What is the big deal?!?

[Creepy-male]

So I have a very simple question just to throw out to anyone who feels like they have an answer.... what is the big deal with assuming that everyone has a specific type, that they can be grouped into a single exclusive category.

Doesn't this intuitively to anyone seem outlandish? I mean its a little hard to believe that a person would solely fit the behavior of only a single type without showing traces of other types. That they could be identified as solely a single type. I am not talking about showing traces of other "traits" like Se or Si or Te or Ti, I am talking about entire personalities, like SLI SLE etc... which of course seems possible to me because if a person who isn't particularly Si is focused on Si "usage" in a rare incident then aren't they exhibiting the behavior more of an Si dominant personality, if only for that particular incident?

Then on the other hand the theory seems to fit well together and explain everything quite elegantly, and upon observation you can easily see evidence of a person being one of these types solely.

I personally believe the idea of having a sole unchanging type is bogus, but first I'd like to hear what you all think before I'd give my reasoning.

[Expat]

So I have a very simple question just to throw out to anyone who feels like they have an answer.... what is the big deal with assuming that everyone has a specific type, that they can be grouped into a single exclusive category.

I see this "assumption" as a tentative explanation for phenomena we observe in real life. Like, why is it that two (or more) siblings, raised by the same parents, in the same circumstances, often develop wildly different personalities and kinds of people they hang around with; for instance, as it happens very often, one of the children will be an "outcast" who doesn't really fit in the family, so it's assume s/he has a "problem", but once s/he moves out of home and finds own friends, it turns out there was no real "problem" at all, except unfavorable relationships with the family.

Or, another common phenomenon -- person A is well liked by persons B and C. Then person A starts to date person D. B and C find person D a jerk and can't understand what A sees in D. And that doesn't change no matter how long A, B, C and D spend together.

Or, why is it that romantic relationships "fail" after, say, two years or so, if there is no "real" reason - the two like each other, enjoy doing the same things together, have similar life goals, etc. Yet they, or one of them, feel there's something "missing".

Or, why is it that after living 27 years with my conflictor father, we still lacked a basic understanding of each other, and each other's priorities? As in "how can anyone be like that? I don't understand him at all".

People just tend to say "these things have no explanation" or "people are just incompatible". Well, socionics provides an explanation as to why people are "incompatible" when no obvious reason is there. Whether you buy it or not, it's your decision.

[iAnnAu]

I was just thinking last night about how important it is to keep in mind at all times that the type descriptions are generalizations.
When we figure out which "type" fits us best, it gives us a set of traits & tendencies that we can talk to other people interested in socionics about - ideally in the interest of exploring the nuances of our own identities and the ways in which we interact with others. If we didn't have these generalizations, we'd all be starting from scratch, and most of us would be at a loss to portray some of the parts of ourselves that we most wish to come to a better understanding of.
So in the ways in which each of us *doesn't* match our type, we run the risk of others seeing us as *defying* that type, but really we're just being ourselves above and beyond the generalizations. It obviously causes others to react with "That sounds like XXX to me, are you sure you're YYY?" ... And in my observations this tendency seems to cause more conflict than illumination.
If (and as much as I enjoy socionics, it's a big IF) or until socionics becomes a science whereby our types are determined by observable and consistently repeatable phenomena, we're stuck with self-typing, typing by others through direct observation, and typing by others through description. The last way seems the least reliable; yet it's what happens around here constantly.

[Phaedrus]

You are born with a certain type, HaveLucidDreamz. That type is always the same, and you can never change to another type. You can only be identified as one single type and no other. If you try to change your type to another one, you should be severely punished for it ... so forget all about that. How dare you even have such rebellious thoughts?

[schrödinger's cat]

It's like using a map, I think. Of course it's an over-generalization and real life is different. That doesn't mean the map is useless, though. The point of having a map is precisely that you get a set of symbols that group real-life phenomena together into categories. "The more accurate the map, the more it resembles the territory. The most accurate map possible would be the territory, and thus would be perfectly accurate and perfectly useless." Neil Gaiman wrote this. (It's in a story about an Emperor who plans to build a life-size model of his country.)

This is probably a very Te way of looking at things? For me, Socionics is basically about what's there in the present moment. I wouldn't much care if all ISTjs become ENFps as soon as they stand on their heads or something.

[aestrivex]

the assumption that all people must be categorized into one specific type is not important and is not actually the basis for socionics at all. rather, the basis for socionics has to do with information preference.

the fundamental point behind it is gathering an essence for one's type: the assumption, as it were, is that the IM elements, as defined (loosely speaking) for socionics, are an effective method of measuring this kind of informational image of a person. and i think that this assumption works very well. you can find Ti sorts of reasons behind the idea of information elements as to "static field functions must be paired with static object functions" in one's psyche, for some strange reasons that have to do with the processing of static stimuli; actually, jung talked about this as well. but more fundamental in determining the way that the functions are arranged in model A is the idea of how the functions are interrelated -- in that, for example, Se and Ni are completely opposite and ignorant in the kinds of information that the other deal with, and this leads them to depend on each other's guidance.

if socionics (or more specifically, the IM elements) can help you understand the essence of what a person is like without actually assigning them a specific type, that's also very useful. for example, i don't really have a damn clue what type snegledmaca is. but i can assign him a sort of mental association as to the kind of way he acts, which integrates aspects of Ni, Ti and Te. even though i don't know what type he is (although i do think that he may be portraying a sort of persona that isn't really his own; i don't know), socionics does give me a sort of language by which to better interpret his character.

[Creepy-male]

Ok @ expat firstly,

I see your point definitally I don't deny the fact socionics has its use, that was never in question.... I am refering to the percision with which you can label a person in a group, is it an absolute measure is it 100% percent or is it merely a practical simplified model. I believe you know something about engineering and you must know that many physics equations take advantage of what is called a simplication model, where the phenomenom explained in reality is much for detailed, but for certain cases certain negilible information can be discarded.... like a pendulumn and the "small angle approximation"..... is this the case with socionics, is it a practical simplication model or is it an absolute measure of a person? If it were only a simplication model then under particular extreme examples the theory would break down, but only in rare/extreme examples.

@ phaderus,

lol I don't even know if your being serious or joking, hopefully your joking!

@ iAnnAu,

I don't disagree with that it sounds very reasonable, I am not much of a socionics, but for things like MBTI, jung etc.... I realize that many people seem to exhibit say introverted behavior in one circumstance and extroverted in another, however overall there seems to be a net tendancy to lean towards one more strongly, and that allows people to type themselves as one or the other.... if a person where an absolute introvert that would imply they are completely shut out from the outside world, this is usually more of a problem for people than it is a "Way of life" or a "personality".

@ shrodinger's cat

lol I like that quote, I tend to think with science you can make simplications on these things but its important to know what information you have simplified or assumed so as to not model reality in the wrong way.

@ niffweed

lol thats a very "technical jargon" filled paragraph, but I understand your point.... the theory provide you tools with which to understand people. Makes sense, but a tool loses its use in certain cases -- you need a phillips head sometimes and other times you need a regular screwdriver other times you need a nut driver..... socionics is merely a single tool, but like the phillips head screwdriver it only has a limited use in my opinion... in particular instances in life I believe people can run into trouble if they try to guide their human understanding solely by socionics.... it would be like trying to screw in a phillips head screw with a nut driver.... it just wouldn't work.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I don't think everyone will be the exact same. Example: my mother and I are the same temperament mix, probably the same MBTI type (even down to tests confusing us between S and N), and possibly the same socionics type. However, she is closer in personality to her father, while I am closer to her mother. She is also a math nerd, and it's always been my worst subject.

Types are pre-set, but they are not rigid; people can vary within them and still be the same type. There are definitely some common threads that you will find, though.

[Logos]

I see this "assumption" as a tentative explanation for phenomena we observe in real life. Like, why is it that two (or more) siblings, raised by the same parents, in the same circumstances, often develop wildly different personalities and kinds of people they hang around with; for instance, as it happens very often, one of the children will be an "outcast" who doesn't really fit in the family, so it's assume s/he has a "problem", but once s/he moves out of home and finds own friends, it turns out there was no real "problem" at all, except unfavorable relationships with the family.

Biology, psychology, culture. And there is no such thing as "in the same circumstances."

[Creepy-male]

Biology, psychology, culture. And there is no such thing as "in the same circumstances."

lol if I had to guess I think expat meant percisely in the same home environment, not in exactly the same circumstances.... a little bit too outlandish of an idea to believe that expat meant they did exactly the same things the same ways at the same event times in the same point in space lol.

[Phaedrus]

@ phaderus,

lol I don't even know if your being serious or joking, hopefully your joking!

Maybe, maybe not, maybe both ... I'm not sure myself ... But there is at least a grain of truth in what I said.

[Creepy-male]

Maybe, maybe not, maybe both ... I'm not sure myself ... But there is at least a grain of truth in what I said.

of course I would agree that a person is born with maybe some part of them that is unchanging that defines them as a unique individual... I just doubt that creator of socionics has discovered the essence in its purity and succesfully communicated it free from error.

[Logos]

lol if I had to guess I think expat meant percisely in the same home environment, not in exactly the same circumstances.... a little bit too outlandish of an idea to believe that expat meant they did exactly the same things the same ways at the same event times in the same point in space lol.

But even that is presumptive of numerous factors. What the would he mean by the same home environment? I was an only child for seven years. My little sister thereby could not possibly be expected to live in the same home environment, as she was born into an environment in which there was an older brother and in which that older brother had already developed relations with the parents and grandparents. Our home environment changed in those seven years, and it has continued to change as my parents have aged, technology, culture, and expectations changed. Yes, there are seemingly different types of people, but Socionics is not why that is the case. Socionics is descriptive, but not should be thought of as prescriptive. To believe that Socionics is the answer for why there are different types of people is to turn it into transcendental dogmatics. While not necessarily mutually exclusive, I prefer niffweed's answer over Expat's.

[Gilly]

what is the big deal with assuming that everyone has a specific type, that they can be grouped into a single exclusive category.

Do you think it's outlandish to call both of these people "blonde?"

