Why Socionics Blows

[DividedsGhost]

• People actually think they can explain everything into types as a way to explain their failed relationships and justify blowing someone off before giving them a fair chance
• Everything is a perspective, so the more you think about socionics, the more it consumes your mind. But it's always wrong and you spend more time trying to make it fit reality rather than let reality fit you. There are no real benefits.
• Other aspects of psychology don't matter at all in socionics land. Personality disorders, psychiatric illnesses, and simple things like giving someone the benefit of the doubt or finding ways to appreciate kinds of people that conflict with your supposed type are a no-no because there's a relationship chart and it can't be wrong or that would make this all pointless.
• In socionics simple things like trust, humor, patience, benevolence, and good-will towards others have nothing to do with your relationships with other people, but only type has anything to do with your relationships with other people (unless one actually believes this to be some kind of major distinction, which makes me want to fart)
• There is no such thing as simple bad luck or simple misunderstandings. If something can't be explained by socionics Jungian functions, it's because you're too stupid to understand it.
• Everyone has strong opinions about how to understand and apply socionics and can't really agree on anything. :redflag:
• The functional elements are way too general to accurately diagnose causal relationships between types, let alone diagnose the types themselves that would cause such phenomenon.
• For this to be useful, your type shouldn't change, except because everything is so general, it can and does, because you're not a robot and you have free will.

#kicks dirt in your eyes#

what else did i forget?

[ashlesha]

not bad at all.

one addition: if you can't find a way to fit your personality into one of the types then either there is something wrong with you or other people need to be corrected about the theory so that you can be included. or you're just too stupid to get it.

[NewBorn STAR]

All fine and dandy.


Just that i dont think the fault is at socionics. Its just the misaplication of a developing theory to hide out all the insecurities and other denial shit. Aka typical human behavior. You should be angry and the stupidity and bring some constructive ways how to fight it overall. So far all fine and dandy. But if you will just rigidly tell others how they are wrong and not even try to be somewhat flexible to them you will just block all the change because of your own dick so to say

[DividedsGhost]

Just that i dont think the fault is at socionics.

innocence never does

[Crispy]

Why socionics really blows:
It attracts failures who are too impatient to really dig deep and study something. Megaphoning socionics' non-existence is just a display of your ignorance on the subject, not some revelation you had after being so confused you gave up. Stop being an intellectual pussy and start reading shit. Any accusations of the common socionics user as seeing their insecurities in types and other sorts of bullshit is just a projection of how you would have used the theory if you tried.

[ashlesha]

nah ur wrong

[Crispy]

k

[717495]

Socionics doesn't blow, just 3 of the 4 quadras do.

[NewBorn STAR]

Just that i dont think the fault is at socionics.

innocence never does

You seem to me like another ego narsistic on the board only contributing to the misery of socionics.

If this is microcosmos of a society in the world (theyr level isnt that much higher, just here clowns like you can better express themselves.) I would suppose you were a rapist banker on the macrocosmic level.


And yeah crispy you are wrong

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I'm not sure that you understand the functions well enough and what the socionists were really trying to say before you made such a harsh judgement. I suppose you can still think that socionics sucks, but do you really understand it? I don't care whether or not you like socionics or dislike socionics, but at least UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY you know? Otherwise it's like you are hating something when you don't even know about it. I just think that's kinda ignorant on an Archie Bunker level.

[Cat King Cole]

• People actually think they can explain everything into types as a way to explain their failed relationships and justify blowing someone off before giving them a fair chance

Inexperienced people will try to use Socionics to explain why their relationships failed. Those people need to learn better.

People with real-life first or second-hand experience of relationships will tell you some are worth writing off, and some are worth paying more attention to than you naturally would. I paid no attention to the crazy sage nerds in my school until the final year of high school, and only then did I find out what I was missing out on.

I also finally have an explanation for why it is I consistently feel uncomfortable or out of place in some groups or with some people.

• Everything is a perspective, so the more you think about socionics, the more it consumes your mind. But it's always wrong and you spend more time trying to make it fit reality rather than let reality fit you. There are no real benefits.

Not according to experience it isn't. This is your ignorance or misunderstanding.

Granted, it's not 100% true 100% of the time, but it's not 100% wrong 100% of the time either (like a flat earth theory). Pick and choose what works and what has practical and useful results.

