Explaining Socionics to People

[Krig the Viking]

Which are the easiest dichotomies to explain to people who don't know socionics? Which do you find the most difficult to explain?

[Jarno]

Which are the easiest dichotomies to explain to people who don't know socionics? Which do you find the most difficult to explain?

I usually start explaining types by the 4 dichotomies. They are all equally easy. Though most people already have discovered the introvert/extravert and rational/irrational themselves.

The sensing/intuition and logic/ethical are more unknown but easy to explain.

But I guess sensing/intuition is the most difficult one, because you cannot really imagine what is meant with it.

[Crispy]

The ones who can imagine what is meant are intuitives

[Krig the Viking]

I personally find logical/ethical to be easier to explain than rational/irrational. But definitely introversion/extraversion is the easiest.

[krieger]

Yeah, start with the superficial dichotomies that are easy to notice first and avoid talking too much about the behind-the-scenes mechanics.

[Mattie]

I actually introduce the concept of IAs and information metabolism right away, because that seems more convincing. It's possible that because I have a lot of friends in the social sciences, they find personality psychology to be particularly dubious and not worth paying too much attention to. When I present it in a more cognitive manner, it seems more viable. All of them are aware of MBTI and have an opinion on it, so it seems like explaining the dichotomies and such in a manner that doesn't differentiate from MBTI just has it chucked into the same category.

[Creepy-cinq]

Which are the easiest dichotomies to explain to people who don't know socionics? Which do you find the most difficult to explain?

To be honest, I don't really know a lot of people who are receptive to hearing about personality type systems in general - be it socionics, mbti or any other. And, receptivity is the key to making headway with Socionics. If in conversation I pick up on some remote possibility of interest, I will initiate discussion on personality type systems in general and explain basic temperament. If the person continues to be interested in discussing this more, I further explain the 8 functions/im elements, position and strenghts of the functions, and so on.

I've had the recent pleasure discussing systems with a new colleague. My boss is somewhat receptive as well. However, an ESTj trainer in Supervision who understood MBTI and taught it as part of the course, was not really interested at all in learning anything outside his established frame of reference.

I've come across only one person at this point whom I thought would be receptive to the theory. I essentially emailed the person the most relevant socionics links with a short explanatory note as a road map, and trusted they were open to the possibility, to read and understand the information, make the connections and judge whether it was useful or not.

[April]

I'm answering a sort of different but related question here. Whenever I first introduce somebody to Socionics, I try to make it relevant to them. For example, I got my mother (IEE) into Socionics by explaining why she conflicts with her father/my grandfather (LSI). I basically said, "You are good at his weaknesses, and he's good at yours. On top of that, he doesn't value your strengths, and you don't value his either." When I've made it relevant to people, they're much more receptive to it.

[Mattie]

I'm answering a sort of different but related question here. Whenever I first introduce somebody to Socionics, I try to make it relevant to them. For example, I got my mother (IEE) into Socionics by explaining why she conflicts with her father/my grandfather (LSI). I basically said, "You are good at his weaknesses, and he's good at yours. On top of that, he doesn't value your strengths, and you don't value his either." When I've made it relevant to people, they're much more receptive to it.

This is a lot how I go about it when I assume the person wouldn't be interested in really diving into the theory. Almost "practicing" Socionics and showing Socionics-organized links is easier, without using any jargon. Presenting it as a "lens" or perspective garners it a lot more receptivity, and it's the ideas behind it rather than the name and terms that matter.

[Trevor]

Which are the easiest dichotomies to explain to people who don't know socionics?

Four jungian ones.

Which do you find the most difficult to explain?

Democratic-Aristocratic.