Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 42

Thread: Why is socionics the way it is?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Why is socionics the way it is?

    I've been studying socionics extensively now, turning it every which way, and still can't figure out why its basic assumptions are what they are. Any sources I find only describe what the system is, not why it is. If the main principles were empirically obvious in practice, the lack of justification could be excused, but they clearly aren't - typing is notoriously difficult, and predictions are even tougher. I hesitate to use a system if I cannot see the full reason behind it, because I thoroughly suspect that one's ideas heavily influence one's perceptions, and virtually any proposition can be "proved" if you try hard enough. I don't suggest that socionics has no basis, but have had a terribly difficult time trying to decipher it.

    Mainly, what I want to know is:
    How are the particular properties of the functions and elements explained and justified from the ground up?

  2. #2
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd suggest you take a look into Carl Jung's "Psychological Types", it lays the foundating for the functions/IEs as well as some explanations on temperament, introversion/extraversion/etc. He also lays out the framework for intuition, sensing, thinking, and feeling, as well as rational/irrational and various other things that are applied in Socionics.
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  3. #3
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Igxfl View Post
    I've been studying socionics extensively now, turning it every which way, and still can't figure out why its basic assumptions are what they are.
    Everybody is different, although you can see patterns. Before reading about Socionics, I (and many more, I guess) could "see" the basic dichotomies EI NS FT JP beyond the "basic" differences, such as "intelligence", "openmindedness", "empathy", etc. Besides, brilliant psychologists have developed this idea.

    Any sources I find only describe what the system is, not why it is.
    The million dollar question

    If the main principles were empirically obvious in practice, the lack of justification could be excused, but they clearly aren't -
    I disagree with this. They are considerably obvious, just go out and look to the people!

    typing is notoriously difficult
    Yes, sometimes.

    , and predictions are even tougher.
    Yes indeed

    I hesitate to use a system if I cannot see the full reason behind it, because I thoroughly suspect that one's ideas heavily influence one's perceptions, and virtually any proposition can be "proved" if you try hard enough. I don't suggest that socionics has no basis, but have had a terribly difficult time trying to decipher it.

    Mainly, what I want to know is:
    How are the particular properties of the functions and elements explained and justified from the ground up?
    Spanish motto: "there is room for lots of different people in God's land"
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  4. #4
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You sound INTj, Igxfl.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The functional dichotomies underlying socionics (and meyers briggs) derive from the work of Carl Jung. Check out the paper linked below.

    http://forum.socionix.com/files/down...logical-types/

    Jung's functional dichotomies are based purely on observation and intuition. To date, there is no widely accepted metaphysical or neurological foundation for his ideas. If you are looking for hard evidence of it's validity, I'm sorry to say it's just not there. In it's present form, socionics is only valuable to the extent that its postulates conform to your own experience.

    If you read his paper, you'll notice that socionics is truer to Jung's ideas than MBTI. Jung defined each of the functional elements and further elaborated on the contradictory (and yet compatible) nature of Ip/Ep and Ij/Ej functions. His ideas were later adapted to model A by Augusta Aushra. Aushra is responsible for laying out an early theory of inter-type relationships that has largely stood the test of time. Similar to Jung's work, Model A and the theory of inter-type relations is purely based upon observation and intuition. Nothing hard underlying any of it.
    Last edited by Timmy; 03-09-2011 at 11:22 PM.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1981slater View Post
    Besides, brilliant psychologists have developed this idea.
    Entirely irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by 1981slater View Post
    I disagree with this. They are considerably obvious, just go out and look to the people!
    If I were using the Enneagram, K-ball, or anything else you care to apply, I would see obvious evidence for those too. You can see through the eyes of any system you like, but that does not in itself make the system valid. The evidence for socionics does not appear obvious enough to me that I can see much of it without first adjusting my mind to socionics.


    Edit - just saw Timmy's post.

    @ Timmy: That seems helpful; I'll take a look. BTW, I am not looking for hard evidence in the typical sense, but merely a way to affirm that it makes sense, conceptually or empirically, without feeling like I have to force the evidence at first.

  7. #7
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Or INTp.

    You sound INTx.

  8. #8
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The essence of socionics predictions lie in the intertype relations. If you want to see those work, you need to type yourself and a few people around you correctly, and determine if the relations play out as described.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    By the way Igxfl, I suspect you are right about people applying socionics principles in all different ways. Is this really a problem though? If you find that thinking in terms of socionics improves your ability to understand or appreciate the world around you (or if you merely find socionics an entertaining diversion), who cares if it has no hard basis or if others apply it in different ways?
    Last edited by Timmy; 03-09-2011 at 11:22 PM.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Director Trevor View Post
    You sound INTj, Igxfl.

    Or INTp.

    You sound INTx.
    Fascinating. I was leaning most towards ENTp. I must look at the types of your suggestion - perhaps they will cause socionics to make more sense. I was probably INTP in MBTI.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    By the way Igxfl, I suspect you are right about people applying socionics principles in all different ways. Is this really a problem though? If you find that thinking in terms of socionics improves your ability to understand or appreciate the world around you (or if you merely find socionics an entertaining diversion), who cares if it has no hard basis or if others apply it in different ways?
    As stated, I care little for a hard basis in the usual sense. I guess what I'm looking for is what you described - whether thinking via socionics improves my ability to understand or appreciate the world around me.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also, some of the meta-principals which socionics implies absolutely strike me as manifestly evident and correct beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    Here are some examples:

    1) People are naturally disposed to get along better with some than with others (irrespective of their goals and principals). Realizing this enables one to avoid feelings of guilt over a consistent inability get along well with certain individuals or feelings of frustration over certain others' seeming inability to understand him.

    2) Those with whom we get along best tend also to get along well with one another (although there are plenty of non-socionics explanations for this phenomenon)

    3) None of us are perfect. We all have strengths and weaknesses and we all need one another to thrive.

  12. #12
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Igxfl, warning: Jung is not valid when it comes to Socionics. Please search my posts for "Jung" to find out more details. People keep recommending Jung out of ignorance. For example, in Socionics, Extroversion and Introversion do not exist, the I/E functions are actually Bodies/Fields, while the types are Extratim and Introtim. We indeed use Extroversion/Introversion as equivalents, but they're improper and certainly have little connection to social extroversion and energy levels.

    Also, the web groans under the weight of misguiding information, including the wanna-be Socionics reference, Wikisocion, though you may want to have a look there for the basic terminology. Again, please search my posts for Jung, you can find quotes of the founders which reject such claims of identity with Jung or MBTI, stating clearly the differences and the core principles. I also recently found an article of an early socionist who make further clarifications - including that unlike Jung, Socionics functions are discreet and that Aushra insisted all along that there's no such thing as "more/less Te" and function mixing (aka subtypes, impure or unbalanced types).
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  13. #13
    Reflection mirrorsoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With my parents. :(
    Posts
    269
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I believe that the documents you're asking for are available, but they're probably in Russian. I'm sure that Augustinovich or whoever created the theory wrote something about how they came up with this system. It's just that most people are less interested in all the meandering theoretical assumptions, and more interested in using the system, so that just hasn't been translated.

    Now, I have to admit that I'm not certain about the theoretical soundness of Socionics, but I do have confidence in the Jungian theory that it's based on. I've actually read Jung himself. If you read "Psychological Types," I think you'll agree that Jung had a sound basis for his typology. I think that Socionics changes a lot of things, but if you can see the original framework, you'll be able to understand the assumptions inherent in the modified version better.

    So, I would suggest reading Jung, and learning Russian so you can read all the original Socionics literature, if you want to answer this question adequately.

    It might also help to contrast Socionics with MBTI and Keirsey, as differing approaches to Jung's typology.

  14. #14
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, you see, at any given moment your brain is bombarded with literally a bajillion sources of stimuli. You look around, detect a familiar scent, feel an ache in your lower back, maybe you think about the meaning behind a friend's words, or the pain in her voice. Perhaps you can picture how something happens from origin to extinction and back again, realize how that might be broken into segments and improved in this or that way. Whatever it is you see, feel, and think, whatever forms the basis for how the world seems to you, that's only a fragment of everything there is. You only ever capable of receiving a piece of the puzzle.

    Socionics is a theory that deals with how individuals most naturally deal with these sources of information and how they may fit together or butt up against one another. Someone seeing a pyramid from below may see a square while the person looking at the profile is presented with a triangle. Neither one is inherently wrong, their perspectives simply limit them from acknowledging how they might be reconciled if they recognize the extent of their own limitations. That's not to say that socionics is a theory about how everyone can always be right in their own way. The example just portrays one facet of a greater problem, which is that no one knows if there's a damn pyramid in the first place and that each of our vantage points obscures as much as it illuminates. We only experience what we are capable of.

    Neither is socionics a theory leading necessarily into skepticism, however. All it does is point to potential sources of information and perhaps leave the individual with a greater appreciation of what we're talking about when we discuss the 'truth' of any given matter. Socionics also attempts to explain what kind of person provides the most complementary to the most opposing perspective to your own, which in theory tells you the ease or difficulty a potential relationship might present, as well as preventing you from ever getting laid again in your life.
    I quoted that just because I always liked it, but I think the first paragraph is a pretty commonsensical explanation for why informational metabolism of different kinds would be a reasonably safe assumption.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsghost View Post
    Everything in the world is a function. A function is made up of information aspects. The functions arrange to form a type. The type gives meaning to the information. The type itself is meaningful; its the essence of meaning.
    I think you meant to say, "everything in the world is an information element..."

    More intellectual masturbation I might add. I don't suppose Igxfl finds any of this very helpful.

  16. #16
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    I think you meant to say, "everything in the world is an information element..."

    More intellectual masturbation I might add. I don't suppose Igxfl finds any of this very helpful.
    No, everything is a function. A function consists of information aspects. So all things consist of information aspects, but they are not in themselves information aspects. The aspects combine to form a function.
    By the way i wasnt done. I was elaborating before you quoted me. But now you've fucked it up. I think I'll make a separate thread explaining it.
    Last edited by crazedrat; 03-10-2011 at 02:29 AM.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsghost View Post
    No, everything is a function. A function consists of information aspects. So all things consist of information aspects, but they are not in themselves information aspects. The aspects combine to form a function.
    By the way i wasnt done. I was elaborating before you quoted me. But now you've fucked it up. I think I'll make a separate thread explaining it.
    Suit yourself.

  18. #18
    Creepy-Snaps

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Igxfl View Post
    I've been studying socionics extensively now, turning it every which way, and still can't figure out why its basic assumptions are what they are. Any sources I find only describe what the system is, not why it is. If the main principles were empirically obvious in practice, the lack of justification could be excused, but they clearly aren't - typing is notoriously difficult, and predictions are even tougher. I hesitate to use a system if I cannot see the full reason behind it, because I thoroughly suspect that one's ideas heavily influence one's perceptions, and virtually any proposition can be "proved" if you try hard enough. I don't suggest that socionics has no basis, but have had a terribly difficult time trying to decipher it.

    Mainly, what I want to know is:
    How are the particular properties of the functions and elements explained and justified from the ground up?
    People... just link the new guy reading material, rather than trying to explain everything yourselves.