• Other aspects of psychology don't matter at all in socionics land. Personality disorders, psychiatric illnesses, and simple things like giving someone the benefit of the doubt or finding ways to appreciate kinds of people that conflict with your supposed type are a no-no because there's a relationship chart and it can't be wrong or that would make this all pointless.

First point is plain wrong. Socionics, even since its conception, has very explicitly applied only to mentally healthy individuals.

And again, with experience you collect support for the intertypes. Supervision works as intended, Extinguishment works as intended, Mirror works as intended, Activity works as intended, Business works as intended, Duality is fairly obviously Aushra's fantasy, and works only partially as intended, Semi-dual works as intended. I can't think of any more off the top of my head.

• In socionics simple things like trust, humor, patience, benevolence, and good-will towards others have nothing to do with your relationships with other people, but only type has anything to do with your relationships with other people (unless one actually believes this to be some kind of major distinction, which makes me want to fart)

But Socionics doesn't forbid these influences. Or if it does you can ignore that particular restriction as a bunk claim because nothing of importance in the theory hinges on it.

• There is no such thing as simple bad luck or simple misunderstandings. If something can't be explained by socionics Jungian functions, it's because you're too stupid to understand it.

Since when?

• Everyone has strong opinions about how to understand and apply socionics and can't really agree on anything. :redflag:

I concede this point.

• The functional elements are way too general to accurately diagnose causal relationships between types, let alone diagnose the types themselves that would cause such phenomenon.

I also concede this point, but some people find the elements quite useful as more than ways of organising why certain intertypes do what they do after you know a type and know the relationship.

• For this to be useful, your type shouldn't change, except because everything is so general, it can and does, because you're not a robot and you have free will.

Non-sequitur.

[Bluenoir]

Okey let's go through this point by point.

People actually think they can explain everything into types as a way to explain their failed relationships and justify blowing someone off before giving them a fair chance

That's true, but I don't see how that kind of misapplication has any bearing on the actual content of socionics itself. You can twist just about anything into easy self serving answers.

Everything is a perspective, so the more you think about socionics, the more it consumes your mind. But it's always wrong and you spend more time trying to make it fit reality rather than let reality fit you. There are no real benefits.

Again, what has that got to do with socioncs? Confirmation bias among it's practitioners has more to do with the fallacious nature of human beings rather than the merits of the theory in its self.

Other aspects of psychology don't matter at all in socionics land. Personality disorders, psychiatric illnesses, and simple things like giving someone the benefit of the doubt or finding ways to appreciate kinds of people that conflict with your supposed type are a no-no because there's a relationship chart and it can't be wrong or that would make this all pointless

I don't know what you are talking about, no one with a brain is claiming that socionics is the key to understanding human psychology. It's just a conceptual framework dealing with information metabolism and how it can play in human interactions.

In socionics simple things like trust, humor, patience, benevolence, and good-will towards others have nothing to do with your relationships with other people, but only type has anything to do with your relationships with other people (unless one actually believes this to be some kind of major distinction, which makes me want to fart)

No, socionics is about the supposed interaction of information values between people. It has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

There is no such thing as simple bad luck or simple misunderstandings. If something can't be explained by socionics Jungian functions, it's because you're too stupid to understand it.

Just beacuse you can take socionics into absurdity, does not mean socionics itself is bunk.

Everyone has strong opinions about how to understand and apply socionics and can't really agree on anything. :redflag

True, that is why you should take what you read with a grain of salt.

The functional elements are way too general to accurately diagnose causal relationships between types, let alone diagnose the types themselves that would cause such phenomenon

I more or less agree with this, I'm am not at all claiming socioncs to be perfect or even remotely scientific.

For this to be useful, your type shouldn't change, except because everything is so general, it can and does, because you're not a robot and you have free will.

Type, if it exists does not change. The type people think they are can.

[Jarno]

only type has anything to do with your relationships with other people (unless one actually believes this to be some kind of major distinction, which makes me want to fart)

I hear this often, but I think it's a misunderstanding.

Socionics only talks about interaction patterns.

Ofcourse personality disorders etc play a large role in relationships.

Socionics just focusses on 1 factor of a relationship, the information exchange, nothing more. Though it's an important factor. Probably the second most important one. Most important one being a healthy psyche.

[MysticSonic]

Yea, most of these points are founded in methodological flaws in the attempts to understand and apply the theory of Socionics, rather than having to do with the theory itself. Socionics is however impractically vague, with the concepts being far too general to be of much practical application. Socionics still finds uses, however, if taken with the general mindset that it is a theory about how people think, and how these different types of thinking relate them to others. When you simply take into account that general idea, Socionics can present some interesting ideas that can further your empathy with other people. Socionics is not an excuse, it is not a means to write-off social or personal failures with others as being theoretically inevitable, it is simply a means to understanding what might have contributed to the failure in the first place. Regardless of how others might be applying it, the mature and healthy way to apply Socionics is to take the understanding you gain from it, and attempt to work at a solution to the problems in light of your new understanding. And, at all times, it is imperative to take Socionic considerations _lightly_.

[FDG]

Socionics blows on internet forums, works like a charm in real life (most of the time).

[717495]

How dare you speak of real life as though its some proven reality.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Kudos to whoever mentioned Information Metabolism. Yes, it's about information metabolism. It's not about what people say or how they say it , it's more like what you subjectively interpret them as saying. This all creates a flow of energy exchange and describes the specific energy two people are socially exchanging. (Let's start with two people first to understand this, and then later you can apply it to groups as well)

PS: Maybe you feel that's not direct enough or something but that's what it is.

Fi isn't about romantic love. Because every healthy person wants love and connection. Fi is a functional metabolism organic processes in your brain that, depending on many variables and factors, simply reacts to certain physical stimuli in different ways that your body is processing "emotionally" and "Psychologically." The different subjective neurotic psychoanalizations we all make about Fi are both true and untrue. But all FI REALLY IS AT ITS INNATE CORE IS : 'Internal Statics of Fields.'

Well your mind can break 'Internal Statics of Fields' down to a lot of different shit. Just how like you can see a red apple as being blue in your head. Objectively you don't actually change the color of the apple, just your perception. So you can make Fi mean a whole bunch of shit that you want it to mean. You can even think you are being clever and think that Fi means 'resonance' (Sorry Ashton, I like picking on you no hard feelings bro =p)

But it really doesn't even mean any of that no matter how interesting you're making it sound. It just means a function that is 'Internal Statics of Fields.' Even if it's your polr it still exists genetically in your brain. Just like people with erectile dysfunction still have penises. (Penii? =p) A function is a REAL material thing, composed up of their own different unique cells, that exist in a matrix-web in the human brain which translates to what is more popularly known in pop-psychology as 'the human psyche.'


Perhaps it's not quite as vague as we think. And can this all still be bullshit? Maybe. But at least understand it really well before you make that conclusion. It's interesting to me when I can put socionics in its proper perspective and not use it to 'attack others' that I don't like.

[ashlesha]

mysticsonic had some good points. but i dont understand the idea that regardless of how its interpreted or applied theres nothing wrong with it as a theory when its something thats interpreted and applied differently by every single person and doesnt really "exist." i mean theres probably nothing wrong with the theory of (insert religious belief here) but that doesnt mean its actually true or that the behavior its inspired in people over the years has no relevance. so saying theres nothing wrong with the theory itself looks like preaching the faith to me.

[Cat King Cole]

How do you mean?

[ashlesha]

socionics is a theory with little or no scientific backing that delves into deep shit like how we perceive reality.

could you be more specific? what dont you get?

[Cat King Cole]

Well, what do you mean with that last statement of yours about "preaching the faith"?

I also don't understand what your beef with Socionics is. It looks like you're saying it's as dangerous as religious extremism leading to war?

[ashlesha]

i wasnt meaning to compare socionics to religion so directly. i just think it deals with these vague metaphysical things and that in order to see it as "truth" requires some faith. to promote it as something real that id understand and appreciate if i was only willing to study harder and read more seems sorta fanatical.

is it dangerous? as far as people are dangerous. it provides potential ammunition, sure. look at the quadra warz on the forum.

[Cat King Cole]

I don't think Socionics necessarily deals with anything vague or metaphysical. It's empirical. It was built on observations of characteristics of real people and is best applied on observations of characteristics of real people (imo, hence why typing online is a complete waste of time, much like trying to type an autistic person or someone who's clinically depressed).

If you understand what a model is, you understand that Socionics builds a model that attempts to explain what the brains trust that came with up observed.

What you're getting at is the theory built up around these observations requires you to accept certain axioms, much like in religion. Also, much like in religion, people have different sets of axioms, hence the frequent philosophical and methodological disputes on this forum.

Understand also that accepting a model as-is isn't the same as reifying it, which is what BnD did in his post ("functions are actual physical constructs in the brain"; they're not: they're hypothetical abstract "things" that perform a particular function).

Also, nobody was necessarily directly criticising you. We were criticising Magna's misunderstanding of what Socionics actually is. If you want an accurate appraisal of your own personal misunderstandings, you'd have to actually quantify what your beefs with Socionics are. Nobody here can justifiably saying anything about your knowledge or understanding without knowing what you know or how you understand things.

Magna failed to really raise any valid direct criticisms of Socionics, but instead just criticised the way The Cult online here misapplies it. Further, most criticisms are pretty useless if you conclude that, since Socionics is not a flawless model, it's completely bunk. That's an error of black-and-white thinking. It makes more sense to just fairly criticise the system, adjust it, reject what doesn't accord with experience, and apply your own functional interpretation.

[ashlesha]

we can all observe and point out when we see what we think is "Fe" or "Beta" or whatever, but these concepts mean something different to each and every one of us. i dont think it can really be called empirical when it depends so much on subjective perception. this is obvious in almost every thread here...if it was so observable and traceable in reality i dont think wed have these sorts of issues. (unless you claim that the way that you observe it is the right way and if everybody else observed the same things wed be getting it right, which plenty of people do, heh.) its really just all conceptual.

i could tell you my understanding of the theory so it could be judged on its merits but the judging would be subjective for the above reason. so imo it would be completely pointless.

i think i mostly agree with the rest of your post.

[ashlesha]

meh i think i just talked right past you. im not sure how not to atm. sorry.

[Cat King Cole]

But Socionics is empirical. You can gather together a bunch of people, and organise them into groups based on things they have in common.

Temperaments manifest concretely and can be observed. Similarly with Quadras and Ego elements (I keep plugging it, so seriously, go check out The Semantics of Information Elements). (That's logically superfluous though--Quadras are a super-category of people with certain related patterns of ego elements.)

"Empirical" just means "can be seen with the senses". Socionics manifests concretely and can be perceived by the senses. That's a good sanity check anyway, and shows the theory has predictive ability. Socionics can build a category of person and fit further people into it who weren't part of the original group used to define that category.

The hypothetical mechanisms are what's conceptual, but they've all been built atop that empirical basis of "certain people consistently have certain things in common".

The only subjective thing in Socionics is how it's applied: what you take an objective and concrete fact to mean. This is a methodological issue, not an issue with the theory itself.

[ashlesha]

but you CANT gather people together and categorize them in concretely manifested ways. isnt that what we try to do here when we type people? if it was concretely manifested there would be agreement. even among people who have similar methods and similar typings, theyre still seeing different things on the path to get there because the stuff that socionics describes can only be seen subjectively. you can completely agree with someone about what Ej temperament looks like conceptually and still disagree about whether or not a subject is Ej temperament. you can completely agree with someone about how Ej temperament manifests in an observable and tangible fashion, on paper, and still disagree about whether or not a subject is Ej temperament.

the semantics might be a hopeful thing as far as this is concerned. but one of my beefs with socionics (a major one) is that i reject the idea that it would be impossible to encounter someone who for example uses a large amount of vocabular associated with Si and with Ni. BUT the thing with socionics is that most practitioners would deal with such a person by citing a strong role function or a harmonizing DCNH subtype or even (god damnit) some flaw on behalf of the subject, like insincerity. when its all conceptual and subjective, you can bullshit your way throught anything.

which is fine and dandy - pfft, i guess - if youre using socionics in a way that is useful to you and not causing harm (like how mysticsonic described). but honestly i think most people do not.

[MysticSonic]

mysticsonic had some good points. but i dont understand the idea that regardless of how its interpreted or applied theres nothing wrong with it as a theory when its something thats interpreted and applied differently by every single person and doesnt really "exist." i mean theres probably nothing wrong with the theory of (insert religious belief here) but that doesnt mean its actually true or that the behavior its inspired in people over the years has no relevance. so saying theres nothing wrong with the theory itself looks like preaching the faith to me.

I didn't say that Socionics is perfect, nor did I mean to imply that Socionics as a whole has an axiomatic core that underlies the idea of "Socionics." I do think that there are several generally and popularly espoused Socionic concepts, such as the function and information metabolism, that when taken into consideration, shed some light on how individuals think and in turn interact with other people. And as such, what I really mean to defend is the general ideas Socionics brings to the table, and my view that several of its more core elements are, more or less, a decent model of psychology and social behavior. Whether or not you agree with me is irrelevant and unnecessary, as I am merely presenting my views on the matter. If you have contention with certain ideas of general Socionics, then I have no issue discussing them. In regards to the methodology of how people apply and observe Socionics, I am well aware that there exists considerable flaws in its application and continual building of understanding, and at no point would I ever call Socionics scientific. Its use imo should be limited to the realm of personal entertainment.

[ashlesha]

mm, sorry, i should have worded that better. what i was thinking as i typed was something like, "heres my issue with what people in this thread are saying in general except for mysticsonic who had good points" lol. otoh i dont really take issue with what youve said.

[MysticSonic]

but you CANT gather people together and categorize them in concretely manifested ways. isnt that what we try to do here when we type people? if it was concretely manifested there would be agreement. even among people who have similar methods and similar typings, theyre still seeing different things on the path to get there because the stuff that socionics describes can only be seen subjectively. you can completely agree with someone about what Ej temperament looks like conceptually and still disagree about whether or not a subject is Ej temperament. you can completely agree with someone about how Ej temperament manifests in an observable and tangible fashion, on paper, and still disagree about whether or not a subject is Ej temperament.

the semantics might be a hopeful thing as far as this is concerned. but one of my beefs with socionics (a major one) is that i reject the idea that it would be impossible to encounter someone who for example uses a large amount of vocabular associated with Si and with Ni. BUT the thing with socionics is that most practitioners would deal with such a person by citing a strong role function or a harmonizing DCNH subtype or even (god damnit) some flaw on behalf of the subject, like insincerity. when its all conceptual and subjective, you can bullshit your way throught anything.

which is fine and dandy - pfft, i guess - if youre using socionics in a way that is useful to you and not causing harm (like how mysticsonic described). but honestly i think most people do not.

Subjectivity is a particular methodological difficulty in Socionics, something that I believe convolutes Socionics on two particular levels. The first level is the subjectivity that comes along with developing understanding of people in any particular social science, be it psychology, sociology, or socionics in particular. Observations of people inherently intertwine with their perceptions of others and their subjective response to their behavior, and as such all conversation regarding such phenomenon are colored by their subjective interpretation of other's behavior. It is an unfortunate, unavoidable aspect of the social sciences that makes developing consensus on such matters extremely difficult. In some ways, this subjective experience is what often cultivates a religious sort of mind-set in the people involved in such studies, as blind acceptance of certain "perceptions" are often required in order for conversation of what is being studied can occur. If people sat around arguing their subjective perceptions for hours--which they still do--conversation would go no where. Hence, there lies a difficulty in balancing between determining what people involved in such conversation agree on, difficulty in agreeing that what they're seeing is the same thing, and accepting that what they see is the same. At times, there often unfortunate conclusion to haphazard agreements is a schism between in subjective understanding between the parties involved.

Take this a step-further with Socionics in particular and you have an awful conundrum, for Socionics deals with concepts that are incredibly vague and abstract. When you speak of Socionics terms, you speak in terms relegated largely to Socionics itself. We have general definitions that seek to describe objective phenomena, we have definitions that try to generally define ideas such as functions and the ideas behind a dominant function, or ignoring function, or so on, but these ideas still remain largely abstract and unyielding to concrete description. And so, when we discuss our subjective perceptions of Socionic phenomenon, we do so in terms that are difficult to penetrate and talk about on a level of similar understanding. This two-fold difficulty presents a very strong block to Socionic conversation, and to be quite frank, useful, fruitful conversation about Socionics takes far more energy than most people are willing to put in. And so, of course, this generates a great deal of obstinate defense of ideas for the simple sake of defending ideas. Socionics, because of its subjectivity and abstract nature, is plagued with intellectual laziness.

It's true that these practitioners have an uncanny tendency to mold all behavioral activities as being a Socionic phenomenon. How can you blame them, though? Socionics is their bread-winner, and they will until the bitter end attempt to view something in light of it. Beyond practitioners, you have people who have dedicated months, if not years, to understanding Socionics, and have developed a very strong intellectual identification with their ideas of Socionics and themselves. This tends to make people view things, especially on a Socionic message board, largely entirely in the light of Socionics, as well as being another factor that leads to the fervent defense of ideas and unproductive conversation about them. All this is partly why, even after four years of my being involved in the Socionic community, the conversation about Socionics has been furthered very little. That is why I have relegated my own interest in Socionics to a more personal fashion.

[ashlesha]

wow, you seem so reasonable, i hope you stick around hah.