[Gilly]

What? I'm entirely serious. Just like people have varying shades of hair colors that we place under the same name, so do they have motivations and perceptions that vary from one end of a spectrum to another, and I think it's still perfectly valid to point out the similarities and give them the same name for the sake of simplification. Giving them the same name to address a similar quality doesn't imply that they are truly identical (in the literal sense of the word), as long as you're talking about general tendencies. Nobody who is at all rational claims that Socionics accounts for 100% of anything about a person; it's just a set of tendencies observed along a continuum and contrasted with other observations.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

What? I'm entirely serious. Just like people have varying shades of hair colors that we place under the same name, so do they have motivations and perceptions that vary from one end of a spectrum to another, and I think it's still perfectly valid to point out the similarities and give them the same name for the sake of simplification. Giving them the same name to address a similar quality doesn't imply that they are truly identical (in the literal sense of the word), as long as you're talking about general tendencies. Nobody who is at all rational claims that Socionics accounts for 100% of anything about a person; it's just a set of tendencies observed along a continuum and contrasted with other observations.

Actually, Gilly, I thought your illustration rocked. It was perfect.

[Gilly]

Why thank you

[Creepy-male]

@ logos

well before I respond deeper, I think its best I let expat speak for himself

@ gilly

No but thats not whats in question. Sure people may share similarities, this isn't about that. It's about the labels we define people with, blonde is an easy label to define you look at the color of the hair and that is it. Socionics is another beast, your talking about summing up a number of complex behaviors in general concepts then using those concepts in a model thats complex, some behaviors are more dominant, some behaviors are less, some behaviors are creative, other producing, some static, some etc etc etc.... its a very complex system much more so than being blonde. In this system we have to question, what is the meaning of the final result, what is a type supposed to explain. Is it an exact measure of the person's behavior or is it merely a simplified model of a person's behavior. Just because two people are blonde doesn't mean they are the exact shade of blonde, maybe one has more tones of brown hair, the other of white, maybe one has dyed there hair, maybe another has aged and their hair has changed to white or gray. This information is pivotal when you are using socionics to approach a sense of human understanding, you can't look at people on the surface as merely blonde, sometimes there is real value in understanding what color lies at the root.

@ glarmourama

in this case your getting caught up with semantics I obviously meant types not personality, its obvious what I meant because I gave examples like SLI, SLE etc...

[Gilly]

@ gilly
...

Just because two people are blonde doesn't mean they are the exact shade of blonde, maybe one has more tones of brown hair, the other of white, maybe one has dyed there hair, maybe another has aged and their hair has changed to white or gray.

And nobody is saying that all people of the same Socionics type look, act, or are motivated in precisely the same ways. It's all shades of gray :wink: The idea is to find similarities and categorize them, not sum up the whole.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I suspect that it is a simplified model, as it only addresses one aspect of a person. It does not type by personality traits but by information metabolism - the intake and output of information. There's room for variation within it, hence subtype theory and others.

[Expat]

Ok @ expat firstly,

I see your point definitally I don't deny the fact socionics has its use, that was never in question.... I am refering to the percision with which you can label a person in a group, is it an absolute measure is it 100% percent or is it merely a practical simplified model. I believe you know something about engineering and you must know that many physics equations take advantage of what is called a simplication model, where the phenomenom explained in reality is much for detailed, but for certain cases certain negilible information can be discarded.... like a pendulumn and the "small angle approximation"..... is this the case with socionics, is it a practical simplication model or is it an absolute measure of a person? If it were only a simplication model then under particular extreme examples the theory would break down, but only in rare/extreme examples.

I don't think that it's reasonable to expect something like socionics, or even anything that claims to type human beings into 16 (or 32, whatever) types to reach the level of accuracy and precision as in exact sciences. I don't know if we're talking about the same things when using those terms, but I see socionics, at its stage of development, as indeed a "practical simplified model". Whether it "breaks down" in "extreme examples"? What are "extreme examples"? I think it's clear that socionics doesn't really explain real psychological disorders, not even to the extent that the enneagram tries to. I don't even doubt that there might be "normal" people who can't be typed, or whose typing would strain socionics concepts. As long as such cases remain rare exceptions, though - and so far my observations is that that's the case - then socionics is adequate for my own purposes.

[Creepy-male]

@ glamourama, true but like I said in this example I refer to things like SLI, SLE which are IM preferences if you wish to call it that. So I am not discussing about anything different in meaning only in language.

@ expat, well I am not a master of the theory, but take a less complex theory like MBTI, that for example would break down in moderate personality types. For example a person may be very balanced in terms of introverted behavior and extroverted behavior, sensing behavior and intuitive behavior...... etc etc. This would make it very hard to clearly type the person because the relative disparity between the difference in types would be small. The main problem here is one say INTj may only prefer that behavior slightly more than ESTp behavior, whilst another may prefer INTj behavior strikingly more than ESTp simply because the second is more polarized in terms of intuitive/introverted/judging. This means you have two people of the same type who act completely different. In fact may one INTj is a strong thinker, but weak on the other aspects.... while another a strong intuitive, but weak on the others.... then one INTj (the thinker) is more likely to share xSTx traits more so than xNFx traits, while the other the opposite. Socionics likely has its parallels to this MBTI example. In general this is what I would call the strength of a typing, for it to hold the person probably should hold a significant strength towards a personality, also its important to remember that no strength is absolute and people are colored with traits of other types just less dominant.

Secondly, the other catch is circumstance, once again with MBTI.... if a person is introverted more so than extroverted, another important peice of information is how circumstance triggers this. Eventually if you put people in stressful enough situations or akward enough situations they are likely to introvert or close off from the world. Just the same if a person feels comfortable and safe enough they are bound to open up around that group and extrovert. This is really common sense but the importance is say there are two INTj's one is very INTj at work but little INTj at home, taking a more relaxed approach to things being more xxxp. The other INTj is very open at work but lives a very structured/scheduled life at home. This is a very important difference also. This is what I'd call the situational personality. Socionics likely has its parallels.

I think that both attempting to add these principles into personality theory is valuable, the idea of situational personality and strength of personality. There are probably more breakdowns you can think of. But the fact of the matter is socionics in my opinion still holds reasonably well if there is a significant strength/polarization towards one type or a group of types (like beta etc), and the situation is not considered to pose a major effect on the typing. Otherwise you really (imo) have to discard the typing as too weak an explanation.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Secondly, the other catch is circumstance, once again with MBTI.... if a person is introverted more so than extroverted, another important peice of information is how circumstance triggers this. Eventually if you put people in stressful enough situations or akward enough situations they are likely to introvert or close off from the world. Just the same if a person feels comfortable and safe enough they are bound to open up around that group and extrovert. This is really common sense but the importance is say there are two INTj's one is very INTj at work but little INTj at home, taking a more relaxed approach to things being more xxxp. The other INTj is very open at work but lives a very structured/scheduled life at home. This is a very important difference also. This is what I'd call the situational personality. Socionics likely has its parallels.

I did test introverted on MBTI, but I am naturally an extrovert; I stopped being so outgoing. However, I am definitely IEE, and a fair number of people have caught that. I don't think it's possible to change from extratim to introtim. Have you read the Wikisocion page on the E/I dichotomy?

[Creepy-male]

I did test introverted on MBTI, but I am naturally an extrovert; I stopped being so outgoing. However, I am definitely IEE, and a fair number of people have caught that. I don't think it's possible to change from extratim to introtim. Have you read the Wikisocion page on the E/I dichotomy?

Well I don't know I see it naturally all the time where people seem to "open up" or they seem to "shut out" when they are usually the opposite. So I place this natural observation more highly than other stuff. But I am refering to MBTI not socionics, socionic dichotomies are quite complex and as I've been told have heavy theoretical roots, making it hard to take about them without huge complex discussions full of technical jargon. MBTI is simple there is a basic description of what introverted is and a basic description of what extroverted is.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Well I don't know I see it naturally all the time where people seem to "open up" or they seem to "shut out" when they are usually the opposite. So I place this natural observation more highly than other stuff. But I am refering to MBTI not socionics, socionic dichotomies are quite complex and as I've been told have heavy theoretical roots, making it hard to take about them without huge complex discussions full of technical jargon. MBTI is simple there is a basic description of what introverted is and a basic description of what extroverted is.

*shrugs* It's useful within the MBTI itself, but it's not Jung's description. He didn't include the social aspects that I remember (and I struggled through the translation of that part - dry as heck).

[Creepy-male]

Well the point is such things concerning behavior are similar to this, its just that in jung or socionics you may have to flip more pages of theory to get to the essence of it, since they are pretty complex, but thats not a negative thing.

[Phaedrus]

MBTI is simple there is a basic description of what introverted is and a basic description of what extroverted is.

No. As so many other people, you have got that wrong. You confuse the "simple" descriptions of typical extraverted and typical introverted behaviour with the real thing, which is the whether your leading (dominant) function is extraverted or introverted. There is no difference between Socionics and MBTT (MBTI) here. They define E/I in the exact same way -- and that is also the same way as Jung defined it.

According to Jung, your extraversion or introversion comes first; you usually determine whether you are an extravert or an introvert before you start to think about which function is your leading one. And it's the same with Socionics and MBTT. Extraversion/Introversion is a natural biological phenomenon that is independent any theory. It has been observed long before anyone came up with any of these theories. But in both Socionics and in MBTT they define the extravertedness or introvertedness of a certain type in relation to their dominant (leading) function -- learn that simple fact, and don't forget it.

[Expat]

Biology, psychology, culture. And there is no such thing as "in the same circumstances."

"Biology" and "psychology" is pretty much what socionics is about, isn't it? Not sure what you mean about "culture".

As for "the same circumstances": first, I never said that socionics is the only possible explanation for the phenomena I described; I did say, and mean, that it's an explanation. The one I happen to find most likely, but I can't prove it.

In the case of growing up in the same household etc: there are some theories connecting it to whether you are the first, or second, or last, etc, child, and the like. What I can say is that, observing things not only in my own family but in others, I personally find it unlikely that those factors explain those phenomena. But, as with socionics generally, it's necessary to decide for yourself whether you think that's how it works or not.

[Mea]

@ logos

@ gilly

No but thats not whats in question. Sure people may share similarities, this isn't about that. It's about the labels we define people with, blonde is an easy label to define you look at the color of the hair and that is it. Socionics is another beast, your talking about summing up a number of complex behaviors in general concepts then using those concepts in a model thats complex, some behaviors are more dominant, some behaviors are less, some behaviors are creative, other producing, some static, some etc etc etc.... its a very complex system much more so than being blonde. In this system we have to question, what is the meaning of the final result, what is a type supposed to explain. Is it an exact measure of the person's behavior or is it merely a simplified model of a person's behavior. Just because two people are blonde doesn't mean they are the exact shade of blonde, maybe one has more tones of brown hair, the other of white, maybe one has dyed there hair, maybe another has aged and their hair has changed to white or gray. This information is pivotal when you are using socionics to approach a sense of human understanding, you can't look at people on the surface as merely blonde, sometimes there is real value in understanding what color lies at the root.

you're stating the obvious. people who don't realize that people with the same socio-type can be different are idiots.

socionics is like a template that "labels" (since that's what you're calling it) people into 16 types. but it doesn't mean that people of the same type are going to be exactly the same. like saying "all blonds are dumb" is just dumb, because hair color doesn't determine one's intelligence. likewise, in socionics, you don't say stuff like "all EIEs are drama queens".
I don't see what's wrong with having people having a type among the 16 since similar types do have differences.

[Creepy-male]

@ phaedrus

wow bent on picking points apart aren't we? Firstly let me say that since I never actually told you what I thought introversion or extroversion was, since I never gave a qualitative explanation myself, how are you so sure I am refering to the wrong thing. The only thing I said is that MBTI gives a simple explanation, and simple ultimately is a subjective thing isn't it.... so I don't see how you can label that wrong.

how about you give a description of jungs introverted/extroversion in your owns words and compare that to how its different from the "common conception".... and then I'll tell you how people can be both -- that is if your skeptical about it.

Ultimately I don't think anyone who wants to take psychology seriously can easily discount the affect of experience... its an age old question, nature vs nurture and you really haven't said much to disprove the affect of nurture beyond simply saying you believe its all inborn. That is a very presumptious stance, seeing as how scholars over the last century in the psychological sciences have tackled that question and haven't been able to establish a clear answer, most scholars agree though that both pose a striking influence, and they have much in the way of studies for proof to this, some experiments prove nature as an effect, others as nuture for an effect, they see this and say that the net effect of personality is a superposition of both effects. Its seems pretty clear to me, no doubt brain structure plays a role but to discount nuture completely is almost as if you are saying we are all robots, hard-wired from birth to enact out the behavior of one of 16 types. Surely you don't believe that, but I'll let you speak to make that determination.

@ mea

I don't think its obvious, and my proof is you missed my point in the analogy... if gilly says being blonde is like being a socionics type then I am saying not every blonde is the same blonde, those with brown highlights are like socionics types with highlights of other socionics types. Those that change hair to gray or white is like a person changing socionics type with age, due to aqquired life experience. Those dying their hair are like people imitate other types on the surface but really being a different type at the root, which isn't obvious to the visual observer. The analogy works perfectly, as it did for gilly in the first place, in most cases to nullify these extra points I've made using the analogy you'd have to nullify gillys orginal point since they are ultimately connected using the same analogy.

also all EIE's are drama queens, j/k, but seriously I am not saying its wrong for a person to have one of 16 types, I am saying that I believe at best its a simplified model of human behavior and can't be taken too seriously, its not a 100% absolute label.... thats my opinion I am discussing here, not that something is "wrong" with having a type... lol I don't ever think I've implied that socionics is like evil or something. I do however think it can misguide people down wrong paths the same way certain other doctrines of human understanding can guide people down the wrong path, but this is largely something that is on an individual basis, socionics itself is nothing more than a theory and is neutral by nature - neither "wrong" nor "right" in the way in which you speak.

[Expat]

@ expat, well I am not a master of the theory, but take a less complex theory like MBTI, that for example would break down in moderate personality types. For example a person may be very balanced in terms of introverted behavior and extroverted behavior, sensing behavior and intuitive behavior...... etc etc. This would make it very hard to clearly type the person because the relative disparity between the difference in types would be small. The main problem here is one say INTj may only prefer that behavior slightly more than ESTp behavior, whilst another may prefer INTj behavior strikingly more than ESTp simply because the second is more polarized in terms of intuitive/introverted/judging. This means you have two people of the same type who act completely different. In fact may one INTj is a strong thinker, but weak on the other aspects.... while another a strong intuitive, but weak on the others.... then one INTj (the thinker) is more likely to share xSTx traits more so than xNFx traits, while the other the opposite. Socionics likely has its parallels to this MBTI example. In general this is what I would call the strength of a typing, for it to hold the person probably should hold a significant strength towards a personality, also its important to remember that no strength is absolute and people are colored with traits of other types just less dominant.

Secondly, the other catch is circumstance, once again with MBTI.... if a person is introverted more so than extroverted, another important peice of information is how circumstance triggers this. Eventually if you put people in stressful enough situations or akward enough situations they are likely to introvert or close off from the world. Just the same if a person feels comfortable and safe enough they are bound to open up around that group and extrovert. This is really common sense but the importance is say there are two INTj's one is very INTj at work but little INTj at home, taking a more relaxed approach to things being more xxxp. The other INTj is very open at work but lives a very structured/scheduled life at home. This is a very important difference also. This is what I'd call the situational personality. Socionics likely has its parallels.

I think that both attempting to add these principles into personality theory is valuable, the idea of situational personality and strength of personality. There are probably more breakdowns you can think of. But the fact of the matter is socionics in my opinion still holds reasonably well if there is a significant strength/polarization towards one type or a group of types (like beta etc), and the situation is not considered to pose a major effect on the typing. Otherwise you really (imo) have to discard the typing as too weak an explanation.

You see, to me that's the key to the problem. You're arguing socionics via MBTI. This is not just a quibble, or just a lame attempt to invalidate your points; the problem is that you're assuming that socionics types people according to similar criteria as MBTI, as in "if a person is introverted more so than extroverted, another important peice of information is how circumstance triggers this." Socionics typing does account for why an extrovert can act introverted and vice-versa.

The real problem with this discussion is that, instead of trying to understand socionics in its own terms, you are taking the easy path of assuming it's like MBTI.

I suggest you first try to understand socionics in its own terms, what makes socionics types be what they are, and not just assume that you understand what it's about just because you know MBTI. There's no "royal path". If you don't want to take the time to understand it and just want to dismiss it via MBTI, fine. Just do it. I don't see the problem, but then I don't see why you need our input, either.

[Phaedrus]

@ phaedrus

wow bent on picking points apart aren't we?

Yes, if that is necessary to get thing right. That is the job of the ILI Critic.

Firstly let me say that since I never actually told you what I thought introversion or extroversion was, since I never gave a qualitative explanation myself, how are you so sure I am refering to the wrong thing.

Maybe you are not. But you should nevertheless avoid phrasing it in the way you did, because other people will get an incorrect understanding of both Socionics and MBTT. We see this phenomenon all over again. People simply don't understand that MBTT and Socionics are much more similar than people think. They focus on the differences when it is much more advisable to focus on their similarities.

There are no important differences between the two systems -- none at all -- as long as we avoid getting confused by their different vocabulary (especially when they talk about the functions). They describe the same types, based on very similar tests. MBTT can learn a lot from Socionics, and Socionics can learn a little less but still some very important things from MBTT.

The only thing I said is that MBTI gives a simple explanation, and simple ultimately is a subjective thing isn't it.... so I don't see how you can label that wrong.

MBTT does not give a "simple" explanation of the E/I dichotomy. It gives the exact same explanation as Socionics. Unless you think that both systems give a simple explanation of E/I.

how about you give a description of jungs introverted/extroversion in your owns words and compare that to how its different from the "common conception".... and then I'll tell you how people can be both -- that is if your skeptical about it.

Why do people insist that I shall provide such descriptions when they are already in place everywhere to read for anyone that is interested? Are you lazy, or what is it? There is no difference what so ever between Jung's understanding of introversion/extraversion and Socioncs's or MBTT's understanding of the same phenomenon. And you can never ever be both an introverted and an extraverted -- that is totally impossible.

Ultimately I don't think anyone who wants to take psychology seriously can easily discount the affect of experience... its an age old question, nature vs nurture and you really haven't said much to disprove the affect of nurture beyond simply saying you believe its all inborn. That is a very presumptious stance, seeing as how scholars over the last century in the psychological sciences have tackled that question and haven't been able to establish a clear answer, most scholars agree though that both pose a striking influence, and they have much in the way of studies for proof to this, some experiments prove nature as an effect, others as nuture for an effect, they see this and say that the net effect of personality is a superposition of both effects.

We know for a fact that nature is much more important than nurture. That old question is already solved. The empirical evidence for nature > nurture is simply overwhelming.

In this case you simply MUST do some serious study. I am sick and tired of seeing people come up with this totally uneducated idea that nurture can explain just as much (if not more) than nature when it comes to differences in personality between different people. I should not have to explalin this basic knowledge to anyone, because it is common knowledge -- or at least it should be. Don't you people KNOW anything? Why do you refuse to study?

Its seems pretty clear to me, no doubt brain structure plays a role but to discount nuture completely is almost as if you are saying we are all robots, hard-wired from birth to enact out the behavior of one of 16 types. Surely you don't believe that, but I'll let you speak to make that determination.

I have never claimed that nurture plays no role in shaping your personality, but it is much less important than you believe. Your inborn traits are much, much more influential. We are not exactly robots, but it is not far from the truth to say that we are hard-wired from birth to enact out the behavior of one of the 16 types.

All of our behaviour is determined, and very much of it comes from our inborn brain structures. We have no free will in a metaphysical sense, but we can say that in a practical sense we are free as long as other people don't force us to act in a way we don't want to act in. In that sense you can do what you will, but you cannot will what you will. Your will is determined. And this is not just a belief that I happen to have; every scientific evidence suggests that that is how it is. The empirical evidence is overwhelming here too.

[Kristiina]

just gonna jump in here and say that traits in socionics are dichotomies, even though behavior can be on either side of the scale. A person is either a natural introvert or a natural extrovert but he can behave very shy classic introverted or very loud classic extroverted. In the same way, a person can be either a natural intuitive or natural sensing. It doesn't matter how much sports that person practices. And it doesn't matter how much learned behavior is covering his natural tendencies. He still has one natural state of mind. If all conditions are good for him, he starts processing information like his type of people.

This is why there is only one type in socionics. The type can be difficult to diagnose, but it's there - one single exclusive category - a type.

[Gilly]

Secondly, the other catch is circumstance, once again with MBTI.... if a person is introverted more so than extroverted, another important peice of information is how circumstance triggers this. Eventually if you put people in stressful enough situations or akward enough situations they are likely to introvert or close off from the world. Just the same if a person feels comfortable and safe enough they are bound to open up around that group and extrovert. This is really common sense but the importance is say there are two INTj's one is very INTj at work but little INTj at home, taking a more relaxed approach to things being more xxxp. The other INTj is very open at work but lives a very structured/scheduled life at home. This is a very important difference also. This is what I'd call the situational personality. Socionics likely has its parallels.

The thing is, Socionics admits, as does MBTI, believe it or not, via its reasonable practitioners, to not offering fool-proof explanations for all outward behaviors, or even all internal motivations. In MBTI, person could be naturally very extroverted in most situations, and be realistically typed as an extrovert, but its perfectly reasonable to believe that he/she would have social problems in certain situations because of past experience/reinforcement/whatever. Its just not possible to correlate these factors perfectly; what these systems do is measure the overall tendency, for whatever behavior or motivation, and place people in a category based on their overall tendencies. The correct typing is one based on an analysis of all available circumstances, and seeing which one fits the most often, so that the resulting type has the most likely chance of predicting a useful outcome in terms of gauging how a person will react to a situation.

[Gilly]

@ mea

I don't think its obvious, and my proof is you missed my point in the analogy... if gilly says being blonde is like being a socionics type then I am saying not every blonde is the same blonde, those with brown highlights are like socionics types with highlights of other socionics types. Those that change hair to gray or white is like a person changing socionics type with age, due to aqquired life experience. Those dying their hair are like people imitate other types on the surface but really being a different type at the root, which isn't obvious to the visual observer. The analogy works perfectly, as it did for gilly in the first place, in most cases to nullify these extra points I've made using the analogy you'd have to nullify gillys orginal point since they are ultimately connected using the same analogy.

also all EIE's are drama queens, j/k, but seriously I am not saying its wrong for a person to have one of 16 types, I am saying that I believe at best its a simplified model of human behavior and can't be taken too seriously, its not a 100% absolute label.... thats my opinion I am discussing here, not that something is "wrong" with having a type... lol I don't ever think I've implied that socionics is like evil or something. I do however think it can misguide people down wrong paths the same way certain other doctrines of human understanding can guide people down the wrong path, but this is largely something that is on an individual basis, socionics itself is nothing more than a theory and is neutral by nature - neither "wrong" nor "right" in the way in which you speak.

Those types with "other streaks of types" are perfectly in accordance with the workings of Socionics: every type uses every function at some point; what matters is the ones they use the MOST. So if someone has hair that is MOSTLY blonde, with some brown, they are still ultimately called a blonde; someone who seems MOSTLY motivated by Fi, who can still appreciate Fe, is typed as an Fe type. It would be insane to expect that people would always make their decisions one way or the other.

Nobody's denying that it's a simplified model. It's impossible to create a hard-core black-and-white one; people aren't that simple or consistent. Nobody with any reason in them is claiming that Socionics is ultimately "right" or "wrong" about anything; a type is a vaguery used to describe people's tendencies. It does not claim to be able to predict someone's behavior in every circumstance; it's a representative of trends. You are the only one here who seems to expect that it be perfect.

Are you just trying to prove a point here or something? You're really not getting anywhere, or saying anything with real consequences that go against people's normal views of Socionics, and it surprises me that you don't see it.

[Expat]

@Gilly: yeah, it's a good case of straw man argument.

[Ezra]

Doesn't this intuitively to anyone seem outlandish? I mean its a little hard to believe that a person would solely fit the behavior of only a single type without showing traces of other types. That they could be identified as solely a single type. I am not talking about showing traces of other "traits" like Se or Si or Te or Ti, I am talking about entire personalities, like SLI SLE etc... which of course seems possible to me because if a person who isn't particularly Si is focused on Si "usage" in a rare incident then aren't they exhibiting the behavior more of an Si dominant personality, if only for that particular incident?

As an SLE, I can tell you that I use Si and Te to a great extent. I'm not just going off the wiki explanation - that individuals use their 7th and 8th function privately - although that does summarise how I use the two functions. Of course, they do poke through in my speech from time to time: "that would never work because it's not effective or practical enough at doing what needs to be done" (Te) or "I love the way the glazing on a Krispy Kreme doughnut melts in my mouth; it's the food of the gods" (Si). The point is though that I use Se and Ti more (not necessarily to greater effect, as I see myself as equally proficient in both Te and Ti, Se and Si) than I do Te and Si. My energy is typically directed towards spaces (territory, if you like), and acquisition of those spaces, as well as how attractive a girl is (from how she carries herself to whether her mouth fits in with the rest of her face), far more than it is towards admiring the taste of a Krispy Kreme doughnut on my tongue. Likewise, I place far more emphasis on systems of thought (a la socionics, the Enneagram, various philosophers' theories, my own systems, theories and ideas) and correct logic than I do on how to best achieve something i.e. how to get what I want efficiently. By no means am I averse to Si or Te, as I've outlined above. I do use it. But if it was any different, it simply wouldn't work. It's completely illogical to assume that I could be simultaneously focused on how something makes me feel and and how I can make a spacial gain. It's like admiring the feel of a pistol in my hand while trying to take an aimed shot. You are focused on one thing at any one time; you cannot be focused on two things.

