Socionics today (where we are at now)

[aixelsyd]

.

[Creepy-male]

I'd like to see socionics being spread to more people.

At the very least, that raises a host of questions and issues. It's ripe for discussion!

[ragnar]

So I might ask, what territory has been neglected by the community thus far?

Formalization and quantification. Both on the empirical statistical level and in formulation of formal theory.

[717495]

Expansion will come naturally. I think what needs work is people rushing their ideas and all of a sudden you have a majority in error and nobody can save them because they're all defending each other by "what makes sense," especially that it's what they learned and how they learned it, and they have some sort of personal significance attached to it. Yuck. No, I think defensive stance is the best call.

[Wittmont]

I think "socionics" is far from perfect and does not cover the 'types' fully, especially since so many people cannot recognize themselves in the type descriptions or from the descriptions of the functions. Another problem I think is poorly understood is how the combination of different functions in use appear as impressions that are mistaken for different information elements altogether - leading to a lot of mistypings...

SLE is one example of a type that is almost universally described from a rather narrowminded point of view (it's all about Se dominance in many type descriptions) making it hard to relate to for many SLE's who naturally are far more developed than this stereotypical view described.

Also online the functions are so easy to mistake from superficial impressions of a person, someone can give an *impression* of using functions X or function Y but that is because they are discussing topics related to them, it doesn't mean they use them as their main ego or valued functions. And people for various reasons develop persona mechanisms and defenses to protect their weak functions or to deflect attention from them or even make them appear as strengths. And that is one of the reasons it 'can' be hard to type people from the forums, eg, based on how they present themselves. This problem also goes for 'celebreties' who use a mask to face the world.

It comes down to really seeing the people interact in the real world to see the functions beyond persona games or image creating games. And moreover even the person himself or herself may be unaware they are using such mechanisms or camouflage in their contact with other people.

Sometimes typing is easy of course, but socionics need to develop the type descriptions a lot and abandon the stereotypical thinking for more nuanced descriptions.

Also I agree with Ragnar, to me there is a lot of 'mysticism' and personal opinions and projections involved in the descriptions of the 'metabolism soup'. Real study is needed to confirm and firm up the ideas, suppositions and claims and to broaden the understanding of individuals and 'types'.

[Mattie]

Becoming more academic for sure, that's the path this needs to go. I also think everyone having the same understanding would be a good thing. So, like, when typing someone, there should be a sheer majority in agreement of a person's type.

[Mattie]

Honestly, meets are the best thing people can do. Of course, there's the obvious problems of that. Other ways people can forward this is talking to professors and researchers in psychology departments in universities (or, better yet, start taking psych classes!). I'm actually going to be dual majoring with one as Psychology, and I'm going to do just that. The problem lies in needing a fully comprehensive English translation, because we're essentially playing telephone with these internet translators. Then we need to test these in the manner that other personality theories are, and also, come up with a test for it. Being able to test people for their type will increase productivity because then you can start experiments with people.

[Expat]

To tell the truth, I could imagine Expat being one who could make socionics credible to outside groups more so than a lot of people (as in making a good, clear case or explaining the theory in such a way.)..

Thank you. Well, actually, I'm very cautious when talking about socionics to others, and when I do, I never start by using the term "socionics". What I do is offer socionics analysis of given situations, without mentioning the theory behind it.

Also, I wouldn't like the idea of socionics knowledge - or supposed knowledge - becoming widespread.

[Trevor]

Also, I wouldn't like the idea of socionics knowledge - or supposed knowledge - becoming widespread.

Why is that so?

[Expat]

Why is that so?

Because it has the potential for much more damaging misuse than even MBTI.

As it is, in some companies that use MBTI (or similar tests) when hiring or promoting people, you don't stand a chance of landing a technical position if testing as (say) ENFP, or a commercial one if testing as ISTJ.

With socionics, you could have a situation where whole departments are arranged according to the staff's supposed types - as in, that whole department is Gamma, let's not hire you if you are (or if we type you as) Alpha.

This kind of thing.

[ragnar]

Because it has the potential for much more damaging misuse than even MBTI.

