Misconceptions because of socionicsus

[CheGuevara]

I have realized that a lot of people on this forum are not sure about their type or have obviously mistyped themselves.

In my opinion the reason for this disaster is socionics.us which seems to have a strong influence on many or most people on this forum.

What's wrong with socionics.us? I will tell you.

socionics.us offers a lot of useless information but no type descriptions at all. That's what I call an absolutely misguiding website about socionics.



I tried to convince ArchonAlarion that he is ILI. He didn't believe it. I said, just compare the type descriptions, forget all the other useless stuff. He is of the opinion that type descriptions are not very important for typing. I almost fell down from my chair.

Another person said that type descriptions were just one aspect and that one aspect was not enough for typing. I thought: "what the heck is wrong with the people on this forum?"

Gilly said socionics.com was a bad website and that I should read everything on socionics.us. I have read a lot on socionics.us but this site is just miguiding because it emphazises useless things and offers no useful type descriptions. Gilly even told me he was INFP but ENFj. Again, I almost fell down from my chair.



The most important thing about understanding socionics is knowing the type descriptions, of course. The descriptions by Victor Gulenko on socioncs.com are very good. Everyone who is interested in socionics should know them very well. Typing requires an intuitive understanding of all 16 type descriptions.

The descriptions on wikisocion are not bad but they don't emphasize the main points as the descriptions of Gulenko do.

So would anybody who does not know all the 16 type descriptions very well stop typing immidiately, please...

[Simon Ssmall]

I think for you it would be a great idea if you could use safety belts on your chair. Would probably solve a lot of your problems.

[somavision]

How old are you Che?

[JuJu]

In general, the site has good info--especially on the blog.

Unfortunately for many visitors to the site, hoping to learn about Socionics, there are A LOT of incorrect celebrity typings on that site, e.g. echoes of old Russian typings (which are, in many cases, surprisingly incorrect,) and even among his own duals he types, I'm not sure if he even gets one correct.

This is not to say that every typing is incorrect--there are some good ones, (especially in beta, but not in delta) which strikes me as strange for a self-typed ENFp.

[CheGuevara]

I think for you it would be a great idea if you could use safety belts on your chair. Would probably solve a lot of your problems.

Yes, especially because I expect some strange answers here...

How old are you Che?

26

Unfortunately for many visitors to the site, hoping to learn about Socionics, there are A LOT of incorrect celebrity typings on that site

The problem is that many people on this forum seem to believe that DeLong is good at typing celebrities. Lenin, Powell, Cheney = SLE? I don't think so.

This is not to say that every typing is incorrect--there are some good ones, (especially in beta, but not in delta) which strikes me as strange for a self-typed ENFp.

Yes. A mistyped "authority" as Gilly thinks of him would be really laughable. But that is not very likely, of course.

[Galen]

I have told you this time and time and time again: nobody cares. You have stated your opinions, and nobody believes you. There's really nothing else you can do now. Nobody else here believes that things such as quadra values, functions, etc are useless, and you will never convince anybody on here that they are.

[CheGuevara]

I have told you this time and time and time again: nobody cares.

Thank you for telling me that. I have already realized that there are a lot of misguided and ignorant people on this forum, of course.

Nobody else here believes that things such as quadra values, functions, etc are useless, and you will never convince anybody on here that they are.

I never said that! Quadra values are interesting, functions are the explanation for types and relationships. But interesting things like quadra values don't help if you don't really know all the 16 type descriptions. Functions are important but Model A is just a model. The behaviour of the types is the important point.

[krieger]

Even on the basis of type descriptions calling Archon an INTp is very dubious. He is not a person that condemns passion like the description on socioniko.net says, nor is he in any way "unapproachable". He does not display any tendency towards pedantry like the Gulenko descriptions imply INTps do. He is not noticably pessimistic either. All of these are traits that keep surfacing in INTp descriptions, yet aren't exhibitted by him.

[CheGuevara]

Even on the basis of type descriptions calling Archon an INTp is very dubious. He is not a person that condemns passion like the description on socioniko.net says, nor is he in any way "unapproachable". He does not display any tendency towards pedantry like the Gulenko descriptions imply INTps do. He is not noticably pessimistic either. All of these are traits that keep surfacing in INTp descriptions, yet aren't exhibitted by him.

Do you know him personally? Or just here on the internet? Some people may behave completely different than in real life. So that's not the important point. The interesting point is: Look at his avatar and you see no ILE at all.

Unfortunately people often don't use subtypes. That's another mistake on socionics.us (and also socionics.com), of course. In my opinion Archon is Ne-INTp. Gulenko's subtype description of an intuitive ILI fits very well.

[Simon Ssmall]

Nobody else here believes that things such as quadra values are useless.

I think there are quite a few people who believe that. I wouldn't say they are unreasonable.

[Simon Ssmall]

Do you know him personally? Or just here on the internet? Some people may behave completely different than in real life. So that's not the important point. The interesting point is: Look at his avatar and you see no ILE at all.

Unfortunately people often don't use subtypes. That's another mistake on socionics.us (and also socionics.com), of course. In my opinion Archon is Ne-INTp. Gulenko's subtype description of an intuitive ILI fits very well.

Do you know him personally? Or just here on the internet? Or you are basing it only on one picture?

[Galen]

I never said that! Quadra values are interesting, functions are the explanation for types and relationships. But interesting things like quadra values don't help if you don't really know all the 16 type descriptions. Functions are important but Model A is just a model. The behaviour of the types is the important point.

Well this entire subforum is about Model A. You have come to the wrong place to discuss other non-Model A related things.

[CheGuevara]

Do you know him personally? Or just here on the internet? Or you are basing it only on one picture?

Just on the internet. The picture is one thing, the way he behaves is the second thing. In my opinion ILEs don't behave like that, not even on the internet. The things labcoat stated might be different in real life.

Well this entire subforum is about Model A. You have come to the wrong place to discuss other non-Model A related things.

I don't want to discuss non-Model-A-related things. I just want to discuss about socionics.us and the fact that there are no useful type descriptions. Therefore the site is misguiding. People get the impression that type descriptions are not really necessary. That's why so many people have mistyped themselves I think.

[leckysupport]

Another person said that type descriptions were just one aspect and that one aspect was not enough for typing. I thought: "what the heck is wrong with the people on this forum?"

Why are people of one type so different? This question has for a long time disturbed each sober-minded socionics-practitioner. Why can two carriers of one and the same psychological system, which has an identical structure, demonstrate in one and the same situation such different models of behavior?

Conduct a simple experiment. Gather 3-4 people of a single type, it unimportant which type their school’s specialist determined. Give them any mutually accessible task (a jointly solved intellectual puzzle or a game and such) and observe their behavior. And you will see that in spite of the identity of their type, some of them will be more active, others more passive, some more resourceful, others more conservative and so forth. The most interesting thing is that the greater the number of representatives of the same type which you gather, the greater the large number of differences will you reveal between them. Thus, the depth of the typology is possible to increase even further.

The entire purpose of DCNH was to account for differences in expressed type which aren't accounted for in type descriptions. That means it is possible to have two people of the same type who express their type differently, and if that is possible it is only reasonable to assume that it is possible that a type description doesn't account for every manifestation of particular type.

[Simon Ssmall]

Just on the internet. The picture is one thing, the way he behaves is the second thing. In my opinion ILEs don't behave like that, not even on the internet. The things labcoat stated might be different in real life.

So you typed him based on one of his pictures and how he behaves on the internet? I just want to find common ground on what you base types on. Which behavioural patterns would you say can be used online and which do not? Or should I ask more specifically, what behaviour Aa showed online which points away from ENTp and is type related even if it is only shown on internet and can't be different in real life or at least can't be different in that way.

[Krig the Viking]

The most important thing about understanding socionics is knowing the type descriptions, of course. The descriptions by Victor Gulenko on socioncs.com are very good. Everyone who is interested in socionics should know them very well. Typing requires an intuitive understanding of all 16 type descriptions.

The descriptions on wikisocion are not bad but they don't emphasize the main points as the descriptions of Gulenko do.

Dude, how do you think Gulenko came up with those descriptions? I've read enough Gulenko to know how he works: everything is based on his theoretical understanding of Model A and the rest. Do you think Gulenko himself uses his own type descriptions to type people? Or does he simply rely on his own detailed understanding of the functions and elements?

Type descriptions are a crutch, to be used until you've developed your understanding of the theory well enough that you don't need them.

[Azeroffs]

Dude, how do you think Gulenko came up with those descriptions? I've read enough Gulenko to know how he works: everything is based on his theoretical understanding of Model A and the rest. Do you think Gulenko himself uses his own type descriptions to type people? Or does he simply rely on his own detailed understanding of the functions and elements?

Type descriptions are a crutch, to be used until you've developed your understanding of the theory well enough that you don't need them.

+1

Che, why do you think descriptions are the most important method for typing/understanding?

[thePirate]

Type descriptions are a crutch, to be used until you've developed your understanding of the theory well enough that you don't need them.

Exactly.

