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.

[717495]

Explain how duality works. You find your type using dichotomies, and your dual has all different dichotomies except for the last one, and that's the common place to strengthen one another, the best relationship for marriages or long term. Also the two duals each have their own confident processes that work together based on their types, like and go together best, and go together best, etc.

Here is a good page to read, though you will comparatively relate to your other strong functions as well, the ones that don't fit your temperament, which is why duality is good. There's a suitable common place to strengthen those weak functions the other person has, and support them where needed. Ex. if you're both IP, then there is too much picking at being introverted, and nothing is ever expressed or changes, so the relation becomes stagnant and dies quickly, but if one is IP and the other is EP and with polar strengths, there is a proper balance and common wavelength.

a physically relaxed and comfortable state free of irritants; enjoying the pleasure of the moment

a state of trying to see novel connections between or combinations of previously disparate things; a continual searching for change and newness, including things unexpected and random

clarity and exactitude of thought, a sense of order and regularity in different levels of structure; a sense of building a complete system from simple and well-understood parts

passions; the desire to express one's feelings and experiences through expressive gestures such as dance or song

a dreamy, mysterious, wistful, melancholic, or reflective state of inner discovery and searching; reflecting upon the future or the past

a mobilized state full of vitality and energy or implied strength; the desire to make strong, bold, and powerful movements

endearment, closeness, moral satisfaction, and emotional sensitivity; deep personal conviction that may produce moral firmness and resolve; love, hatred, or disgust for others.

an active, but steady and purposeful state conducive to performing goal-oriented activities

[Galen]

I do things in much the same way Mattie does, by explaining the idea of information metabolism first, as well as information aspects. I fear that if you start off explaining it in terms of functions and model A and duality etc, it immediately comes off as too much of a pop psychology, meaning people will be more prone to losing interest and passing it off as a fad. When I do get to describing IEs, I try to make sure I describe them as broadly as possible at first, then make very pointed and specific examples afterwards while tying them back to the main idea as much as I can. Comparing IEs helps a lot too, but it works best to compare them in ways pertaining to the information aspects that make them up; comparing the more physical manifestations of IEs kinda works, but you need to tie them back to the IAs immediately when you do. I guess what I'm trying to get at is you have to present the theory in a cohesive manner where everything is constantly relating to each other. Anything less will be seen as pop psychology.

[The Exception]

What dichotomies are we dealing with here? If you mean the basic four dichotomies: E/I, S/N, T/F, and j/p, I'd agree that E/I is the easiest to understand and explain. The other three seem equally easy/difficult to me.

If you're looking at dichotomies from a functional attitude standpoint: Ni/Ne Si/Se Ti/Te Fi/Fe, then I'd say that Ni/Ne is the most difficult one because Ni seems to be the function that's most 'fuzzy' in its description. The forum seems to question more what Ni actually is relative to the other functions. The other three seem equally easy/difficult.

[Krig the Viking]

Any dichotomies at all.

The main reason I'm asking is that I have the vague notion of someday trying my hand at creating my own socionics test designed for non-socionists, and I'm looking for feedback as to which dichotomies regular people find easiest to understand and distinguish between.

[Beautiful sky]

Are you kidding me?
Explaining dichotomies to people?
I never do it.
Easy
Oh, I start with Aushra's definition of the categories in socionics.org, which I've taken some time to translate.

[Galen]

Are you kidding me?
Explaining dichotomies to people?
I never do it.
Easy
Oh, I start with Aushra's definition of the categories in socionics.org, which I've taken some time to translate.

Well I mean you can't simply start teaching Calculus to people who can't even do addition. You need to have a foundation for everything, otherwise people will be really confused later on.

[krieger]

When I explain things in terms of functions or information elements I get worried about being believed. Since I can not proove anything about what goes on in a person, I would be expecting the person to believe what I say at face value. I prefer for people to come to the conclusion themselves, which means showing them the least questionable proof of the fact that socionics is not bogus. As far as I'm aware, this is done by typing people on the basis of directly observable characteristics and predicting their compatibility level with others based on the typings reached this way. Once you're successful at this with some consistency, it's impossible for anyone to reasonably deny that you're on to something.

