Why so simple? (An Attempt to Reject Socionics)

[Rubicon]

What about something like genetics, and the role it plays in forming our personalities? We type our parents, pronounce them ISDq and UIDx and think that's that.. that they clearly haven't had an influence in determining our personalities. But what about the undeniable evidence that .. like it or not .. we take on some of their characteristics and traits and are burdened/blessed with them for the rest of our lives? Doesn't that mean that we'd have some kind of ISDq or UIDx subtype thing going on then?

And the belief that personality isn't formed in the womb makes everything even more ridiculous.. because that our experiences with all of our individual role models, societies, environments, brushes with knowledge etc could only result in 16 types doesn't make sense for a second.

So if personality is an intrinsic thing.. still - what's to say that the imprintation of the DNA is a stronger thing than the imprintation of various experiences etc on us from a young age or from inside the womb? Can we ever truly get away from them influencing us for better or for worse for decade upon decade? And who among us can strip someone bare upon studying them; see the number 15 printed on their soul? :-P (Except JuJu.) And why is it relevant if the number can so cleverly disguised?

Seems to me that if there are in fact only 16 personality types, that they must be such rough and broad categories with dubiously-placed boundaries that typing people in such a fashion must be simply an exercise in futility or fun times. Surely there are a ridiculous amount of subtype systems that haven't been "discovered" yet. And as all the subtypes get more and more numerous and hilarious, doesn't the possibility come to mind that the categories don't really exist in nature.. that we are making them up in order to satisfy our need for neatness and order or some such? And I guess that's fine if it helps our minds to organise knowledge, but how then can we take each other to task for methodolgy stupidity etc when it comes to typing?

Or what of the possibility that we're all just searching for something to hang our self-identities on - self-imposing limits on our personalities.. because hell knows that there are no limits out there in the world anymore. That's kind of scary. Being one of a certain number of types makes you feel like you belong, that you're playing your freaking part in the world. And now you can focus on developing specific skills related to function x and touting traits formerly thought as weaknesses as strengths. Yay - an ego boost. Or perhaps it makes you feel unique etc to be exclusively categorised, except that hmmm.. there's only so many times you can take one out of sixteen, one out of sixteen, one out of sixteen before it becomes terribly un-unique.

And we're looking for our elusive duals .. the magical people that make everything we do, stupid or otherwise, seem just the thing to do in any given situation. Where does that leave us in terms of personal growth? Upon finding that other half, what then? We merge like two halves of a ball, and begin rolling through life unscathed? And why is that a good thing? I personally can't envision getting to a point where I'm perfectly happy with who I am, who I've become, the various routines I indulge in. Or rather I really hope I never get to that point! I hope someone never helps me to that point! How tragic!

If there are in fact 16 personality types, why are we focusing on them? What makes them more to us than a passing interest? What makes a study in limiting ourselves a more desirable one than self-development in every fathomable form? Maybe because travelling inwards, making a comfortable and predictable nest for ourselves to retreat to is less painful than emerging, stretching ourselves, stretching boundaries as far as we can. Perhaps we've forgotten that we become terribly un-original and devoid of personality that has any worth when we're continually looking inside ourselves to find it. And in continually rejecting the majority of the people who surround us in some small or not-so-small ways because they're not "compatible" with us - rejecting getting closer to them, rejecting their thoughts, feelings, modus operandi etc.. we're only rejecting our own development and catering to ourselves and our push to travel inwards. Looking for what we like. Looking for those qualities that grate on us the least. Nice and comfortable.

Personally, I'd like to be someone who's continually growing (though not physically :-p) and moving forwards in life, listening more to people's various viewpoints etc with an aim to be ... erm .. more critical of them. :-p And with someone who is first and foremost interested in the same kind of thing. Perfectionism and such! (I wonder what type that is? ARghhhhh!!!!!)

Oh please excuse me.. I'm also preaching to myself. :-p

[Mediator Kam]

Hey Rubicon, you clearly take this whole socionics stuff too seriously. I will roll you into a ball and throw you into a pit of burrs. We will see how unscathed your clothes are after that.

[717495]

Start analyzing your relationships more first, and come back to Socionics if you find anything that matches your personal understanding. If it doesn't, then Socionics is not good for you. Everybody is different.

[Rubicon]

Hey Rubicon, you clearly take this whole socionics stuff too seriously. I will roll you into a ball and throw you into a pit of burrs. We will see how unscathed your clothes are after that.

I'M ALL YOURS, SO PLEASE BE ALL MINE.

Too seriously .. absolutely. Why so serious? I ask myself that every morning before I start my jumping jacks.

[Rubicon]

Start analyzing your relationships more first, and come back to Socionics if you find anything that matches your personal understanding. If it doesn't, then Socionics is not good for you. Everybody is different.

True, unfortunately.

[Ezra]

What about something like genetics, and the role it plays in forming our personalities? We type our parents, pronounce them ISDq and UIDx and think that's that.. that they clearly haven't had an influence in determining our personalities. But what about the undeniable evidence that .. like it or not .. we take on some of their characteristics and traits and are burdened/blessed with them for the rest of our lives? Doesn't that mean that we'd have some kind of ISDq or UIDx subtype thing going on then?

And the belief that personality isn't formed in the womb makes everything even more ridiculous.. because that our experiences with all of our individual role models, societies, environments, brushes with knowledge etc could only result in 16 types doesn't make sense for a second.

So if personality is an intrinsic thing.. still - what's to say that the imprintation of the DNA is a stronger thing than the imprintation of various experiences etc on us from a young age or from inside the womb? Can we ever truly get away from them influencing us for better or for worse for decade upon decade? And who among us can strip someone bare upon studying them; see the number 15 printed on their soul? :-P (Except JuJu.) And why is it relevant if the number can so cleverly disguised?

Seems to me that if there are in fact only 16 personality types, that they must be such rough and broad categories with dubiously-placed boundaries that typing people in such a fashion must be simply an exercise in futility or fun times. Surely there are a ridiculous amount of subtype systems that haven't been "discovered" yet. And as all the subtypes get more and more numerous and hilarious, doesn't the possibility come to mind that the categories don't really exist in nature.. that we are making them up in order to satisfy our need for neatness and order or some such? And I guess that's fine if it helps our minds to organise knowledge, but how then can we take each other to task for methodolgy stupidity etc when it comes to typing?

Or what of the possibility that we're all just searching for something to hang our self-identities on - self-imposing limits on our personalities.. because hell knows that there are no limits out there in the world anymore. That's kind of scary. Being one of a certain number of types makes you feel like you belong, that you're playing your freaking part in the world. And now you can focus on developing specific skills related to function x and touting traits formerly thought as weaknesses as strengths. Yay - an ego boost. Or perhaps it makes you feel unique etc to be exclusively categorised, except that hmmm.. there's only so many times you can take one out of sixteen, one out of sixteen, one out of sixteen before it becomes terribly un-unique.

And we're looking for our elusive duals .. the magical people that make everything we do, stupid or otherwise, seem just the thing to do in any given situation. Where does that leave us in terms of personal growth? Upon finding that other half, what then? We merge like two halves of a ball, and begin rolling through life unscathed? And why is that a good thing? I personally can't envision getting to a point where I'm perfectly happy with who I am, who I've become, the various routines I indulge in. Or rather I really hope I never get to that point! I hope someone never helps me to that point! How tragic!

If there are in fact 16 personality types, why are we focusing on them? What makes them more to us than a passing interest? What makes a study in limiting ourselves a more desirable one than self-development in every fathomable form? Maybe because travelling inwards, making a comfortable and predictable nest for ourselves to retreat to is less painful than emerging, stretching ourselves, stretching boundaries as far as we can. Perhaps we've forgotten that we become terribly un-original and devoid of personality that has any worth when we're continually looking inside ourselves to find it. And in continually rejecting the majority of the people who surround us in some small or not-so-small ways because they're not "compatible" with us - rejecting getting closer to them, rejecting their thoughts, feelings, modus operandi etc.. we're only rejecting our own development and catering to ourselves and our push to travel inwards. Looking for what we like. Looking for those qualities that grate on us the least. Nice and comfortable.