Type descriptions don't always fit to a T. Relying on them soley, you would be prone to mistyping.

[Jarno]

I have realized that a lot of people on this forum are not sure about their type or have obviously mistyped themselves.

yes, and it's often because people mainly focus on information elements instead of dichtomies or type descriptions.

[xkj220]

yes, and it's often because people mainly focus on information elements instead of dichtomies or type descriptions.

And they are doing the right thing, IMHO.

On the topic: I find the information at socionics.us more than satisfying.

[Satan]

i think to be able to type yourself correctly, you should have an adequate: understanding of the theory, understanding of yourself, and ability to apply the theory.

sounds serious

[xkj220]

i think to be able to type yourself correctly, you should have an adequate: understanding of the theory, understanding of yourself, and ability to apply the theory.

sounds serious

It is. Being mistyped can cause many problems.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Differences in opinions of peoples types is more a problem of socionics than just any one socionics site or method.

[717495]

There are plenty of type descriptions, and socionics.us has plenty of original writing. Why don't you go make your own website?
Called socio-niggz.gov

[Satan]

It is. Being mistyped can cause many problems.

i hear it causes birth defects.

[ArchonAlarion]

also, I totally don't follow socionics.us in any significant way.

[Marie84]

Just on the internet. The picture is one thing, the way he behaves is the second thing. In my opinion ILEs don't behave like that, not even on the internet. The things labcoat stated might be different in real life.

How does an ILE behave than? What makes ILI more likely? What does an ILE "look like" that makes that an incompatible type?
You have to make an argument for your reasoning for it to have any weight.

I don't want to discuss non-Model-A-related things. I just want to discuss about socionics.us and the fact that there are no useful type descriptions. Therefore the site is misguiding. People get the impression that type descriptions are not really necessary. That's why so many people have mistyped themselves I think.

Type descriptions are there to help give you an idea of how the Information Elements affect each type, but not everyone is going to fit into them word-for-word, people are more complex than that

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Maybe someone who is a proponent of type descriptions could explain to me how they are any different than the descriptions of functions.

I mean, they are both descriptions of a phenomena which is supposed to exist, how does type descriptions make them more valid over function descriptions do you think? (I'm not saying they are or are not, I am curious to here the reasoning, if the implication is that one is better - which is seems to be).

Seems to me that they can work in tandem, but for w/e reason, people tend to (at least appear to) feel more comfortable fitting into the box of a function description rather than fitting into the box of a type description.

Hmmm, I do think that type descriptions are of varying quality, so the other issue is which one to choose? It could be said that if one doesn't also look at the functions, then they could be mis-typing themselves because they rely on poor type descriptions, but then, which ones are the good function descriptions? Really the type and the function descriptions should all fit, if it's going to make any sense.

Maybe the functions give more room for flexibility of a person, and the parts of a type description that really matter are just describing their ego functions in action.

[CheGuevara]

The building blocks are laid out for you. So don't be a lazy fuck and learn it and use it

I know them all and use them, of course.

Do you think Gulenko himself uses his own type descriptions to type people? Or does he simply rely on his own detailed understanding of the functions and elements?

Betwixt and between. He probably types people by comparing them to people he knows.

Type descriptions are a crutch, to be used until you've developed your understanding of the theory well enough that you don't need them.

Yes, I agree. After you have typed enough people of every type you don't need the descriptions anymore because you can compare people to the people you have already typed. Nevertheless, it seems to me that some people here know all the details but not the general descriptions. That's a mistake I think.

Che, why do you think descriptions are the most important method for typing/understanding?

Because you can read them and compare them to people you want to type. Gulenko's descriptions state the main aspects of every type. So you don't get stuck in useless details.

Type descriptions don't always fit to a T. Relying on them soley, you would be prone to mistyping.

That is true.

there actually are type descriptions at socionics.us. the owner of the site (Rick DeLong) has written several type descriptions

They are too short. They don't really state the main points. Not even all types are described.

I find the information at socionics.us more than satisfying.

You don't even learn there what an LII or ILI is and you are satisfied?

How does an ILE behave than? What makes ILI more likely? What does an ILE "look like" that makes that an incompatible type?
You have to make an argument for your reasoning for it to have any weight.

We've already discussed that in a different thread. When I said "Archon, you aren't ILE" I did not even know that he had typed himself ILI before. So that's another indication I might be right...

how does type descriptions make them more valid over function descriptions do you think? (I'm not saying they are or are not, I am curious to here the reasoning, if the implication is that one is better - which is seems to be).

The most important thing is to know the general traits of every type. Then you can start typing and will make a lot of mistakes. After learning the functions, elements, quadras, V.I. and all the stuff you will be better at typing. But some people here don't even know the basics, the type descriprions.

[CheGuevara]

Don't wanna be an American idiot
Don't want a forum under socionics.us
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mind fuck America

Welcome to a new kind of tension
All across the16types.info
Everything isn't meant to be okay
Gilly dreams of tomorrow
We're not the ones who're meant to follow
For that's enough to argue

Well maybe I'm the ****** socionist
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda
Now everybody do the propaganda
And sing along to the age of paranoia

Don't wanna be an American idiot
One forum controlled by socionics.us
Information age of hysteria
It's calling out to idiot America

[xkj220]

You don't even learn there what an LII or ILI is and you are satisfied?

Nobody has said that the information at socionics.us is "law" or definitive. What it delivers it does so well. Your stubborn hold to the descriptions present at socionics.com (which are HORRIBLE. The only thing worth saving from Armageddon in that website are the inter-type relation descriptions), just showcases your poor grasp of the theory, which is already apparent.

Stop being a jerk and unnecessarily antagonistic (if you want to be taken seriously, that is). Stop trying to stir up shit and stop taking sides for no reason, and without having all the facts straight... pseudo-revolutionary . Go fuel your need for drama elsewhere, "harmonizing LII" ().

[CheGuevara]

Your stubborn hold to the descriptions present at socionics.com (which are HORRIBLE.

Let's have a look at this LII description . I think Gulenko states a lot of interesting information a functional analysis would never offer.

Their eyes start flashing with a fanatic light and their passion increases as the conversation progresses.

When defending their concepts and ideas during a confrontation their logic can become solid and absolute.

INTjs always give others a chance to say what they need to say. They consider that everyone has got talents and they try at least not to interfere.

INTjs are not very demanding. They are often indifferent to food and its presentation. It can be simple but must be fresh.

INTjs live in a world of their own conception. They simply ignore rules, concepts and directives that do not suit them.

These are just five general traits of LIIs which a functional analysis of would never offer. These traits are based on observation instead of functional analysis. That's all I wanted to say. Many or most people only rely on functional analysis and ignore observations of experienced socionists!

The only thing worth saving from Armageddon in that website are the inter-type relation descriptions), just showcases your poor grasp of the theory, which is already apparent.

You are right, the descriptions of the intertype relations are great. Let's have a look at Quasi-Identity
:

Books written by your Quasi-Identical are impossible to read. The creations of your Quasi-Identical look monstrous. Conversations with your Quasi-Identical, although not heavy, do not bring any satisfaction either. One partner may think that the other partner complicates simple things and simplifies the important points, trying to deliberately confuse and mislead them.

So what's your type? Maybe ILI? Then the descriptions written by LII-Gulenko, translated by LII-Ganin, recommended by LII-Guevara are not a good source for you and all the other ILIs here, indeed. It's nice to learn from socionics.com, isn't it?

[Brilliand]

So what's your type? Maybe ILI? Then the descriptions written by LII-Gulenko, translated by LII-Ganin, recommended by LII-Guevara are not a good source for you and all the other ILIs here, indeed. It's nice to learn from socionics.com, isn't it?

I call battletyping.

[Absurd]

Hehe. Man, you're digging a grave for yourself

[Gilly]

Can I just ban this fuckstick already?

[krieger]

Their eyes start flashing with a fanatic light and their passion increases as the conversation progresses.

When defending their concepts and ideas during a confrontation their logic can become solid and absolute.

INTjs always give others a chance to say what they need to say. They consider that everyone has got talents and they try at least not to interfere.

INTjs are not very demanding. They are often indifferent to food and its presentation. It can be simple but must be fresh.

INTjs live in a world of their own conception. They simply ignore rules, concepts and directives that do not suit them.

These are just five general traits of LIIs which a functional analysis of would never offer. These traits are based on observation instead of functional analysis. That's all I wanted to say. Many or most people only rely on functional analysis and ignore observations of experienced socionists!

I agree. This is a very good point.

[Brilliand]

Can I just ban this fuckstick already?

Only on condition that he isn't a person. This has become a confusing question of late...

[Krig the Viking]

This can probably all be resolved by saying that it's best to learn everything possible about Socionics, and the more you know, the more skilled you will be.

That's my philosophy, anyway.

[UDP]

I have realized that a lot of people on this forum are not sure about their type or have obviously mistyped themselves.

In my opinion the reason for this disaster is socionics.us which seems to have a strong influence on many or most people on this forum.

YESSS that's exactly it. You've figured it out!

[Galen]

Hoh man, you never know what he's gonna say next, that Che