Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 55

Thread: The Problem with Socionics

  1. #1
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The Problem with Socionics

    Socionics has, in our context, been reduced from a personality theory to something on the level of a philosophical idealization of different ways that the brain can function. "My friend is a scientist, and loves to do empirical research and crunch numbers," says one person. A socionist responds "That has nothing to do with type. This person may be an SEI, for all we know."

    My problem with socionics is that it isn't tied to anything. It doesn't predict ANYTHING if not behavior. I think it's been reduced, in our case, to VI and some very, very specific and, IMO, minor details about a person's personality that, in reality, have a minimal effect on how they interact with people. What exactly IS it that we are predicting if it's not sets of behavioral characteristics? It seems to be that the actual behaviors that are, indeed, connected to type are so narrow in their spectrum that there is little, if any, predictive power in Socionics any more. So what ARE we measuring?
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  2. #2
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think we are measuring if the person is living a life as their true self. Some types must be pretty much lying to themselves if they start doing empirical dry research, because they were born to be good at interacting with people. If a SEE becomes a math researcher, he/she will stay at the bottom of the food chain in that community. They will only be able to cope if they are highly intelligent, in which care they would have been better off as a psychology researcher.

    Other types are truly stupid if they become a teacher/salesperson, because they have to try to be something they are not and they'll end up frustrated and tired with life.


    Doing what you were intended to do in the first place will increase the chance of happiness and success.
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Problem with Socionics

    Quote Originally Posted by gilligan87
    Socionics has, in our context, been reduced from a personality theory to something on the level of a philosophical idealization of different ways that the brain can function. "My friend is a scientist, and loves to do empirical research and crunch numbers," says one person. A socionist responds "That has nothing to do with type. This person may be an SEI, for all we know."

    My problem with socionics is that it isn't tied to anything. It doesn't predict ANYTHING if not behavior. I think it's been reduced, in our case, to VI and some very, very specific and, IMO, minor details about a person's personality that, in reality, have a minimal effect on how they interact with people. What exactly IS it that we are predicting if it's not sets of behavioral characteristics? It seems to be that the actual behaviors that are, indeed, connected to type are so narrow in their spectrum that there is little, if any, predictive power in Socionics any more. So what ARE we measuring?
    It's impossible to predict behavior because people don't make decisions alone. There are always people who are responding similarly to environmental conditions and they will work together to reach a common solution in which each individual plays the role they feel most suited to. Therefore one can only predict the behavior of another person if they are facing similar problems and are working together to solve them, although even then only the direction of the behavior can be ascertained and rarely its specific form.

    Socionics is an incomplete personal tool for studying relationships. Although it has no objective value, it is better than its alternatives. The problem isn't necessarily with socionics itself, but in the fact that its founder and torch bearer is dead. The problem is further complicated by her apparent emotional tie to belief that Einstein was her type, blinding her to his true nature. Even if she had not failed to perceive the crosstype phenomenon, the fact would still remain that the discipline is without a leader. Fields that are leaderless seldom produce further leaps forward in understanding. (just look at the Jungian movement's stagnation and infighting, and until the 1990s, physics)

  4. #4
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  5. #5
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I do not see anything wrong with her post.
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  6. #6
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Problem with Socionics

    Thank you Diana for saying what I was thinking. Kristiina has just illustrated what I, personally, object to about the state of personality theory (and this includes the likes of MBTI as well as Socionics). Like religion, it so easily becomes dogma that somehow usurps the position of common sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by gilligan87
    My problem with socionics is that it isn't tied to anything. It doesn't predict ANYTHING if not behavior. I think it's been reduced, in our case, to VI and some very, very specific and, IMO, minor details about a person's personality that, in reality, have a minimal effect on how they interact with people. What exactly IS it that we are predicting if it's not sets of behavioral characteristics? It seems to be that the actual behaviors that are, indeed, connected to type are so narrow in their spectrum that there is little, if any, predictive power in Socionics any more. So what ARE we measuring?
    I don't see what you are objecting to. I wasn't even aware Socionists made pretenses about being able to have some dubious "predictive power." It would be risible if that were the case.

    Socionics isn't a science. It is about as scientific as any sociological theory, which is to say... not very. At the most benign level, it's a parlor game. At best, it can help explain behavior, thought-processes, and to a certain extent, emotion, but not predict it. It can explain why certain people will be attracted to certain types of interaction and stimulation (which thus influences their choice of occupation, friends, lovers, what have you), but can never predict it. Truly great people will defy the explanation of this theory... not to mention truly neurotic people. (Although, genius and insanity are kin, according to emo kids.)

    I would take more issue at people taking Socionics to the extreme and relegating individuals (infinitely variable and unique) to specified and limiting "talents" the like of which puts the Hindu caste system to blushing shame.

  8. #8
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Diana, oh come on!
    Socionics is the study of information metabolism. It places the functions on a scale where at least 2 functions are strong and at least one function is weak. Have you ever seen an INTj teacher? I have. I felt sorry for him, because he really didn't seem to be enjoying being there. He could become the best teacher ever if he tried, but he just wanted to go back in his office to work on his experiments.

    I am a bit busy, I'll try to make it short. If socionics doesn't even give us a glue of what we will be good/bad at, then socionics means absolutely nothing. Of course a person can LEARN to do something. God gave us a brain for something!

    It's a pseudo-problem. All these people "totally convinced" that socionics works, but at the same time shouting that it tells us absolutely nothing about a person. Make up your bloody damn mind already!

    If we want to analyse anything in the context of socionics, and not spend an hour explaining our every thought, we have to generalize!
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    It's a pseudo-problem. All these people "totally convinced" that socionics works, but at the same time shouting that it tells us absolutely nothing about a person. Make up your bloody damn mind already!
    I can't speak for everyone, but what I am saying, at least, is that Socionics does have something to offer, but its not necessarily what certain people are looking for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    I am a bit busy, I'll try to make it short. If socionics doesn't even give us a glue of what we will be good/bad at, then socionics means absolutely nothing.
    If that is what you are looking to take from this theory, then obviously it will be useless to you because no theory can do that with any significant level of accuracy and I'd run away screaming from any that purported to even try. If, however, you are looking for an explanation of why your interaction with people who have certain traits is constantly rocky, why you enjoy being complimented on certain things and why you are sensitive to criticism in other, then there might be something in it for you.

  10. #10
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    I am a bit busy, I'll try to make it short. If socionics doesn't even give us a glue of what we will be good/bad at, then socionics means absolutely nothing. Of course a person can LEARN to do something. God gave us a brain for something!
    I am a bit confused. Am I to understand that the reason you are interested in socionics is so that it can tell you what you will/won't be good at?

    If so, why would you want something external, which doesn't even know you, your life experiences, your interests, your skills, etc., to TELL you what you should/should not pursue?
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  11. #11
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't see what you are objecting to. I wasn't even aware Socionists made pretenses about being able to have some dubious "predictive power." It would be risible if that were the case.

    Socionics isn't a science. It is about as scientific as any sociological theory, which is to say... not very. At the most benign level, it's a parlor game. At best, it can help explain behavior, thought-processes, and to a certain extent, emotion, but not predict it. It can explain why certain people will be attracted to certain types of interaction and stimulation (which thus influences their choice of occupation, friends, lovers, what have you), but can never predict it. Truly great people will defy the explanation of this theory... not to mention truly neurotic people. (Although, genius and insanity are kin, according to emo kids.)

    I would take more issue at people taking Socionics to the extreme and relegating individuals (infinitely variable and unique) to specified and limiting "talents" the like of which puts the Hindu caste system to blushing shame.
    By predictive I don't literally mean predicting a person's every move in every situation. I mean giving a kind of outline about how the person normally behaves. Socionics makes itself vague and tight-assed to the point that no sort of model of this kind can be formulated because everything has to be so specific to fit the mold of matching up with a socionics-controlled behavior. I think people take it to too much of an extreme, and I forsee it widdling the only method of typing down to VI.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  12. #12
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  13. #13
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Even before I know about socionics I wanted to know if I'm more of an introvert or extrovert, do I have a talent with numbers or written text, am I creative or do I have more of a step-by step approach. The mind deceives. The mind tells us what we want to hear.

