Thank you for creating this Forum.

[CuriousSoul]

Thank you for creating this Forum. I have found Socionics an intensely interesting and delighful subject and would like to learn more about it. I have been translating many Russian Socionics pages but the quality of AltaVista translations is often unfortunately poor.

Let us hope that we can attract more people to this site. I intent on posting various thoughts and opinions about socionics and it would be a pity if there is no one to share their thoughts and opinions with me.

I am not very familiar with the Oldham's personality theory. It seems quite interesting although it does not seem to be fully compatible with socionics modelling of the human psyche, but ofcourse

[metaiwan]

Well thank you for visiting the forum
I've been through the same thing, I've read way too much babelfish translated material.
As far as Oldham's descriptions go, I included them because they are talking about the same types themselves, although not from a mbti or socionics perspective. more just empirical observations. I find they describe some of the people I know much better than the mbti descriptions(which sometimes focus on career, etc), especially the fear/pleasures, and the typical beliefs. I don't find the socionics description to be terribly descriptive of me, it seems more like its a description of robiespierre written by someone who isn't an intj, personally. the oldham description seems much closer, although not entirely there. the oldham descriptions are more based from disease to normal person, where socionics is more describing the normal person.

feel free to post anything you want about socionics, about the theory or even personal subjective experiences you have had, how socionics does or doesn't validate itself in your experiences.

[CuriousSoul]

I think the major problem with most personality type theories is that it is very difficult to write type profiles which would accurately pinpoint the differences between the types. The range of behaviour exhibited by people of the very same type often appear so overwhelmingly vast that it is difficult to find any similarities at all between the representatives of the same type. I like the Gulenko's Socionics profiles which Socionics.com translated, because with their minute details of the appearence and behaviour of each type, they are one of the few descriptions which are actually useful in helping to recognize other people's types. In a sense it may stilll make much more sense to descripe people's outward behaviour which can be observed with at least a certain degree of objectivity, whereas the internal experience of each type is much more difficult to sum up. People easily think that they are very unique when in fact most people tend to go through pretty similar emotions and suffer from similar problems:

"Psychologist B.R. Forer found that people tend to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone. Consider the following as if it were given to you as an evaluation of your personality.

You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.

Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and gave each student the above evaluation. He asked them to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with "5" meaning the recipient felt the evaluation was an "excellent" assessment and "4" meaning the assessment was "good." The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of time with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2."

http://skepdic.com/forer.html


For example the Keirsey Temperament Sorter's description of Healer Style (INFP) is a prime example of this kind of non-sense description. The first time I took the test and received the description I thought it was eerily accurate. The problem though is that pretty much anybody could agree with the description. It is almost impossible to use the Keirsey descriptions in order to identify other people's types:


Healer Idealists are abstract in thought and speech, cooperative in striving for their ends, and informative and introverted in their interpersonal relations. Healer present a seemingly tranquil, and noticiably pleasant face to the world, and though to all appearances they might seem reserved, and even shy, on the inside they are anything but reserved, having a capacity for caring not always found in other types. They care deeply-indeed, passionately-about a few special persons or a favorite cause, and their fervent aim is to bring peace and integrity to their loved ones and the world.

Healers have a profound sense of idealism derived from a strong personal morality, and they conceive of the world as an ethical, honorable place. Indeed, to understand Healers, we must understand their idealism as almost boundless and selfless, inspiring them to make extraordinary sacrifices for someone or something they believe in. The Healer is the Prince or Princess of fairytale, the King's Champion or Defender of the Faith, like Sir Galahad or Joan of Arc. Healers are found in only 1 percent of the general population, although, at times, their idealism leaves them feeling even more isolated from the rest of humanity.

Healers seek unity in their lives, unity of body and mind, emotions and intellect, perhaps because they are likely to have a sense of inner division threaded through their lives, which comes from their often unhappy childhood. Healers live a fantasy-filled childhood, which, unfortunately, is discouraged or even punished by many parents. In a practical-minded family, required by their parents to be sociable and industrious in concrete ways, and also given down-to-earth siblings who conform to these parental expectations, Healers come to see themselves as ugly ducklings. Other types usually shrug off parental expectations that do not fit them, but not the Healers. Wishing to please their parents and siblings, but not knowing quite how to do it, they try to hide their differences, believing they are bad to be so fanciful, so unlike their more solid brothers and sisters. They wonder, some of them for the rest of their lives, whether they are OK. They are quite OK, just different from the rest of their family-swans reared in a family of ducks. Even so, to realize and really believe this is not easy for them. Deeply committed to the positive and the good, yet taught to believe there is evil in them, Healers can come to develop a certain fascination with the problem of good and evil, sacred and profane. Healers are drawn toward purity, but can become engrossed with the profane, continuously on the lookout for the wickedness that lurks within them. Then, when Healers believe thay have yielded to an impure temptation, they may be given to acts of self-sacrifice in atonement. Others seldom detect this inner turmoil, however, for the struggle between good and evil is within the Healer, who does not feel compelled to make the issue public.

http://keirsey.com/personality/nfip.html


"There really is a very particular mental illness associated with presuming that human dealings can be perfected through reduction to discrete variables."

