Mistakes people make about socionics

**Hugo** · 02-12-2006, 02:17 PM

Type consists of the following: I, E, S, N, T, F. It does not work like that. Type has to be thought of in terms of functions only:

Also if a person has

as one of their main functions doesn't make that person a N type. This is too much of a simplistic view. For example an INTj' main functions could include

not just

.

What do you think?

**Expat** · 02-12-2006, 02:27 PM

I agree that too many people still try to type themselves, and others, via MBTI-like E or I, N or S, T or F, J or P classfications.

Type has to be thought of in terms of functions, but also taking into consideration how those functions interact with each other. Which is why the

of an ESTj is different from that of an ENTj.

But I was not aware that anyone thought that strong

types were necessarily thinkers.

**Hugo** · 02-12-2006, 02:30 PM

Oh sorry mistake. edited

**Hugo** · 02-12-2006, 02:33 PM

For an INTj for example

is an important function and may be considered more of a stregth to them than

.

I think socionists are to blame for this simplistic view that has occured by calling types, example INTjs, Logical Intuitive Introverts

**Cone** · 02-12-2006, 03:33 PM

I also agree, but then people often think, "well, I'm smart and can make connections between different ideas, so I must be Ne dominant!"

**Dmitri Lytov** · 02-12-2006, 06:23 PM

The most common mistake about Socionics: people in English-speaking countries perceive it as "MBTI + visual identification".
Both is untrue.
The truth is that Socionics is based on different philosophy than MBTI. The root of socionics was the deep mistrust to tests, which in the conditions of totalitarian society could not provide adequate results, people just used to lie in order to survive. In the beginning some people deeply believed in visual identification, including Aushra Augusta herself; but it is more than 20 years that people have beed fans of it and got much disappointed, while in English-speaking countries visual identification only begins to conquer people's brains...

**Rick** · 02-12-2006, 08:07 PM

I think this is an important topic. The dichotomy descriptions that people use to type themselves (I've got some on my site, too) are actually pretty big generalizations. For example, what is a description of 'intuition?' -- it's a description of perceptual/behavioral commonalities among all those who have

as their first or second function and

as their first or second function. So basically, everthing in common between, say, EIE and ILI, LII and IEE, etc. Obviously, the 'intuition' of each of these is vastly different.

Just for fun, imagine a different testing paradigm:
1. what is your suggestive function - intuition, sensing, logic, or ethics?
2. what is your vulnerable function (polr) - introverted rational, introverted irrational, extraverted rational, or extraverted irrational?

This system would involve two choices between four options, making 16 combinations. However, these dichotomies would also be generalizations, and probably no better than the dichotomies we currently use.

I guess the moral of the story is that yes, indeed, the dichotomies we use for testing are arbitrary, and we could make up any others we wanted based on the underlying model. On the other hand, any dichotomies involve generalizations. The only way to get around this would be to have sixteen different tests for each order of functions, but that creates new complications. So after having written all of this, I would tend to agree that the dichotomies we currently use are still the best -- for testing, that is.

Not sure if that made any sense. Basically, I was trying to take a certain logical lead, and found that it doesn't lead anywhere

Maybe Hugo or Expat can try to explain what you mean by "Type has to be thought of in terms of functions." I like this idea, but I'd like to see it elaborated better.

**Rick** · 02-12-2006, 08:34 PM

The most common mistake about Socionics: people in English-speaking countries perceive it as "MBTI + visual identification".

When socionics becomes more popular than the MBTI in 10-15 years, people will perceive the MBTI as "socionics minus intertype relations minus information elements"

Dmitri, I know where you're coming from in criticizing VI and the way it's been overemphasized on English-language socionics sites (hint hint), however, we won't ever be able to throw it out until we have mechanized socionics testing (if that ever happens), and even then it would remain a part of socionics, as people continue discovering external similarities between people of the same type.

In actuality, what you're criticizing (I think) is typing using photographs alone. Every single socionist types people visually -- by studying their appearance, outward behavior, gestures, facial expressions, movements, etc. If they try consciously to ignore this, they're fools! -- that's 90% of the information people convey about themselves to others between the lines.

I am also a critic of people who pretend they know someone's type based on one poor-quality photo. But this isn't any worse, really, than claiming to know someone's type from one or two paragraph of text. We should be criticizing that approach as well. In addition, any type identification should be accompanied by an explanation of some sort. Even an 'ethical' or subjective explanation would do, i.e. "I feel that the person who wrote this would make me feel vulnerable because he would be likely to behave in the following way..." Right now people are used to typing without any explanations at all!

I believe that competition in the socionics market will increase consumers' expectations of quality, and that in the not-too-distant future anyone who claims to type accurately using the above methods without providing any explanation will be recognized as a quack by the consumers themselves, and you won't have to waste your time warning everyone of quacks!

(Sorry for moving off the topic... it seemed a good place to post these thoughts. Anyways, back to the subject)

Creepy-pokeball · 02-12-2006, 09:42 PM

Im not so sure. MBTI is heavily institutionalized. 10-15 years seems to be a bit liberal and early of an estimate if in fact it does.

