typologyhub-blog

[typologyhub-blog]

Typology Hub Revised Socionics 40Q

Te: 1. How do you work? Why do people go to work? Are there any parameters that determine whether you can do work or not? What are they? 2. How do you determine the quality of work? How do you determine the quality of a purchase? Do you pay any attention to it?

3. There is a professional next to you. How do you know they are a professional? How do you evaluate their skill?

4. If you struggle to do something, how do you fix that? Do you know if your performance is better or worse than others?

5. How do you measure the success of a job? What standard do you use? Do you pay attention to it? When should you deviate from this standard?

Ti: 1. What is a whole? Can you identify its parts? Are the parts equivalent to the whole?

2. What does "logical" mean? What is your understanding? Do you think that it correlates with the common view? How do you know you are being logical?

3. What is hierarchy? Give examples of hierarchies. Do you need to follow it? Why or why not? Explain how hierarchy is used in a system you are familiar with.

4. What is classification? How does classification work? Why is it needed and where is it applied? Give examples.

5. Are your ideas consistent? How do you know they are consistent? How do you spot inconsistency in others' ideas?

Se: 1. Can you press people? What methods do you use? How does it happen?

2. How do you get what you want? What do you do if you have to work to get what you want?

3. How do you deal with opposition? What methods do you use to defend your interests?

4. When do you think it's ok to occupy someone's space? Do you recognize it?

5. Do others think you are a strong-willed person? Do you think you have a strong will?

Si: 1. How do you satisfy your physical senses? What examples can you give? What physical experiences are you drawn to?

2. How do you find harmony with your environment? How do you build a harmonious environment? What happens if this harmony is disturbed?

3. What does comfort mean to you? How do you create it?

4. How do you express yourself in your hobbies? How do you engage yourself with those things?

5. Tell us how you'd design any room, house or an office. Do you do it yourself, or trust someone else to do it? Why?

Fe: 1. Is it acceptable to express emotions in public? Give examples of inappropriate expression of emotions.

2. How do you express your emotions? Can you tell how your expressions affect others in a positive or negative way?

3. Are you able to change your demeanor in order to interact with your environment in a more or less suitable way? How do you determine what is suitable?

4. In what situations do you feel others' feelings? Can you give examples of when you wanted to improve the mood of others?

5. How do others' emotions affect you? How does your internal emotional state correlate or contrast with what you express?

Fi: 1. How can you tell how much emotional space there is between yourself and others? How can you affect this space?

2. How do you determine how much you like or dislike someone else? How does this affect your relationships?

3. How do you move from a distant relationship to a close one? What are the distinguishing characteristics of a close relationship?

4. How do you know that you are a moral person? where do you draw your morality from? Do you believe others should share your beliefs on what's moral? Why?

5. Someone you care about is acting distant to you. How do you know when this attitude is a reflection of your relationship?

Ne: 1. How can you tell someone has the potential to be a successful person? What qualities make a successful person and why?

2. Where would you start when looking for a new hobby? How do you find new opportunities and how do you choose which would be best?

3. How do you interpret the following statement: "Ideas don't need to be feasible in order to be worthwhile." Do you agree or disagree, and why?

4. Describe your thought process when relating the following ideas: swimming, chicken, sciences. Do you think that others would draw the same or different connections?

5. How would you summarize the qualities that are essential to who you are? What kind of potential in you has yet to be actualized and why?

Ni: 1. How do people change? Can you describe how various events change people? Can others see those changes?

2. How do you feel and experience time? Can time be wasted? How?

3. Is there anything that cannot be described with words? What is it? If so, how can we understand what it is if language does not work?

4. How do you anticipate events unfolding? How can you observe such unfoldments in your environment?

5. In what situations is timing important? How do you know the time is right to act? How do you feel about waiting for the right moment?

[typologyhub-blog]

By Alpha on being a 3w4

So in order to understand me as a person, you must first understand that what I present to you is not an accurate representation of me. This isn't to say I'm disingenuous, exactly, but maybe I'm not the best judge of that. What it is to say is that anything I have ever accomplished or done with my life is not something I identify with myself. Any mark of status, knowledge or accomplishment I've ever done, any award or competition, barrier broken, these are not things I think of as being a part of me, and in many ways I even have a type of disdain for them, despite not every one of them being a source of disgust. What I mean to say is that these are not things that I identify as me. What I am in terms of how I identify "myself" very different from the actions I've taken. What I am is a flash in the context of infinity. I am a momentary blink. An occurrence of variables happening in a distinct moment in time. I am a perspective with a unique signature whose understanding of the world in the exact same way will never, and can never be replicated ever again, for to do such would mean that they were me, and I would identify that occurrence as myself. At some point, someone told me that this was not something that was ok to be. Maybe it was my mistake to believe them. Maybe if I had more strength, I wouldn't have listened. Maybe if I had had more faith, I wouldn't have buried this part of myself so deeply that it could never be hurt or touched ever again. If you've ever put a light inside of something, or behind something, though it invariably casts shadows. It projects an image, and all things that happen are a reflection of what happens inside. It casts images of good grades, won competitions, promotions at jobs and the like. While I have a certain amount of appreciation for such things, I will never lose sight of the fact that these are just projections. They're shadows. Those that say that they love me are saying that they love the shadow I cast. They are saying they love shadow puppets placed on the wall of forever. The light inside is something they will never be able to see. The shadows are a bastardization of the light inside. 

People, in my view don't want a person with their own thoughts, who's beauty is in their simple occurrence as a unique happening in the universe. They want shadows. They want a freak that can play societal games and do tricks for them. You might think of course that the way to free yourself is to not play, and to not perform. I assure you once you do this, you go from a freak that can perform tricks, to a freak that cannot perform them. People rely on status, indicators, referrals, biases to determine whether or not they should value you. I have never received any indication that any of them has ever looked at another person and understood them as a unique set of variables occurring in front of their eyes as a miracle. Knowing the other could not have occurred, and the world might be worse if they hadn't.   

To be me is to not believe that anyone will ever see you this way. Nobody will look at you and see "am" in the infinite vastness of "am not". They will not evaluate you as a unique, happening moment to moment, because every second, you are different and must be responded to differently. To be me is to be a child throwing finger paintings on the doorstep of God, begging to be observed for a moment, because I made something inside myself that nobody could have made, and nobody will make ever again.

[typologyhub-blog]

Brief Summary of Type 5 and Holy Omniscience/Transparency

The Holy Idea for enneagram type 5 is Holy Omniscience/Transparency, which is the desire to see multiple perspectives in order to formulate a complete understanding of reality. In such a sense, 5s seek to constantly add additional nuance and depth to what they already know, as a way to get a wholesome picture of what something is. 

H. A. Almaas writes that:

Our understanding of this Holy Idea expands on Ichazo’s definition above. Holy Omniscience is the Universal Mind, which is the multiplicity of existence within the unity described by Holy Truth. Universal Mind includes all that exists in its various manifestations, with all the various colors, the richness, and the continuous transformations of reality. It could also be called God’s Knowledge, since what God “knows” is the whole universe in all its multiplicity. You might say that Holy Omniscience is the same perception as Holy Truth, but with a different emphasis. In Holy Truth, the emphasis is on the unity of the universe; it is all “of the same taste,” as the Tibetan Buddhists say. With Holy Omniscience, the emphasis is on the differentiations and discriminations within that unity. So the focus here is on the various parts, in all their variety and multiplicity, that together comprise the unitive whole. To perceive reality through the facet of Holy Omniscience is like looking at a whole Persian rug, but focusing on the different designs contained within it.The other name of this Holy Idea, Holy Transparency, refers to oneness seen from the point of view of the individual. Instead of looking at the nature of reality from an “aerial” point of view, which would correspond to that of Holy Truth, we are seeing it from our human vantage point. It is the understanding of our place as human beings within the unity of existence, and from this perspective, we see that we are each an inseparable part of the whole, each a cell in the cosmic body, each a part of the “body” of God, inseparable from objective reality. The human being, then, is seen to be one of the differentiations of the Universal Mind.

 The idea of Holy Omniscience/Transparency is what ultimately drives the 5 into its compulsive need to research and understand; it’s as if, as Morpheus said to Neo in The Matrix, “there’s a splinter in your mind” and the only way to make it go away is to feel as if you have fully mastered the knowledge of something. This is the very source of the 5’s need to detach and observe because, as the 5 reasons, complete knowledge requires one to remain impartial to our own observations of reality. From this vantage point, true knowledge is attained once we can objectively see something for what it is without any disruptions or interruptions. Subsequently, the type 5 feels a need to remove the self and minimizing their own involvement within the world. However, because the 5 does not dare to directly engage the world, the 5’s understanding will always, at some level, be incomplete. Observations, then, only seem to lead to more questions, not satisfying answers, which in turn lead to more questions than answers.