    A person can do whatever they want with their life, but I have decided to use my skills to the maximum extent. This means that I am looking for the best ways to determine my main strengths so I can make them even stronger. I know I would make a lousy teacher or creative writer or painter or... I know my biggest weaknesses, but I want to choose a path of life that uses my biggest strengths.
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  14. #14
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree with Kristina. Socionics can offer you a very valuable info about yourself and other people, teaches to appreciate yourself and ohters and accept people the way they are, to see perspectives of development and etc. I just have found info from Piagetian theory of cognitive development whch tlaks in its'own langauge of equilibrium (balancing) and formation of the individuals world view as an ultimate goal. I will post sometime soon under model B topic. If we shall accept that it is all down to Identitiy search and Balancing then...socionincs has got sure something to offer - the knowledge about ourselves and the world we seek. Of course, it will depend on your perception, how you see things: it may be all or nothing! I do not argue that this knowledge can be dangerous and decieving and agree on the whole what you siad about mind. God, it is like lots of things around us: depends what for you use it.
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  15. #15
    heath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,722
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is limited in use. Here are a couple of uses I have found, see if you can add more:

    Example 1: Two people or a small group need help to better understand eachother. They understand what upsets them about another person, and now socionics has provided terminology.

    Example 2: An individual can learn to better understand humans, or more likely pretend they understand humans better with a barrage of terminology.

    My advice: Understanding other humans is a waste of your time. Even trying to understand yourself is a waste.
    asd

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Surely this argument comes down to generalisations :

    Example: INTj's are socially disadvantaged - true or false

    True: socionoics points this out and it's fairly visible if you have ever met many INTj's, if it's true, its true, lets not pretend its not true to to make the world a more just place.

    False: Any person can become socially competent if they work at it and try, we can all learn to be good at something, so it would not be supprising to find some very socially competent INTj's.

    The point is, a person is very complicated with many driving forces acting on them, so socionics can only hope to judge statistically. Please, that is a very important word, socionics tells us about people statistically and groups behaviours etc together statistically to form the 16 types. Anyone can become a teacher, but statistically some types will find it easier, more satisfying and a better choice of career than other types, remember, I am saying that statistically

    @Diana: I think you are right that doing what you enjoy is better than doing what you are good at, but I think it's important to note that there is a very strong link between the two, in the vast majority of cases, people enjoy doing what they are good at, and dislike doing things that they are particularly bad at. This is a well established idea in psychology.
    Friendly ISTp
    Interested in everything, yes, EVERYTHING
    Flower's motto: Life's too short even to do the things you want to, let alone the things you dont!!

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flower
    Example: INTj's are socially disadvantaged - true or false

    True: socionoics points this out and it's fairly visible if you have ever met many INTj's, if it's true, its true, lets not pretend its not true to to make the world a more just place.
    The question is must this needs be? Is it /possible/ that the context in which persons being typified have been in is such that the behaviors observed are aggregates of variables of merely secondary relation to the persons in question? /Can/ intjs be non-socially hanicapped or even advantaged? If so, what makes them so? What if such forces influenced all intjs?

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I didnt mean to be specific about anyone type or behavior etc, the point is socionics is a theory fundamentally based in statistics because it cant possibly take account of everything a person is, genetically, physically or every force, situation acting on a person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    Is it /possible/ that the context in which persons being typified have been in is such that the behaviors observed are aggregates of variables of merely secondary relation to the persons in question?
    This is what I was getting at also, INTj's may become very competent teachers who enjoy their teaching due to other non-socionic forces, however on average we would have to say it's more unlikely to be the case for INTj's is it would be for say, ENFp's. Socionics is relative, we can compare different types like this statistically, and get real meaning from it in this way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    ]/Can/ intjs be non-socially hanicapped or even advantaged?
    Just to further the point, Of course they can, for example, if they grew up in a family of extraverts in which social skills were highly valued and easily developed.
    Friendly ISTp
    Interested in everything, yes, EVERYTHING
    Flower's motto: Life's too short even to do the things you want to, let alone the things you dont!!

  19. #19
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    My INTj friend (he tests as that and INTJ) is more socialable than many I see on the net. He has a good family and some fruity friends to blame. But I can always tell whan he really lights up inside. He is by far my favorite person in the world to dicsuss things like plant genetics with. In some occurences he is even more socialable than I am. For example, I am not a huge fan of alcohol or loud people. It's not the extroversion component. I just feel "uggggh" around either in extreme situtations (and the behaviors that often follow). But this does not bother him. I asked him why one day. He said because he relies on himself for order and he is indifferent to the rest.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    And I am saying that if we lived in a society in which everyone was trained to become a teacher and taught to love being a teacher then intjs would be good teachers generally. In other words statistical correlations are often based upon circumstantial factors rather than permanent/real/inherent ones (should those exist).

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, exactly, thats why I wrote this
    Quote Originally Posted by Flower
    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    /Can/ intjs be non-socially hanicapped or even advantaged?
    Just to further the point, Of course they can, for example, if they grew up in a family of extraverts in which social skills were highly valued and easily developed
    .

    and this
    Quote Originally Posted by Flower
    the point is socionics is a theory fundamentally based in statistics because it cant possibly take account of everything a person is, genetically, physically or every force, situation acting on a person.
    and of course part of what the above is saying is this
    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    ]statistical correlations are often based upon circumstantial factors rather than permanent/real/inherent ones (should those exist).
    One of the troubles people have with socionics is something called 'Fundamental attribution error', basically is says how people tend to overestimate the temperament contribution to peoples behaviour and underestimate the circumstance/situational contribution. However we shouldn't ignore the temperament contribution completely.

    Anyway, I think we are in agreement, maybe looking at it from different angles
    Friendly ISTp
    Interested in everything, yes, EVERYTHING
    Flower's motto: Life's too short even to do the things you want to, let alone the things you dont!!

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It seems to me that to have a little clarity here, first we need to understand that what we're really talking about in this thread is Jungian typology theory in general. Socionics is one particular branch within this field. So, then, the question is, what is Jungian typology theory good for? The answer is, it helps explain phenomena about people's experience of reality that people are aware of but find difficult to articulate. In that sense, it is very useful.

    However if you're trying to draw some easy, quick benefit from it, that's where you can get into trouble. Clearly, typology theory isn't a great way to find out what you're good at. Why? Because there are many more direct ways. To find out if you're good at math, a better way is to take a math class and see how well you do at it. If you ace all the tests without even trying that hard, then you're good at math, and it doesn't matter what type you are.

    But typology theory still has many potential benefits, and they're limited only by one's imagination. Here's one: If you're correctly typed, and you're able to read about successful people of a similar type, you may be able to learn from how those people coped with similar problems that you face. Anyhow, that's just one of many possible applications.

    One valid criticism of Socionics specifically is that it doesn't appear to place as much emphasis on how to apply it as other schools of typology, such as MBTI. Generally, MBTI-trained people will talk about the importance of understanding the strengths of those people who one previously saw only in terms of their weaknesses. They also put a lot of emphasis on using the theory to help "understand where people are coming from." I'm not saying that MBTI always delivers on it's promise, but there is perhaps more emphasis on applications and on how to talk about type in a constructive manner.

    With Socionics, probably the biggest stated application is finding those types that one is supposed to have a particularly profitable relationship with...e.g., dual, etc.....although that goal is elusive to many people because the likelihood of mistyping oneself is so high when using the Socionics definitions.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flower
    Anyway, I think we are in agreement, maybe looking at it from different angles
    We are except that I see the term "intj" or "esfp" or whatever else as a value that is not actual but a completely substantiated one.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I had a pretty good and effective INTj teacher one some time ago. I also think that if socionics is correct, then a room full of alpha types might experience an INTj as a better teacher than say if they had an ENFj teacher. A lot depends on the students being taught.


    I am not sure to what extent if any, socionics can decide what people are good at. I believe that people are greater and even more complex than model-A would have us think. It might be de-humanising to limit human actions, skills and potential to just that.
    Oh well, maybe Olga's model B will fill in the blanks .

    I am close to an ISFj who invented a piece of equipment that utilizes ultrasonic technology and he made millions from this invention (No, he is not an ENTp). Thank god socionics wasn't around to influence him or his family into thinking he would be better off as a nurse or social worker or whatever socionics thinks ISFjs are naturally good at.

    Flower, I am not sure what evidence you have that people usually do what they are good at as obvious as that might seem. Going by that assumption, maybe more people would be satisfied with their jobs and careers. A lot of us, myself included, become somewhat bored and feel under utilized with doing what we are good at. I like to seek out things I am average at and work to become better/great. For me, this is what a challenge represents. Furthermore, I am not convinced that statistically people are like socionics says. Why do you think that people are statistically likely to be what socionics says they will be like with no significant variations?
    I think it is always worth remembering that socionics is merely a theory at this point. Not much is objectively known about how well it works in reality. Understand that I am not completely rejecting socionics; I just have no real reason yet based on my experience or objective evidence to believe that it is more than a somewhat idealistic theory with a possible grain of "truth" here or there.

    What happens in the real world where I live is usually somewhat different from what socionics says it should be. I vaguely suspect that all ENTjs aren't intelligent and dynamic. I think it is more likely that some- maybe most are and some are not. ESTps aren't always assholes and I happened to know an ESFp who was very good at everything academic and enjoyed reading. This of course equally does not imply that my experience with these persons is what other people of these same types are like generally, just that I see a lot more variations in people than socionics takes account of.

    I am still struck by how many people are so impressed by a theory like socionics that seem to limit and confine people and their abilities and give them no hope for improvement upon their weaknesses and relationships. What is an ENFp to do if they ever have an ISTj child? Socionics makes it seem like there is little hope whatsoever and that their relationship will not be a good one despite effort. Maybe the ENFp should just give up on such a child so they both can feel "saved and released" .


    Diana truly you are as smart as they say.

  25. #25
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,633
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    I am not sure to what extent if any, socionics can decide what people are good at.
    No one claimed this.

    I believe that people are greater and even more complex than model-A would have us think.
    Of course, reality is always more complex than a model, that's why models are created, in order to simplify reality.

    It might be de-humanising to limit human actions, skills and potential to just that.
    Models try to explain, by no means they try to limit anything.

    I am close to an ISFj who invented a piece of equipment that utilizes ultrasonic technology and he made millions from this invention (No, he is not an ENTp).
    My ISFj math teacher is into Fractal geometry, which is like the most field of all maths. Does this make her behaviour different from other ISFjs? No, the charateristics are all there. In fact, since you do mention that the ISFj you're close with was by you identified as ISFj, this means that even if he/she was an inventor, he/she displayed patterns of behaviour which led you to think about him/her as ISFj.

    Thank god socionics wasn't around to influence him or his family into thinking he would be better off as a nurse or social worker or whatever socionics thinks ISFjs are naturally good at.
    Uh? Nobody forces nothing. It seems like you're just trying to find a reason to attack socionics, basing yourself on off-base assumptions.

    Flower, I am not sure what evidence you have that people usually do what they are good at as obvious as that might seem. Going by that assumption, maybe more people would be satisfied with their jobs and careers. A lot of us, myself included, become somewhat bored and feel under utilized with doing what we are good at. I like to seek out things I am average at and work to become better/great. For me, this is what a challenge represents.
    Let's suppose you're not satisfied with your career, and you do not know what to do. Why not considering tools like socionics in order to find opportunities that might - underlined, MIGHT - suit you, and that you like?
    It seems like you're supposing that socionics force you into a role, which is totally untrue, since it's just a model.

    Furthermore, I am not convinced that statistically people are like socionics says. Why do you think that people are statistically likely to be what socionics says they will be like with no significant variations?
    Uh? What? Of course if they are statistically like socionics says there will be significant variations. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.


    I think it is always worth remembering that socionics is merely a theory at this point. Not much is objectively known about how well it works in reality. Understand that I am not completely rejecting socionics; I just have no real reason yet based on my experience or objective evidence to believe that it is more than a somewhat idealistic theory with a possible grain of "truth" here or there.
    That's a matter of personal experince, of course everyone should believe/have the opinions etc. he/she prefers/thinks are right etc

    What happens in the real world where I live is usually somewhat different from what socionics says it should be. I vaguely suspect that all ENTjs aren't intelligent and dynamic. I think it is more likely that some- maybe most are and some are not. ESTps aren't always assholes and I happened to know an ESFp who was very good at everything academic and enjoyed reading. This of course equally does not imply that my experience with these persons is what other people of these same types are like generally, just that I see a lot more variations in people than socionics takes account of.
    Well, nowhere is stated in official socionics that ENTjs are smart (dynamic? I guess that all of them are, since is energy-expensive by definition), that ESTps are assholes, and that ESFps doesn't like reading and/or academia.

