What happens if you type yourself or others wrong?

[Words]

Socionics is so vaguely defined, so what if I type someone wrong, or what if I type myself wrong, or what if I type everyone right and something affects the relationship which is non socionic related?

I think it's better just to try to get on with people, if I can't get on even just try to learn something from them, or at the least try to learn from the experience of not getting on with them.

Is it really safe to try to box oneself into a type, or other people? Maybe if anything then just take the surface off socionics and not go too deeply, just leave it as it is and appreciate people for what they are.

What do you think?

[pianosinger]

Learning about socionics (and personality theory in general) has actually helped me to be more understanding and tolerant of other peoples' differences. I understand better now, that every person is wired differently, that there are certain processes that often lead to certain behaviors, and people truly can't help thmselves much of the time. Not that we shouldn't all strive for personal growth and self-improvement, but it really is a lot harder-- at a physchological and physiological level-- than it seems. There's a reason why people don't just miraculously change overnight, no matter how much pressure is being put on them to do so.

I don't find it necessary to box all my friends and family into specific types, though it has been helpful to at least narrow things down into quadras, or clubs, or temperaments. In a very few cases I have managed to narrow it down to type, but I'm not going out of my way to do so unless the individual seems particularly interested.

Understanding my own type and my husband's type, and discussing things with him, has really helped us to understand each other better, and to further improve our relationship.

So, I have found socionics to be rather more helpful. Though, I can see how it could become a bit dangerous, especially if one goes about boxing people into unconfirmed types and starts treating them a certain way based on an erroneous conclusion about their type. But for me, I do make an effort to make sure I'm not changing the way I treat people, but just my understanding of them-- which has improved, thanks to socionics.

[stevENTj]

I don't even bother trying to type a lot of my real life friends. Either I'll get along with someone naturally or I won't, and either we have a mutual interest in common which is where the friendship comes from or we don't. I never try to 'force' it if it's just not working. Sometimes you don't have a choice though (work related), in which case knowledge of Socionics can make a huge HUGE difference and be really helpful and beneficial.

The only people I try to type are those I might be having some difficulty with and must interact with (typically work related), or if I'm just curious.

[protoss]

people categorize their enviroment to be able to understand it, it's up to you if you want to categorize it through socionics or not - if you don't you're probably just going to start categorizing people depending what starsign they are or depending on their socio-economic status and so on.

and socionics is nothing absolute, it's a color used in the painting but it wouldn't be intresting to look at if it wasn't for the other 100 shades of red, blue and green - so i think you could very well put different personality types on people without it being the most important thing about them.

potejto potato

[EyeSeeCold]

Is it really safe to try to box oneself into a type, or other people? Maybe if anything then just take the surface off socionics and not go too deeply, just leave it as it is and appreciate people for what they are.

What do you think?

Sometimes a lot of anti-rationalists forget that the same thing happens empirically. If you had enough experience with people in the world, you would still box them into certain categories.

people categorize their enviroment to be able to understand it, it's up to you if you want to categorize it through socionics or not - if you don't you're probably just going to start categorizing people depending what starsign they are or depending on their socio-economic status and so on.

and socionics is nothing absolute, it's a color used in the painting but it wouldn't be intresting to look at if it wasn't for the other 100 shades of red, blue and green - so i think you could very well put different personality types on people without it being the most important thing about them.

potejto potato

Agreed.

Learning about socionics (and personality theory in general) has actually helped me to be more understanding and tolerant of other peoples' differences. I understand better now, that every person is wired differently, that there are certain processes that often lead to certain behaviors, and people truly can't help thmselves much of the time. Not that we shouldn't all strive for personal growth and self-improvement, but it really is a lot harder-- at a physchological and physiological level-- than it seems. There's a reason why people don't just miraculously change overnight, no matter how much pressure is being put on them to do so.

I totally agree. Without the knowledge, it would be much more difficult to learn the same thing based on experience. I think Socionics can save you from a ton of stress in this way.

[Minde]

Socionics is so vaguely defined, so what if I type someone wrong, or what if I type myself wrong, or what if I type everyone right and something affects the relationship which is non socionic related?

I think it's better just to try to get on with people, if I can't get on even just try to learn something from them, or at the least try to learn from the experience of not getting on with them.

Is it really safe to try to box oneself into a type, or other people? Maybe if anything then just take the surface off socionics and not go too deeply, just leave it as it is and appreciate people for what they are.

What do you think?

I have and do ask myself similar questions.

Generally I don't try too hard to type people I know. Sometimes I do if their type jumps out at me, or if there's something about them that makes me curious, such as a weird relationship or off behavior from what I'd expect. I usually only rely on my socionics knowledge if I'm having a problem that isn't more easily solved through another avenue.

It can come in useful, though. For example, I have a ISTj brother (I'm fairly certain he is, anyway), and it's helped me to realize he needs Fe and Ni to be healthy, and when I can't provide that or a close substitute for him I know at least what he needs and have the tools to point him in the right direction. Or, it helps to realize he needs to express a certain amount of Se and when he does that it's not him being an immature jerk but just... who he is, and then I make sure I'm not in the immediate vicinity.

Anyway, right now I see socionics as an occasionally useful, sometimes interesting tool - another pair of glasses, among many, through which to see the world of people.

[Skeptic]

Socionics is so vaguely defined, so what if I type someone wrong, or what if I type myself wrong, or what if I type everyone right and something affects the relationship which is non socionic related?

I think it's better just to try to get on with people, if I can't get on even just try to learn something from them, or at the least try to learn from the experience of not getting on with them.

Is it really safe to try to box oneself into a type, or other people? Maybe if anything then just take the surface off socionics and not go too deeply, just leave it as it is and appreciate people for what they are.

What do you think?

Well, first you say that socionics is so general that there is a lot of space for mistyping, but then you go on to say that we are boxing people in with the types. Thing is, the types are general to the extent that nobody is boxed in, but rather just described as being from a certain 'region'.

Admittedly, there are some individuals who do box people in and take it too far; this can be seen when people are over systematizing something that's really just simple and general, or when people absolutely expect all behavior to be a result of one's type and not their circumstances outside their type.

For the most part though, when socionics is applied it cannot really absolutely predict every possible outcome. Instead, all it really does it make it known to you the process going on inside another. After all, socionics cannot predict outside factors that affect decision making; just the process of making the decision.

The best advice I can give is that you should look at types not as a measuring stick for predictions or possible outcomes of situations, but rather as a rough estimate of an independent individual. As for your 'types are ambiguous' dilemma, I can't respond so well because over time I have seen how different people fit into the types. My original problem was that I expected them to behave and fit the expectations of each type, and that if their intertype relations wasn't playing out exactly how it was supposed to, it would mean I'm doing something wrong; I was horribly wrong to do it this way, because each individual fits his or her description in a completely unique way, so each case is a new one. All SEIs have similarities, but no SEI is the same.

ps imo socionics is not some weird tool that just gives you a different perspective. If that's all it's good for then it's not worth your time. No, socionics has some real application in the general regions it gives to each type, you just have to go out and see for yourself how the real world meets the descriptions and not how the descriptions meet the real world.

[blankblank]

I totally agree. Without the knowledge, it would be much more difficult to learn the same thing based on experience. I think Socionics can save you from a ton of stress in this way.

I use socionics to figure out why someone could be acting the way they do in ways I would have never thought of without the theory. I sure didn't know nearly as much about differences paradigms before getting into personality theories.

But, I only type people I've known for years. This is because I suck at typing people. So putting people into boxes all the time is not a problem for me.

[Words]

Well, first you say that socionics is so general that there is a lot of space for mistyping, but then you go on to say that we are boxing people in with the types. Thing is, the types are general to the extent that nobody is boxed in, but rather just described as being from a certain 'region'.

I've met pushy aggressive ENFps and subdued agreeable ones. The pushy aggressive ones could well be ESFp, if one is associating pushyness with Se, whereas maybe it is just simply a character trait or a defense mechanism. You could even go further to say that the ESFp is ESTp due to appearing 'heartless' at times.

The only reason I think they are ENFp is because they 'VI' as one - another subjective term , and keeping in mind the personality they present to the world.

But you're right that you are exposing a contradiction to an extent in what i'm saying, which is just another paradox of applying the system imo.

-
-
-
-
-

I think that one of the things this typology can say which is perhaps useful, is the basic things, like for instance, it's OK to be a quiet person (stereotypical introversion) that sort of stuff.

At the same time, I do find myself trying to have a use for it. I agree that it can help to formulate the mind as 'archetypes' of people like for instance in a work environment. However I find that i'm better overall just not particularly classifying anyone, or at least when i'm away from this for a while that my attitude to things is more natural and free flowing. Hmmm maybe i'll have to think about this some more.

To everyone who's responded so far, thank you for answering, i've enjoyed reading your thoughts on it. I haven't responded to them all, because, I can basically see where everyone is coming from and find myself agreeing!, so not sure what to say with a silent nod over the internet

I thought i'd respond to the post I did as sort of was related to something on my mind, that is, in a way, how personality and functions seem to be different things in many cases which to me makes socionics an even vaguer tool, ie a pushy person may not be an Se type but it's easy to class them as such, a fun friendly person may still be Fe PoLR but is just trying to adapt coping mechanisms in life. It also crosses my mind that some people are maybe OK with the vagueness.

Personally i'm more inclined to want... "does it work or not", and of course, "sometimes it works" can be applied to anything, but I think perhaps the final way to answer it is, "how to apply it to make it work in each situation", which is probably why we are all still here!, or at least one of the reasons.

[Suz]

Words' post

I feel like SEEs and IEEs can VI similarly and understand each other quite a bit. Same creative, same HA, both Fe demonstrative and Ti-POLR. And if they're Fi-subtype they will both seem sort of soft and gentle. I think an IEE is more clumsy and awkward than an SEE, and there will be more of an infantile vibe in the IEE versus an aggressor one in the SEE. I've also noticed that SEEs are more prone to intentionally sexualizing things than IEEs, who might accidentally use innuendo without really meaning to (also sort of an aggressor vs infantile difference).

[Suz]

Socionics is so vaguely defined, so what if I type someone wrong, or what if I type myself wrong, or what if I type everyone right and something affects the relationship which is non socionic related?

I think it's better just to try to get on with people, if I can't get on even just try to learn something from them, or at the least try to learn from the experience of not getting on with them.

Is it really safe to try to box oneself into a type, or other people? Maybe if anything then just take the surface off socionics and not go too deeply, just leave it as it is and appreciate people for what they are.

What do you think?

I COMPLETELY agree.

You sort of know when you've found duality, as it's happening. It's hard to just look and spot a dual. Same with activity. (and flip side, same with conflict, superego, etc).

[Lobo]

I COMPLETELY agree.

You sort of know when you've found duality, as it's happening. It's hard to just look and spot a dual. Same with activity. (and flip side, same with conflict, superego, etc).

It depends... For some reason activity is one of the easiest ones for me to spot.

[Suz]

It depends... For some reason activity is one of the easiest ones for me to spot.

Well yeah for me too, but i usually notice it as we're interacting because we just get so excited and interested talking to each other. It's like a very strong attractive force (i'm not talking romantic here).


With duality, each of us usually has to somehow be put into each others' presence and need to work with each other before I'll actually see them and recognize the duality.

[UDP]

I feel like the guy who says "AND CARTHAGE MUST BE DESTROYED!"

but

Socionics now has a very very very limited and specific role in how I view and see other people. I think it's great at what it does, but it is a specialized bit of theory, specialized tool. It is definitely not the end all to relations. But it does address certain things that are very intrinsic, very inherent, and very 'unchangeable'; things rooted deep within someone's make up as per what makes them function.

I've found it frustrating to talk about to people who aren't familiar with it in a general sense, and even so here on the forum at times. I think it can be, or appear, so specific that it seems unreasonable, or unuseful.

As far as incorrectly typing people, yeah, that happens a lot, especially at first. It's a big challenge to realize what a "type" is, because a type creates a certain "psychological lean", or lopsidedness if you will, that comes from certain IEs being valued over others.

Is it really safe to try to box oneself into a type, or other people? Maybe if anything then just take the surface off socionics and not go too deeply, just leave it as it is and appreciate people for what they are.

I'd say it was the opposite - people taking socionics TOO superficially and thinking it's just a matter of stuffing people in boxes and making decisions off of what socionics says, like it is some sort of fullproof relational calculus. Obviously it's not. I think people tend to over-glorify the use of socionics, here, at least. And in doing so socionics becomes belittled to this wanna-be MBTI sorting hat that will magically explain everything.

Socionics, if anything, IMO, should help you appreciate people for how they are; you get to see some of why people are how they are, naturally. I've said before, socionics helps you provide a psychological (mental) skeleton for what a person is. The curves of the body, and how they move around, and even their instinctual or passionate side, the influence of their family and upbringing, those are all different matters. Socionics is just a framework for their decision making.


PS: You could say, if Aushura was an ILE trying to deal with Fi matters, it would make sense that she tried to create something very Ti as a result; I see socionics as a chunk of , sort of. What resulted from efforts about trying to understand how people relate is a 'chunk' or system of data interpretation.

PSS: I think a lot of how people go about trying to use socionics is very wrong, particularly because it is trying to make the theory do things it isn't supposed to do; as such it creates a sort of stretching and pleading of the theory. And then people get 'upset' that it isn't all that they wanted it to be. ...

[Creepy-male]

Out of curiosity, Ryu, how do you use Socionics, and in what ways does "the community" misuse/misapply it?

[UDP]

Also, I am beginning to question more the idea that you should only look for people based on what socionics says. I was in that camp for a while, but, now that I'm having a long term relationship with someone who isn't my dual, I don't think it's about our types.

(I'd still highly recommend being in the same quadra, though...) but I think it comes down to knowing what YOU, personally, can and can't deal with from other people. Socionics addresses that somewhat. And the other big factors are life stuff, what the person is doing, where they are going, how they see things, etc.

What socionics has done for me is help me realize one set of factors, or influencers, on a person. To me it's become useful to know "when this is a socionics-related issue" vs when it is not; and even that context or that awareness of multiple factors helps. It helps deal with the complexity of emotions and relationships and what triggers reactions in other people. Sometimes socionics is right on, because someone's valued IEs were trashed, and they got some odd POLR hits, so it's easy to see what caused that tension. Othertimes its not so clear-cut, not all about socionics.

But yeah, I'd definitely rather have that knowledge of socionics so I can understand what influenced it, rather than being ignorant of socionics and trying to attribute it to something else -- example: LSI seeing delta NF as being too weak or too lazy, because the NF doesn't go about things in an Se way or reacts poorly to it; an alpha SF doesn't understand a delta STs aversion to certain Fe oriented remarks or situations. Etc.

[UDP]

Out of curiosity, Ryu, how do you use Socionics, and in what ways does "the community" misuse/misapply it?

I've said as much here or elsewhere (blog) about how I see socionics, although even for me it grows and changes.

"The community" is obviously a vague generalization, but it has to do with people here and elsewhere and how they attempt to use or apply socionics. I touch on that a lot in what I write lately; it might be the only thing I make serious posts or blog posts about nowadays.

I'm sure this will not win me the favor of anyone, but, think about Maritsa. Particularly when she first joined the forum. Typing people sort of flippantly and then saying "because you are this type, x y z". I think there is/ has been a lot of that. I haven't been examining the forum that much recently , but, that's been a prevailing sense. Maritsa is an easy example, but I used her as something easily to reference; I've seen similar things, on a more minute or "less obviously off base" scale from a lot of people.

It seems to be a very strong inclination to "use socionics!" to explain whatever relational phenomenon appears, and it's makes me think of a very blunt form of reasoning. Or... where is that link...


Office Hero Headquarters: 8 pathological tendencies that critical thinkers recognize

 

1) Egocentric memory: the natural tendency to "forget" evidence and information that do not support our thinking and to "remember" evidence and information that do.

2) Egocentric myopia: the natural tendency to think in an absolutist way within an overly narrow point of view.

3) Egocentric righteousness: the natural tendency to feel superior in the light of our confidence that we possess the truth when we do not.

4) Egocentric hypocrisy: the natural tendency to ignore flagrant inconsistencies—for example, between what we profess to believe and the actual beliefs our behavior implies, or between the standards to which we hold ourselves and those to which we expect others to adhere.

5) Egocentric oversimplification: the natural tendency to ignore real and important complexities in the world in favor of simplistic notions when consideration of those complexities would require us to modify our beliefs or values.

6) Egocentric blindness: the natural tendency not to notice facts and evidence that contradict our favored beliefs or values.

7) Egocentric immediacy: the natural tendency to overgeneralize immediate feelings and experiences, so that when one event in our life is highly favorable or unfavorable, all of life seems favorable or unfavorable to us.

8) Egocentric absurdity: the natural tendency to fail to notice thinking that has "absurd" consequences.

I see that playing into socionics; I see people wanting to have a theory that explains everything or makes sense to at situation... yet sometimes it just doesn't.

What is even MORE absurd and kind of ... disappointing? for me is when people get to that point and realize it, and then get emo about socionics "Oh, socionics is so lame". They turn their back on it because their own desires weren't met, their own over-expectations weren't fulfilled, so therefore the theory is a waste. It reminds me of a kid who just got his first job, and thinks that his standard of living is going to be exactly what it was when his parents were paying all the bills.

It's not even so much a maturity or naivete thing, but it's more "blast, I see more of how human flaws and weakness and pettiness is getting in the way of real comprehension, or deeper understanding". Something useful is being brushed aside because it was unappealingly encountered, or, inarticularly handled, so whatever transmission or processing of understanding that could have been - was not.

And worst of all is when such a 'failure' to create comprehension builds a scar tissue, builds a later resistance. So that anything seeming similar will be rejected just because it is congruent in appearance. That's when you've contributed to... a sort of anti-learning, or anti-comprehension. (And a lot of problems can ensue from that, of course).


....

Mind you, I don't see this as particularly the case for THE SOCIONICS COMMUNITY, it's more stuff I'm seeing over and over across various fields of study. As such when I come back here and see the forum, it's just more glaring; these are the same flaws that human minds can bring to trying to understand other aspects of reality. Maybe that's why I comment on them so much, heh, because for me it is so 'egocentrically immediate' in terms of what I'm seeing in my own life

[Suz]

Also, I am beginning to question more the idea that you should only look for people based on what socionics says. I was in that camp for a while, but, now that I'm having a long term relationship with someone who isn't my dual, I don't think it's about our types.

(I'd still highly recommend being in the same quadra, though...) but I think it comes down to knowing what YOU, personally, can and can't deal with from other people. Socionics addresses that somewhat. And the other big factors are life stuff, what the person is doing, where they are going, how they see things, etc.

What socionics has done for me is help me realize one set of factors, or influencers, on a person. To me it's become useful to know "when this is a socionics-related issue" vs when it is not; and even that context or that awareness of multiple factors helps. It helps deal with the complexity of emotions and relationships and what triggers reactions in other people. Sometimes socionics is right on, because someone's valued IEs were trashed, and they got some odd POLR hits, so it's easy to see what caused that tension. Othertimes its not so clear-cut, not all about socionics.

But yeah, I'd definitely rather have that knowledge of socionics so I can understand what influenced it, rather than being ignorant of socionics and trying to attribute it to something else -- example: LSI seeing delta NF as being too weak or too lazy, because the NF doesn't go about things in an Se way or reacts poorly to it; an alpha SF doesn't understand a delta STs aversion to certain Fe oriented remarks or situations. Etc.

Well I think you're right on a lot of this, Ryu, but at the same time your significant other IS still a delta NF. Not a dual maybe, but activity is a great relation too, in different ways. And weren't you the one who feels that you NEED a delta NF? I do think socionics does play a much more important role in connections between people than your post would have one think. Of course it's not the end all be all, but it's there--it's a strong undercurrent. And it becomes apparent really mostly with prolonged interaction. Like some descriptions i've read state, from a distance any intertype relation can range from intense attraction to mutual mockery and everything in between.

I do agree that people tend to fall into the trap of overapplying socionics though (and/or applying it in an MBTI way), but it's hard to initially comprehend what is and isn't type related, as there really isn't a source out there that makes that clear. I feel socionics is best learned through examples with a guru pointing out what's important. And that's hard when we are all trying to learn this through online resources.

I also agree that socionics is highly useful in understanding where people are coming from when they are upset with something, or why you dont like something about a person without making it a personal issue.

[UDP]

Well I think you're right on a lot of this, Ryu, but at the same time your significant other IS still a delta NF. Not a dual maybe, but activity is a great relation too, in different ways. And weren't you the one who feels that you NEED a delta NF? I do think socionics does play a much more important role in connections between people than your post would have one think. Of course it's not the end all be all, but it's there--it's a strong undercurrent. And it becomes apparent really mostly with prolonged interaction. Like some descriptions i've read state, from a distance any intertype relation can range from intense attraction to mutual mockery and everything in between.

I'm really not sure, to be honest.
Yes, I had thought for a long time I'd need to be with someone who is EII, IEE, or perhaps IEI because I met some exceedingly cool IEIs.

And it might seem ironic to say what I said AFTER having been with an IEE, but, I say that because what is really making the relationship work isn't related to socionics at all. I thought it would be - I thought it would be making a big difference. I thought that it would come down to socionics very much, and spent time wondering "well, would this work better with my dual?". But what has prevailed are other aspects of a relationship; things that would override whether or not it was my dual; things that would, if more negative or not present, would obliterate any significance duality had.

I suppose I'd say, socionics is useful for selecting the mental aspect of a partner, but it certainly isn't useful for picking other aspects of a partner.

I'm also somewhat wary, coming out of a socionics-interpretation intensive situation, that one's knowledge of socionics can be problematic in a reationship especially if someone doesn't know ANYTHING about it. Because socionics, like this forum, can train you to think in certain ways and interpret things in certain ways; you've seen it on a profile and talked to someone of that type about it, so it must therefore be accurate and the assumption you have must be more than an assumption, right?

Wrong.

I think that factor can even be further increased, multiplied, if your understand socionics at a more superficial level (that's why I used "assumptions").

I do agree that people tend to fall into the trap of overapplying socionics though (and/or applying it in an MBTI way), but it's hard to initially comprehend what is and isn't type related, as there really isn't a source out there that makes that clear. I feel socionics is best learned through examples with a guru pointing out what's important.

I somewhat disagree with that because "gurus" always have their own dispositions, and, the idea of being someone's lapdog is inherently unappealing. But a lot of people seem to enjoy relying on someone with more 'experience' and 'understanding' - I just wonder if that is going to really ever lead to you finding your own understanding.

Socionics is just as much interpreting outside things as it is realizing how various things are presented in your own mind, that is, realizing how you personally interpret various things - the IEs, different temperments, types, etc. That's not something someone else can tell you or reveal to you, perhaps at best they can try to open you up to being more aware so you can feel it yourself.

And that's hard when we are all trying to learn this through online resources.

But socionics isn't online, it's everywhere. You don't need to ask someone online, or look at profiles, to understand it. It can help you, but you have to comprehend it in reality first, otherwise it's just a collection of notes that are applied to real things.

[UDP]

PS: I'm not thinking about hooking up or marrying a beta ST anytime soon; that is, I don't think socionics is irrelevant. But the qualities that really make a relationship work, or, want me to stay in one, they aren't exclusive to delta NFs. I just find delta NFs to be the most appealing manifestation of them. That is a pretty unglamorous statement, nothing new, even, but it's a very important one, IMO.

It kind of comes down to liking someone for who they are, and not just something they can't control - like their type, for example.

[Words]

I'd say it was the opposite - people taking socionics TOO superficially and thinking it's just a matter of stuffing people in boxes and making decisions off of what socionics says, like it is some sort of fullproof relational calculus. Obviously it's not. I think people tend to over-glorify the use of socionics, here, at least. And in doing so socionics becomes belittled to this wanna-be MBTI sorting hat that will magically explain everything.

When I say taking socionics superficially I mean not going too deeply, as that can involve attributing everthing to socionics, so I think we agree.

EG someone said something and that's X Y or Z element, the inverse square of the reinin no 5 dichotomy etc was represented when they said, "Can I have a beer please".

I'm really not sure, to be honest.
Yes, I had thought for a long time I'd need to be with someone who is EII, IEE, or perhaps IEI because I met some exceedingly cool IEIs.

And it might seem ironic to say what I said AFTER having been with an IEE, but, I say that because what is really making the relationship work isn't related to socionics at all. I thought it would be - I thought it would be making a big difference. I thought that it would come down to socionics very much, and spent time wondering "well, would this work better with my dual?". But what has prevailed are other aspects of a relationship; things that would override whether or not it was my dual; things that would, if more negative or not present, would obliterate any significance duality had.

I suppose I'd say, socionics is useful for selecting the mental aspect of a partner, but it certainly isn't useful for picking other aspects of a partner.

I'm also somewhat wary, coming out of a socionics-interpretation intensive situation, that one's knowledge of socionics can be problematic in a reationship especially if someone doesn't know ANYTHING about it. Because socionics, like this forum, can train you to think in certain ways and interpret things in certain ways; you've seen it on a profile and talked to someone of that type about it, so it must therefore be accurate and the assumption you have must be more than an assumption, right?

I completely agree.

I'm also curious if you've attached a type to your (current)? s/o?

[force my hand]

What do you think?

My association with socionics has typically been to recognize it as a loose model for describing how people behave, and evaluating potential reasons for that behaviour through functions, function placements, and then types in a general sense. It's useful as a basis for self-reflection, and provides excellent insight into others' personalities.

[Exodus]

I've met pushy aggressive ENFps and subdued agreeable ones. The pushy aggressive ones could well be ESFp, if one is associating pushyness with Se, whereas maybe it is just simply a character trait or a defense mechanism. You could even go further to say that the ESFp is ESTp due to appearing 'heartless' at times.

The only reason I think they are ENFp is because they 'VI' as one - another subjective term , and keeping in mind the personality they present to the world.

But you're right that you are exposing a contradiction to an extent in what i'm saying, which is just another paradox of applying the system imo.

-
-
-
-
-

I think that one of the things this typology can say which is perhaps useful, is the basic things, like for instance, it's OK to be a quiet person (stereotypical introversion) that sort of stuff.

At the same time, I do find myself trying to have a use for it. I agree that it can help to formulate the mind as 'archetypes' of people like for instance in a work environment. However I find that i'm better overall just not particularly classifying anyone, or at least when i'm away from this for a while that my attitude to things is more natural and free flowing. Hmmm maybe i'll have to think about this some more.

To everyone who's responded so far, thank you for answering, i've enjoyed reading your thoughts on it. I haven't responded to them all, because, I can basically see where everyone is coming from and find myself agreeing!, so not sure what to say with a silent nod over the internet

I thought i'd respond to the post I did as sort of was related to something on my mind, that is, in a way, how personality and functions seem to be different things in many cases which to me makes socionics an even vaguer tool, ie a pushy person may not be an Se type but it's easy to class them as such, a fun friendly person may still be Fe PoLR but is just trying to adapt coping mechanisms in life. It also crosses my mind that some people are maybe OK with the vagueness.

Personally i'm more inclined to want... "does it work or not", and of course, "sometimes it works" can be applied to anything, but I think perhaps the final way to answer it is, "how to apply it to make it work in each situation", which is probably why we are all still here!, or at least one of the reasons.

Definitely there's more to people than just socionics. Nobody is ever able to type 100% accurately, but if you always keep an open mind to new typings and ways of looking at the information elements, you'll gradually come to understand them better, and it will seem to "work better" too.