There is also the fact that a lot of the stories about what goes on in socionics on a molecular level (including some within the cookie-cutter conservative set of claims) are myths. You have to have some measure of proof of the correctness of these views for yourself too, lest you end up believing in falsehoods. When you shift the focus to provability this way, you inevitably end up focussing less on the "what goes on" (i.e. information elements, functions, etc) and more on the "what can I determine" (directly observable dichotomic traits).

[redbaron]

When I explain things in terms of functions or information elements I get worried about being believed. Since I can not proove anything about what goes on in a person, I would be expecting the person to believe what I say at face value. I prefer for people to come to the conclusion themselves, which means showing them the least questionable proof of the fact that socionics is not bogus. As far as I'm aware, this is done by typing people on the basis of directly observable characteristics and predicting their compatibility level with others based on the typings reached this way. Once you're successful at this with some consistency, it's impossible for anyone to reasonably deny that you're on to something.

There is also the fact that a lot of the stories about what goes on in socionics on a molecular level (including some within the cookie-cutter conservative set of claims) are myths. You have to have some measure of proof of the correctness of these views for yourself too, lest you end up believing in falsehoods. When you shift the focus to provability this way, you inevitably end up focussing less on the "what goes on" (i.e. information elements, functions, etc) and more on the "what can I determine" (directly observable dichotomic traits).

yeah I get this. Totally right. I get worried about being believed too. I never talk about it. I feel like the person would greet it with raised eyebrows. When I have discussed it, I don't use socionics terms but I talk about readily obvious things and observable relationships between people and when couched that way, it's believable and seems clearer and more like common sense. But I never introduce it as a system.

[Wynch]

I usually try to keep it simple and basic, while getting increasingly more complex as I go. I don't want people to feel overwhelmed.

I use a piece of paper (only 30% of people are auditory learners, so just saying it isn't always very effective)

I start by explaining that type names are made up of 4 letters that are representative of dichotomies. I explain those four dichotomies. Then I explain the notion of temperament. Then I explain the ego, how the letters represent these information elements in the ego, and then all the 8 information elements. This stage I usually use my type as the starting point, to give them an anchoring place to refer back to.

Then I show the quadras and all the types in each quadra. That gives me a opening to talk about intertype relations and why the quadras exist. I bring them back to the functions in the ego and explain that there are 6 other functional roles for the eight elements. The function of each IE in the individual type impacts how they respond to others of other types. I then describe the different intertype relations and what those relations signify and how they're found.

At this point, I feel as though I've probably overwhelmed them, but also given them enough to mull over. Sometimes they look into it a little, others will ask me more questions at another time. Yeah, this system works for me.

[redbaron]

that's good Vero. That would be the other way to do it. The way that I don't have the time or the teaching ability to do right. I'm just afraid I'd screw it up or forget something important or that I wouldn't explain it well.

[DirectorAbbie]

The black shapes are easier to understand.

[Jarno]

I usually try to keep it simple and basic, while getting increasingly more complex as I go. I don't want people to feel overwhelmed.

I use a piece of paper (only 30% of people are auditory learners, so just saying it isn't always very effective)

I start by explaining that type names are made up of 4 letters that are representative of dichotomies. I explain those four dichotomies. Then I explain the notion of temperament. Then I explain the ego, how the letters represent these information elements in the ego, and then all the 8 information elements. This stage I usually use my type as the starting point, to give them an anchoring place to refer back to.

Then I show the quadras and all the types in each quadra. That gives me a opening to talk about intertype relations and why the quadras exist. I bring them back to the functions in the ego and explain that there are 6 other functional roles for the eight elements. The function of each IE in the individual type impacts how they respond to others of other types. I then describe the different intertype relations and what those relations signify and how they're found.

At this point, I feel as though I've probably overwhelmed them, but also given them enough to mull over. Sometimes they look into it a little, others will ask me more questions at another time. Yeah, this system works for me.

wow good teaching!

[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.