How to Apply Socionics

[jason_m]

The main problem with socionics is that it attempts to reduce complex, fuzzy phenomena to a simple mathematical model. Psychological phenomena are not like physical phenomena; they don't give way to a nice geometric pattern. Take mental illness as an example. For each mental illness, different people get different symptoms, and further, distinct mental illnesses have been found to be related. This makes it difficult to classify them. The problem is that it is difficult to reduce something like this to discrete categories. A similar problem occurs in socionics. While I don't believe that Augusta's ideas are a work of fiction, I do believe, for example, that not every INTp seeks Se more than Fi. I believe that there is a general type that can be called an INTp, but, because we are dealing with complex, vague phenomena, not every aspect of the type will fit together; these are only trends. Therefore, it seems to me that there is sometimes a problem in typing people. If, for example, you say that someone can't be an ENTp, because they probably have Se PoLR, as opposed to Fi PoLR, you are making a mistake. In order to determine if they are an ENTp, you have to consider their type as a whole. What are their dichotomies? What is their leading function? What appear to be their superego functions? What appear to be their super id functions? Their type is not determined by the answer to any one of these questions, but by the pattern that emerges as a whole; the type that is most consistent with the answers. I've seen this problem come up several times on this site, and I think that it's something worth considering.

Jason

[cracka]

Isn't this something that everyone should already know?

[munenori2]

I don't think socionics tries to reduce complexity to a mathematical sense at all. It tries to make sense of the complexity already there. It ain't 2+2=4.

[Jarno]

The main problem with socionics is that it attempts to reduce complex, fuzzy phenomena to a simple mathematical model. Psychological phenomena are not like physical phenomena; they don't give way to a nice geometric pattern. Take mental illness as an example. For each mental illness, different people get different symptoms, and further, distinct mental illnesses have been found to be related. This makes it difficult to classify them. The problem is that it is difficult to reduce something like this to discrete categories. A similar problem occurs in socionics. While I don't believe that Augusta's ideas are a work of fiction, I do believe, for example, that not every INTp seeks Se more than Fi. I believe that there is a general type that can be called an INTp, but, because we are dealing with complex, vague phenomena, not every aspect of the type will fit together; these are only trends. Therefore, it seems to me that there is sometimes a problem in typing people. If, for example, you say that someone can't be an ENTp, because they probably have Se PoLR, as opposed to Fi PoLR, you are making a mistake. In order to determine if they are an ENTp, you have to consider their type as a whole. What are their dichotomies? What is their leading function? What appear to be their superego functions? What appear to be their super id functions? Their type is not determined by the answer to any one of these questions, but by the pattern that emerges as a whole; the type that is most consistent with the answers. I've seen this problem come up several times on this site, and I think that it's something worth considering.

Jason

I think I can agree with everything you've written. Actually some parts are really good to emphasize. 'looking at the type as a whole'.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

The main problem with socionics is that it attempts to reduce complex, fuzzy phenomena to a simple mathematical model. Psychological phenomena are not like physical phenomena; they don't give way to a nice geometric pattern. Take mental illness as an example. For each mental illness, different people get different symptoms, and further, distinct mental illnesses have been found to be related. This makes it difficult to classify them. The problem is that it is difficult to reduce something like this to discrete categories. A similar problem occurs in socionics. While I don't believe that Augusta's ideas are a work of fiction, I do believe, for example, that not every INTp seeks Se more than Fi. I believe that there is a general type that can be called an INTp, but, because we are dealing with complex, vague phenomena, not every aspect of the type will fit together; these are only trends. Therefore, it seems to me that there is sometimes a problem in typing people. If, for example, you say that someone can't be an ENTp, because they probably have Se PoLR, as opposed to Fi PoLR, you are making a mistake. In order to determine if they are an ENTp, you have to consider their type as a whole. What are their dichotomies? What is their leading function? What appear to be their superego functions? What appear to be their super id functions? Their type is not determined by the answer to any one of these questions, but by the pattern that emerges as a whole; the type that is most consistent with the answers. I've seen this problem come up several times on this site, and I think that it's something worth considering.

Jason

I pretty much think you're right. There is a forrest and there are trees.

[jason_m]

Isn't this something that everyone should already know?

