Who would've known that it's for you?*
I've been thinking lately that many of the people here are using Socionics in a way that is quite detrimental. By this, I mean in several ways: 1) "Knowing" Socionics is making you apply characteristics to specific people that don't actually exist, 2) Over-generalizing, and treating those generalizations as if they're facts and are set in stone, 3) Assuming that a particular function in a specific position on Model A manifests itself the same way for everyone, 4) Using Socionics as an excuse as for why a part of your personality sucks, and 5) Being way to eager to type someone based on information that isn't (or is VERY loosely) related to Socionics. I'll go by each one step-by-step, and I'll use quotes by forum members to aid in my presentation. Not sorry in the slightest if you get mad that I used you as an example.
1) Okay, so you're an average n00b who has recently gotten into Socionics. You've read up on Classical Socionics, including Model A, functions, intertype relations, etc. Boy, you are psyched! Everything seems to make perfect sense now! So in a thread about LSIs, you write the following:
I have yet to see anything remotely this extreme in LSIs who exist IRL. In fact, I have never met anyone who has such an imbalanced personality as these "LSIs" supposedly have according to dee and others. If ANYONE actually acted in a manner similar to this, they would be rejected so hard by society that their rectum would be sore for the next decade.Originally Posted by dee
Okay, so someone with a base and a PoLR might THEORETICALLY behave similarly to this, according to some. But take a look around you. When you type someone IRL, you begin to make inferences about parts of their personality that you may have never directly experienced before. Even if you are an accurate typer, you still make educated guesses about how this person should further behave according to the theory, which may or may not actually uphold in reality. Think of it like simple algebra. If you have an equation with X and Y and you know the value of X, you can solve it for Y quite easily. This is basically what you're doing with Socionics. You know X traits of a person through observation (whether it's actually good observation, that's up for debate). Socionics gives you a framework that can help you infer what Y should be. However, the fatal mistake comes in when you begin to treat people like their entire entity can be figured out by a set of equations. People are weird, complex, irrational, and have many quirks; Socionics barely, if at all, takes this into account. Stop treating it as if it does.
2) As many of you know, there are sixteen "granddaddy" categories that people fit into, according to Socionics. Each one has its fair share of generalizations and stereotypes that are attached to it. For example, ESIs are commonly pushed aside as being close minded, judgemental, cold hearted bitches. After seeing them stereotyped like that for so long, many people start to internalize such descriptions and treat them as if they're fact. Maybe you met someone IRL who is a cold hearted bitch. After the ESI stereotypes have been pounded into your brain for so long, you're probably going to be more inclined to type her as ESI, without examining other important characteristics. After meeting several cold hearted bitches and typing them as ESI, you'll begin to treat it as a fact that all ESIs are cold hearted bitches, and continue a vicious cycle. People of every type can be cold hearted bitches, so when you peg certain types as having exclusive and very specific traits, you're heading for trouble. Ask a LIE if ESIs they know fit the stereotype, and I challenge you to find one that will actually confirm that they do. In short, Socionics is extremely subjective and with many exceptions to the rules. By treating it as if it were fact, and saying stuff like "all people of X type act like this," you're totally screwing it up.
Another thing that goes along with this is the tendency for people here to say things like "I hate Alphas! They're so impractical! This is why all Gammas hate Alphas!" or "I never get along with SLIs. They suck." If I were to make a wild guess, I'd say that you regulary interact with these types that you supposedly "hate", and don't actually hate all the individuals behind the type. For example, I could easily follow the stereotypes and say that I hate ESIs because they're my supervisors, but that simply isn't true at all. One of my best friends is ESI, and she coundn't be any more awesome than she is right now. According to the theory, I shouldn't get along with them, but that really doesn't hold up at all in real life. Crap interpretations of Socionics: -10.
3) Okay, so I'm assuming that it's relatively common knowledge around here that I'm SLE. That means that I have a PoLR. Now, how does PoLR manifest itself in SLEs? You'll never get a single answer for that, because it has a different effect on each individual SLE. A while back (probably almost two years ago at this point), I created a thread that explained how I experienced PoLR at that particular point in time. Some of the points that I made there still apply, but some of them no longer affect me. For example, I wrote back then that I had a hard time maintaining a consistent standing between myself and other people, and that my feelings would go lukewarm after several days. However, at this point I have experienced some strong-as-a-fortress attachments to certain people, which is contrary to how people think PoLR should be like. Right now, my main "struggle" with my PoLR is that I tend to put my eggs into the wrong baskets when it comes to such relationships. Do all SLEs have that issue? Absolutely not! Others may experience it as being overly mistrustful of others when dealing with personal affairs, or as a stereotypical case, being crap at relationships as a whole. However, saying that all SLEs will be overly mistrustful is an absolute lie.
Recently, there was a thread about (started by Ezra, I believe), and the subject of PoLR came up. Some people were saying that it manifests itself as LIIs not being able to understand when and to what intensity to use aggression. However, LII Mariano Rajoy gave his input on the subject, and said the following about his job as a bouncer: