Comparative Socionics: LSI and LSE
For years I have been practicing in a method such as komparativ - Comparative thperformance at the two sociotypes SUBMITTED th in a special table . This method is used when you need to dissolve two hypotheses about the type of person with whom you are conducting a live interview , or you observe it from the side . Interviews and observation perhaps is dd umya sama E prevalent mi types of working (not learning) diagnostics in my practice .
Moreover, the comparative will help you out if you suddenly come out in the middle of an interview with two alternative hypotheses and cannot give any of them any explicit preference, which is not so rare. At the same time, you start to feverishly recall the clarifying questions that are appropriate to your case , since the information you have about a person at this timeis as extensive as it is contradictory. You need to remember quickly! What to focus on? - On the list of contrasting differences.
As an introductory example, I will give a comparative table “ Inspector - Administrator ”compiled by me a couple of years ago . These types are often confused. In socionists information , in my opinion, there is no clear their way s of these types , or they find it difficult to hold steadfast th Grand Prix s between them. Why do I think so? - In my experience, the “Administrator” in them looks just like an active, “enlarged” Inspector with the same manners of a “real colonel,” a scout, plus aesthetic claims in the appendage.
The point here, as you understand, is not only extra-introversion, but also static — dynamics, centrality — peripherality and other socionic features. My opponents, in particular, often endow the “Administrator” with the features of a central manager, which is by no means true.
Central and peripheral managers confused unacceptable. Do not search for people like "Administrator" in the highest government positions or among military leaders. If you understand the difference between central (static, power, centralized) and peripheral (dynamic, territorial, decentralized) management, then you should not be surprised by the fact that there is practically no “Administrator” at the top of the state or business pyramid. By the way, I already wrote about the specifics of control in quadra “delta” and the role of FEL in it in a note dated 06/23/2010.
It is very important that a sufficiently specific information about contrasts be included in the comparative table , such that would be amenable to visual verification. Characteristics entirely built on value judgments (good - bad, smart - stupid, loves - dislikes, etc.), as well as verbally expressed ideological convictions for these purposes are completely unsuitable.
I can not agree with the tacit agreement of many socionics that in any field of all types should be approximately equal. Such humanistic equality. Contrary to this, I uphold the thesis that the number of different types in real society as we move to the heights of wealth, power and fame decreases, and mostly peripheral types are eliminated.
Let me also remind you that I never shared the desire of Aushra and her first followers to place in the lists of prominent historical figures of a progressive sense most places for only one sociotype - ILE, the notorious Don Quixote. The more I studied the personalities of people who dominated in the 20th century in different spheres of public life (take at least the same M. Thatcher or S. Freud, the types of which were actively discussed in early socionics), the more it became clear to me that ILE among them was very few. It was then that I came up with the idea of comparative tables, allowing to formulate clear, verifiable differences between types. I follow this path now.
Moreover, the comparative will help you out if you suddenly come out in the middle of an interview with two alternative hypotheses and cannot give any of them any explicit preference, which is not so rare. At the same time, you start to feverishly recall the clarifying questions that are appropriate to your case , since the information you have about a person at this timeis as extensive as it is contradictory. You need to remember quickly! What to focus on? - On the list of contrasting differences.
As an introductory example, I will give a comparative table “ Inspector - Administrator ”compiled by me a couple of years ago . These types are often confused. In socionists information , in my opinion, there is no clear their way s of these types , or they find it difficult to hold steadfast th Grand Prix s between them. Why do I think so? - In my experience, the “Administrator” in them looks just like an active, “enlarged” Inspector with the same manners of a “real colonel,” a scout, plus aesthetic claims in the appendage.
Inspector
|
Administrator
| |
one.
|
As a boss, he calls people to his office. In place of leaves only to verify or understand the emergency.
|
As a boss, he constantly visits the jobs of subordinates. If asked, pushes for them in front of the authorities.
|
2
|
Before dismissing a person, he raises him for a long time, warns, clarifies, etc.
If fired, then there is no way back.
|
Unscrupulous subordinate immediately says that he needs to leave. However, instead of firing, it gives new tasks. Dismissed can take back.
|
3
|
It focuses on the implementation of one task - the most important in his estimations.Only having solved the first question, goes to the second.
|
In parallel, he is engaged in several affairs, he can not wait. For him, in the first place is theurgency of the task, which is synonymous with importance for him.
|
four.
|
In a team, acts as a supervisor or coordinator. Himself take the initiative in no hurry, watching, waiting when invited.
|
In the team, it plays the role of an engine, that is, by its example it involves people in the business and, thanks to the pace, does not let them relax.
|
five.
|
Hidden, does not give an answer to the directly posed question, jokes, or answers ambiguously.
|
Answers to the question directly, bluntly. If he does not know the answer, he says so.
|
6
|
He is diplomatic, he is able to delay negotiations, to hold a pause, achieving step-by-step concessions.
|
Totally undiplomatic, easily spoils relations, sharpens the situation, does not look for special approaches.
|
7
|
Order leads to its territory rarely , mainly supports it. However, others indicate this.
|
Often brings order to its territory - even when everything is in fair condition.
|
eight.
|
To memorize information must write it down or in some way sketched. The same while thinking about a complex issue.
|
To memorize information, you must attach it to any known image. Ponders a tough question on the go.
|
The point here, as you understand, is not only extra-introversion, but also static — dynamics, centrality — peripherality and other socionic features. My opponents, in particular, often endow the “Administrator” with the features of a central manager, which is by no means true.
Central and peripheral managers confused unacceptable. Do not search for people like "Administrator" in the highest government positions or among military leaders. If you understand the difference between central (static, power, centralized) and peripheral (dynamic, territorial, decentralized) management, then you should not be surprised by the fact that there is practically no “Administrator” at the top of the state or business pyramid. By the way, I already wrote about the specifics of control in quadra “delta” and the role of FEL in it in a note dated 06/23/2010.
It is very important that a sufficiently specific information about contrasts be included in the comparative table , such that would be amenable to visual verification. Characteristics entirely built on value judgments (good - bad, smart - stupid, loves - dislikes, etc.), as well as verbally expressed ideological convictions for these purposes are completely unsuitable.
I can not agree with the tacit agreement of many socionics that in any field of all types should be approximately equal. Such humanistic equality. Contrary to this, I uphold the thesis that the number of different types in real society as we move to the heights of wealth, power and fame decreases, and mostly peripheral types are eliminated.
Let me also remind you that I never shared the desire of Aushra and her first followers to place in the lists of prominent historical figures of a progressive sense most places for only one sociotype - ILE, the notorious Don Quixote. The more I studied the personalities of people who dominated in the 20th century in different spheres of public life (take at least the same M. Thatcher or S. Freud, the types of which were actively discussed in early socionics), the more it became clear to me that ILE among them was very few. It was then that I came up with the idea of comparative tables, allowing to formulate clear, verifiable differences between types. I follow this path now.
Comments
Post a Comment