take it as if I claimed everything to be true, because that is a pattern of how people communicate and you wanted to point that out. It is a reasonable way to argue, so I take your point as valid - it has value/it is a meaningful message.
----
One more thing about Te. You map Te too much on precision, science... Both thinking functions are good at being correct in some ways and both have weaknesses that make them incorrect in other ways. Te is not always "science". At times, Te will ignore/throw away what is provable, because instead it prefers more resources/time/usefulness. Te doms are not those people who go around being right all the time. They sometimes take what works and don't care whether it is scientific (whether someone wrote a scientific paper and was peer reviewed). That is not a property of Te (or any other function). It works for them, so why throw it away? If something better comes along, they will switch.
I enjoy reading long comments. The third point about nothing you're saying being provable is already obvious to me.
Cs Joseph baby! Our king 👑
#WarriorMagician
Picture is of tarot cards lol