Personally, I'd like to be someone who's continually growing (though not physically :-p) and moving forwards in life, listening more to people's various viewpoints etc with an aim to be ... erm .. more critical of them. :-p And with someone who is first and foremost interested in the same kind of thing. Perfectionism and such! (I wonder what type that is? ARghhhhh!!!!!)

Oh please excuse me.. I'm also preaching to myself. :-p

As far as I'm concerned, duality is the best thing in the world. And socionics was responsible for my knowledge of it.

[Ezra]

Also take polikujm and Kamajama's advice.

[Wrong Way Ticket]

Seems to me that if there are in fact only 16 personality types, that they must be such rough and broad categories with dubiously-placed boundaries that typing people in such a fashion must be simply an exercise in futility or fun times. Surely there are a ridiculous amount of subtype systems that haven't been "discovered" yet. And as all the subtypes get more and more numerous and hilarious, doesn't the possibility come to mind that the categories don't really exist in nature.. that we are making them up in order to satisfy our need for neatness and order or some such? And I guess that's fine if it helps our minds to organise knowledge, but how then can we take each other to task for methodolgy stupidity etc when it comes to typing?

Seeing as Socionics is mostly (entirely?) subjective, I posit that there is no hard and fast way to type someone. There's 16 types simply because of the configuration of the functions, but of course there's going to be a lot of wiggle room there, most likely due to people putting more emphasis on one of their leading functions. I do not believe in subtypes that are not leading functions, this to me is people using wishful thinking to claim they're a certain type when they aren't. IEE-Te? Give me a break.

I see Socionics as useful tool for understanding certain relationship dynamics. It's not all encompassing. You can definitely have an awful relationship with your dual, but you'll always have a strained relationship with your Conflictor.

Socionics knowledge and especially knowing your type can definitely help in self-growth. Once you understand why you interpret things the way you do and why you interact with people in a certain way, you can either decide to work on your faults or move on to even more fruitful activities.

Reject Socionics if you want, but at least it's not Enneagram.

[krieger]

I think it's a general charteristic of the human intellect to create/enforce catagorizations in order to attain the ability to make predictions on these catagorizations' basis. If every object was seen "as it really is", in other words, cognizing all of it's details individually and only moving on once it's entire nature was grasped, we would not be able to explain interaction between objects using simple, generalizing laws. In fact, we would never reach the point at which we would be confident to make a generalization at all. Socionics is, like all intellectual pursuits, a means of avoiding this pitfall.

The main issue that I see with rejecting socionics is: what does it cost us to apply it? A little time and attention, maybe. As long as one applies the theory considerately, there is nothing incompatible about using socionics alongside an intuitive common-sense interpretation of human behavior.

[Absurd]

Sect and error are synonymous.

[Gilly]

I think it's a general charteristic of the human intellect to create/enforce catagorizations in order to attain the ability to make predictions on these catagorizations' basis. If every object was seen "as it really is", in other words, cognizing all of it's details individually and only moving on once it's entire nature was grasped, we would not be able to explain interaction between objects using simple, generalizing laws. In fact, we would never reach the point at which we would be confident to make a generalization at all. Socionics is, like all intellectual pursuits, a means of avoiding this pitfall.

Wow, this is actually a really concise and insightful explanation. I had totally written you off as a raving lunatic, but this has changed my mind.

[Creepy-male]

I think it's a general charteristic of the human intellect to create/enforce catagorizations in order to attain the ability to make predictions on these catagorizations' basis. If every object was seen "as it really is", in other words, cognizing all of it's details individually and only moving on once it's entire nature was grasped, we would not be able to explain interaction between objects using simple, generalizing laws. In fact, we would never reach the point at which we would be confident to make a generalization at all. Socionics is, like all intellectual pursuits, a means of avoiding this pitfall.

Gilly's post just drew my attention to this also, actually I think I agree with him. This is not only what I tend to think in my own subconcious way, but its also written and articulated very well.

I am going to save this somewhere.

[Rubicon]

The main issue that I see with rejecting socionics is: what does it cost us to apply it? A little time and attention, maybe. As long as one applies the theory considerately, there is nothing incompatible about using socionics alongside an intuitive common-sense interpretation of human behavior.

What does applying socionics entail?