    Here... this following page is one of my favorite. Gives some concrete examples of noticeable behavior, that gives clues what each element is. It should be exactly what you're looking for:

    http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml

    Also this page has other information about the elements, and can help you learn how to concretely identify them in yourself and others:

    http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...ation_elements

  19. #19
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Suit yourself.
    Like your seal approval means anything

  20. #20
    the flying pig Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    5,929
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Igxfl View Post
    Mainly, what I want to know is:
    How are the particular properties of the functions and elements explained and justified from the ground up?
    they can't be
    and don't listen to bolt he has no idea what he's talking about

  21. #21
    Le roi internet Bluenoir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Zeta Reticuli
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    392
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is a game, well thats how I always treated it.
    The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.

    Chapter 14, Verse 9.
    The Bhagavad Gita

  22. #22
    I'm a Ti-Te! Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    US
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    522
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Igxfl View Post
    ...
    I very much agree with your views on the subject, and urge you not to give into the majority opinion here - you will forget where you come from on the matter. Your argument will not be addressed here justly because it can't be; you are right.

    The only way I've come to justify socionics as a belief is through total distrust of its intertype relevance, and use it solely as a tool of introspection. But that is ultimately a compromise with a system I can't cast out from my mind through sheer force of will; I suggest that you either decide to delve into it further with extreme skepticism and tedious caution, accepting only that which you find verifiable or reasonable, or drop it entirely. There are plenty of other facets of psychology to explore, some more empirical than others, but you'll be hard pressed to find any real empirical studies in psychology that aren't just theoretical extensions of observations of man's behavior; pseudoscience at best, so long as their assertions can not be repeated and in this case so long as types/typing remains nothing more than extensions of opinions.

    As for learning it... well... it took me a couple years to reject all the descriptions outright. Jung's descriptions resonate best with their applied introspective use.
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    |
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsghost View Post
    Like your seal approval means anything
    You're fun crazedrat! You can hate me all that you please. In my book you're A-OK!

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bolt View Post
    Igxfl, warning: Jung is not valid when it comes to Socionics. Please search my posts for "Jung" to find out more details. People keep recommending Jung out of ignorance. For example, in Socionics, Extroversion and Introversion do not exist, the I/E functions are actually Bodies/Fields, while the types are Extratim and Introtim. We indeed use Extroversion/Introversion as equivalents, but they're improper and certainly have little connection to social extroversion and energy levels.

    Also, the web groans under the weight of misguiding information, including the wanna-be Socionics reference, Wikisocion, though you may want to have a look there for the basic terminology. Again, please search my posts for Jung, you can find quotes of the founders which reject such claims of identity with Jung or MBTI, stating clearly the differences and the core principles. I also recently found an article of an early socionist who make further clarifications - including that unlike Jung, Socionics functions are discreet and that Aushra insisted all along that there's no such thing as "more/less Te" and function mixing (aka subtypes, impure or unbalanced types).

    Bolt, my friend, what on earth are you talking about about? Jung has everything to do with socionics. Socionics is admittedly a step removed from the musings of Jung, but Jung's work is absolutely central to socionics. Jung's work is the foundation upon which Aushra built her theory. Aushra may have attempted to disassociate herself from Jung in an effort to make her own contribution seem more significant, but that doesn't change the fact that socionics would not exist were it not for Jung's contribution.

    What makes you think you are the authority on all things socionics anyway? You clearly favor all kinds of opinions that are unpopular within the english speaking socionics community. The fact that you hold unpopular opinions doesn't necessarily imply that your opinions are wrong, but it does mean that you have the burden of convincing others that your opinion is the better one, or at least that it is a reasonable one (that is, if you want anybody to respect you and your ideas).

    You don't do this. Rather, you go right ahead and act like you know better than everybody else. Show some respect brother. Spend a little more time trying to see things the way others do and a little less time trying to convince yourself that you know better than everyone else. In most cases you'll find that other's differences in opinion stem not so much from some grievous misunderstanding of socionics cannons, but rather from a difference in opinion over how socionics ought to be defined in the first place.

    For example, most socionics enthusiasts couldn't care less whether or not Aushra supported subtype theory. They choose whether or not buy into subtype theory on the basis of whether or not they find the theory to be useful and interesting. Their criterion for deciding whether a given theory ought to be considered "socionics" is whether that theory fits well with pre-existing theory and conforms to their everyday experience. Who are you to suggest that they are wrong to do so--which is to say, who are you to suggest that someone's ideas about socionics are more or less correct on the basis of how closely their views, in your interpretation, correspond to Aushra's (no, you did not explicitly make this assertion, but you did imply as much). Aushra may have given socionics it's name and made a few key early contributions to the theory, but like it or not, socionics, its interpretation and its future direction do not belong to her any more than an adopted child belongs to his birth mother. Socionics belongs to us, we who practice and develop the theory. We are its new caretakers. Even if you had a direct mystical link with the ghost of Aushra, that would not make your opinion any more authoritative.
    Last edited by Timmy; 03-10-2011 at 10:17 AM.

  25. #25
    the flying pig Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    5,929
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    blah blah blah bolt is a dolt blah blah
    i like you

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    i like you
    Sometimes you just gotta say it like it is.
    Last edited by Timmy; 03-10-2011 at 07:22 PM.

  27. #27
    the flying pig Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    5,929
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Sometimes guys like you and I just gotta say it like it is.
    yeah, um, don't push it

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    yeah, um, don't push it
    I won't push it if you don't pull it.
    Last edited by Timmy; 03-10-2011 at 09:37 AM.

  29. #29
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Bolt, my friend, what on earth are you talking about about? Jung has everything to do with socionics. Socionics is admittedly a step removed from the musings of Jung, but Jung's work is absolutely central to socionics. Jung's work is the foundation upon which Aushra built her theory. Aushra may have attempted to disassociate herself from Jung in an effort to make her own contribution seem more significant, but that doesn't change the fact that socionics would not exist were it not for Jung's contribution.

    What makes you think you are the authority on all things socionics anyway? You clearly favor all kinds of opinions that are unpopular within the english speaking socionics community. The fact that you hold unpopular opinions doesn't necessarily imply that your opinions are wrong, but it does mean that you have the burden of convincing others that your opinion is the better one, or at least that it is a reasonable one (that is, if you want anybody to respect you and your ideas).

    You don't do this. Rather, you go right ahead and act like you know better than everybody else. Show some respect brother. Spend a little more time trying to see things the way others do and a little less time trying to convince yourself that you know better than everyone else. In most cases you'll find that other's differences in opinion stem not so much from some grievous misunderstanding of socionics cannons, but rather from a difference in opinion over how socionics ought to be defined in the first place.

    For example, most socionics enthusiasts couldn't care less whether or not Aushra supported subtype theory. They choose whether or not buy into subtype theory on the basis of whether or not they find the theory to be useful and interesting. Their criterion for deciding whether a given theory ought to be considered "socionics" is whether that theory fits well with pre-existing theory and conforms to their everyday experience. Who are you to suggest that they are wrong to do so--which is to say, who are you to suggest that someone's ideas about socionics are more or less correct on the basis of how closely their views, in your interpretation, correspond to Aushra's (no, you did not explicitly make this assertion, but you did imply as much [1]). Aushra may have given socionics it's name and made a few key early contributions to the theory, but like it or not, socionics, its interpretation and its future direction do not belong to her any more than an adopted child belongs to his birth mother. Socionics belongs to us, we who practice and develop the theory. We are it's new caretakers. Even if you had a direct mystical link with the ghost of Aushra, that would not make your opinion any more authoritative.
    Are you fucking kidding me?
    ---

    [1] they are not my opinions, just they make sense to me. They are neither my interpretations, as they were clearly stated by the true founders of Socionics and quoted by me. One I did not yet (automatic translation):
    One of the principal of such provisions could be called the "postulate of discreteness" - hence all of the division for 16 and only 16 types of "them".
    ...
    Augustinavichyute repeatedly and unequivocally states that no "interim" status, as well as any mixing properties in a single individual, is possible.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  30. #30
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics has changed so much since Aushra I dont see how she can be referenced with such conviction.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Bolt, I kid you not. I'm sorry you don't like what I have to say. Crazedrat speaks sense. Listen to him if you won't listen to me.

  32. #32
    WE'RE ALL GOING HOME HERO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,000
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have to agree with Bolt. He's the most consistent and intelligent person on this site. In other words, I prefer the wisdom of someone who possesses genuine integrity and individuality, as opposed to those who possess neither and are content being brainwashed sheep.

  33. #33
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,125
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why is socionics the way it is?

    Why are people the way they are?

    They simply are. Truth is often relative, i suggest not taking socionics as an irrefutable truth. But rather a tool to decipher the second question.

  34. #34
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Aushra was an ILE. So I'm pretty sure Socionics ≠ Jung, even though she didn't state they were supposed to be the same thing anyway. Just because she was influenced by his writings, doesn't mean anything, nor does Jung explain anything all that relevant to Socionics reasoning. Some of you go into false-objectivism...as though something more credible than Socionics authors is needed to give sense to the theory. There is obvious proof that MBTI, Jung, and Socionics are describing isolated aspects for a different purpose. When you interpret them all as the same thing then you confuse tolerance and resonance for objectivism.

  35. #35
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poli View Post
    Aushra was an ILE. So I'm pretty sure Socionics ≠ Jung, even though she didn't state they were supposed to be the same thing anyway. Just because she was influenced by his writings, doesn't mean anything, nor does Jung explain anything all that relevant to Socionics reasoning. Some of you go into false-objectivism...as though something more credible than Socionics authors is needed to give sense to the theory. There is obvious proof that MBTI, Jung, and Socionics are describing isolated aspects for a different purpose. When you interpret them all as the same thing then you confuse tolerance and resonance for objectivism.
    Ahhh...there's no proof of anything in the social and psychological sciences. Socionics, Jung, and MBTI are all contrived. But socionics and MBTI are no doubt inspired by Jung. Why would you ever assume or take that as insignificant? If you ignore Jung just because it's fun to point out that technically they are two different things just as any two similar objects can be said to be different things, you're socionics reasoning will be incomplete. This different shit is ridiculous; there are always similarities between things.

  36. #36
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 6 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,594
    Mentioned
    631 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    i have to see the systems as all pointing to the same sort of phenomenon in different ways otherwise i get mired in details that seem superficial to me. like "in mbti Fi has more to do with personal feelings and in socionics its more about morals and relationships." and if i take distinctions like that with a lot of weight then i become confused as hell. its possible i'm doing it wrong but its the only way it works in my head.

  37. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poli View Post
    Aushra was an ILE. So I'm pretty sure Socionics ≠ Jung, even though she didn't state they were supposed to be the same thing anyway. Just because she was influenced by his writings, doesn't mean anything, nor does Jung explain anything all that relevant to Socionics reasoning. Some of you go into false-objectivism...as though something more credible than Socionics authors is needed to give sense to the theory. There is obvious proof that MBTI, Jung, and Socionics are describing isolated aspects for a different purpose. When you interpret them all as the same thing then you confuse tolerance and resonance for objectivism.
    Poli an LII? That's bullshit. You couldn't Ti your way out of a paper bag.

    I believe Transigent uncovered that T/F and S/N were talked about since the days of ancient Greece. Of course it was Jung who discovered extroversion and introversion, that was his original discovery and what ultimately lead him away from Freud.

  38. #38
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,078
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by laghlagh View Post
    i have to see the systems as all pointing to the same sort of phenomenon in different ways otherwise i get mired in details that seem superficial to me.
    It's the way I operate too and I can't bring myself to do otherwise. Since reality exists independent of theory about it and not by dictate of theory, I have to believe that same or similarly related phenomena re: typology, have been observed prior by other persons in different ways; it's tantamount to obscene arrogance to believe otherwise. These preexisting formulations may not have been perfect—but, neither is this one. Hence it behooves one to investigate multiple theoretical POVs, never taking any particular one too seriously. I like to discern where sensible convergences lay between them, incorporate aspects where one theory seems to approximate reality better than another, etc. Not niggle over ancillary details of prescribed doctrine like a fundie zealot. I've personally no idea how people do that to themselves without invoking an avalanche of cognitive dissonance.

    Honestly, such morons here who preach Socionics-relativism ought to do themselves a favor and drop the subject for lack of requisite critical thinking skills. They'd be much better off joining a cult where their mentality of exegetical vigilance would be of greater service. And hopefully drink some cyanide kool-aid while they're at it.

  39. #39
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Igxfl View Post
    I've been studying socionics extensively now, turning it every which way, and still can't figure out why its basic assumptions are what they are. Any sources I find only describe what the system is, not why it is. If the main principles were empirically obvious in practice, the lack of justification could be excused, but they clearly aren't - typing is notoriously difficult, and predictions are even tougher. I hesitate to use a system if I cannot see the full reason behind it, because I thoroughly suspect that one's ideas heavily influence one's perceptions, and virtually any proposition can be "proved" if you try hard enough. I don't suggest that socionics has no basis, but have had a terribly difficult time trying to decipher it.

    Mainly, what I want to know is:
    How are the particular properties of the functions and elements explained and justified from the ground up?
    You're right that there is a gap between what is self-evident (what Timmy listed) and the constructs of socionics. As I understand the history of socionics, these self-evident observations were what Augusta was mulling over while she looked for a way to understand and organize these differences between people/relationships. She probably began with a bias towards typology, because she seemed to pay particular attention to the typologies that were available to her for study. She stopped with Jung because his typology was more all-encompassing than the others, described healthy aspects of personality, and allowed for systematization.

    The choice of Jung's typology was made for subjective (intuitive?) reasons as much as for empirical ones. Naturally, there were no studies comparing different typologies and how well they could account for relationship patterns. Augusta began typing people through Jung's typology with an eye to their interaction and began noticing patterns. Eureka!

    Even if we try our best to fill in the logical gap and substantiate why there must be no less or more than 4 functions with 2 varieties each, why each function must have its complement, or why only certain orderings of functions are possible, these efforts are pretty much futile because they don't address the real problem, which is the poorly understood physical nature of functions, types, and relations.

    So, socionics takes its basic constructs on faith, seeing that they appear to be useful in describing real people and relationships. People have been doing this for thousands of years; it's only very recently that technological progress has allowed us to learn much about the physical realities underlying personality.

    While it's easy to understand the frustration of someone who sees that socionics is full of unexplicable constructs, it doesn't make sense to throw out the whole field because of its imperfections. There really are those self-evident facts of life that demand an explanation — why certain people are drawn to each other, etc. Socionics is pretty astute in its examination of relationships, and a lot of good work has been done, hard as it is to master and apply. But no explanation currently can satisfy our desire for "from the ground up" understanding. What empirical science has to offer so far are merely tantalizing tidbits, but nothing close to unified theory of personality and interaction.

    Personally, this doesn't bother me anymore. There was a time when I was looking for "Truth" through socionics. I got as far as I could and stopped when diminishing returns kicked in. Now I see socionics as a tool in my "toolkit" of ways to think about people and the world. I think many people on this forum have gotten to this point.
    Last edited by Rick; 05-12-2011 at 02:48 PM. Reason: (added final paragraph)
    It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.

  40. #40
    Valori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    Now I see socionics as a tool in my "toolkit" of ways to think about people and the world.
    I am glad that Igxfl made this topic, because I can relate very much to feeling skepticism about a seemingly incomplete system requiring such leaps of faith. That said, I too see Socionics as a sort of tool - it's not satisfactory in itself, but a stepping stone to other perspectives.

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
  •