?
Ever had an experience with someone that didn't match up to the Socionic theory of that relationship?
I have hated some SLEs. I have hated a LIE because I mistyped them as a confilctor.
And it's only that I have learnt of socionics that everything has become as it says...
Do you have any experiences?
What are the critcisms of Socionics?
I don't have your problem - I don't judge people by types. ;P
Last edited by malkavian; 10-18-2008 at 07:56 AM.
I usually experience the relationships aspects that are predicted by socionics.
The idea of socionics isn't that you will love every dual you meet, or despise every conflictor. Simply that, if you ever got into a relationship with said person, it would be more or less smooth depending on your socionics relations.Originally Posted by dinki
Are you saying that you typed someone, then correspondingly hated them because of the type you typed them as?I have hated a LIE because I mistyped them as a confilctor.
I've found the intertype relations to generally play out. The intertype relation pattern has also become more obvious to me the closer or more frequent my interaction with someone with someone.
the more we discover about dual type theory, the more we come to understand this. a good amount of the variance you will experience in your relationships with a type can be explained by the particular information the individual in question observes - what world they are a part of, in a sense; and particularly in relation to what world you yourself are a part of
the best criticism of socionics is that it is incomplete. there is still alot left for us to discover. the best socionicists all have one trait in common: the tendency to withhold judgment on a matter in favor of deeper analysis and contemplation of possible contingent information.
all the worst socionicists lack this quality.
Socionics is incomplete, yes, but a lot of its "incompleteness" is in reality are criticisms misplaced. Socionics seeks to explain the phenomenon of the interaction of information elements between individuals in within the individual themselves, and not all aspects of human nature. And, while it has a wide range of applications, its use is not intended nor is it even sensible for application to certain aspects of the psyche. Socionics, for instance, seeks not to explain the aspect of anger between two conflictors, but rather why they cause anger in each other. The anger in itself in this instance is a phenomenon largely distinct from and out of the realm of Socionic thought.
As well, Socionics seeks not to explain conflict from things largely unrelated to type and the relations caused by them that fall in the realm of things such as general interests, life experience, and other things which mold you in ways that are separate from Socionics itself. A man and woman whom are identicals yet share nearly no common interests will find their conversations to be, although easy, rather mundane. Conversely, conflictors whom share nearly all interests and are invested in similar things will have a large amount of interesting, stimulating things to speak about, even if the interaction itself is one wrought with conflict. These things that are independent from Socionics lead to a large degree of variability of compatibility in relationships, and, as I hope is obvious for most, renders Socionics a significant, yet incomplete part of understanding relationships and what they are.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote