Your Favorite Socionicists
Whom do you often agree with when it comes to socionics? Whom do you believe has a better understanding of socionics than most others? Whom do you trust with expertise of socionics, of anyone here? Members. I'd like to know why you trust or end up in consensus with a socionicist. Do you understand them better because they share your IMs? Why are they better at objectively explaining socionics than other "enthusiasts" of their type? Nominate your favorite socionicist!
By no means do I intend a perfect socionicst.
All member nominations:
Smilingeyes
labcoat
Brilliand
Isha
Rick
Niffweed
Expat
Noam Chomsky
Oleg
Mcnew
Tcaud
Dee
Phaedrus
Ashton
strrrng
Steve
Gulenko
ragnar
Lucas Winfield
William Conly
Hugo
Zeldafan
Harry Truman
Oprah Winfrey
Conan O' Brian
David Rockefeller
Socrates
Diana
Augusta
Filatova
Stratieveskaya
Reinin
LlywelynapGruffydd
ArchonAlarion
Deante
Jriddy
Eldanen
Stratievskaya
1981slater
Polikujm
Hkkmr
Ephemeros
Last edited by 717495; 08-07-2009 at 09:47 PM.
I really favor these nominations. I intend to turn this into a vote and an award ceremony, and this is the original phase, so keep the nominations coming or your favorites might not make it.
Most of the quiet one who doesn't talk about socionic anymore and just roll their eyes on the outspoken one who gets it wrong. which is why they don't speak anymore becuase it would be useless to argue with them.
(D)IEE~FI-(C)SLE~Ni E-5w4(Sp/Sx)/7w8(So/Sp)/9w1(sp/sx)
Originally Posted by Jarno
Maybe so, but that does not make them more favored than those who speak. For those who know when to make an impact should make one, or they are themselves useless and unwise, and deserve no such praise or entitlement to an award. They have weakness that can not be overcome.
I can't be sure any Socionists know what they are talking about.
I feel that I have wasted much time with Socionics and through this waste of time I have learned that no socionist that I have read in English can prove type is real. This essentially makes it a belief system and indicates that no one really understands what they are talking about. What is worse is no one says "alright, type might not be real, let us prove it" they are all protecting their egos by not admitting that possibility. This is what it looks like, though it does not prove there is no such thing as type.
Amateur socionists' work, especially based upon translations and posted on this forum, reminds me of rotten processed meat being reprocessed. Then this reprocessed meat has new additives and preservatives mixed in, and then is really spiced up to mask the odour.
What happens if you eat it? You become mentally ill.
Last edited by Waddlesworth; 07-12-2009 at 06:50 AM.
It depends on what you mean by "Socionist", but I would say my favourite is probably Noam Chomsky.
What do you mean, you people?
Brilliand, Isha. I basically trust them absolutely, even if Brill's theories are a little weird and off the planet(Isha helped a lot for my understanding of the basics). And not that he posts anymore, but Rick as well.
Mcnew, Tcaud, Dee and Phaedrus
me too!
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
Typing various people: I agree usually with a "consensus" formed by weighing various people's opinions against each other and taking into account each opiner's idiosyncrasies. Among long-term forum members most weight is usually placed on the individual's self-typing.
Niffweed and Expat mainly.
Greetings, ragnar
ILI knowledge-seeker
Smilingeyes
Ashton
strrrng
Steve
Gulenko
ragnar
+100
Lucas Winfield, William Conly, Hugo and Zeldafan.
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
.
Based on whose opinion I trust most in typings and general socionics:
Myself, Steve, Ashton, Strrrng, Deante, Jriddy, Eldanen
Those who I believe have shown potential or whose theories have piqued my interest:
Labcoat, Brilliand, Smilingeyes, Tcaud, Mcnew, 1981slater, Polikujm, Hkkmr, Ephemeros
Everyone else can be great too and I would like to add more people to this watchlist.
The end is nigh
Yea that Diana. I love reading her socionics articles.
“No psychologist should pretend to understand what he does not understand... Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand nothing.” -Anton Chekhov
http://kevan.org/johari?name=Bardia0
http://kevan.org/nohari?name=Bardia0
LlywelynapGruffydd is a fraud. All of his fame is derived from publishing Earl B. Frobes notes which he stole while Frobe was passed out after a particularly wild night of Socionisizing.
lolz
Also I tend to agree the most with Ashton, Strrrng, Steve, and Jake. 1981slater is also almost always right.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Aushra Augusta
i appreciate many authors but at the moment i'm impressed with the work stratievskaya is doing on intertype relationships. she's publishing it here ????????? ?? ???????????? in portions. it's in Russian though. sometimes i find her approach toocolored. you can just see her own intertype relationships when she's characterizing the types in different life situations and she can't restrain herself from moral judgment (oh yes she doesn't seem to admire my type :wink: ) and she uses too extreme illustrations from life to my mind. but still if you don't pay attention to that it's very informative and exact.
Most marketing books are written solely to market their authors.
Time management ruined my life.
There are only two worthy occupations in Belarus - IT and music.
.
On this forum, I probably trust Expat the most. I haven't really thought much about which of the 'famous' socionists I trust the most. Gulenko, probably. It's easier for me to come up with a list of socionists I DON'T trust.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
With Niffweed and Rick, I see a trend of accuracy, but furthermore a display of common law with their explanations. Even when their understanding becomes internalized. it is originated from socionics. Most others listed here sit on the fence, many ideas/sterotypes don't apply to socionics, and those many who don't state their ideas give obsurd impressions and stick to them without investing in reformation of their ideas in directive of common law, especially when it comes to the information elements. It tends to be that there is no common law, only consensus, and members turn into benchmarks of types, and from there we get fake impressions. Impressions should be backed up by what is for a better part, common law, and this application of common law is when impressions fit the standard of what is feasible. Much of what goes around I'm afraid to say is quite MBTIish in its behavior analysis matching up to stereotypes and not the information elements. Then again there are some people who are good at typing within a few types, mainly of their quadra, and they're appreciated to that extent of validating intertype relations, and again this is understanding that is internalized, yet is originated from socionics. Solutions mainly involve downplaying of repetitive activity that extensively causes momentary illusions of grandeur. Simply put, everyone in their idealistic state wants a piece of the pie, and will heed shortcuts, blight for a lack of context. And no I don't mind rephrasing myself now and again.
I like Rick's and Expat's explanation of thing. Smilingeyes and Niffweed also seem to provide good information, but for whatever reason it's not as easy for me to absorb their style of presentation.
I seriously doubt the veracity of tcaud, Phaedrus, mcnew, labcoat and brilliand. The first three because they've got a few good ideas wrapped in a chocolate-flavored coating of egomania, labcoat perhaps due to simple communication difficulties, and brilliand because his religious views seem to skew things to me (but then again, that may just be me allowing that he's strongly religious to color my impression of the information he presents).
At times I agree with strrrng. I like Isha's posts in general but I haven't seen much of what she says about the theories of socionics. I began learning about socionics on Sergei Ganin's site, but he seems to go too far trying to reconcile it and MBTI, so I stopped reading at his site.
I have not read much of the writings from Russian socionists; every time I've tried I've felt frustrated by what seemed poor translation issues.
There's been a few times that Implied has talked about the theories, and she seems to have a good handle on it, but she also doesn't seem to get into it too often.
SLI
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