You would think so, but I've seen some people on this forum claim that someone is not a certain type based on the placement of one function or because they show the characteristics of a static type. Maybe they have more reasons for their typing, but they don't present any others, which leaves the impression that their typing is based entirely on this single reason. I'm not going to centre anyone out specifically, but it has happened.

Jason

[jason_m]

I don't think socionics tries to reduce complexity to a mathematical sense at all. It tries to make sense of the complexity already there. It ain't 2+2=4.

Then how would you consider Model A to not be a mathematical formula? And, if it is mathematical, then how is it not reducing a complex phenomenon to it? Isn't the structure of the psyche and the structure of intertype relationships a complex phenomenon?

Jason

[cracka]

You would think so, but I've seen some people on this forum claim that someone is not a certain type based on the placement of one function or because they show the characteristics of a static type. Maybe they have more reasons for their typing, but they don't present any others, which leaves the impression that their typing is based entirely on this single reason. I'm not going to centre anyone out specifically, but it has happened.

Jason

Yeah, I've seen people say, "You're not type XXXX because you said a bad word! OMG, an XXXX would never say that!"

So yeah, I get ya.

[dbmmama]

"socionics" rhymes with "economics". and there's an extra "s" in there.

ex. http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Aushra_Augusta

my hubby calls it "ebonics." "you talking ebonics with your sister again?" lol

[ZTCrawcrustle]

The main problem with socionics is that it attempts to reduce complex, fuzzy phenomena to a simple mathematical model. Psychological phenomena are not like physical phenomena; they don't give way to a nice geometric pattern. Take mental illness as an example. For each mental illness, different people get different symptoms, and further, distinct mental illnesses have been found to be related. This makes it difficult to classify them. The problem is that it is difficult to reduce something like this to discrete categories. A similar problem occurs in socionics. While I don't believe that Augusta's ideas are a work of fiction, I do believe, for example, that not every INTp seeks Se more than Fi. I believe that there is a general type that can be called an INTp, but, because we are dealing with complex, vague phenomena, not every aspect of the type will fit together; these are only trends. Therefore, it seems to me that there is sometimes a problem in typing people. If, for example, you say that someone can't be an ENTp, because they probably have Se PoLR, as opposed to Fi PoLR, you are making a mistake. In order to determine if they are an ENTp, you have to consider their type as a whole. What are their dichotomies? What is their leading function? What appear to be their superego functions? What appear to be their super id functions? Their type is not determined by the answer to any one of these questions, but by the pattern that emerges as a whole; the type that is most consistent with the answers. I've seen this problem come up several times on this site, and I think that it's something worth considering.

Sorry, but you're off. An INTp is defined by his interaction with each of his functions and all of them together; mainly, there is no INTp who prefers Fi to Se. Well...there are, but they are called LIEs. If a person does not know what he or she prefers, that is another story.

Similarly, it is ill-advised to say that someone has one PoLR instead of another, unless you can clearly demonstrate this. Extrapolating from your example, if someone were to show that X flips out over Se, but can handle, even appreciate, moderate levels of Fi, then X is almost definitely INTj and not ENTp. The simple fact that the elements themselves are interrelated should single this out.

Typing is like making a puzzle; if there is a piece that does not fit, we cannot ram it in, shrug our shoulders, and attribute it to the puzzle being different. Similarly, we cannot start attributing irregularities to "trends" or "trends that are off." If an aspect of someone's personality consistently does not fit their typing, the first question we should ask is if the typing is correct. Then afterwards, if there are any irregularities that still exist, we need to explain them, perhaps by looking at the individual's life and external stimuli outside of her personality.

[jason_m]

Sorry, but you're off. An INTp is defined by his interaction with each of his functions and all of them together; mainly, there is no INTp who prefers Fi to Se.

Tcaudilllg, what proof do you have for this statement? Since when have psychological phenomena come in nice neat packages, such that every trait fits together perfectly? Every single psychological phenomenon that I have studied has exceptions, except for maybe those that are based mainly on the brain. Why should socionics be any different?

Jason

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Sorry, but you're off. An INTp is defined by his interaction with each of his functions and all of them together; mainly, there is no INTp who prefers Fi to Se. Well...there are, but they are called LIEs. If a person does not know what he or she prefers, that is another story.

Similarly, it is ill-advised to say that someone has one PoLR instead of another, unless you can clearly demonstrate this. Extrapolating from your example, if someone were to show that X flips out over Se, but can handle, even appreciate, moderate levels of Fi, then X is almost definitely INTj and not ENTp. The simple fact that the elements themselves are interrelated should single this out.

Typing is like making a puzzle; if there is a piece that does not fit, we cannot ram it in, shrug our shoulders, and attribute it to the puzzle being different. Similarly, we cannot start attributing irregularities to "trends" or "trends that are off." If an aspect of someone's personality consistently does not fit their typing, the first question we should ask is if the typing is correct. Then afterwards, if there are any irregularities that still exist, we need to explain them, perhaps by looking at the individual's life and external stimuli outside of her personality.

Is this Tcaud? Lol, there was me thinking, here's someone who's new and confused.

[ZTCrawcrustle]

Tcaudilllg

No.

or sometimes INTp of the Te subtype.

No. If an INTp consistently prefers Fi to Se, he is not an INTp.

what proof do you have for this statement? Since when have psychological phenomena come in nice neat packages, such that every trait fits together perfectly? Every single psychological phenomenon that I have studied has exceptions, except for maybe those that are based mainly on the brain. Why should socionics be any different?

Simple. What you are trying to suggest is unnecessary. Psychological phenomena are rarely in "nice, neat packages," as you say, but there is absolutely no need to ignore the facts on the ground, instead looking at the larger picture. In fact, it is because of the propensity for this in psychology that it is still not as hard a science as it should be.

Your methodology is not an explanation; it is an excuse. Why do I not fit the type I want to be? By your definition, it is possible because you are an anomaly, not because that is simply not your type. By proposing that we ignore irregularities, what you are stipulating is that we stop questioning others.

However, I do agree that there is a problem with fundamental misunderstanding of the elements and functions on this forum. The fact that your weaker elements are simply more sporadic than your stronger ones seems to escape a lot of people. Also, the fact that the stronger elements are not stronger ability-wise, but simply faster at synthesizing information than the weaker elements.

I also think that, since most of our information on socionics is from Russian sources, it is possible that a cultural barrier exists. For example, with English speakers, cursing, which is regarded as an emanation of Se, might be attached to Fe as much as to Se.

While looking at the big picture should definitely be done, ignoring simple realities should not. If we start using such a concept as an "irregularity of the type," we expand the possible types for an individual to mind-boggling breadth. In my case, by using just one irregularity each, I can explain myself as 11 out of the 16 possible types. With each, the larger picture fits, the dichotomies fit (vague and useless as they are), and the rest of the functions seem to fit, except for really one aspect.

The problem with your suggestion is precisely that socionics types are fluid; adding more flexibility simply scatters the system more.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

No.

No. If an INTp consistently prefers Fi to Se, he is not an INTp.



Simple. What you are trying to suggest is unnecessary. Psychological phenomena are rarely in "nice, neat packages," as you say, but there is absolutely no need to ignore the facts on the ground, instead looking at the larger picture. In fact, it is because of the propensity for this in psychology that it is still not as hard a science as it should be.

Your methodology is not an explanation; it is an excuse. Why do I not fit the type I want to be? By your definition, it is possible because you are an anomaly, not because that is simply not your type. By proposing that we ignore irregularities, what you are stipulating is that we stop questioning others.

However, I do agree that there is a problem with fundamental misunderstanding of the elements and functions on this forum. The fact that your weaker elements are simply more sporadic than your stronger ones seems to escape a lot of people. Also, the fact that the stronger elements are not stronger ability-wise, but simply faster at synthesizing information than the weaker elements.

I also think that, since most of our information on socionics is from Russian sources, it is possible that a cultural barrier exists. For example, with English speakers, cursing, which is regarded as an emanation of Se, might be attached to Fe as much as to Se.

While looking at the big picture should definitely be done, ignoring simple realities should not. If we start using such a concept as an "irregularity of the type," we expand the possible types for an individual to mind-boggling breadth. In my case, by using just one irregularity each, I can explain myself as 11 out of the 16 possible types. With each, the larger picture fits, the dichotomies fit (vague and useless as they are), and the rest of the functions seem to fit, except for really one aspect.

The problem with your suggestion is precisely that socionics types are fluid; adding more flexibility simply scatters the system more.

You like the sound of your own voice. Or the words that you write.. etc.