In such a sense, the mental map of the 5 is vast as the 5’s ultimate goal is complete understanding of the universe. To the 5, the problem is that reality is infinitely complex and 5s just don't feel satisfied unless there's a sense of having grasped everything. However, due to the human mind being innately limited, this is not possible. Thusly, the 5 becomes stuck in constant mental ruminations in order to make sense of reality, which often results in them being specialists in any given field of their choice, no matter how obscure. To the 5, it could very well be that the answers that can be found in this particular field are the answers that will explain everything. Few movie plots demonstrate this as well as Darren Aronofsky’s Pi, where the character Max believes himself to finally have begun to figure out the answer behind the very figments that hold reality together, which leads him down a road of madness and paranoia. 

In short, 5s are highly analytical people driven to constantly deepen their understanding of the world. By detaching from themselves and the situation, the 5 believes that they can achieve true objective knowledge of whatever they seek to currently observe. Subsequently, 5s often possess complex inner worlds and easily get stuck in mental ruminations in order to figure out how something works. What 5s need to realize is that not all answers can be found via detachment, and that external observations cannot always replace the knowledge of direct experience. 

[typologyhub-blog]

Summary of the SO instinct

The social instinct allows us to understand the world and people in terms of social groupings and categorizations. By paying attention to the dynamics and social needs of every actor in any given situation, SO types find it easy to enter and leave social groups, as they are fully cognizant of what constitutes a social group and why. According to the SO instinct, every group consists of stereotypical qualities specific to the group, and someone skilled at the SO instinct knows how to manipulate these qualities to their our own advantage in order to fit or not fit in. Additionally, SO dominant types understand how to interconnect with society and social groups at large, and often end up being a part of vast social networks which they enter by evenly dividing their attention towards other people within the various groups they affiliate with.

Example: People that are interested in politics may recognize themselves as a part of various political parties (social groups/labels) and identify with their specific party, e.g. a “Democrat”. Furthermore, others that are politically active will categorize people in terms of being a  "Democrat" and "not Democrat" and be aware of what it takes to fit into the definition of a “Democrat”, a “Communist” and so on. 

This is contrasted to individuals that have SO instinct in the last position, which may, in terms of social categorization, fit the definition of a “Democrat”, but be completely unconcerned about whether they are a “Democrat" or not. Instead of seeing how society is comprised of hundreds of social labels such as “Democrats”, SO lasts tend to ignore how their actions can emotionally impact people that belong to certain groups by overlooking the social needs and expectations of these groups. In terms of politics, this can result in downplaying the essential ideas that unite a party e.g. how libertarians value the idea of a free market system and little to no governmental control, and suggest that one can indeed be a libertarian and vote for libertarian parties without adhering to such qualities. By preferring to place an emphasis on individuals such as close family and friends, SO lasts may find themselves socially shunned by various groups when they fail to recognize the ideological values that bring people together to form a group identity.

In short, SO dominant types often come across as warm people with an open and friendly attitude with a willingness to be emotionally invested in you despite having recently just met, though not necessarily as intense and passionate as SX types, nor as aloof as SP types. By paying attention to smaller social niceties such as always greeting others or saying goodbye when they leave in order to establish and maintain friendly connections, SO types easily preserve their relationships with others and can, once befriended, be your friend for life.

SO/SP: Prioritize their own emotional energy needs over the intimate and passionate side in relationships in favor of an even distribution of warmth to everyone else. Uses personal resources and other SP related phenomena in order to connect to social groups.

SO/SX: Will effortlessly pour energy into everyone they prioritize by attaching themselves to specific individuals that can introduce them to a larger social group that they can merge their identity with. Group identity and personal connections become valued over personal independence and material security. 

