Published: 03-06-2014 07:58 am
Updated: 03-06-2014 07:59 am
There are four primary types in the Ripple Studies system, inspired by Helen Fishers four type theory of Explorers. (AOE/CDP variations) and Directors (ADE/COP variations) Builders (AOP/CDE) and Negotiators (ADP/COE)
There are four base ideologies, humanist (idealist-constructivist), socialliberal (materialist-constructivist), conservative (materialist-essentialist) and liberalconservative (idealist-essentialist)
Constructivists primarily lead with Abstract processing as their dominant or auxilary, for some reason. Essentialists with concrete processing.
There isn't a thumb rule for materialists and idealists, or atleast I haven't found it yet.
Interesting, so this is kind of more focus on groups than on specific individuals?
Published: 03-07-2014 12:38 pm
Yes. The scale of autonomy vs collaborativeness isn't about how you self-assess yourself, but it refers to how people with abstract execution and concrete processing seek to diverge from and follow their own voice over the voice of the group, versus how collaborative people with concrete execution and abstract processing (no matter the order of the two) seek to work together with and see how the group as a collective entity can move forward, for example by arranging who does what, distribution of labour.
Autonomous personalities are more common in individual sports, for example, but people with collaborativeness tend to do better in team sports. Collaborativeness tends to be more presentable, autonomous areas tend to be less centered around team work.
All these things I mention above are only visible in interactions and in groups/when we're engaging the world around us, and my hunch is that because abstract execution becomes mixed with concrete processing, the processes become impossible to tell apart.
This would suggest why we have struggled to use abstract processing or abstract execution to explain more complicated and nuanced aspects of human behavior. Because it only explains how we self-assess, it only explains the subjective level, not how we work and interact outwards - the objective level.
Christian likes this post.
Published: 03-07-2014 01:34 pm
Sounds intuitively rational. Often in a group there will both Abstract Executors (A*E) and Concrete Executors (C*E) working together. How do you know if a specific group is autonomous or collaborative?
I personally haven't seen alot of groups where A*E and C*E types work together. But there's four ideologies that can help out here. VR- INTJ's are constructivist and materialist, so they could work together well with in particular VR- ISFJ*s as they are materialist, aswell. Materialism is the inclination to look at what is best for the group as a whole, to look at the objectively best value for the group, rather than seeing it relativistically (what is true for me may not be for you) so ISFJ's and INTJ's could work fine together, even if their methodism is different. ISTJ's and INTJ's propably won't work well together, though, because ISTJ's are idealists, and essentialists, which would make them see the way almost the opposite way you do ideologically.
Some bubbles, like the humanist bubble, primarily attracts humanists types (in particular constructivists) even if they diverge internally on work methods and interaction styles.
Christian likes this post.
Published: 03-07-2014 02:42 pm
I worked for instance on a marketing company were the CEO was AOE and most project leaders were AOP.
AOP is very efficient and structured and can make sure things follow deadlines etc. I had no problems working with these people.
It was over 100 employees, how would you type a large business like this?
I don't think it's practical to use autonomy to study groups with more than six people in them, that's where I bring forward ideologies, because in larger groups, it becomes hard to maintain the focus on every individual and their individual methods and work styles. So autonomy/collaborativeness should only be studied when looking at individuals within a group, not at large businesses or when it's about bigger ideas.
I would sum down conflicts on group policies, ethics and values to usually be problems of clashing ideologies, for example in the greens I often observe a conflict ideologically between humanists and socialliberals. In mainstream media this conflict in the greens has been described as a conflict between fundis and realos, where humanists have demanded alot more idealism from their elected representatives than the representatives have delivered (Joshka Fischer in germany for example was thrown out) and this trend seems common in other left-oriented groups, aswell.
In conservative/right leaning groups, the clashes will usually be between materialists (classic conservatives) and idealists (libertarians). In a regular company, google would have a very idealistic business model (big freedoms for everyone to choose their own work style) whilst many others want more focus on oversights, meetings, strong and active leadership, and for the business to clearly define a common goal for everyone within the business.
Ofcourse, it's possible that there could also be clashes between constructivism and essentialism, which would revolve around if the company or group should change in some way (constructivism) or if they should preserve their traditional style (essentialism)
In general no society has ever been able to survive radical idealism, usually idealism in it's largest extent would cause a company or group to fall apart completely. So the notion for people to work together is brought forward primarily by materialists.
Humanists are constructivist and idealists: INFJ, ENTJ, ENFP, INTP
Socialliberals are constructivists and materialists: ENTP, INTJ, INFP, ENFJ
Liberalconservatives are essentialists and idealists: ESTP, ISFP, ESFJ, ISTJ
Conservatives are essentialists and materialists: ISTP, ESFP, ISFJ, ESTJ
Christian likes this post.
