Reasons Why Socionics Is/Is Not Worth Our Time

[NiiTe]

Discuss.

[BLauritson]

It's worth my time because it helps me understand both people and my relationships with them, and also to get the most out of this information.

[NiiTe]

It's worth my time because it helps me understand both people and my relationships with them, and also to get the most out of this information.

A vallid point, I guess I should be more specific. Once one has absorbed the majority of the information relevant to understand people and relationships between them, to the point where any further time put into Socionics appears to yield diminishing returns in terms of understanding people and relationships between them, then why would Socionics be worth ones time.

Socionics has to make a trade-off between how deterministic it is, and pigeonholing/stereotyping people and relationships. If say, an ESE or an LII does something that does not make any sense in the context of socionics, that example doesnt contradict socionics, it is merely regarded as an exeption. Because of this, Socionics lacks falsifiability.

Right now I have a better relationship with a person from Delta Quadra than I ever had with anyone from Gamma Quadra. Maybe I (or an SEE I know) have over-valued the concept of quadras.

[BLauritson]

Hmm.. this is a difficult one. I suppose really, there's a limited amount of use you can get out of any form of information, whether it be a single theory or an entire science. Once you have obtained enough information ("enough" being defined subjectively) then chances are you won't really get anything more out of it. I dunno, I'm just rambling I guess.

I must say, I find it curious you say you get on better with a Delta than any Gammas you've known; it's been precisely the opposite for me. Do you know what it is about this Delta person that you prefer? How have your experiences with Alphas or Betas been (if any)? I ask purely out of curiosity.

[drd252]

the rampant elitism on this board makes me not want to give a fuck about socionics.

[Jarno]

yes the forum starts to dissapoints me too.

another reason not to know socionics is that you get picky in your relationships. It used to be so easy, just go for the chick with the biggest tits.

Now we also have to consider her type...

[NiiTe]

the rampant elitism on this board makes me not want to give a fuck about socionics.

One reason I did not want to join this forum in the first place. A little wont kill yall

[Blaze]

i'm reaching a point of dimishing returns. maybe it's just me as a Ti type but you can start to overanalyze things.

potentially you could start to look for things that aren't really there instead of just listening to the people you are in relationships with.

the applicability and practicality of socionics is limited for somebody my age, also, esp in the area of duality. what if you can't find your dual? this is very likely at certain ages. should you just keep waiting, or start to appreciate what you have? it's puffed up to be more than it really should be i think. ideally one should be able to utilize socionics to make the best of any relationship.

the quadra thing can be really divisive. i see it happening here all the time. i get so tired of these Ti/Te Fi/Fe arguments and disagreements.....over what?? Se power games vs Ne intellectual games and the like. and yet you can see that certain ideas should not go uncontested....

we tred oh so carefully around more white-hot topics like family (like living with a conflict relation or a supervisor) and how this affects things while we argue about Ti/Te. oh well to be expected i guess, it is after all a public forum.

[Quirk Satellite Div.]

It's worth my time because it helps me understand both people and my relationships with them, and also to get the most out of this information.

A vallid point, I guess I should be more specific. Once one has absorbed the majority of the information relevant to understand people and relationships between them, to the point where any further time put into Socionics appears to yield diminishing returns in terms of understanding people and relationships between them, then why would Socionics be worth ones time.

Socionics has to make a trade-off between how deterministic it is, and pigeonholing/stereotyping people and relationships. If say, an ESE or an LII does something that does not make any sense in the context of socionics, that example doesnt contradict socionics, it is merely regarded as an exeption. Because of this, Socionics lacks falsifiability.

Right now I have a better relationship with a person from Delta Quadra than I ever had with anyone from Gamma Quadra. Maybe I (or an SEE I know) have over-valued the concept of quadras.

No-one said that Socionics has to remain the same- there is still a lot that can be done to mold the theory. There is no mantra in Socionics that says to throw out evidence that doesn't support its claims. Socionics is not some form of holy scripture. Simply, Socionics at the moment cannot be treated as a science because no institution is in place to form it into one- the theory is threshed out of personal anecdotes. However, Socionics it does have its merits. The fact that Socionics is very immature means that there is still a lot of work and thought that can be put into it- even if most of it is futile.

[Logos]

Socionics is increasingly becoming not worth my time or effort at least in regards to this forum. I have become quite apathetic as to what types people are or claim to be anymore. Instead my interest on this forum has grown primarily in regards to the behaviors of group-identification, as it relates to types, quadras, and functions on this forum; it is like watching arbitrarily assigned political parties in action in futile "us versus them" power struggles disguised as a hermeneutic of intellectual correctness.

[Logos]

yes the forum starts to dissapoints me too.

another reason not to know socionics is that you get picky in your relationships. It used to be so easy, just go for the chick with the biggest tits.

Now we also have to consider her type...

I am going to have to second this idea as well. I am not sure if Socionics is simplifying anything if it means that a historically (and evolutionary) tried and proven method of mate selection is to be made obsolete by abstract categories.

[Ezra]

It's worth my time because it helps me understand both people and my relationships with them, and also to get the most out of this information.

I'd say that was the only reason anyone should be into socionics to be honest.

[xyz]

i'm reaching a point of dimishing returns. maybe it's just me as a Ti type but you can start to overanalyze things.

potentially you could start to look for things that aren't really there instead of just listening to the people you are in relationships with.

the applicability and practicality of socionics is limited for somebody my age, also, esp in the area of duality. what if you can't find your dual? this is very likely at certain ages. should you just keep waiting, or start to appreciate what you have? it's puffed up to be more than it really should be i think. ideally one should be able to utilize socionics to make the best of any relationship.

the quadra thing can be really divisive. i see it happening here all the time. i get so tired of these Ti/Te Fi/Fe arguments and disagreements.....over what?? Se power games vs Ne intellectual games and the like. and yet you can see that certain ideas should not go uncontested....

we tred oh so carefully around more white-hot topics like family (like living with a conflict relation or a supervisor) and how this affects things while we argue about Ti/Te. oh well to be expected i guess, it is after all a public forum.

Maybe you should start a topic on living with a supervisor. But I can see where you're coming from, it's just us who are willing to argue about that stuff. I see the Ti/Te shit all the time and after awhile it all just starts sounding so detached from reality.
Sides, age is just a number Don't worry so much about your duals age, just worry if he's mature enough and likes ya =] ( I do understand that it's just generally harder in general though)



And who's elite here, drd??

[liveandletlive]

i think the reason why we all stick with it is because it has not been proven, you try to prove or disprove or alter in some way the theory through new life experiences.

[Logos]

i think the reason why we all stick with it is because it has not been proven, you try to prove or disprove or alter in some way the theory through new life experiences.

Do you normally stick with methods and ideas that have not been proven?

[liveandletlive]

i think the reason why we all stick with it is because it has not been proven, you try to prove or disprove or alter in some way the theory through new life experiences.

Do you normally stick with methods and ideas that have not been proven?

omg i can't say anything around here without people nitpicking my every word

By not proven I meant it is not scientifically or psychologically proven, but obviously I have experienced many things in my life that have led me to believe this theory is true.

[implied]

i think the reason why we all stick with it is because it has not been proven, you try to prove or disprove or alter in some way the theory through new life experiences.

Do you normally stick with methods and ideas that have not been proven?

omg i can't say anything around here without people nitpicking my every word

i interpreted this as looking forward to discovering whether it's valid or not rather than, "hur hur, i'm liveandletlive and obviously i love sticking with methods and ideas that have not been proven."

[Logos]

i think the reason why we all stick with it is because it has not been proven, you try to prove or disprove or alter in some way the theory through new life experiences.

Do you normally stick with methods and ideas that have not been proven?

omg i can't say anything around here without people nitpicking my every word

You think that having "the Critic" as your dual would get you used to such criticisms and nitpicking. Sorry, but your comment just flew in the face of all that is sacred and .

By not proven I meant it is not scientifically or psychologically proven, but obviously I have experienced many things in my life that have led me to believe this theory is true.

If you do not mind me saying so, that explanation is still not going to fly anymore than the human experience can be used to validate the existence of God or having the human experience try and validate something like quantum mechanics.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Logos]

i think the reason why we all stick with it is because it has not been proven, you try to prove or disprove or alter in some way the theory through new life experiences.

Do you normally stick with methods and ideas that have not been proven?

omg i can't say anything around here without people nitpicking my every word

You think that having "the Critic" as your dual would get you used to such criticisms and nitpicking. Sorry, but your comment just flew in the face of all that is sacred and .

No. What you did was apply Ne to make an alternate meaning out of what she said, and then act as though that's what she meant, when she didn't. Ne and Ti, not Te.

And now you are reading my post incorrectly. Diana, there was no in that.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[implied]

i think the reason why we all stick with it is because it has not been proven, you try to prove or disprove or alter in some way the theory through new life experiences.

Do you normally stick with methods and ideas that have not been proven?

omg i can't say anything around here without people nitpicking my every word

You think that having "the Critic" as your dual would get you used to such criticisms and nitpicking. Sorry, but your comment just flew in the face of all that is sacred and .

No. What you did was apply Ne to make an alternate meaning out of what she said, and then act as though that's what she meant, when she didn't. Ne and Ti, not Te.

i believe i agree with you, diana. my gut reaction was to say it was a case of Ne and Se conflicting with eachother.

[Logos]

Where are you people getting this shit? Gut reaction a Ne/Se clash my ass, stop being so damn defensive of what liveandletlive said and just look at what she wrote. When there are things that are not proven by the dynamic reality of , but we believe only because of gut instinct, we call that being candy-ass delusional. Things which are often the biggest wastes of time, effort, and energy are often used on these sorts of endeavors.

ETA: BTW, this is the sort of petty shit that is making me so apathetic about the value of Socionics. Honestly, has knowledge of Socionics improved the relations of people at all on this board?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[liveandletlive]

i think the reason why we all stick with it is because it has not been proven, you try to prove or disprove or alter in some way the theory through new life experiences.

Do you normally stick with methods and ideas that have not been proven?

omg i can't say anything around here without people nitpicking my every word

You think that having "the Critic" as your dual would get you used to such criticisms and nitpicking. Sorry, but your comment just flew in the face of all that is sacred and .

By not proven I meant it is not scientifically or psychologically proven, but obviously I have experienced many things in my life that have led me to believe this theory is true.

If you do not mind me saying so, that explanation is still not going to fly anymore than the human experience can be used to validate the existence of God or having the human experience try and validate something like quantum mechanics.

what are you talking about?!?! your nitpicking was the most blatant use of - sorry I take criticism that is useful and actually matters. hmmm let's see maybe you'll try to dissect the I, that, and, and actually apart too? this is why I stick with it.

[Logos]

Where are you people getting this shit? Gut reaction a Ne/Se clash my ass, stop being so damn defensive of what liveandletlive said and just look at what she wrote. When there are things that are not proven by the dynamic reality of , but we believe only because of gut instinct, we call that being candy-ass delusional. Things which are often the biggest wastes of time, effort, and energy are often used on these sorts of endeavors.

ETA: BTW, this is the sort of petty shit that is making me so apathetic about the value of Socionics. Honestly, has knowledge of Socionics improved the relations of people at all on this board?

I already put the brakes on -- didn't you hear the screech? Car's not moving. Sorry.

I saw that, and I appreciate it. My post was primarily aimed at implied, and I am sorry if I did not clarify that for you.

what are you talking about?!?! your nitpicking was the most blatant use of - sorry I take criticism that is useful and actually matters. hmmm let's see maybe you'll try to dissect the I, that, and, and actually apart too? this is why I stick with it.

Learn to recognize , noob. If Niffweed had replied with the exact same thing I did, you would have been bowing before the wisdom of his creative-. So stop discriminating and being such a -hater.

[aestrivex]

It's worth my time because it helps me understand both people and my relationships with them, and also to get the most out of this information.

A vallid point, I guess I should be more specific. Once one has absorbed the majority of the information relevant to understand people and relationships between them, to the point where any further time put into Socionics appears to yield diminishing returns in terms of understanding people and relationships between them, then why would Socionics be worth ones time.

what i would take from this is that you don't understand what this "relevant information" actually consists of or how extensive it is. to understand the basis of a mathematical model that predicts personality traits is useless if not applied. in order to apply it, you actually have to study what these traits mean, and to do so you need to understand what each of the information elements is and does. once you get there, you would see how parochial your view of all of this is. this isn't necessarily your fault, since you probably have seen a highly stereotypical view of socionics.

i'm not saying that socionics is necessarily worth your time either; merely that i don't think you're giving it as a theory the credit it should merit.

Socionics has to make a trade-off between how deterministic it is, and pigeonholing/stereotyping people and relationships. If say, an ESE or an LII does something that does not make any sense in the context of socionics, that example doesnt contradict socionics, it is merely regarded as an exeption. Because of this, Socionics lacks falsifiability.

that is ridiculous. there are always exceptions; no model is perfect. the only model where you don't have a trade-off is reality, which isn't even really a model. this is also a very stereotypically oriented response; if you think about it in the case of information elements and what they do and what they control, this idea doesn't make sense.

[aestrivex]

Learn to recognize , noob. If Niffweed had replied with the exact same thing I did, you would have been bowing before the wisdom of his creative-. So stop discriminating and being such a -hater.

i'm inclined to agree.

[implied]

Where are you people getting this shit? Gut reaction a Ne/Se clash my ass, stop being so damn defensive of what liveandletlive said and just look at what she wrote. When there are things that are not proven by the dynamic reality of , but we believe only because of gut instinct, we call that being candy-ass delusional. Things which are often the biggest wastes of time, effort, and energy are often used on these sorts of endeavors.

ETA: BTW, this is the sort of petty shit that is making me so apathetic about the value of Socionics. Honestly, has knowledge of Socionics improved the relations of people at all on this board?

"where are you getting at this shit?" and "stop being so damned defensive" and most of the other logic-badgering crap you post will probably do nothing to improve your relations in general, validity or non-validity of socionics be damned. perhaps you should search in the self-improvement section?

[Logos]

"where are you getting at this shit?" and "stop being so damned defensive" and most of the other logic-badgering crap you post will probably do nothing to improve your relations in general, validity or non-validity of socionics be damned.

Please implied, what are you talking about here?

[implied]

"where are you getting at this shit?" and "stop being so damned defensive" and most of the other logic-badgering crap you post will probably do nothing to improve your relations in general, validity or non-validity of socionics be damned.

Please implied, what are you talking about here?

should i do it or should you click on your own username and do a quick "search posts"?

[Logos]

"where are you getting at this shit?" and "stop being so damned defensive" and most of the other logic-badgering crap you post will probably do nothing to improve your relations in general, validity or non-validity of socionics be damned.

Please implied, what are you talking about here?

should i do it or should you click on your own username and do a quick "search posts"?

You should. I am obviously blind to my own "logic-badgering crap" that I post. It should be amusing. I almost had myself convinced that I was Gamma too, but I guess that the was there after all.

[liveandletlive]

Learn to recognize , noob. If Niffweed had replied with the exact same thing I did, you would have been bowing before the wisdom of his creative-. So stop discriminating and being such a -hater.

i would love to hear how anything you were "clarifying" for me had to do with Ti. IMO you were nitpicking, even if you knew the general meaning of what i was saying. i don't see how that has anything to do with .

[aestrivex]

i would love to hear how anything you were "clarifying" for me had to do with Ti. IMO you were nitpicking, even if you knew the general meaning of what i was saying. i don't see how that has anything to do with .

do you think that making a situation that appears to have errors accurate and clear is Ti?

[implied]

i would love to hear how anything you were "clarifying" for me had to do with Ti. IMO you were nitpicking, even if you knew the general meaning of what i was saying. i don't see how that has anything to do with .

do you think that making a situation that appears to have errors accurate and clear is Ti?

i don't know, he didn't even say "did you mean bla bla bla?" which is probably what i would have done in the situation if it were that incredibly unclear what she was talking about. certainly there's a better way to go about correcting people's errors, as opposed to just assuming that she meant verbatim what she said. i just saw logos taking what she said in an extremely literal fashion, putting his own spin on it instead of stopping to absorb what was written.

[liveandletlive]

i would love to hear how anything you were "clarifying" for me had to do with Ti. IMO you were nitpicking, even if you knew the general meaning of what i was saying. i don't see how that has anything to do with .

do you think that making a situation that appears to have errors accurate and clear is Ti?

i don't know, he didn't even say "did you mean bla bla bla?" which is probably what i would have done in the situation if it were that incredibly unclear what she was talking about. certainly there's a better way to go about correcting people's errors, as opposed to just assuming that she meant verbatim what she said. i just saw logos taking what she said in an extremely literal fashion, putting his own spin on it instead of stopping to absorb what was written.

ditto

[Logos]

Learn to recognize , noob. If Niffweed had replied with the exact same thing I did, you would have been bowing before the wisdom of his creative-. So stop discriminating and being such a -hater.

i would love to hear how anything you were "clarifying" for me had to do with Ti. IMO you were nitpicking, even if you knew the general meaning of what i was saying.

I was not nitpicking what you said. And I was not clarifying either; I was criticizing, which is not nitpicking either. I took the entirety of what you said into context, but the bold was especially important to point to the point you made. You fail to see that I grasped your points and your context, and I too would love to learn how my clarifying had anything to do with Ti as well, especially since you said that it was the most blatant use of Ti ever. Okay? Cool.

i don't see how that has anything to do with .

You said that Socionics was not scientifically or psychologically proven. Proof comes from observational and empirical which observes the external dynamics of objects. If things have not been proven, then they exist only in the realm of speculative theory, which you have personally linked in other threads with . If theories have not been proven, then one must view them skeptically and with the utmost empirical criticism, which is once more a part of , and especially blocked with , which fits the pieces of along the process-driven . Okay? Cool.

(Just to let you know I took your second part in context with the first and it would be the same response if I had included it all together, but I am dividing it up so that the message does not become convoluted and you will know what exactly I'm addressing. Okay? Cool. :wink: )

[aestrivex]

maybe. i'd have to look at it more thoroughly and the post log from this posting screen doesn't go far back enough.


even so, as imfd mentioned, logos is definitely right in that there is a clear bias from liveandletlive against Ti, which she doesn't seem to fully understand, although she's been able to explain specific instances more or less to my satisfaction.

[implied]

maybe. i'd have to look at it more thoroughly and the post log from this posting screen doesn't go far back enough.


even so, as imfd mentioned, logos is definitely right in that there is a clear bias from liveandletlive against Ti, which she doesn't seem to fully understand, although she's been able to explain specific instances more or less to my satisfaction.

so you expect the ESFp to enjoy and be unbiased? regardless of what function bashing was going on, they had a little clash just then. i assumed it was because i believe types can speak in a more casual fashion (think raisonpure wrote a great deal about this) whereas most of the Ne-IJs value and work with more precision speech (seems like i read this -- lytov - type-spotting.) EJ-Si seems pretty good at this, spoken and written.