[Azeroffs]

...

good post

[Trevor]

so kassie how does it feel to be on intj-negative-result side of ne..it's sucks i know

[ashlesha]

it feels like dealing with smudged eyeliner thanks for asking sweetheart

[MysticSonic]

Did I say four years? Woops, I meant seven.

[aestrivex]

okay, people seem to like point by point

• People actually think they can explain everything into types as a way to explain their failed relationships and justify blowing someone off before giving them a fair chance

• Everything is a perspective, so the more you think about socionics, the more it consumes your mind. But it's always wrong and you spend more time trying to make it fit reality rather than let reality fit you. There are no real benefits.
• Other aspects of psychology don't matter at all in socionics land. Personality disorders, psychiatric illnesses, and simple things like giving someone the benefit of the doubt or finding ways to appreciate kinds of people that conflict with your supposed type are a no-no because there's a relationship chart and it can't be wrong or that would make this all pointless.
• In socionics simple things like trust, humor, patience, benevolence, and good-will towards others have nothing to do with your relationships with other people, but only type has anything to do with your relationships with other people (unless one actually believes this to be some kind of major distinction, which makes me want to fart)

• There is no such thing as simple bad luck or simple misunderstandings. If something can't be explained by socionics Jungian functions, it's because you're too stupid to understand it.

stupid straw man arguments that assume everyone who applies socionics is necessarily biased and unhinged. not even worth considering.

• Everyone has strong opinions about how to understand and apply socionics and can't really agree on anything. :redflag:

absolutely. you can make a strong case the subjectivity itself diminishes the usefulness of a language and perhaps just for this very reason we should pick a less descriptive one.

• The functional elements are way too general to accurately diagnose causal relationships between types, let alone diagnose the types themselves that would cause such phenomenon.

either this is a straw man argument and you have failed to consider the extent of the influence of quadra values, or you have considered them and i just disagree with your interpretation. i cannot tell.

• For this to be useful, your type shouldn't change, except because everything is so general, it can and does, because you're not a robot and you have free will.

your criticism violates a widely accepted model assumption for no apparent reason other than that you make idiotic assumptions about the implications of the predictions the model does make. to be sure, we can speak about the usefulness of type change, or of my preference of operationalizing type change -- conceptualizing socionics as a language at the level of IM elements and dismisssing static predictions -- but to base your criticisms of socionics on this view demonstrates how pathetically clueless you are.

[Gilly]

wow, you seem so reasonable, i hope you stick around hah.

MS has been around since the beginning, he's easily the most reasonable long-term resident of this forum, and definitely one of the most intelligent.

[DividedsGhost]

Yea, most of these points are founded in methodological flaws in the attempts to understand and apply the theory of Socionics, rather than having to do with the theory itself. Socionics is however impractically vague, with the concepts being far too general to be of much practical application. Socionics still finds uses, however, if taken with the general mindset that it is a theory about how people think, and how these different types of thinking relate them to others. When you simply take into account that general idea, Socionics can present some interesting ideas that can further your empathy with other people. Socionics is not an excuse, it is not a means to write-off social or personal failures with others as being theoretically inevitable, it is simply a means to understanding what might have contributed to the failure in the first place. Regardless of how others might be applying it, the mature and healthy way to apply Socionics is to take the understanding you gain from it, and attempt to work at a solution to the problems in light of your new understanding. And, at all times, it is imperative to take Socionic considerations _lightly_.

Thanks, I appreciate your candor. That helps me put this into a less self-fulfilling and more useful perspective.

[Jonathan]

[LIST][*] People actually think they can explain everything into types as a way...

Every criticism you've leveled here is basically true. However, the caveat is that not everyone applies Socionics in the way you're suggesting. People notice regularities in behavior; they find that Socionics formalizes some of what they've already observed. They find it interesting and have every reason to explore, discuss, and even try to apply it to life situations, and to other endeavors (textual analysis, writing stories, cognitive science...).

You may think that Socionics is so messy that it can't be applied, and surely one must be careful. But the flip side is that people apply their opinions about people's personalities all the time, but they just don't call it Socionics. The fact that Socionics adds a bunch of theory and ideas to that may be good or bad, depending on how someone uses it.

And yes, most likely not everyone is talking about the same thing...There are clearly different versions of Socionics, just as people's perceptions of this stuff are different without the language of Socionics.

[krieger]

most people blow at socionics. probably you.