Published: 03-07-2014 04:01 pm
Very interesting! Sounds rational.
So could you say that big-groups need to have "balanced" ideology?
Like no ideology should be used too much?
Google are not so "open" as people think, they are banning remote work for programmers and co-operate with other IT-companies to keep salaries and work benefits as low as possible. Really, people at Google are underpaid in relation to the market.
Published: 03-07-2014 04:27 pm
Interesting, yeah, I'm sure they're problematic in many regards.
I think my stance is that ideologies emerge because groups interact and try to simplify or summarize what aspects of a group that they care the most about, what they are the most concerned about. So in general, I'd treat ideologies as "needs" - as things that need to be expressed, felt and as focus points. So rather than balance, it'd be good to let them find sustainable ways of expressing these needs and concerns.
Christian likes this post.
Published: 03-08-2014 02:07 am
So could you say ideologies are subjective organic rules? Like you can't measure or quantify it still it binds big groups of people together?
I think ideologies are like symbols (team colors) which create a organic context were people can feel similar to other people without having any specific similarities other "believing" in a ideology?
What do you think?
Published: 03-08-2014 03:31 am
Updated: 03-08-2014 03:38 am
The four methods I described in the beginning try to explain a personal attempt to establish or move a dynamic or group structure in some manner, for example through autonomy or collaborativeness.An ideology, on the other hand, is an attemptive universalized notion of how one expects a group or collective to move forward. Ideologies correspond to and explain our human needs. Socialism and liberalism are symbolical representations of ideology, but the notion of ideology, the way I use it, shouldn't be just organic, it should equally concern deterministic needs of order, scheduling, and reliability, and abstract and concrete needs. Abstract ideologies are constructivist, the problematic part is the suggestion I made on that for example INFJ's, ENTJ's, ENFP's and INTP's have the same ideology. I haven't found a pattern for why this is the case, I've just noticed so far the maths add up that they do. (And I'm sure you've seen the similarities between ENTP's, INTJ's, INFP's and ENFJ's too!)
Do you have any ideas on why it would be the case? :) What I'm gonna test out is changing the perspective, I took this system down by going from the bottom parts (cognitive theory-upwards) and maybe it'd work better if I approached it again from the objective level first.
Christian likes this post.
Published: 03-08-2014 05:26 am
I think it's interesting approach because Jungian typologies don't focus so much on group dynamics, maybe Socionics but I have not much knowledge about it.
I think there is some truth in this theory already, I really think the autonomous vs collaborativeness should be correlated with abstract execution vs concrete execution. Like when we are heading for a goal we will really be using longterm memory, so if the longterm memory is high conceptualized the goal and the direction to the goal will not neccesary be related to how goals have been defined before and what methods have been used to reach the goal before.
The concrete execution will more likely set goals and methods to the goals in accordance with concrete past experience and ways that have been shown to work in the past.
ErikThor likes this post.
Published: 03-08-2014 06:18 am
Look at some C*P types and you'll see that they also try to stand out and be autonomous in the way I'm describing them (Britney Spears, Laila Ali, for example) :) So not just A*E! It's what PL maps down as "stage presence" - the "Hey I'm here, look at me!" aspect + I'm gonna do my own thing no matter what anybody else thinks-vibe. :)
Similarily, you'll find alot of collaborativeness in A*P's. Standing out is necessary in showbusiness, so some do anyways (Lady Gaga, Nicki Minaj for example), but in interviews they're always very collaboratory, very willing to talk things out, to listen, and very attentive to how others want them to talk and what others want to hear. Also I note that autonomous identities tend to go in circles alot. When in autonomous bubbles, I find that people tend to repeat themselves alot, nobody is collaboratory enough to pick up the ball and move along, rather, everyone is wrestling around with the same problem.
Abstract and concrete only appears when people switch from objective state to subjective state or vice versa.
ENTP's are generally in subjective state (giving the world it's own unique meaning) and existentialism (seeing themselves as free agents) - ADP processing. But sometimes they make the switch into objective state (seeing the world from a top-down perspective) and rationalism (focusing on what others expect of them) - COE and those are two personal states (derived from self-assessments) and they can be used to explain feelings and personal problems, likes and dislikes) For example in subjective state they will daydream more and be more free-flow, and they will experience feelings such as fear, anxiety, joy and relaxation) in objective state though, they'll be very work-focused and try hard to live up to others expectations, and experience feelings such as anger, satisfaction, shame or caring. So those things should be related to self-assessed personality.
But nobody else sees those emotions but you, and what everyone else sees is your interaction with the world, and the ENTP will be seen as an estrogen driven negotiators-type, with social capital (what inspires trust and recognition). So I just decided it should be called identity.
And I noticed socionics does use some concepts (They talk about four quadrants, which correlate to Helen Fishers four types), but I don't think they're using them correctly, and they're not so well developed, just theoretical concepts.
Christian likes this post.
Published: 03-08-2014 07:41 am
Sounds interesting, I agree on your opinions about it. Guess that is why a team need different types of individuals to become successful.
In a way I think the execution is related to ego (own opinion, agenda, goal) more than processing (indiscriminate understanding and exploration). And also that the identity would also be more defined by the execution than the processing of an individual.
Published: 03-09-2014 04:26 pm
Are the semantics of ideologies always organic and deterministic simultaneously? To me they seem to be organic only, would like if you gave an example of an ideology which is directing both organic and deterministic dynamics in a group.
Published: 03-11-2014 05:21 am
Updated: 03-11-2014 05:25 am
I think you have a point, and it's primarily because I'm using organic means to study this, I primarily catch the organic implications, to speed up the process. I'm currently reassessing and reapproaching this for version 0.3. Some ponderances until then:
1. Ideologies could be about our worldview in general, i,e how we see the world around us. Atleast, ideologies could be results of our worldview; a result of how we see the world in general. For example, Humanist-types could be HSP-driven, and Socialliberals could be superego driven.
2. How do you and Hanna relate to the phenomena of the superego? If you would quantify it, it would be about seeing yourself as working or trying to fulfill an internalized idea of being a good person, an idea of rationality.
3. Primary HSP quantifiers, as suggested by Elaine Aron:
- I seem to be aware of subtleties in my environment
• I have a rich, complex inner life
• I am deeply moved by the arts or music
• I am conscientious
• When people are uncomfortable in a physical environment, I tend to know what needs to be done to
make it more comfortable (like changing the lighting or setting).
• I notice and enjoy delicate fine scents, tastes, sounds, works of art
These all lead me to suggest that HSP would have a relation to the Id, like the Superego has to the ego, so HSP would be a form of super-id.
The Id is about our instincts, our sexuality, and our inclination to self preservation. Personalized experiences. The superid/hsp would be about externalized experiences, feeling one with the world, and having strong reactions to external experiences. All the quantifiers used by Elaine Aron are objective - not personal. For example conscientousness - wanting to do one's work well, is something I notice in all HSP-personalities, it's a super important criteria, and it relates to a little, nervousness, and having strong reactions when one makes mistakes. HSP has a big enough implication in a persons life, to be comparable to the implications of the ego, the superego or the id, and it's a phenomena that smoothly occupies 25% of the population, suggesting that, if types are evenly distributed, four of the sixteen types would classify as such.
My note is that so far I don't see most INTJ's or ENTP's, self-assessing as HSP, actually few fill the criteria/vibe of HSP. My personal experience is that INFJ's and ENFP's always do, and that INTP's always do. I have too little experience of ENTJ's to say if it fits them or not. It doesn't fit their stereotype, but I'll test the possibility. The INFP's I've seen that self-assess as HSP, I think they primarily relate to the builder temperament- inclination towards pulling into oneself- sensitivity to new experiences. Active INFP's never appear even slightly HSP.
Christian likes this post.
Published: 03-11-2014 05:31 am
Updated: 03-11-2014 05:32 am
I think types who prefer the deterministic contexualization, (for example Jungian ENTP, INTJ correlates) would use their deterministic side to "rationalize" their organic contextualization in a larger extent than people who prefer a organic contexualization. So it sounds probable.
HSP could be seen as a nervousness or neurosis and for example CBT (Cognitive Behaviour Therapy) works by making the individual use the deterministic contexualization in a larger extent and place their organic contexualization in a rational perspective (like is this feeling really related to this situation?) Like learn to control their limbic-system (amygdala fear reactions and similar). I've had issues with HSP myself but I notice that the more I use my deterministic contexualization the less nervous I become.
So HSP could be a symptom of a un-balanced brain which uses organic contexualization too much and needs to learn to rationalize the emotional side.
I'm not so familiar with Freudian theory so I'll have to read about it before I can discuss your theories correlation with Freudian theories. I think it's a interesting perspective on types.
Published: 03-11-2014 05:45 am
Elaine Aron suggests it's a biological feature, unrelated to balance/unbalance. It may in your case be that your experience of HSP is a sign of nervousness, but it might not be extendable to all within the HSP criteria. For example, I consider HSP something very positive in my life, giving me the ability to strongly feel one with any situation I am thrown at. I note that most professional actors within the humaniast bubble learn to play with their HSP alot, for example through method acting-- going as far into the emotions and experience of the person we are trying to portray, as possible, and becoming so one with the stage you forget about everything else, so there is only the room and the play. In INFJ's and ENFP's that I note have strong deterministic riffs, I don't see less HSP; however I do notice more shields up in the air, but there's still the strong energy investment associated with HSP.