.
So, what makes a socionist a socionist, anyways?
.
Last edited by aixelsyd; 08-12-2011 at 10:15 PM.
A confirmation by Dr. Antonina Volkova PhD Sociology Rusia.
PhD is Sociology or Psychology plus years of Socionics typing...lol
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
We should all be institutionalized.
Someone who writes arcticles and has people adopt them. If you have a large number of people adopting articles, then the name behind them stands more professionally, and puts that person higher up on the studied material list.
Something like what maritsa says, "A confirmation by Dr. Antonina Volkova PhD Sociology Rusia," doesn't really do anything for your validity. You need to actually know what you're talking about. There are plenty of people who don't go to school for a specific field, but who become professional at that field.
I would say that at least some degree of validation/acceptance from your professional peers would qualify you, or at least that is one of the necessary (but not necessarily sufficient, ha ha) conditions.
Note that this allows for retroactive induction into the hallowed halls of socionists, much like poets' belated entrance into the canon, heralded (hallowed) and announced by later writers.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
I would say that anyone who studies socionics is a socionist, in the same way that anyone who studies science is a scientist. Degrees and acknowledgement from your peers merely increase your standing and make you a "respected scientist" or "respected socionist".
Of course, you could argue that amateurs and people who fundamentally misunderstand socionics aren't really socionists, but that's like arguing about who is a true patriot.
Quaero Veritas.
Yeah I agree with you Krig, for the most part, but my initial line was more in the realm of "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a noise?"
I think Alexandre Boukalov is the final authority on who is a professional socionist. I asked Gulenko about certification and he referred me to him.
It would make sense to approach Boukalov as a group rather than as an individual, if anyone is interested. I've still got a year and a half before I complete my psychology undergrad, but I'd like to get the degree simply because it will most likely boost my chances of getting into grad school. Plus I can write about my theories in the official journals.
Someone start a school!
I think if we could all agree on what to look for in a VI, and interview videos that determines a type, then we could be more grounded. We just can't come to an agreement. So maybe we should start schools of socionics...lol.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I will be sure to do that right after I finished building my chapel.Originally Posted by Maritsa33
Yes. Agreement is very important. I'm in.
What makes one an enthusiast? And is it really any different from a socionicist?
I think Krig's definition could apply to socionics enthusiast as well.
What makes one a skeptic?
For the record, many socionicists are also skeptics. It's not necessarily one who entirely disregards socionics although it can mean that. There are several schools of thought in socionics, and one can strongly believe in one school of thought but be highly skeptical of another.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Yes. Ask my friend hitta.
Oh wait, I forgot. Hitta is the exception to everything.
x
To become a true socionist, u must defeat Ephemeros in a duel to stand a chance
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
I would consider anyone who dares come up with their own ideas about Socionics a Socionist. Enthusiasts only use others' material, and skeptics don't really hold with the thing at all...
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
What do you have to do for a certification? Pass some test in Russia or Ukraine or something? Whatever, if you, Tcaudillg, really get a certification from Boukalov then we know on what an embarassing level socionics is even there.
Please not. Please write some books about esotericism or whatever but just forget about socionics...
Things that make a Socionist include knowing a whole lot of absolutely nothing about what you are talking about, as well as a preposterous sense of reality and a warped view of human relations viewed through the lens of an anti-social personality with perhaps a touch of schizoidal tendencies.
In conclusion, tcaud is the only real Socionist here.
Reported for trolling by another user. There is lots to criticize about socionists without insulting users on the forum and making unsubstantiated accusations of sociopathy. ~~~jxrtes
I agree. ...Mostly.
As far as I know, the training courses to get into some of the various schools last for months to a year and require you to understand classical socionics, the history of socionics and of all the various rejected models (including Kalinauskas, Model J (J is for Jung), etc) and possibly any new ideas or ideas put out by rival schools.
You need to familiarize yourself with descriptions put out by the school and learn to type by watching interviews and things like that.
That's the gist of what I got from reading the Russian forums.
That's how i'm trying to teach myself too!
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
There are also organized workshops you attend where people try to discuss their mental life in terms of socionics elements.
Would learning Russian help? I may need to learn it anyway. Becoming a socionist is a bitchin' long term goal.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Ok, I guess I deserved that. Originally I was going to leave tcaud out of it anyway and just post what was there.
Reported for trolling by another user. There is lots to criticize about socionists without insulting users on the forum and making unsubstantiated accusations of sociopathy. ~~~jxrtes
a know it all mentality
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
Wth is a socionist?
Socionist | Define Socionist at Dictionary.com
??
Did you mean Sorbonist?
You know you are a socionist when you have to ask that question.
You know you're the biggest fan when you feel the need to quantify how much of a fan you are compared to other fans.
Socionist was a term used in some socionics literature, especially in Rick's where there was supposed to be a difference between socionist and enthusiast. I really don't think either term is relevant to this community, but figured I'd ask, anyways, if we are at all going to use the term and to have it at least defined, if so.
Technically speaking, socionists are analytic psychologists who have committed themselves to the study of Model A. Analytic psychological training is the only thing the leading figures in the Ukrainian socionics community have in common.
Not.useful.to.society.
ie. It doesnt exist because a large part of the definition is based on societal and cultural meaning. This is an unusual microculture. In the eyes of most, the closest title would be something akin to like "Temperament Advocate"
Years of practice and devotion to it.
I agree. I've been reading The Journal of Analytic Psychology and I must say that there are many people who have made a successful career out of that.
Negativist. Judging something to be not useful again; pls refer to the comment I made above. You might want to regulate this activity and not come off as an LSE, because you don't want me to call you and LSE again because God forbid you should be my dual.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 04-27-2012 at 02:38 PM.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
A socionicist can be a psychologist/philosopher/scientist/information scientists/engineer(these are the things that I find most similar to various parts of socionics) that knows socionics.
Generally people will respect you for what you've done in life, whether it be academic or professional. I wouldn't practice socionics or type people for a living, although the training might help me in a professional environment. However I am very interest in the model and tying it to modern studies in the fields I've listed. In this fashion, the theory of socionics can achieve more validity and be easier to express to non-socionicists.
> what makes a socionist a socionist, anyways?
should do:
1) true theories
2) abbility to correctly use them for practical use
Niether 1 nor 2 have proof for anyone. There are no socionists by objectively reasons, but many by subjectively.
No, they don't have proof for you. Idiots who prefer naivete will never get the proof they desire. Even the neuroscience will ultimately prove insufficient, because the naive won't like the answer.
just been Affirmed as a Socionist by Dr. Sergei Phonimaninoff PhD Archaeology, Slough, and Professor of Nihilism Borisia Kornikova Esq., Norilsk.
The ability further understanding in the field of socionics and have your findings positively impact others AND they withstand the test of time. A good socionicist can even convice skeptics of the validity.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
If you spend every waking hour pondering Socionics matters then it is a good start. But having lucid dreams about it is not something which just anyone can achieve.
By Piatnitski V.V.
What makes you NOT a socionist
- Socionics started and continues as a MODEL approach which models information processing of the psyche. The generally accepted model now is the Model A. If we forget this, then we completely miss the point. If we think that socionics studies real people in real life (instead of models of TIMs), or types as described in some descriptions, or relationships between real people (instead of relations between TIMs) then we are missing the point.
- Typing in socionics is nothing but TIM IDENTIFICATION based on the model A. If you have demonstrated correlation between person’s behavior or thinking or acting and the respective Model A, then and only then you have identified this person’s type. If it seems to you that the person looks similar to someone who you consider to be such-and-such type or if he seems to conform to some description or if he seems to be in a certain relationship to a “known” type or if he has passed some test or else, then, please have no illusion - you still didNOT identify his type.
- RELATIONS in socionics are NOT descriptions of some real life observations but analysis of interactions between different TIM modelswhich takes in consideration interactions between the models' functions that process the same information elements.
Basically that’s all. But it has very serious consequences:
Even if you think that talking about types is enough to be doing socionics, you might be wrong. A “type” does not necessarily mean a “model” – there are plenty of types without any model behind them at all. Take for example the temperaments or the Myers-Briggs types. They are just some type names with some description behind them, whereas a true model would be a set of elements with defined relations between them.
If you are typing by using some tools like the Reinin’s dichotomies or Myers-Briggs indicator or VI traits or DNA analysis or brain MRI or fingerprints or handwriting or horoscopes or numerology or any fancy stuff like that, please, take care to demonstrate (either theoretically or practically) that there is a definite correlation between those tools and the Model A. Otherwise you might be well typing some “other” types.
Use of socionics in order to describe some real life situations without referring to specific models or mechanisms of model interactions could be very deceiving. If you did not identify (or supposed) the TIMs of the participants of a real life situation and if you do not consider interaction between their functions how can you be sure that you are making a socionics analysis at all?
Providing oneself as an example of such-and-such type’s behavior could be very incorrect mainly for two reasons: (I) one cannot judge himselfadequately when it comes to his low-dimensional (you can also call them weak/vulnerable) functions; (II) one’s real life function’s acquired experiencecan be different. For the same reason could be erroneous an argument of the type: “I would say/do the same thing, hence he/she is my identical type”.
As far as one realizes all the said above, I personally don’t mind if one is using Model A or not. If one is using numerology or astrology, or any other typology, please, keep in mind that this is NOT socionics.
http://en.socionicasys.org/bibliotek...t-a-socionist-
Yep, it was the anti-thesis. Thus, just ought to make sure that you are aware of these boundaries and it'd make you a Socionist.
Last edited by Metaphor; 12-27-2021 at 10:34 AM. Reason: Verdict.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."
a socionist is a person who practices socionics professionally/is acknowledged as a contributor to socionics knowledge (?) i mean thats what the entire thread is about
people generally use "socionist" to describe people like Ausra and Gulenko and Reinin
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"