...and the name of that mental illness would be "economics", the 'dismal science'.
:wink:

http://www.corante.com/many/archives..._i_thought.php

[metaiwan]

that social grid crap seems like a total sham. how in the hell do they say they can help you find your soulmate with a formula? thats rediculous. Besides, I bet their theory doesn't even coincide with socionics.(I hope the irony makes it through).

How about that...they say there is one 'true' soulmate alive and something else about reincarnation etc crap. If you watch the movie 'Waking Life' I heard something interesting about those people who go on and on about 'reincarnation' and so forth. The population has been doubling in like 30-50 years or so, so the chance that your soul is old than 100 years old is about 1 in 5 or something like that.

While I sometimes think my interest in socionics may fueled by my idealized notion of an idealized soulmate, I really don't care because it interests me. And people DO have different natures. You don't need psychology science to notice that. And some people DO get along better than other people. That part is obvious. No sugar coated everybody can get along with everybody stuff for me. And I've got to believe that since these things are true, theres got to be some kind of logic of why this happens.

[CuriousSoul]

I quite agree with you: people do have different natures and not everybody can get along with each other and Socionics seems to be generally a pretty good system for descriping people and relationships. What I kind of find frustrating is that everything is still pretty much a matter of belief and it is all too easy to dismiss socionics as that "kook theory". I hesitate to talk about about socionics to the "non-believers" for the fear of coming across as a total crackpot even though I believe that I have for example become pretty good at detecting people's types and could point out how type differences cause difficulties in their relationships. Probably "Idiosyncratic" INTJs find this easier than INFPs with our painful logic...

[metaiwan]

I quite agree with you: people do have different natures and not everybody can get along with each other and Socionics seems to be generally a pretty good system for descriping people and relationships. What I kind of find frustrating is that everything is still pretty much a matter of belief and it is all too easy to dismiss socionics as that "kook theory". I hesitate to talk about about socionics to the "non-believers" for the fear of coming across as a total crackpot even though I believe that I have for example become pretty good at detecting people's types and could point out how type differences cause difficulties in their relationships. Probably "Idiosyncratic" INTJs find this easier than INFPs with our painful logic...

actually i don't find this any easier at all...I don't talk about socionics to much of anybody. I think the problem is nobody is exposed to socionics...everyone knows about the true kook theory of astrology, but socionics would come off as rediculous(in my opinion).

[Tory]

previous english socionic sites looked enough poor without forum. I really appreciate that one ,being a good chance to chat about that science in english
Wish you to become much more popular and a lot of interesting openminded users

[Bear]

Wow. Finally I see a socionics forum in english.
As for other sites I've seen socionics.com but it's not really active and there is no discussion board.
I guess it will be a wonderful experience to discuss socionics, which is primarily a russian invention, with someone in US over the ocean ).
And I have a question: what is your favourite naming system for sociotypes?
As far as I know, there are two of them in english:
abbreviations (like INTJ, ESFP)
and one-word descriptions (social roles by Gulenko)
like Analyst, Politician.
And there is that Oldham system, but I'm not familiar with it and I guess its not equivalent to socionics.

[metaiwan]

I suppose I don't presently have a favorite naming system, as all of them seem to have problems. The 4 letter acroynm thing...ESFJ, etc is nice, but the P and I are preferences which takes a while to explain, as well as it being confused with the MBTI types. I'm not sure if the Russian social roles translate well enough, although they are good. I'd take to the three acronym if enough people over here know what it meant(whats an ILI??)

As far as Oldham goes lemme say it right now, Oldham types != socionics types. But, as far as I can tell, they are all directly tied and come from personality disorders in our DSM-IV over here. What I'm trying to say is that since socionics says personality types come from a pathology of thinking, there seems to be a fairly obvious connection to both the distribution and description of the types/disorders. As well, if you look at the descriptions, you can see the problems manifested in the personality disorders can easily be drawn from functional analysis of the types. That's all I'm saying really. Don't take it as fact. I'll write something up with examples so people know.

[Bear]

ILI stands for Intuitive-Logical Introvert
That means that intuition is the base function (it is also called the program or first).
Logic is the creative function (second).
Introversion in model A means that the base function is introverted(white) and the creative is extraverted (black).
In russian forums you would see something like: white intuition (WI) is the base function and black logic (BL) is the creative function.
This type is INTP or The Critic.
In three-letter acronyms
First two letters:
I = intuition
L = logic
E = ethics
S = sensorics
The third letter
I = introverted
E = extraverted.

[discourse]

Bear, may i ask, what's your type?

This site is fun 8) , i hope that it helps us to find new ways to understand what it means to be human being, how would better relations look like and if we would know that, then how to make our lifes better.

I like the idea of socionics that how we think makes the relations look like they are. Now we know why we think in some ways like we think. We know more than thinking baldy makes other behave with you badly, now we know that sometimes the result can be only thinking badly.

[Moniker04]

It appears people on this board simply do not understand psychological types. Instead of memorizing material on the internet, give this material serious thought.

Too many people confuse INTJ's and INTP's on these posts.

While INTP's are smart, they often lack the ingenuity and brilliance of many INTJ"s. INTP's are talented when it comes to more practical and thus (in my opinion) more mundane tasks, while INTJ's come up with the brillant ideas for the INTPs to put into practice

But it all starts with an idea. And the INTJ and often ENTP are the ones that come up with the ideas. Implemenatation is a bore.

[Moniker04]

Listen people:

These theories on celebrities types are flat out wrong.

I am INTJ (Socionics-not MBTI). All types I refer to will be socionics types.

Thus, I am a dominant introverted thinker with extraverted intuition. For all our interpersonal flaws, most INTJ's are excellent at reading people and coming to accurate conclusions regarding their (via real life or tv ect) strengths and weaknesses. We are also second to none in analyzing and understanding theories. Thus, I have learned to apply the theories of Jung and socionics and have been able to apply it to people on a regular basis with a great deal of accuracy. This is especially true when it comes to people in the alpha quadrable, because I share the same functions, and thus, values.

Sean Penn-Intj
Bill Clinton-Intp
Madonna-ENTP, perhaps INTJ
John Lennon-INTJ (not Intp, although George Harrison probably is.) As for the Beatles-Although INTJ and ESFP are conflicting types, they still share the same functions in different orders (ie: INTJ and ESFP has (Ti, Ne), (Si, Fe), Se, Fi) ect.
Somehow these two talented musicans accessed each other's subconscious in a beautiful way. However, as we know, it didn't last very long.
Yoko Ono-my guess, INTJ. An identical relationship

Lastly, benefit relationships are unhealthy. I've been in them and it's no fun to receive little to no acknowledgement of your talents. Just stay away from them. In my opinion, it is better to not have a relationship than to have an unhealthy and one-sided one.

[MysticSonic]

You've got a really good points there, we need to not just simply memorize, but analyze. However, I believe one post on this is enough. Three identical ones are a bit redundant, don't you think?

[metaiwan]

Thus, I am a dominant introverted thinker with extraverted intuition. For all our interpersonal flaws, most INTJ's are excellent at reading people and coming to accurate conclusions regarding their (via real life or tv ect) strengths and weaknesses. We are also second to none in analyzing and understanding theories. Thus, I have learned to apply the theories of Jung and socionics and have been able to apply it to people on a regular basis with a great deal of accuracy. This is especially true when it comes to people in the alpha quadrable, because I share the same functions, and thus, values.

We are? Well then, I guess nobody else's theories on thier people's types is worth much.

Sean Penn-Intj
Bill Clinton-Intp
Madonna-ENTP, perhaps INTJ
John Lennon-INTJ (not Intp, although George Harrison probably is.) As for the Beatles-Although INTJ and ESFP are conflicting types, they still share the same functions in different orders (ie: INTJ and ESFP has (Ti, Ne), (Si, Fe), Se, Fi) ect.
Somehow these two talented musicans accessed each other's subconscious in a beautiful way. However, as we know, it didn't last very long.
Yoko Ono-my guess, INTJ. An identical relationship

Lastly, benefit relationships are unhealthy. I've been in them and it's no fun to receive little to no acknowledgement of your talents. Just stay away from them. In my opinion, it is better to not have a relationship than to have an unhealthy and one-sided one.

I don't agree with any of these types really. I thought it was known that the beatles were all alpha quadra?

[discourse]

That's what i like to do I've thought a lot about Socionics, cathegoraising materials in new way is one of mu fave past time acitvities. Guess that Ne and Ti in the block EGO makes you such person.

Block SUPERID is a block which gathers information which makes us feel good to start working by what i mean using our two strong functions strongly. If SUPERID gets a lot of informations, then we feel like our life is OK , that we are healthy and only that healthy feeling can make us to use our mind to start thinking over the life.Ohterwise block SUOEREGO is working too strongly to solve the problems of our spiritual life. Only then when our vital circle is functioning normally because this means that our body functions normally our mental circle can function normally and we have healthy thoughts. What i am drieng to say is that other forum members will start thinking over the socionics in your way only near by members of their quadra. They need emotional sadisfaction to become philosophical (you get the idea, if you compare these thoughts with the idea of the Maslows pyramide). At least it seems to me that members like MysticSonic are not happy with their lifes.

Hope that somebody understood what is said. If the body is happy then we think happy, if not we have problems of heartconcious (doubts, questions of our identety et cetera).

These were my thoughts. I might be wrong, might be not. But what are others thoughts about Model A?

[chrys]

no problem, I'm glad this forum suits your interests!

[Sol]

When this thread was created I still used 33.6 kbps modem for Internet. ~1$ per hour

[Chae]

This thread!

[Animal]

New people replying to this thread is like desecrating a holy relic.