    I am still struck by how many people are so impressed by a theory like socionics that seem to limit and confine people and their abilities and give them no hope for improvement upon their weaknesses and relationships.
    !!! That's the opposite of what is true!!!

    What is an ENFp to do if they ever have an ISTj child? Socionics makes it seem like there is little hope whatsoever and that their relationship will not be a good one despite effort. Maybe the ENFp should just give up on such a child so they both can feel "saved and released" .
    Again, that's the diametrical opposite of the aim of socionics. If an ENFp mother has an ISTj child she will have the tools in order to understand his child better. It seems so obvious.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    NiFe
    Posts
    778
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    =)

  27. #27
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    What is an ENFp to do if they ever have an ISTj child? Socionics makes it seem like there is little hope whatsoever and that their relationship will not be a good one despite effort. Maybe the ENFp should just give up on such a child so they both can feel "saved and released" .
    Again, that's the diametrical opposite of the aim of socionics. If an ENFp mother has an ISTj child she will have the tools in order to understand his child better. It seems so obvious.
    I think this is the most important thing that has been discussed.

    My ISFp father said a few times that I was a "horrible person" simply because I did not "jump out of joy" when receiving particularly good news as he said "normal people" did.

    Likewise, I could not make sense of his actions and reactions at all, and often reacted with logical arguments and pointing out the mistakes in his - - which he took as a personal attack.

    If we known socionics, this kind of crap would have been avoided or at least its effect would have been diminished.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    I am not sure to what extent if any, socionics can decide what people are good at.
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    No one claimed this.
    That is not true. If it was not explicitly said then certainly it was said implicitly. I think you should re-read some of what Kristiina wrote.


    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Of course, reality is always more complex than a model, that's why models are created, in order to simplify reality.
    Perhaps the socionics model has simplified reality too much. I have no particular issue with models, I believe they can be useful. However, I think it is erroneous to use the model to make a generalization about actual reality. I have seen this done here time after time.



    Models try to explain, by no means they try to limit anything
    .

    Perhaps they do not try to limit anything as you put it. However, I think you will find that it does have a restricting effect. For example, according to the model, ESFjs all process information in the same way. No variations. The model and some of the people who use it also do not take into account other factors that might be important in determining the individual as someone before said.



    he/she displayed patterns of behaviour which led you to think about him/her as ISFj.
    FDG, I was not here suggesting that different types of people do not exist. What is mainly at issue is the variations that exists in individual types and to what extent.


    [Uh? Nobody forces nothing. It seems like you're just trying to find a reason to attack socionics, basing yourself on off-base assumptions.
    Of course nobody is forcing anything. Where was that said or implied? What I am saying is that in the hands of a gullible person/family member/parent who believes in socionics, this belief might potentially negatively influence a persons path and career choice.




    Let's suppose you're not satisfied with your career, and you do not know what to do. Why not considering tools like socionics in order to find opportunities that might - underlined, MIGHT - suit you, and that you like?
    It seems like you're supposing that socionics force you into a role, which is totally untrue, since it's just a model.
    I am glad that unlike some people here, you can clearly see that it is just a model which may or may not be representative of reality.
    I would not turn to a largely untested theory like socionics to help me make important life decisions. Sorry, I just cannot even stretch my imagination to even look at that possibility.



    Uh? What? Of course if they are statistically like socionics says there will be significant variations. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
    Will you stop using "Uh?" so frequently and just get to your point. Anyway, I can see how you might have missed my point, it was not particularly well made. I think what I basically want to find out is how does flower know to what extent variations exists in the types. She seemed to have implied that most other people excluding her acknowledged variants would be as socionics has described and I want to know how can that be known.




    That's a matter of personal experience, of course everyone should believe/have the opinions etc. he/she prefers/thinks are right etc
    This seems obvious and self evident. The opposite of this position was not being proposed. I am merely interested in how the opinion and belief was arrived at and what support exists for it. This is actually genuine interest by the way.




