Socionicscom

[jason_m]

What are the problems with this website? From what I understand, one of the main complaints is an overemphasis on V.I., in both the descriptions and as a general philosophy. Not only is there talk about an overemphasis on V.I., but I've heard that their views on it are inaccurate. I would agree with this complaint. When reading the site, I usually ignore the talk of V.I. altogether. However, the question is, do you consider the other information on the website to be flawed, such as the non-V.I. aspects of the type descriptions?

Jason

[tcaudilllg]

Much of the VI stuff came from Gulenko. Ganin is mostly hit or miss... he tries too hard to group people into types, especially celebrities.

The best VI stuff I've seen was at socionics.ru. Very good stuff there, some of which I've copied to the Articles section.

[Ezra]

It basically is VI. Ganin relies on VI not just for typing individuals using a single photograph, but also for his type descriptions, in which he includes details which are often completely irrelevant (e.g. "ISFps often have a characteristic stout or chubby, rounded figure" or "ENTjs like expensive, good quality clothes") to the psychological workings of a type. Without VI, Ganin would essentially have to rely on what socionics is actually - fundamentally - about, or on some stupid system that he or someone else invented.

[strrrng]

What are the problems with this website? From what I understand, one of the main complaints is an overemphasis on V.I., in both the descriptions and as a general philosophy. Not only is there talk about an overemphasis on V.I., but I've heard that their views on it are inaccurate. I would agree with this complaint. When reading the site, I usually ignore the talk of V.I. altogether. However, the question is, do you consider the other information on the website to be flawed, such as the non-V.I. aspects of the type descriptions?

Jason

The site is a joke. The descriptions are shit, the VI is silly, and the forum sucks. The only halfway decent thing is the intertype relations chart.

[Expat]

I think the site still works as a first introduction to basic socionics concepts. Some of the "uncovered" and +/- descriptions are ok. That's about it.

[07490]

though i think that site is very organzied and i have to agree with strrng on this one that the intertype relation is very acturate but theres too much V.I, the type desrciptions go for some extreme types which not all XXXx will exhibits.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think the site is boring looking and has no soul. All the links look like adverts, even though they aren't. I think the descriptions are all right just so long as you read other descriptions - there is a danger of focussing on specific elements of the descriptions and saying "that is definitely not me". As Ezra says, the visual descriptions in the profiles are not exactly helpful, and there are other bits where it says "this type does not naturally do this but it might..." or something similar.