Why

[Joy]

Why would everyone fit into one of the 16 types? The theory itself is fun and all, but why people's thought processes develop like that? And not just most people's but everyone's???

Have you ever wondered if maybe it's all just bullshit? Maybe it just seems to work because we're able to make our perception and understanding of the people around us fit into our notions of types and intertype relations.

[1981slater]

Why would everyone fit into one of the 16 types? The theory itself is fun and all, but why people's thought processes develop like that? And not just most people's but everyone's???

Have you ever wondered if maybe it's all just bullshit? Maybe it just seems to work because we're able to make our perception and understanding of the people around us fit into our notions of types and intertype relations.

Everything is possible, anyway, you are an ESE chatbox

Perhaps everybody has a certain % of every type, for instance, I see myself as

70% ILE
10% LIE
10% IEE
10 % others

[Joy]

Erm... That doesn't really work with the theory. No Ti points for you.

[1981slater]

Erm... That doesn't really work with the theory. No Ti points for you.

I AM

[Joy]

I AM

Oh shit. My bad.

[Joy]

I'm talkative this morning because I woke up at 6:00 am and can't go back to sleep. I'm feeling well rested. Also sort of relieved because I didn't get a ticket last night even though I forgot to move my car from the street to the garage. I forgot the night before last as well, and didn't get a ticket then, either. Maybe because it's a holiday weekend?

Anyways, I'm feeling well rested yet have nothing to do this early.

[Blaze]

Why would everyone fit into one of the 16 types? The theory itself is fun and all, but why people's thought processes develop like that? And not just most people's but everyone's???

Have you ever wondered if maybe it's all just bullshit? Maybe it just seems to work because we're able to make our perception and understanding of the people around us fit into our notions of types and intertype relations.

yeah which came first? socionics as a universal truth or have we only begun to think in those terms so we see the "truth" of it wherever we look?

my youngest daughter is an entp for sure. for a while i thought she was enfp since she was pretty cute and could get people to like her, but the older she gets the more obvious it is that she is logical.

we went to go see Jesus Christ Superstar last spring. we're sitting there watching. she leans against me and in a stage whisper says, "mom, when are they gonna hang him on the cross???" LOL holy shit. i mean she's only 7 but geez. how very entp.

so all it takes is look at your kids. it's totally obvious what type they are, and from a very young age at that.

[Joy]

Or maybe she just likes to act like you? And you reward her for doing so?

[Blaze]

Or maybe she just likes to act like you? And you reward her for doing so?

yeah right? i dont' think so though. she's glued to the hip of her esfj sister and would like nothing more than to be like her!

why would you say that i would reward her? do you reward your children for misbehavior?

[Joy]

yeah right? i dont' think so though. she's glued to the hip of her esfj sister and would like nothing more than to be like her!

why would you say that i would reward her? do you reward your children for misbehavior?

How is acting ILE misbehaving?

[Blaze]

do you always answer questions with questions?

do you think one's childhood ego should be left totally unstrained and free?

and most importantly, what about naomi?

[Brilliand]

Why would everyone fit into one of the 16 types? The theory itself is fun and all, but why people's thought processes develop like that? And not just most people's but everyone's???

Have you ever wondered if maybe it's all just bullshit? Maybe it just seems to work because we're able to make our perception and understanding of the people around us fit into our notions of types and intertype relations.

I find it hard to believe that everyone fits into one of the 16 types, but it isn't implausible that the people that don't are morons.

Translation: Remember all that talk about Socionics being a highly efficient way for the brain to organize itself? Yeah... there's no guarantee that everyone has organized their brains in an efficient way. Even ignoring that, Socionics might be analogous to Aristotle's physics model that "fire and air go up, earth and water go down" - or wait, that's the Jungian archetypes. But we haven't quite reached "periodic table of the elements" level yet...

[UDP]

Why would everyone fit into one of the 16 types? The theory itself is fun and all, but why people's thought processes develop like that? And not just most people's but everyone's???

Have you ever wondered if maybe it's all just bullshit? Maybe it just seems to work because we're able to make our perception and understanding of the people around us fit into our notions of types and intertype relations.

If you know what to really look at and what socionics talks about and what it doesn't have jurisdiction over, it's very, very clear.