Dmitri:

" but it is more than 20 years that people have beed fans of it and got much disappointed"

Can you tell me more?

**Rick** · 02-12-2006, 10:01 PM

Im not so sure. MBTI is heavily institutionalized. 10-15 years seems to be a bit liberal and early of an estimate if in fact it does.

I had in mind popularity "among the masses," for example, the number of mentions of both systems on the Internet. The fact that the MBTI is so heavily institutionalized means that it has largely spent its potential energy. Socionics' potential energy seems to be greater, and I have been watching the growth of interest in socionics over the past few years, so that's where my forecast is coming from.

Again, sorry for going off what seemed to be a promising topic

Creepy-pokeball · 02-12-2006, 10:03 PM

Eh, if you havent noticed, topics just sort of meld here and there here. Too many N's and random thoughts

**Rick** · 02-12-2006, 10:10 PM

I'm just covering my butt. What if some rational type who's been having a bad day comes along and gets mad at me for disrupting the topic? If I scatter apologies around like this, maybe that will divert their wrath?

**FDG** · 02-12-2006, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Rick

I'm just covering my butt. What if some rational type who's been having a bad day comes along and gets mad at me for disrupting the topic? If I scatter apologies around like this, maybe that will divert their wrath?

No problem, you're LIE.

**Rick** · 02-12-2006, 10:42 PM

Oh no, here we go again.
I'm not LIE because extraverted logic is not my usual psycho-physical state. White sensing is not my PoLR, but my suggestive function. I'm not LIE because I do not dualize with ESI's, and I do not have conflicting relations with SEI's. My relations with these and other types wholly fit the socionic descriptions. I have had numerous close and fulfilling friendships/relationships with SLI's. I don't have a single Gamma quadra type in my surroundings, which I have chosen carefully. Etc. etc.
Bukalov and his wife from the International Institute of Socionics have known me for four years and consider me an IEE. None of my friends or closer acquaintances who are well-acquainted with socionics consider me to be a type other than IEE.
If I truly am LIE as you suggest, then everyone around me has also been typed completely incorrectly, and my understanding of the socionics functions and information elements should come across as skewed and inaccurate -- a strong deviation from those of classical socionics.
Maybe you're picking up on some non-socionic traits of mine (I have a few of those

? The last time you brought this up, I got fairly worked up and was in a black logic state of mind (short, action-oriented sentences, etc., as you noted). That is an unusual and taxing state of mind for me.

**FDG** · 02-12-2006, 11:04 PM

Okay.

/me kisses Rick on the cheek.

**Rocky** · 02-12-2006, 11:09 PM

FDG's only saying Rick's an LIE because Rick's type, IEE, is FDG's natural superior.

Look at me talking... with all these LIIs around.

**Rick** · 02-12-2006, 11:25 PM

When people do mistake my type (I am not counting those who belong to peripheral schools of socionics where the central socionics concepts are totally warped), they usually see me as ILE (in writing) or EII (in person). Even Sergei Ganin said I sounded like an "ethical ILE" when I first wrote to him, until he saw my pictures.
The ILE bit comes from intellectualism and my philosophical interests, which come across strongly in writing.
The EII bit comes from my reservedness and tact, which I tend to display in new groups of people until I feel comfortable enough to steer things in my own direction.

Now imagine how hard it is to type people who are emotionally imbalanced or fixated on their super-ego all the time.

Kisses accepted -- but only on the cheek

**Rick** · 02-12-2006, 11:32 PM

Anyway, what was the topic we were discussing?
(*yawn, goodnight*)

Creepy-pokeball · 02-13-2006, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Rick

Anyway, what was the topic we were discussing?
(*yawn, goodnight*)

Sarah Michelle Gellar

**Rick** · 02-13-2006, 07:09 AM

That's what I thought, too

**Expat** · 02-13-2006, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Rocky

FDG's only saying Rick's an LIE because Rick's type, IEE, is FDG's natural superior.

The IEE is the LIE's natural superior?

**science as magic** · 02-13-2006, 07:54 AM

supervisor he means

i disagree as well

**FDG** · 02-13-2006, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion

supervisor he means

i disagree as well

He means beneficiary.

**science as magic** · 02-13-2006, 08:01 AM

yeah my mistake

fucking

**FDG** · 02-13-2006, 08:10 AM

NP, you're still uber-1337

**science as magic** · 02-13-2006, 08:49 AM

heh. i fear that image will be shattered soon.

**XoX** · 02-13-2006, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by Jadae

Im not so sure. MBTI is heavily institutionalized. 10-15 years seems to be a bit liberal and early of an estimate if in fact it does.

Just check this link every month or so and try to calculate the trend:
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...ord2=Socionics

It might not take 15 years

Ok, googlefight isn't the oracle but it is cheap

**Rick** · 02-14-2006, 06:13 AM

I already did a few days ago

I haven't exactly been plotting a chart over the years, but I have been aware that the gap has been closing.

Thread: Mistakes people make about socionics

Thread Tools

Display

Mistakes people make about socionics

Posting Permissions