[typologyhub-blog]

Conversion Summary of Jungian Typologies

Jungian Typology

Jung divided his typology system based on two main axes: Introversion and Extroversion. He then added what he called four cognitive functions: Sensation, Thinking, Feeling and Intuition where Sensation and Intuition were Irrational functions (they care more for the depth of experience), and Thinking and Feeling were Rational functions (they care more for systematic categorization). This results in eight function sets:

Extroverts

Extroverted Sensing

Extroverted Thinking 

Extroverted Feeling 

Extroverted Intuition

Introverts

Introverted Sensation

Introverted Thinking

Introverted Feeling

Introverted Intuition

Jung furthermore postulated that Sensation is opposed to Intuition, and Thinking to Feeling, meaning that if one is leading with a Thinking function, then one also has an inferior Feeling function and vice versa, resulting in eight total types:

Extroverts

Dominant Extroverted Sensation - Inferior Introverted Intuition

Dominant Extroverted Thinking - Inferior Introverted Feeling

Dominant Extroverted Feeling - Inferior Introverted Thinking

Dominant Extroverted Intuition - Inferior Introverted Sensation 

Introverts

Dominant Introverted Sensation - Inferior Extroverted Intuition

Dominant Introverted Thinking - Inferior Extroverted Feeling

Dominant Introverted Feeling - Inferior Extroverted Thinking

Dominant Introverted Intuition - Inferior Extroverted Sensation

The MBTI The MBTI, which builds on Jung’s ideas, simplified the function names to one main letter: S, T, F and N. It then added Extroversion (e) and Introversion (i) as an additional annotation letter code in lower case, resulting in the following function names:

Se - Si 

Te - Ti

Fe - Fi 

Ne - Ni

Additionally, the MBTI adds a secondary function paired with the first or dominant function resulting in 16 different configurations:

Extroverts

SeTi - SeFi

TeSi - TeNi

FeSi - FeNi

NeTi - NeFi

Introverts

SiTe - SiFe

TiSe - TiNe

FiSe - FiNe

NiTe - NiFe

For simplicity, the MBTI uses a four-letter code to describe each type configuration where E/I is first, S/N second and T/F third, simplifying the above annotations into:

Extroverts

EST - ESF

ENT - ENF

Introverts

IST - ISF

INT - INF

However, because we do not know which function is dominant in this system, the MBTI adds a fourth letter code, J/P, for Judging and Perceiving (in Jung’s system, Rationality/Irrationality) resulting in the following type annotations:

This is a trend that follows in the Russian system of Socionics.

Socionics The naming in Socionics is somewhat different, albeit building on the same ideas. Instead of calling the Jungian functions as functions, it calls them Information Elements (IEs). In addition, IEs are no longer always referred to as being Extroverted or Introverted, but also as Black or White: 

Extroverts

Black Sensing 

Black Thinking 

Black Feeling

Black Intuition

Introverts

White Sensing 

White Thinking 

White Feeling 

White Intuition 

It is possible to also sometimes see Sensation referred to as Sensorics, Thinking referred to as Logic and Feeling referred to as Ethics. Socionics does otherwise retain several other Jungian dichotomies such as Rational/Irrational. To go with the new naming convention, Socionics also created an individual and unique icon for each function based on their respective names: 

Sensation is annotated as a circle

Thinking is annotated with a square

Feeling is annotated as an L corner shape 

Intuition as a triangle

The end result is a sixteen types configuration similar to the MBTI. However, Socionics uses a different letter coding to describe the types, so instead of using four letters that is standard in the MBTI, it uses three:

I for Intuition or S for (Sensation)

L for Logic (Jungian Thinking) or E for Ethics (Jungian Feeling)

E for Extrotrim (Jungian Extroversion) or I for Introtim (Jungian Introversion)

The end-result is a table of types looking like this: 

Furthermore, Socionist Viktor Gulenko introduced a new standard letter-coding for Socionics, renaming all of Socionics information elements into:

Extroversion

F - Force - Black Sensation/Sensorics

P - Production - Black Logic/Thinking

N - Intuition - Black Intuition

E - Emotions - Black Ethics

Introverts

S - Sensing - White Sensation/Sensorics

L - Logic - White Thinking/Logic

R - Relations - White Feeling/Ethics

T - Time - White Intuition

When converting the systems, the following annotations are equivalent to one another:

Extroverts

Extroverted Sensation > Se > S > Black Sensation/Sensorics > Force/F

Extroverted Thinking > Te > T > Black Thinking/Logic > Production/P

Extroverted Feeling  > Fe > F > Black Feeling/Ethics > Emotions/E

Extroverted Intuition > Ne > N > Black Intuition > Intuition/I 

Introverts

Introverted Sensation > Si > S > White Sensation/Sensorics > Sensation/S

Introverted Thinking > Ti > T > White Thinking/Logic > Logic/L

Extroverted Feeling > Fi > F > White Feeling/Ethics > Relations/R

Introverted Intuition > Ni > N > White Intuition > Time/T