With all the stupidity around, does a little more make any difference?

[UDP]

Formalization and quantification. Both on the empirical statistical level and in formulation of formal theory.

If we can figure out how to teach socionics effectively, it will be very interesting, as it involves teaching people self awarness and also awareness of others.

It seems 'teaching' people in that way requires that someone is ready, able, and willing to open up to such awareness. But if there is some way to encourage this, it would be interesting.

Thank you. Well, actually, I'm very cautious when talking about socionics to others, and when I do, I never start by using the term "socionics". What I do is offer socionics analysis of given situations, without mentioning the theory behind it.

Yes.

Also, I wouldn't like the idea of socionics knowledge - or supposed knowledge - becoming widespread.

...

Because it has the potential for much more damaging misuse than even MBTI.

As it is, in some companies that use MBTI (or similar tests) when hiring or promoting people, you don't stand a chance of landing a technical position if testing as (say) ENFP, or a commercial one if testing as ISTJ.

With socionics, you could have a situation where whole departments are arranged according to the staff's supposed types - as in, that whole department is Gamma, let's not hire you if you are (or if we type you as) Alpha.

This kind of thing.

I also have similar reservations.

With all the stupidity around, does a little more make any difference?

Stupidity with atoms/nuclear weaponry is different than stupidity with knives. But it's also more than just stupidity, it's abuse or misuse of something powerful and with a wide scope of impact.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I find that people who I decide to speak to about socionics typically don't take it so well. I've had an EIE who thought it was some sort of weapon. Two LSE's have listened but haven't seen much value to it. Others have thought i'm nuts!

I think that socionics has great insight but at the same time none. I don't think it can predict relations and people with enough accuracy for people to buy into it. There is also the thing that people often inherently believe in their own potential, most people I think see it as a box which confines, not as a box which can liberate the individual to a better understanding of their wants in life.

I'm kinda like Expat, in the sense that I may use socionics as a tool to describe an analysis of a situation, rather than talk about it as socionics. This actually has more success.

I kind of feel like opening poster, that it's maybe reached it's limit. I suppose the only way I can think of in a small part is to discuss more of our irl interactions with types. From experience, this can get shot down for whatever reason (I tried it in delta quadra before). It can maybe have a tendency to become..implications of, 'you're not X type, and those aren't Y type'.

I think it moves forward by more practical application, not just theoretical application. I'm not sure that socionics in our little domains is ready for that, or perhaps i'm wrong about it's approach and/or my analysis of the situation.

Socionics maybe needs to be a bit more MBTI'ish, in the sense of more empirical research, discussion, collaboration, to see what it does and when it does, or what it doesn't! Or perhaps not, ha.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[JWC3]

I want a socionics book!

[Waddlesworth]

Many of us have been studying socionics for a number of years now. We more or less know the theory, are successful at typing others to some extent. Obviously we still disagree on points, but I think the majority of us have a handle on the various dichotomies, intertype relations, and so on.

So I might ask, what territory has been neglected by the community thus far? Sometimes I feel like there is little else to cover and then I ask myself "what more is there?"

I realize I'm merely being blind to the possibilities out there, but it still feels like regurgitated material, not to use the term offensively, but I continue to wonder how we expand socionics.

Maybe there are things others would like to see/hear more of, but I sometimes am at a loss, to repeat myself.

I feel terribly narrow-minded and short-sighted right now, but I guess that's where it's time to listen and learn.

The most ignored territory is that of proof of the reality of psychological type.

The biggest defect preventing a true understanding of type is the ego that we carry within that does not want to admit how little we actually know.

[Brilliand]

I would like to see Socionics moving into generalized formulas of human interaction - to be sure, there will be difficulty in applying the formulas due to the difficulty in seeing the inner workings of the human mind, but if we can model the inner workings of the human mind nonetheless, it should be possible to draw useful conclusions directly proportional to the quality of observations about the people in question. Socionics already works that way to a limited extent, but it is far from complete. (Noteably, individual differences are dismissed as a margin of error, rather than retained as minor variables akin to wind resistance in physics).