[iAnnAu]

No.

No. If an INTp consistently prefers Fi to Se, he is not an INTp.

etc., etc.

It's not tcaud, it's Phaedrus!

Seriously, though, we're still talking about a fucking theory. It doesn't dictate reality, it attempts to describe it. When reality differs from the theory, it's not reality's fault.

[ZTCrawcrustle]

You like the sound of your own voice. Or the words that you write

I actually like neither. Well, I largely picked up my writing style from 19th century writers and The Economist. The words that I write are in no way special.

iAnnAu - I agree, I think, but see a problem with the understanding of the theory.

[cracka]

Tcaudilllg, ...

Not Tcaud as far as I can tell.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I actually like neither. Well, I largely picked up my writing style from 19th century writers and The Economist. The words that I write are in no way special.

Well, you like it more than you like to listen. As if you had paid attention in thread you wouldn't have made so many assumptions, perhaps.

Anyway, you sounded so sure myself, and others had got it so wrong..

iAnnAu - I agree, I think, but see a problem with the understanding of the theory.

Until you are not sure. Maybe it is your understanding which isn't sufficient, or however told you 'bout it. Anyway, happy times. Welcome to the forum

[iAnnAu]

I actually like neither. Well, I largely picked up my writing style from 19th century writers and The Economist. The words that I write are in no way special.

iAnnAu - I agree, I think, but see a problem with the understanding of the theory.

When I've read 200+ pages of an author, I find it "flavors" my writing for at least a few days. Funny things have happened after I've finished some Thoreau or Moorcock or Phillip K. Dick (but as far as I can tell, not William Gibson) ... and I think I've been permanently scarred by visiting icanhascheezburger too many times, but to the benefit of all those who once called me a grammar nazi.
/threadjack

[ZTCrawcrustle]

Well, you like it more than you like to listen. As if you had paid attention in thread you wouldn't have made so many assumptions, perhaps.

Anyway, you sounded so sure myself, and others had got it so wrong..

I like to listen a lot and am a very good listener. The people I talk to, however, often have more to say.

if you permit "ITp", or "INp", etc. – it may be possible some individuals simply do not have type. the more a system implies such indeterminacy, the more scattered it has become. but if you understand the flexibilities that are generally proposed, the ground on which this is possible is a minority of the propositions' possibilities.

I do like that you pointed out (later on) the presense of intertype relations, which I ultimately had to rely on with my own typing. They are a very useful way of limiting your possible types, but are subjective since the actual relationship differs with each individual (even if they are of the same type). Also, the effect can also depend on if the individual provides what you are looking for at that moment. It is because of this that some duals eventually kill each other, while one instance of what I believe to be a conflict or supervision relationship ended up describing the other as "the greatest man alive."

As per the rest of your post, the issue of strength of the subtype was brought up in a socionics article I read (although I cannot recall where I read it). To summarize what it said, as the creative subtype has its creative element increase in strength, it starts to more and more resemble its mirror. However, the creative element cannot become stronger than the leading element. If the creative element is stronger, then the individual is actually the mirror of his type. Purely theoretically, a middle ground should exist between mirrors, but it does not mean that they gain in other functions (such as those in their Super-ego). Ultimately, though, individuals stuck between mirrors probably do not exist, as there would be no differentiation between accepting and creative functions in their brains. Furthermore, in your theoretical case of an ITp, they would have to prefer Ne-types more than Se-types or vice versa. They might get along with both due to them being Eps, but they will subconsciously gravitate towards the one they prefer more.

There do exist subtypes with a strengthened function in the Super-ego, but that super-ego function is generally much weaker than its analog in the Ego.

It is obvious that no one will probably match the descriptions of a socionics type word for word. I do not wish to assert that everyone has to be cookie-cutter types, but if there is a contradiction in the functions or the elements with what is observable in the individual, it has to be explained by a mistyping or a factor outside of socionics, not with that the typing largely fits, let's ignore it, leave it be, and go on with our merry lives. Not everyone will fit their type description, but if someone seems to have one of his elements in the wrong function, then his type should be reexamined.

it remains possible you still have a type, whatever flexibility is considered, and you simply aren't separating what is _relevant_ for applying it.

Definitely agree.

[dbmmama]

i don't think that's as type-related.

i wasnt saying it to be "typed." just random info.