    Well, nowhere is stated in official socionics that ENTjs are smart (dynamic? I guess that all of them are, since is energy-expensive by definition), that ESTps are assholes, and that ESFps doesn't like reading and/or academia.

    We will leave the unofficial descriptions of ESFps and ESTps aside as it is true that these types have a certain reputation unofficially which is perhaps not the same as the official socionics one. However, you seem to be saying that all ENTjs are dynamic as socionics officially says. I do not know if that is true. How to you know that somewhere out there, an ENTj doesn't exist without dynamism? What if there exists an ENTj without dynamism would that mean that is no longer the dominant function? How would you explain the presence of as a dominant function yet a lack of dynamism in the actual individual?

    I am still struck by how many people are so impressed by a theory like socionics that seem to limit and confine people and their abilities and give them no hope for improvement upon their weaknesses and relationships.
    !!! That's the opposite of what is true!!!
    I disagree. Explain how you imagine that the opposite of that is true.


    Again, that's the diametrical opposite of the aim of socionics. If an ENFp mother has an ISTj child she will have the tools in order to understand his child better. It seems so obvious
    .
    Perhaps now that we all have socionics as a tool we can get together with our so called conflictor if they are really hot .

    Anyway, what I understand from various socionics sites is that some relationships are psychologically incompatible. Nowhere is it stated that model-A can be used as an effective tool for overcoming the barriers that exists in the relation of conflict. You have taken upon yourself to assume that the model can be used in this way when socionists have not said this and little is known about how in reality, knowledge of the model will be effective in overcoming these so called natural incompatibilities.

  29. #29
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    Of course nobody is forcing anything. Where was that said or implied? What I am saying is that in the hands of a gullible person/family member/parent who believes in socionics, this belief might potentially negatively influence a persons path and career choice.
    Any kind of knowledge is dangerous in the hands of gullible people, not just socionics. If we go down that path, we have to worry about Freudian psychology, religion, scientology, etc.

    Not to speak of astrology, which already has that kind of effect on gullible people.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    Anyway, what I understand from various socionics sites is that some relationships are psychologically incompatible. Nowhere is it stated that model-A can be used as an effective tool for overcoming the barriers that exists in the relation of conflict. You have taken upon yourself to assume that the model can be used in this way when socionists have not said this and little is known about how in reality, knowledge of the model will be effective in overcoming these so called natural incompatibilities.
    Actually, that's a good point.
    ENTj - intuitive subtype - 8w9, sp/sx

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Any kind of knowledge is dangerous in the hands of gullible people, not just socionics. If we go down that path, we have to worry about Freudian psychology, religion, scientology, etc.
    I for one am far more worried about the effects of informatics and maths.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    192
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Apart from the hazards mentioned already there is the problem with some of the type descriptions and anecdotes including very immature and maybe even borderline sick behaviour. Combine that with a belief that you can use socionics to foresee anything and a literal reading of expressions as "conflicting relations" and you can get far off from what any model can tell you.

  33. #33
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maizemedley
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    If socionics doesn't even give us a glue of what we will be good/bad at, then socionics means absolutely nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    Even before I know about socionics I wanted to know if I'm more of an introvert or extrovert, do I have a talent with numbers or written text, am I creative or do I have more of a step-by step approach. The mind deceives. The mind tells us what we want to hear
    Awww, I find this so endearing. I also see that the Ne/Fi's don't relate to that much. Their internal compass doesn't seem to deceive them, on the contrary, from what I understand, it's very much what guides them. Whereas with Kristina, I get a feeling that she trusts "external signs" more than she trusts herself. I've seen this in TiSe a lot and I figure it might have something to do with their hidden agenda to believe. maybe, possibly, or it might be connected to something else altogether. Doh, sorry, I'm not questioning your type, just making an observation.
    haha... I like your post.
    With socionics, I learned not to trust myself. I'm actually unsure of my type because I see the possibility of myself being a SF. Whatever I think of myself is irrelevant. External signs might be somewhat less biased. For a long time I thought I would make a great librarian. Now I see that I need to discuss almost everything to compare facts and because discussing things is something I NEED to do on a daily basis. The more I analyze myself the more I learn and I think it will help me prevent mistakes I might make choosing a future career.
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  34. #34
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    I am not sure to what extent if any, socionics can decide what people are good at.
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    No one claimed this.
    That is not true. If it was not explicitly said then certainly it was said implicitly. I think you should re-read some of what Kristiina wrote.
    When choosing a career, a person should know at least their PoLR. And there might be different methods to do the same thing, but there are still limits. I would not like to meet a calculatingly cold and methodical (expressionless and dry) psychiatrist. There are many different methods, but some methods are more suitable for some tasks.
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For a long time I thought I would make a great
    Revelations that a certain career path may not be the best are quite valuable. The question is always, did one really discover something deeper about one's interests and abilities, or did one put theory above sounder intuition and experience?

    I strongly believe that there's a certain principle one should follow regarding the sound application of any theory regarding personality, behavior, or generally regarding how one should organize and understand important decisions about life, art, etc..

    That principle is to give a lot of credence to the empirical evidence, and allow the theory to help one understand, organize, make sense of that evidence, but not allow the theory to take precedence over the evidence. If someone says, "I love doing x, but the theory says it's not my thing, so...." or if someone says "I love being around these kind of people, but theory says that they're my conflict type, so....," that's when I get concerned.

  36. #36
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Free will

    I consider knowldege as light. I like when things make sense for me. I think there is a mystery and always will be. The process of discovery is more interesting than knowledge itself and this process is life itself.

    I remember somebody pointed at the lines on my handpalm and showed her palm. She said: this is the destiny line. Her line was strong and clear- she said, she knows what she wants from life and the direction to go. My line was split and patchy. I felt for a long time that I did not find what I am looking for. It was a search for the meaning in life, career, husband and etc.. But now things are more clear in my head and I found the meaning which keeps me happy.

    I don't think any theory would change my drives to do or to learn what I wanted. My second husband was ENTJ and I liked him, if I would not - there would be no meaning in his type. People are so much more than types. The knolwdege should be used only for better with the paramount importance of the individual's free will.
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    NiFe
    Posts
    778
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    =)

  38. #38
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    When choosing a career, a person should know at least their PoLR.
    It literally makes me cringe to follow this conversation. Socionics is a theory that still lacks a solid empirical foundation. It's something to have fun with, to perhaps analyze miscommunication between people and to understand to some extent why you feel more drawn to certain people than others. And people, that's it. No more can come out of it at this point. To use type in determination of your talents is a dangerous and pointless thing to do because a) we can never know for sure if we have typed ourselves correctly and b) belief is a powerful thing. You realize you might have some sort of PoLR and even if you didn't have it before, now you have it because *gasp* some random person says you do.

    Seriously, people, don't do this. It limits you beyond belief. Even if it is true that we have PoLRs, there surely must be exceptions to the rule and don't forget that people have life histories.

    Beware of a bunch of Socionics zombies muttering "need my dual, can't think logically, have no empathy, am a shallow bitch."
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  39. #39
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,633
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    When choosing a career, a person should know at least their PoLR.
    It literally makes me cringe to follow this conversation. Socionics is a theory that still lacks a solid empirical foundation. It's something to have fun with, to perhaps understand miscommunication between people and to understand to some extent why you feel more drawn to certain people than others. And people, that's it. No more can come out of it at this point. To use type in determination of your talents is a dangerous and pointless thing to do because a) we can never know for sure if we have typed ourselves correctly and b) belief is a powerful thing. You realize you some sort of PoLR and even if you didn't have it before, now you have it.

    Seriously, people, don't do this. It limits you beyond belief. Even if it is true that we have PoLRs, there surely must be exceptions.

    Beware of a bunch of Socionics zombies muttering "need my dual, can't think logically, have no empathy, am a shallow bitch."
    PoLR knowledge is good in order to understand something like - hey, if I see out that I'm bad at X, and X is my polr, it just means that I have to work a bit harder, not that it's impossible to overcome the obstacle even if at first it might seem that it's like that.

    I just can't understand why so many people can reframe everything into a negative possibile outcome (I'm not referring specifically to you, or to anyone, here).
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    NiFe
    Posts
    778
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    =)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •