What is Socionics?

[Galen]

It seems to me that apart from there being a lack of any real consensus on what types, IEs, dichotomies etc are, people treat what socionics is - how it's defined - as something to be taken for granted. Between all the discussions about "jeans vs cargos, type related?," or Gilly's 100,000th "type me" thread, there's practically no discussion about what it is we're actually talking about; meaning, where all of our patterns of thought about the matter actually begin.

So I'll start off at point 1: what is socionics? In as precise and concise a way as possible, describe what socionics is (to the best of your understanding), what it defines, etc etc etc. This could sound like a pointless mode of conversation, but I would like to see what everybody has to say on the matter.

[Creepy-Snaps]

It seems to me that apart from there being a lack of any real consensus on what types, IEs, dichotomies etc are, people treat what socionics is - how it's defined - as something to be taken for granted. Between all the discussions about "jeans vs cargos, type related?," or Gilly's 100,000th "type me" thread, there's practically no discussion about what it is we're actually talking about; meaning, where all of our patterns of thought about the matter actually begin.

So I'll start off at point 1: what is socionics? In as precise and concise a way as possible, describe what socionics is (to the best of your understanding), what it defines, etc etc etc. This could sound like a pointless mode of conversation, but I would like to see what everybody has to say on the matter.

Threads like this have already been made, Galen. But I'll play along.

Socionics is a science behind the innate differences between people.

BAM. DONE. I, generally like to use socionics for good, for bettering my interpersonal relationships, and for understanding others better, or tailoring my conversation to a person's strengths, or even for referring someone in my business to someone who I think they'd get along better with.

GENERALLY, I know some people disagree with my optimistic view that socionics should be used for good, and they use socionics to hit people's weaknesses, or manipulate people, etc. etc. But what it's used for shouldn't take away from what it inherently is.

[Galen]

Threads like this have already been made, Galen. But I'll play along.

Have they? Could have fooled me.

Socionics is a science behind the innate differences between people.

This definition applies to basically every field of psychology, and extending out to stuff like sociology, anthropology, medicine, etc. Go deeper.

BAM. DONE. I, generally like to use socionics for good, for bettering my interpersonal relationships, and for understanding others better, or tailoring my conversation to a person's strengths, or even for referring someone in my business to someone who I think they'd get along better with.

How socionics is used is more in the realm of functional definition. I'm looking for a substantive definition.

GENERALLY, I know some people disagree with my optimistic view that socionics should be used for good, and they use socionics to hit people's weaknesses, or manipulate people, etc. etc. But what it's used for shouldn't take away from what it inherently is.

Not really what's I'm asking.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Threads like this have already been made, Galen. But I'll play along.

Have they? Could have fooled me.


Not good enough. Go deeper.

Please see:

I am considering co-authoring in an online self help e-book, I am thinking about doing a short explanation of socionics. Any ideas?

Ever wonder why you can have endless conversation with some people, and struggle to talk for 2 minutes with others? Why can some people naturally get along better? How can some relationships feel like people are always criticizing your weaknesses, while other people seem to appreciate your strengths? Socionics has the answers! Socionics is the study of intertype relationships.

Please ALSO see:

What is the shortest way of explaining socionics?

Hopefully that'll help, and be more towards what you're looking for.

[Galen]

Ever wonder why you can have endless conversation with some people, and struggle to talk for 2 minutes with others? Why can some people naturally get along better? How can some relationships feel like people are always criticizing your weaknesses, while other people seem to appreciate your strengths? Socionics has the answers! Socionics is the study of intertype relationships.

That's still not a substantive definition. What you're saying is that the word Socionics is an answer or a system without any sort of explanation as to what the system is. I'm asking for what exactly Socionics looks at, what it tries to define, how it defines what it looks at, etc.

Please ALSO see:

What is the shortest way of explaining socionics?

Hopefully that'll help, and be more towards what you're looking for.

That thread ended before it began, and as far as I can tell no clear answer was ever given. All I'm really looking for is to see what other people have to say.

[Creepy-Snaps]

All I'm really looking for is to see what other people have to say.

Ok Mr. Picky, your turn. Do share. What do you think socionics is?

[Creepy-Snaps]

Oi! You edited your post. You said you already had an answer? Too late, I saw it, the cat's out of the bag.

[Galen]

Oi! You edited your post. You said you already had an answer? Too late, I saw it, the cat's out of the bag.

oh no you found my dirty secret


"Socionics is a psychological typology/vocabulary which delineates between eight different styles of human cognition and understanding, as theorized by Carl Jung, as well as how these patterns of thought are able, or unable, to communicate with one another."

now you try

[woofwoofl]

Another way to understand people further

[Creepy-Snaps]

Oi! You edited your post. You said you already had an answer? Too late, I saw it, the cat's out of the bag.

oh no you found my dirty secret


"Socionics is a psychological typology/vocabulary which delineates between eight different styles of human cognition and understanding, as theorized by Carl Jung, as well as how these patterns of thought are able, or unable, to communicate with one another."

now you try

Thank you.

And I already did try. Sorry my definition didn't fit into exactly what you were expecting.

G'night.

[Galen]

Another way to understand people further

So it's religion, psychology, anthropology, spirituality, facebook, gender studies, a night club, and all internet shock sites rolled together into one.

[Galen]

Thank you.

And I already did try. Sorry my definition didn't fit into exactly what you were expecting.

G'night.

arghkeibauyaoguabtuhato

I just want substantive definitions. That's all I'm looking for. I want to see people try to pierce the underlying nature of it all. What you described in your post is a long list of functions without explaining the underlying mechanisms for how it works.

[DirectorAbbie]

Socionics is a Russian typology system and it's better than MBTI or any other nonsense modern psychologists are dishing out. It's very orderly because it's so divisible by two. It is good for understanding relationships. It is also somewhat flexible in that it is often easier to adjust the theory than to tell someone they're wrong.

If you want a definition, read wikisocion or something, 'cause any definition I make would probably be either insufficient or ridiculously redundant.

[Cat King Cole]

I just want substantive definitions. That's all I'm looking for. I want to see people try to pierce the underlying nature of it all. What you described in your post is a long list of functions without explaining the underlying mechanisms for how it works.

So that's the "what" you're looking for.

It's an empirically-derived model of 16 roughly different ways of relating to the world, both in terms of perception, and how one interacts with it. In addition, it describes one's expectations of other people, both in how they ought to perceive and interact with the world, and what they should provide to the person.

[Cat King Cole]

As for the history and context around the conception of Socionics, I can't comment exhaustively on its influences. However, it has influences from cybernetics and information metabolism.

This cybernetics root is very important to understand. Basically, Socionics is meant to be able to describe how different groups produce self-regulating networks. e.g. a group of one type (like a quadra) will alienate members of another group (like their opposing quadra). This will produce a group culture with empirically observable characteristics, in accordance with empirically observed characteristics of previous groups formed under the same conditions.

At present, Socionics lacks falsifiable claims, yet is built upon and evolves in accordance with empirical observation. That's why it's a proto-science.

If this doesn't answer your question, you need to ask your question better.

[Gilly]

Another way to understand people further

So it's religion, psychology, anthropology, spirituality, facebook, gender studies, a night club, and all internet shock sites rolled together into one.

Lol no that's this place.

[Gilly]

Socionics is a theory that attempts to model the various misunderstandings and communications anomolies between people and categorize their nature based on different mechanisms of perception and methods of processing information.

[1981slater]

My theory is that sensors are Neanderthals whereas intuitors are Homo Sapiens.

[Galen]

It's an empirically-derived model of 16 roughly different ways of relating to the world, both in terms of perception, and how one interacts with it. In addition, it describes one's expectations of other people, both in how they ought to perceive and interact with the world, and what they should provide to the person.

Socionics is a theory that attempts to model the various misunderstandings and communications anomolies between people and categorize their nature based on different mechanisms of perception and methods of processing information.

These are roughly the kinds of answers I'm looking for.

[DividedsGhost]

My theory is that sensors are Neanderthals whereas intuitors are Homo Sapiens.

My theory is that we're all crazy and trying to find that magical optimal way to get laid, constantly entertain our minds, and rule the world as social kings.

Also I like big butts and I can not lie.

[Cat King Cole]

Except Ashton's post is a troll post and riddled with errors.

Critical thinking and historical knowledge failure. GG.

[mfckr]

Except Ashton's post is a troll post and riddled with errors.

Critical thinking and historical knowledge failure. GG.

Nope. I've already gone over before how Aushra misconceived Kępiński's IM. Also see here.

All of which is a far cry from Aushra's goofy IE definitions.

[Cat King Cole]

Got me there, however:

Since when does "empirical" mean "rigorous studies"? Why is Socionics a pseudoscience, and not protoscience?

[ClownsandEntropy]

Socionics is based on the assumption that everyone has a different way of considering the world, and these ways are sorted into 16 different categories ("types"). This world view means it is natural for them to think in a certain way, and they act in that way and improve skills related to that "function". They view the world in certain ways, and their world view and the skills they have prefer a certain type of world view, which is held by those in their "quadra". The reason why certain types mingle well and others don't are that they cohere with the way they view the world, or they are considered unimportant compared to the way one views the world.

[Crispy]

Socionics = Physics 3.0

[1981slater]

My theory is that sensors are Neanderthals whereas intuitors are Homo Sapiens.

My theory is that we're all crazy...

I think that people label as "crazy" those who have different values (different quadra values, speaking on Socionics)!

[Gilly]

Except Ashton's post is a troll post and riddled with errors.

Critical thinking and historical knowledge failure. GG.

Nope. I've already gone over before how Aushra misconceived Kępiński's IM. Also see here.

All of which is a far cry from Aushra's goofy IE definitions.

Except Ashton's post is a troll post and riddled with errors.<br />
<br />
Critical thinking and historical knowledge failure. GG.

<br />
<br />
Nope. I've already <u>gone over</u> before how Aushra misconceived Kępiński's IM. Also see <u>here</u>.<br />
<br />
All of which is a far cry from <u>Aushra's goofy IE definitions</u>.

I don't think you can in any way rationally conclude that Aushra didn't understand Kepinski. What you SHOULD be saying here, in order to not sound like a bigoted ass, and a stupid one to boot, is that her derivations of IM are not theoretically aligned with Kepinski's, despite being influenced by his ideas.

[squark]

Socionics is a garbage-pile of conflicting ideas, vague desciptions, unsubstantiated models, and stereotypes loosely based on Jung.

I'm really frustrated with this shit lately. What makes it so frustrating is that two people looking at the same information can interpret it in opposing ways, and both rationalize why what they're saying is "right" whatever the hell right even means.

And you can't really tell people that they're blind to themselves, because that's just arrogantly presumptious, even if that's what you think. Like MD's "could I be LSI?" thread, how do you tell someone that their view of themself is wrong, especially if you don't even know the person. You end up sounding like an ass, and it gets you nowhere. You can't honestly argue with any person's perception of themself, even if you see something different. You have to assume they're more accurate than you are, because they have greater knowledge of and a closer relationship to the subject.

I'm just sick of the endless rationalizations, twisting things to make them fit, type attachments, relationship justifications, and behavioral emphasis.

If there's anything real to socionics it doesn't lie in all of that. It's in cognition. It's how we think and perceive and process the world. It's not the conclusions we draw from those perceptions, it's how we actually think. HOW we think doesn't change, even when what we think does. You go back to Jung, and read it, and you know that there are no pure types, but there are general orientations. You generally operate from a central axis of allignment towards your world, with greater or lesser spokes from that axis.

It shouldn't be a personality typing system, because personality isn't real. It can be different in different circumstances, changing and adapting as needed. You can collect various sets of personality traits from your memories of yourself and get one view of your personality, but drawing on a different set, get another view. It's how a lot of people get confused on their type, because they think of "how have I acted when. . . " Oh yes, you acted like a "sensor" then, mhm, so obvious, and oh, you were clearly "Fi-seeking" there, but oh look, you were "Fe-seeking" this other time. Who cares how you acted in one circumstance or another, it's CIRCUMSTANTIAL. How do you think? That doesn't change based on mood, or circumstance, or time. People have patterns to how they think and process information, and that's what I think is important.

Then you get to the messy aspects of trying to figure out how a person thinks based on external information, which is complicated, changeable, and perception-based. We make our best-guesses, and probably get close to right sometimes, maybe even a lot of the time. But it's rather hard to prove. Even if you think you have good supporting evidence for your claims it's never 100%.

So, I'm kind of sick of socionics in general right now.

[Absurd]

Socionics is my life. I go to sleep cuddling with socionics, then I wake up in the morning to the sound of cocks thinking about socionics, after waking up I head for kitchen, I open the fridge and there is socionics, then I work with my socionics blokes talking socionics. Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't miss anything else and pray every day and night for this to continue.

[Galen]

Except Ashton's post is a troll post and riddled with errors.

Critical thinking and historical knowledge failure. GG.

If you knew full well that it's a troll post, why would you even bother to look for errors in it?

God doesn't exist, and he's stupid anyways.

And you can't really tell people that they're blind to themselves, because that's just arrogantly presumptious, even if that's what you think. Like MD's "could I be LSI?" thread, how do you tell someone that their view of themself is wrong, especially if you don't even know the person. You end up sounding like an ass, and it gets you nowhere. You can't honestly argue with any person's perception of themself, even if you see something different. You have to assume they're more accurate than you are, because they have greater knowledge of and a closer relationship to the subject.

This is a pretty common misconception that people hold about themselves. People love to create bubbles for themselves, and challenging the veracity of that self-image will more often than not result in some sort of irrational backlash instead of actual introspective contemplation. You'd need outside observers to really get a better picture of who you are by how you come across to them, on the condition that the people doing the observing actually know what they're looking at and how it interpret it.

If there's anything real to socionics it doesn't lie in all of that. It's in cognition. It's how we think and perceive and process the world. It's not the conclusions we draw from those perceptions, it's how we actually think. HOW we think doesn't change, even when what we think does. You go back to Jung, and read it, and you know that there are no pure types, but there are general orientations. You generally operate from a central axis of allignment towards your world, with greater or lesser spokes from that axis.

This. I keep hearing it thrown around, but I don't see it put into action well enough.

It shouldn't be a personality typing system, because personality isn't real. It can be different in different circumstances, changing and adapting as needed. You can collect various sets of personality traits from your memories of yourself and get one view of your personality, but drawing on a different set, get another view. It's how a lot of people get confused on their type, because they think of "how have I acted when. . . " Oh yes, you acted like a "sensor" then, mhm, so obvious, and oh, you were clearly "Fi-seeking" there, but oh look, you were "Fe-seeking" this other time. Who cares how you acted in one circumstance or another, it's CIRCUMSTANTIAL. How do you think? That doesn't change based on mood, or circumstance, or time. People have patterns to how they think and process information, and that's what I think is important.

I agree with your conclusion, but not with the premise. The fact that something changes doesn't mean it can't exist, unless we're gonna dive into the Lotus Sutra and disprove the existence of everything on that basis. The problem here is that people try to interpret socionics mumbo-jumbo as personality, when from what I understand of it the terminology should have nothing to do with one's entire personality in the first place. I would argue that there are non-verbal cues/gestalts that are indicative of some socionical/Jungian aspects (temperament seems easiest on average, but also IE valuing), but as mentioned above, they require knowing what to look for.

[DividedsGhost]

I think that people label as "crazy" those who have different values (different quadra values, speaking on Socionics)!

Then what does that say about a person that thinks of them-self as crazy?

[silverchris9]

You deltas (and gammas) and your precision and concision. You people are responsible for Strunk and White and all similar codifications of the Moving Spirit, directing the leaves to fall in pre-ordained paths, digitally, as in After Effects, fitting indeed as you come after the Effect to turn the busy wind to immobile stone.

lol. jk. That was intentional melodrama, although I'm serious about being suspicious of precision and concision as goals.



Anyway, I think socionics is a couple things:

1. A model for sorting information into categories along the lines of a set of dichotomies.

2. A model of the human psyche showing the consequences of emphasis on a particular type of information for one's relationship to the other types of information. And,

3. A model of human interaction on the basis of the interaction of the model given in (2).


(I don't really like the wording of 3, but oh well).

The first is pure assumption, completely Ti in nature, coherent rather than correspondent to anything. The next two, with their increasing degrees of externality, become more and more able to make testable predictions.

This would seem to indicate that the best way to verify our initial concepts in Level 1 socionics is to establish clear, necessary links between our understanding of IEs and their implications for the psyche, and then to make testable predictions about levels 2 and 3. The better our initial assumptions, the better our accuracy of prediction.

[Galen]

You deltas (and gammas) and your precision and concision. You people are responsible for Strunk and White and all similar codifications of the Moving Spirit, directing the leaves to fall in pre-ordained paths, digitally, as in After Effects, fitting indeed as you come after the Effect to turn the busy wind to immobile stone.

lol. jk. That was intentional melodrama, although I'm serious about being suspicious of precision and concision as goals.

Actually this is something I've noticed in myself just recently. I find that I don't really have a high tolerance level for ambiguity when conveying an idea. I try to make sure I'm as clear and precise and exact as I can be when trying to convey what I'm thinking, and I expect the same of others. I wonder if this somehow exacerbaged by being Ti PoLR or something, or if it's characteristic of Ti PoLR in general? I find that Fi PoLRs can feel the same way in the realm of emotional stuffs.

[squark]

This is a pretty common misconception that people hold about themselves. People love to create bubbles for themselves, and challenging the veracity of that self-image will more often than not result in some sort of irrational backlash instead of actual introspective contemplation. You'd need outside observers to really get a better picture of who you are by how you come across to them, on the condition that the people doing the observing actually know what they're looking at and how it interpret it.

Yeah, it's kind of interesting how off a person's view of themself and reality can be sometimes. I was just thinking today about this guy I knew a long time ago who considered himself some kind of mechanical genius, but was always doing really dumb things proving otherwise. For instance, one day he was complaining and complaining about how awful this circular saw was, how hard it was to use, and how it was designed all wrong, and he could design a better one. I went to use it later. . . the blade was in backwards.

I agree with your conclusion, but not with the premise. The fact that something changes doesn't mean it can't exist, unless we're gonna dive into the Lotus Sutra and disprove the existence of everything on that basis. The problem here is that people try to interpret socionics mumbo-jumbo as personality, when from what I understand of it the terminology should have nothing to do with one's entire personality in the first place. I would argue that there are non-verbal cues/gestalts that are indicative of some socionical/Jungian aspects (temperament seems easiest on average, but also IE valuing), but as mentioned above, they require knowing what to look for.

I phrased that too strongly. Personality is real, but it's not this one-dimensional, rock-solid rigid aspect of us. There are multiple facets to it, and many circumstantial attributes. And personality typing is trying to tie a whole person into only one of these aspects. I think this is a waste of time to do.

[EyeSeeCold]

Typology for $200

'Battletyping', utilizes 'tetris blocks', bandwagon effect, confirmation bias; this theory is one of the foundational themes for the16types.info.

what is socionics?

Right.

[Dajjal]

My take on defining Socionics or at least of how I view it:

Socionics is a theory that categorises people into personality types, based on variations in their mental processes, and thereby, describes the emergent behavioral tendencies of the different types and the interaction between them.

[Dajjal]

Because Socionics has a nasty habit relativizing itself to it's own theoretical claims, as opposed to corroborating itself with extant scientific knowledge.

Or to put it in a nutshell: Socionics in it's present form doesn't make falsifiable claims about reality.

Socionics does not make any falsifiable claims, true, but neither does most of phycology. It’s the nature of the field. Instead we can use usefulness as a measure, and socionics has proven to be useful. Having many people misuse or misunderstand socionics does not make the theory less useful, it only emphasizes that the theory is complicated.

The main problem I see with Socionics is that it is out-dated and stuck. Very little has been done to incorporate the vast amount of new findings and developments in current phycology, and this applies to Jung writings and Kepinski's Information metabolism as well.

For various reasons (inc. what I pointed out to Gilly above), I've long since concluded that Socionics is a stillborn theory of typology. Many better sources and ideas exist out there for those keen on the subject.

Care to share some of these sources and ideas?

[Aleksei]

Socionics is something that our alien overlords have devised to melt our brains so they can suck hem out with straws.

[silverchris9]

Nothing wrong with precision/concision when articulating something. I've personally little patience to wade through swamps of circuitous text to attempt comprehending an author; gives me the impression that the writer is enamored by their own voice, and can't be fucked to get to the point. There's a fine art in saying more with less.

Oh, there's nothing wrong with it, in and of itself, but I don't like the notion that everything boils down to a few central points. Every part of a sentence, down to where you place the commas, can carry meaning. So rather than seeing anything that isn't the "main point" in a given piece of communication as superfluous, I think that we should look for the "emergent" properties of the text that arise as the conjunction of all the "points" and the rhetorical strategies used to display them. I mean, you *could* look at the I Have a Dream speech and ask MLK to get to the point. Or you could realize that every piece of the speech is a part of the point, which is not a concise, discrete point, but that blend of pathos, logos, and ethos of which all true persuasion is woven.

It's a very poetic/New Critical approach to reading, but I think a worthwhile one. Please note that this also serves as my rebuttal to the peeps in the Idealist thread hating on my writing style.