As a side point, functions I crave but am not proficient in (such as Ni), I like to believe I am good at. I often think I'm good at Ni; I can predict that and then I completely fuck up.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Maybe you are not. But you should nevertheless avoid phrasing it in the way you did, because other people will get an incorrect understanding of both Socionics and MBTT. We see this phenomenon all over again. People simply don't understand that MBTT and Socionics are much more similar than people think. They focus on the differences when it is much more advisable to focus on their similarities.

There are no important differences between the two systems -- none at all -- as long as we avoid getting confused by their different vocabulary (especially when they talk about the functions). They describe the same types, based on very similar tests. MBTT can learn a lot from Socionics, and Socionics can learn a little less but still some very important things from MBTT.


MBTT does not give a "simple" explanation of the E/I dichotomy. It gives the exact same explanation as Socionics. Unless you think that both systems give a simple explanation of E/I.


Why do people insist that I shall provide such descriptions when they are already in place everywhere to read for anyone that is interested? Are you lazy, or what is it? There is no difference what so ever between Jung's understanding of introversion/extraversion and Socioncs's or MBTT's understanding of the same phenomenon. And you can never ever be both an introverted and an extraverted -- that is totally impossible.

That doesn't sound right.

This is from Rick's site (I don't think he minds, but if he does, he can tell me):

One of the challenges of socionics is figuring out how to associate levels of social extraversion with socionic extraversion and introversion. Myers-Briggs Typology has essentially incorporated social extraversion as one of its four dichotomies, but in socionics it is not so simple. While there may be some correlation between social extraversion and socionics extraversion, it is too weak to be a consistently useful typing instrument. Also, equating the two closely can lead to potentially harmful stereotypes that suggest that people "should" be behaving more or less extravertedly than they actually are.

Social extraversion itself can be a bit hard to diagnose, but is generally more apparent than socionics extraversion and introversion. A person's current mood, state of health, interest level, and feelings towards the people around him may strongly influence his level of initiative and gregariousness, so it may take some time to get an accurate impression of a person. Some people may be easily diagnosable as typical extraverts, others as typical introverts, but a large percentage of people are somewhere in the middle.

If you meet a pronounced social extravert who is always in the center of attention, always getting people together, and always making lots of noise and monopolizing situations, chances are he or she is also a socionics extravert ("extratim"). The same goes for pronounced social introverts who don't like meeting new people, prefer listening to speaking, and are wary of everything new and unfamiliar. But these are not the only types of people.

Myers-Briggs focuses on social extroversion and introversion, no? Besides, isn't that the point of extratim and introtim, to keep from getting them confused with the social stuff.@ HaveLucidDreamz: Yes, but you have been pointing to the Myers-Briggs E/I descriptions. That leads to the assumption that you agree with it. That is how people can "label that wrong".

I get that you're trying to make a point with the MBTI, but it seems to be confusing people (myself included). Give me solid proof that people of one type can change to another and have it feel completely natural, without any stress to the psyche. Also, yes, nurture has something to do with it (as does birth order, which ties back into nurture), but different types raised in the same household will still be different types. My ISFj sister is still different from my E__p brother.

[Gilly]

@Gilly: yeah, it's a good case of straw man argument.

Thanks, I need to brush up on the fallacies.

[Gilly]

That doesn't sound right.
Myers-Briggs focuses on social extroversion and introversion, no? Besides, isn't that the point of extratim and introtim, to keep from getting them confused with the social stuff.@ HaveLucidDreamz: Yes, but you have been pointing to the Myers-Briggs E/I descriptions. That leads to the assumption that you agree with it. That is how people can "label that wrong".

This is absolutely correct. Socionics "extroversion" is simply a term used to describe whether a function perceives objects individually, as opposed to "introversion," which describes functions that observe the connections between objects.

I think this is a good case for throwing out existing type names like "ENTp" or "ILE" altogether and simply referring to types by unique names (like the Russians) or their two ego functions. The terminology in Socionics is a horrible mess; it needs to be disconnected completely from Myers-Briggs, and from all but the necessary elements of Jungian psychology itself, as far as the terms used within the system go, if you ask me. Obviously there's not harm in making observations as to how they correlate, as the systems DO have obvious similarities, but when it comes to Socionics itself, I think if it is going to be rightfully recognized as a system, it needs its own terminology. The functional terms are good, because they give credit to Jung, who deserves it, but other than that, there is definitely some excess baggage.


Phaedrus, please do not reply to this (if for some reason you don't have me on ignore). I already know that you disagree, and I know your reasons; I'm not going to be drawn into a petty debate with you.