It's actually kind of ....... un-wondrous, how simple people are.

It's mostly about what is salient in a persons life, and then what type they are, and there you have it.

[silverchris9]

^Are you LSE? It says so under your name, but you know how people's type changes around here...

I'm pretty sure I disagree with you, but I don't know on what grounds. If it's not too much of a thread derailment, can you point me towards some links on the subject of what socionics does and doesn't have jurisdiction over?

[UDP]

^Are you LSE? It says so under your name, but you know how people's type changes around here...

I'm pretty sure I disagree with you, but I don't know on what grounds. If it's not too much of a thread derailment, can you point me towards some links on the subject of what socionics does and doesn't have jurisdiction over?

I don't know if there are links, per se. I'll tell you about it myself, if you want. I don't think it is a very well articulated issue of socionics, and in fact it is one of the most important parts of socionics.

When people ask if a relationship, a romantic relationship works and try to analyze it only in terms of socionics compatibility, then they are missing things out. There are obviously other factors: social, socio-economic, lifestyle, life direction, religion, etc. That's a really simplistic example, of course.

What grounds are you talking about?

It would be friggin hilarious at this point if Socionics was just complete bullshit.

Is this at all related to you being bored with your type?

Is it really so crazy to think that we're all just using projection and self-fulfilling prophecy when we're applying this theory to the people around us?

People do that, actually. (...)

So I guess my point is that people don't fit into sixteen types, but if we sort them into sixteen types, we can produce some valuable models and predictions of their thought processes and resultant behavior, and perhaps can learn as much from where they don't fit our predictions as from where they do. But then, personality theory is only saved from complete monolithic creepiness from its inaccuracies, no?

I wonder what you mean.
I don't particularly disagree with you, but, I think some of it is dependent of what you mean when you say "don't fit into types". I mean, in my way of seeing things, perhaps, you are expecting types to be something they are not. It seems that it is fairly commonplace to not understand what a "type" really is.

types are like a mathematical function. They aren't actual data. They are just a way to interpret things. So I think the concept that there is a set "type", that an IEI is something that can be explained in a profile that's a few pages long, in every specific detail.... that's foolish and not particularly possible. That's not what socionics is about, to me. Types are human beings, first and foremost. I don't really see a reason to be fed up with socionics and think it doesn't describe humans, just like I don't see a reason to have some backlash against the concept of duality, and declaring that "duality isn't all its cracked up to be". What is really going on is you are breaking through your own delusions and assumptions.

[Joy]

It would be friggin hilarious at this point if Socionics was just complete bullshit.

[Brilliand]

It would be friggin hilarious at this point if Socionics was just complete bullshit.

Socionics is half bullshit. I thought we had that settled...

Throughout the ages, humans have had difficulty telling one half of a pizza from the other.

[Creepy-male]

Why would everyone fit into one of the 16 types? The theory itself is fun and all, but why people's thought processes develop like that? And not just most people's but everyone's???

Have you ever wondered if maybe it's all just bullshit? Maybe it just seems to work because we're able to make our perception and understanding of the people around us fit into our notions of types and intertype relations.

Well I think 16 types (at least the 16 in MBTI or Kiersey) works so well because......

You have 4 characteristics
and 2 mutually exclusive options for each characteristic

This creates 16 possibilities....

The other answer to your why question is "because you touch yourself at night"....

the end

[The Greeter]

Why would everyone fit into one of the 16 types? The theory itself is fun and all, but why people's thought processes develop like that? And not just most people's but everyone's???

Have you ever wondered if maybe it's all just bullshit? Maybe it just seems to work because we're able to make our perception and understanding of the people around us fit into our notions of types and intertype relations.

It fits because we make it fit. Unfortunately, people either forget this or are not even aware of it in the first place.

[UDP]

It fits because we make it fit. Unfortunately, people either forget this or are not even aware of it in the first place.

Sure.

...I think some people may have trouble with making the leap from some sort of very heady, very intellectual, very theoretical set of rules and ideas that allegedly govern what we are and how we interact -- to what is really going on, in a very visceral, instinctual, and concrete 'thing'. I say 'thing' because I don't really know what to call it. And maybe I'm deviating from standard-issue socionics here, I'm not sure. But when you really "feel" what it is like when an ESE or EIE uses Fe, and feel what it's like when that function dominants someone and their outlook, and feel what its like when you can sense the differences between Fe dominant who is in alpha quadra and has alpha values vs an Fe dominant who is in beta and has beta values.... when I feel all of that, it's hard to say, "oh socionics is bullshit".

(Granted, talking about Fe dominance and quadras are socionics terminology, but I don't know how else to describe the intricacies of those feelings. ((thus, socionics!)). Seriously, I don't use socionics because I have a theory and I want to cram everything into it. I see it as useful, it talks about things you'd otherwise find difficult to comment on.)

You can disagree with socionics theory if you want, but what you feel when you feel those things, that's real. You feel how it acts on your own psyche, and you "feel" or "sense" how things like that affects someone's entire nature.

All socionics has done for me is explain those feelings; socionics is not those feelings, socionics is a means by which to explain that phenomenon and put sense to it. That's all.

So when people say "I'm not a type" or "people don't fit into 16 types", I don't particularly disagree with them. People are people, not socionics types; It's putting the cart in front of the horse.

[sigma]

Why would everyone fit into one of the 16 types? The theory itself is fun and all, but why people's thought processes develop like that? And not just most people's but everyone's???

I don't see the types as boxes but rather as reference models. Each individual is unique but, when analyzed, it might look more or less as one of the reference models. In some cases the resemblance is astonishing in other is only vague. Based on the resemblance to the reference model a person might deduce some probability of a certain behavior or of a certain attitude in certain conditions. Probability! That's all!
Even if it is so uncertain, when you apply it to a long enough period of time or to a large number of people, this probability points to a certain level of accuracy. The accuracy depends on how well the sample population resemble to their particular reference models. More resemblance equals higher accuracy.

[Jarno]

Why would everyone fit into one of the 16 types? The theory itself is fun and all, but why people's thought processes develop like that? And not just most people's but everyone's???

Have you ever wondered if maybe it's all just bullshit? Maybe it just seems to work because we're able to make our perception and understanding of the people around us fit into our notions of types and intertype relations.

That's were experiments come into play.

When typing other people and your relationships, there can only be one conclusion: It's extremely likely that socionics is correct.

[1981slater]

P
not P

P: drink Pepsi
P: doesn't drink Pepsi

[Joy]

If it doesn't suit you then throw it away. Whaddaya think? Just pick a new set of categories and make your own typology if that'll make you happier.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. It's the still the same trap.

(And I never call anyone good or evil.)

[Creepy-male]

If it doesn't suit you then throw it away. Whaddaya think? Just pick a new set of categories and make your own typology if that'll make you happier. Here, I'll make one for you.

M = male
F = female

S = straight
H = homosexual

P = process
R = result

g = good
e = evil

I'm MSRg. What's your type? Are you a MSRg too.

Let's make some Reinins. MS and FH are Pussylovers. MH and FS are Cocklovers. OK, one down, ten to go.

Sg and He are Normal in Opinion of Conservative Party(aka Abnormal in San Francisco). Se and Hg are Abnormal in Opinion of Conservative Party(aka Normal in San Francisco) . OK, another one down, nine to go.

Mg and Fe are Pussylovers Normal in Opinion of Conservative Party + Cocklovers Abnormal in Opinion of Conservative Party i.e. they are those people for whom Conservative Party thinks that they should love pussy in order to be normal.
Me and Fg are Pussylovers Abnormal in Opinion of Conservative Party + Cocklovers Normal in Opinion of Conservative Party i.e. they are those people for whom Conservative Party thinks that they should love cock in order to be normal.

OK, another one down, eight to go. Do you want to continue?

I had a manager that was FHPe once....

[Brilliand]

OK, another one down, eight to go. Do you want to continue?

I think you'll have trouble forming Reinins involving Process/Result... that is, "Which is these dichotomies is not like the other three?"

[Trevor]

I think you'll have trouble forming Reinins involving Process/Result... that is, "Which is these dichotomies is not like the other three?

I don't think so. My work here is done, therefore no trouble(s) for me. TBH..I think that this new typology I proposed is futile(but it's way better than Koeppen's climate classification, anything is better than Koeppen's climate classification, except devil, he's evil, everything is better than evil).