These are general descriptions of 4 functions which I would like to use for type -analyser. Would you think they are good or not that good for the person who does not know socionics to evaluate yourself based on them? What choice would you make? I mean could you create a type profile of them: from strongest to the weakest?
I do think logics & ethics are too extremes so they may fit people who have one of them as the base function, as for the rest I think they're ok.
as for the order I'd like to hear what you think of the below first
"How competent are you in logic?
In disputes and conflicts with people, you do not delve into their subjective feelings and motives, but seek an objective justification for everything. Links to rules and facts convince you. You can easily understand and explain the logic of various mechanisms and devices, the actions of people on the spot and without hesitation. You usually rely on your mind and ability to think in solving problems. At the same time, you may not always understand the reaction of people to your words and what they feel and think about you. You would prefer people to say this directly to you. It is difficult for you to understand people and their motives, to interpret emotions. It’s easier for you to solve problems in the field of theoretical and applied logic, such as technology, computers, statistics, construction industry, etc.
1. Сompetent 2. Not competent 3. Not sure
1) I don't consider it delving into their subjective feelings and motives, but I am aware that presentation matters as well as showing an understanding of the other person's situation because many times people hate it when you convince them with logic because it makes them feel stupid or as if they didn't think things through, so yeah I think this quote is very true "Convince a man against his will, He's of the same opinion still." so in short I seek objective justification but I try to balance that with people's need so even if option a is the best option logically if it will put someone at a really bad spot I'll prefer to go with option b because you may need that person's help later so it's better to stay on good terms
2) yes they convince me
3) yeah I do easily understand logical systems easily (as long as they're explained correctly) but the "on the spot" part is tricky because I don't like to be put on the spot, I remember one of my instructors put me on the spot "because I was charily spacing out" and asked me to do simple binary conversion which I normally do easily but when he suddenly pointed at me and asked me to do it my mind just froze
4) yes I do rely on my mind
5) as I said yesterday I do put some thought on how I want people to react to my words so I can expect their reactions and even if it's not what I expected it won't be way off
6) I can pick on signs of how people feel about me, but I can be doubtful especially when there are contradicting signs so yes I prefer it directly
7) I would like to say I don't have difficulty understanding people and their motives, but I have been deceived before and not only once (I think I have mentioned that I have been called "naive" or "too honest")
8 ) I specialized in computers so yes they're way more straight forward and easier than people and not to mention people at work relies on me to troubleshoot and solve system issues
2. How competent are you in ethics?
You delve into the feelings, motives, needs of people. You are able to harmonize and inspire the people around you. You are always with others, you like working with people, you value human rights and morality. You feel confident giving advice about relationships, explaining the feelings and motives of people, raising your spirits and finding words of compassion. If you quarreled with a person, you usually know what to do to make peace. You can say sorry even if it wasn’t your fault. You trust your heart.
1. Сompetent 2. Not competent 3. Not sure
1) I think my answer to point 1 in logic applies here, but I'd like to add that I am not very inspirational
2) I like working with people who I like, but I am very introverted and love my time alone and spends a lot of time by myself so no I am not always with people (unless imaginary people counts)
3) I value fairness so if human rights are fair then yes but if they're not then no. Honestly I think "human rights" is a buzz word used for political reasons only
4) no I don't, I spends most of my time by myself so I don't consider myself a relationships expert to give advice, but I have no problem explaining someone else's perspective or motives, I have talked with friends who complained about a colleague or a supervisor and I will be like "I understand why that frustrates you but that guy is like this so what he actually meant is x but the expression failed him" as for giving words of compassion I find that hard or maybe awkward as I was raised with the concept that boys are logical & don't need emotions for example "boys don't cry only girls do"
5) yes I can make peace & apologize even if it isn't my fault as long as my pride wasn't disrespected (I can be so proud sometimes)
3. How competent are you in intuition?
Rely heavily on intuition to solve problems. You read between the lines and see the potential of people and objects. Know how to make reliable forecasts regarding the development of events. Able to use their imagination and come up with a story to convince others. Easily find a way out of a difficult situation. Able to quickly recognize a thief or scammer.
1. Сompetent 2. Not competent 3. Not sure
1) yes a friend once noted that I spot the issues quickly will reading the logs, and I thought "well sometimes it's just a gut feeling other times I have seen something similar before"
2) yes for example I did predict that "Abdel Fattah el-Sisi" will be Eygpt president even before "Mohamed Morsi" was elected, because he built an extremely good reputation during Egyptian Revolution of 2011 that made him be seen as a hero.
3) yes I am very imaginative but I don't like lying so if I came up with a story I make sure I didn't lie (I do sometimes say half truths though)
4) it depends on what kind of difficult situation
5) I did say I have been deceived but it's because I didn't expect them to have bad motives, as for a thief I am not sure
4. How competent are you in sensorics?
You are a materialist who appreciates and collects wonderful quality things. You like to touch, hold, or even sniff objects to check for texture and quality. You rely heavily on your feelings. You know how to protect yourself and, if necessary, can adequately use physical force. Know how to work in conditions that may include harmful odors. Confidently act in stressful situations and do not give up. Appreciate the open and sincere people who speak on business. Do not read between the lines and do not like ambiguities. Ask specific questions, ask often for examples and more details to better understand what is happening. You give preference to traditional and proven methods.
1. Сompetent 2. Not competent 3. Not sure
1) no but I appreciates wonderful quality things (don't collects them though)
2) I guess I do that
3) rely heavily on my feelings for what? and how's it sensorics related?
4) no I sucks in self defense
5) no I prefer comfortable work conditions
6) I am more cautious than confident
7) yeah I do appreciate them, but do you mean they're too formal? if so I prefer informal settings
8 ) I do read between the lines BUT I do not like ambiguities
9) I ask "why" a lot
10) if it's critical, I prefer proven methods otherwise I prefer new promising technologies
Recent Posts
