Help

[Cirnech]

I've spent a significant amount of time lurking here on the socionics forum and I've spent a lot of reading the socionics wiki and other internet based sources for Jung and Augustina's work, but I haven't found myself becoming very strong with Socionics.

While I got tremendous benefit from typing myself, I can't identify other people's types, even after spending so much time with the material. Some of it is that I still do not adequately understand the very basics of Socionics (something that there is dreadfully little material that I have exposure to). I need help understanding the four Jungian dichotomies before I can understand more, but there really isn't any material I can find on it. I've looked for Jung's work but I can't find a translation.

Thanks in advance for the help.

[squark]

I've spent a significant amount of time lurking here on the socionics forum and I've spent a lot of reading the socionics wiki and other internet based sources for Jung and Augustina's work, but I haven't found myself becoming very strong with Socionics.

While I got tremendous benefit from typing myself, I can't identify other people's types, even after spending so much time with the material. Some of it is that I still do not adequately understand the very basics of Socionics (something that there is dreadfully little material that I have exposure to). I need help understanding the four Jungian dichotomies before I can understand more, but there really isn't any material I can find on it. I've looked for Jung's work but I can't find a translation.

Thanks in advance for the help.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

[Korpsy Knievel]

I recommend getting a copy of the Joseph Campbell-edited "The Portable Jung", available from your favorite book-slinger. That'll give your understanding of Jung's Psychological Types greater breadth and depth. socioniko.net is a good resource and several of Aushra's papers can be found here http://www.socioniko.net/ru/authors/augusta.html. If you're a Chrome user try the Google Translate extension to convert webpages into your native tongue. I'm sure similar extensions exist for other browsers.

[Absurd]

Sweet mother of god, the Prodigal Son has returned, haha.

Ye, I think I've got a nickname for you korpsey, the Prodigal Son.

[Creepy-Snaps]

I've spent a significant amount of time lurking here on the socionics forum and I've spent a lot of reading the socionics wiki and other internet based sources for Jung and Augustina's work, but I haven't found myself becoming very strong with Socionics.

While I got tremendous benefit from typing myself, I can't identify other people's types, even after spending so much time with the material. Some of it is that I still do not adequately understand the very basics of Socionics (something that there is dreadfully little material that I have exposure to). I need help understanding the four Jungian dichotomies before I can understand more, but there really isn't any material I can find on it. I've looked for Jung's work but I can't find a translation.

Thanks in advance for the help.

IMO, if you want to get better at typing people around you, here's what you gotta do. Ignore socionics for a second. Start by taking a piece of paper and writing down the people you want to type, and then write down what they're good at. Then write down what they're bad at. Is someone better at dealing with people? In what way? Is someone great at planning? What do people pay attention to? Do they collect things, have a certain hobby? What do people comment on? What do they ignore? Create a list of their strengths and weaknesses.

THEN remember socionics. Look at your list, and try to match up the realistic strengths/weaknesses with corresponding functions.

IMO, that's the best, practical, realistic way to get better at typing, and it has helped me tons. Reading more theory won't really help, might help with part #2, but you need to practice part #1 to get good at typing. Dichotomies can be very misleading for someone just starting to practice typing people, so I would avoid them at first, and just focus on strengths/weaknesses/function matching.

Good luck!

[Absurd]

IMO, if you want to get better at typing people around you, here's what you gotta do. Ignore socionics for a second. Start by taking a piece of paper and writing down the people you want to type, and then write down what they're good at.

Start with convicts. It shouldn't be hard, they're good at stealing, murdering and raping.

Then write down what they're bad at.

Above applies.

[Cirnech]

Thanks, Squark. That will take some time to process.

MD, that's precisely what I did. And what lead me to type (a sizable majority of) pragmatists as Humanitarians or Researchers. Since I've never (successfully) identified a Social type, I've guessed that there is some disconnect in my understanding of Intuition as opposed to Logic or Sensing.

The most recent is a really good example. I had typed this individual as a Humanitarian: under the assumption that his above average academics where the result of Intuition and that his social frustration was the result of butting heads with Logic-types. What I realized in a flash of insight is that his angry out-bursts are more likely due to a weak or under-used Ethics (probably introverted) function and his scholastic success was instead a task oriented priority for him.

I don't really trust my assessment now, any more than I did previously, but I wouldn't consider it if I didn't think it were right. The lack of success I've had with this and a few other typings has lead me to re-evaluate my understanding of Socionics.

[squark]

Thanks, Squark. That will take some time to process.

you're welcome. it does take awhile to soak in, but I've found it helpful.