Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Making Socionics Better

  1. #1
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Making Socionics Better

    I see three problems with the Internet socionics community right now. Two of these problems have to do with type descriptions, and one has to do with testing.

    Problems with type descriptions:

    1. There are inconsistencies in the descriptions. I can see this when I look at the ILE description. www.socionics.com basically describes the ILE as someone who likes generating ideas and is somewhat absent-minded. The description at www.socionics.us is very similar. However, the descriptions on this site and on www.wikisocion.org describe the ILE as more enterprising and being oriented towards what's interesting and what isn't. I understand that there are going to be different interpretations of the various types. However, these descriptions seem different enough that it could cause confusion in someone trying to identify their type.

    2. The logical and intuitive types are described more from a skill-based standpoint, while the other types are described more based on emotions or strictly personality-based characteristics. I suppose that this is okay, but when www.socionics.com describes the ISFp as someone who is "never the best or the worst", I can't help but wonder if this is turning people off. Whether you like the book or not, I think that "Gifts Differing" does a good job of describing the skills of the various MBTI types, so that one isn't left with the feeling that one is, for example, only emotional and there isn't much else to them. The skills and talents of every type should be described. In Gifts Differing, types are described at being good at everything from science to working with machinery to woodworking. If socionics wants to appeal to people, it should take a similar approach. Simply describing someone as emotional, friendly and that's it doesn't cut it.

    Problems with testing:

    There are no good socionics tests out there. I think a good approach would be a test like this: http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/as...nt/survey.html. The questions would be based on the socionics theory of functions, and the highest scoring function coupled with the next highest scoring compatible function could help someone discover their type.

    Jason

  2. #2
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,619
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You have to remember that socionics sites and texts are written by many different people, so it's not surprising that they have somewhat different interpretations. Don't focus too much on descriptions; they are secondary to the theory behind them, which is perfectly consistent.

    As for tests, I'm pretty sure everyone would agree with you, but numerous attempts have tried and mostly failed. IMO the main problem is that we have too few people online with known types that we can calibrate the tests against. But of course there are numerous others.

    Whether you like the book or not, I think that "Gifts Differing" does a good job of describing the skills of the various MBTI types, so that one isn't left with the feeling that one is, for example, only emotional and there isn't much else to them. The skills and talents of every type should be described. In Gifts Differing, types are described at being good at everything from science to working with machinery to woodworking. If socionics wants to appeal to people, it should take a similar approach. Simply describing someone as emotional, friendly and that's it doesn't cut it.
    I'm not sure how you got this impression of the community as a whole - talk to Ganin if you have issues with his descriptions. The Wikisocion descriptions in particular are not like this at all. Socionic type is about both skill and personal qualities, and it can't necessarily be described in the same terms as MBTI type.

  3. #3
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    You have to remember that socionics sites and texts are written by many different people, so it's not surprising that they have somewhat different interpretations. Don't focus too much on descriptions; they are secondary to the theory behind them, which is perfectly consistent.
    The problem is that the descriptions seem to be the best way of determining your type. I can't see how one could determine their type through the theory without some sort of description.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    As for tests, I'm pretty sure everyone would agree with you, but numerous attempts have tried and mostly failed. IMO the main problem is that we have too few people online with known types that we can calibrate the tests against. But of course there are numerous others.
    I guess it depends on how large a sample is required. I'm guessing if someone created a test and was able to have it put as a sticky at the top of one of these subforums, then a lot of people with known types would respond. Another question is whether it's really necessary to have it calibrated. You might be able to base it on well-known descriptions of the type functions alone. Of course, there is the problem that it wouldn't be as accurate as a calibrated test, but the real concern is not whether it would be perfect, but whether it would be adequate. I think a test like that that isn't calibrated would be a heck of a lot better than what we have now.

    Finally, I'm not sure, but another factor might be the problem that the other tests didn't have a very professional look to them and/or they weren't heavily advertised. I don't think the test at socionics.com is very accurate, but it looks good and is at a more popular website, so it hasn't been a failure.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I'm not sure how you got this impression of the community as a whole - talk to Ganin if you have issues with his descriptions. The Wikisocion descriptions in particular are not like this at all. Socionic type is about both skill and personal qualities, and it can't necessarily be described in the same terms as MBTI type.
    Wikisocion has more well-rounded descriptions, but a lot of the other descriptions out there seem to not have this characteristic.

    Jason

  4. #4
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,619
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    The problem is that the descriptions seem to be the best way of determining your type. I can't see how one could determine their type through the theory without some sort of description.



    I guess it depends on how large a sample is required. I'm guessing if someone created a test and was able to have it put as a sticky at the top of one of these subforums, then a lot of people with known types would respond.
    Very few people's types have been justified over the internet with enough certainty to calibrate a test on them. Who knows, maybe I'll make a test and test it out on my friends IRL.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •