Which type is most likely to be uninterested in Socionics?

[Taknamay]

Just a general thing. Statistics and personal experience would help.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

This question feels like deja vu.

I say ESFj or ESTj probably.

[Krig the Viking]

Socionics is a heavily Alpha NT theory, so it's likely that Gamma SFs would be least inclined to be interested in it. The the16types' user self-typings correlate fairly well: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...ma/selftypings

[Codie]

The SF/T's are clearly outnumbered by NT/F's. I don't know if it's lack of interest or they're not as inclined to even find out about abstract theories. Come to think of it, maybe ESI? I get the feeling they're too cool for this stuff, out somewhere having a drink up with their close circle of friends.

[Codie]

Socionics is a heavily Alpha NT theory, so it's likely that Gamma SFs would be least inclined to be interested in it. The the16types' user self-typings correlate fairly well: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...ma/selftypings

Yh no wonder the gamma quadras so quiet.Zzz

[DirectorAbbie]

ESFj

[717495]

Ne-PoLRs

[Taknamay]

Yes, I completely agree that an interest in Socionics is mostly not type-related. I was just interested to see what direction this discussion would go.

[Jenna]

I'd say LSE, ESI, & ESE are the least likely.
I would maybe put ESI as the least... The only ones I can think of that come here often are bardia and allie (if allie is ESI)

[EyeSeeCold]

^Sounds like ESE

[Krig the Viking]

^Sounds like ESE

Yeah, I've found that ESEs are often interested in socionics, but they usually prefer to talk about it in person, not online in a forum. LSEs tend to see it as an interesting idea, but find anything beyond the basics to be too complicated and impractical to be worth thinking about. ESIs and SEEs, on the other hand, tend to be hostile to the whole idea.

Obviously there are exceptions, but that's the general trend I've observed.

[Satan]

Actually, now that I think about it, Gamma in general is pretty uncommon around these communities, all except for ILI's, who seem to thrive in online environments. I find that in real life Gammas are a lot more common. SEE's stick out especially, as they tend to be great networkers.

"networkers" is one way to put it ....

[Radio]

Yeah, I've found that ESEs are often interested in socionics, but they usually prefer to talk about it in person, not online in a forum. LSEs tend to see it as an interesting idea, but find anything beyond the basics to be too complicated and impractical to be worth thinking about. ESIs and SEEs, on the other hand, tend to be hostile to the whole idea.

Obviously there are exceptions, but that's the general trend I've observed.

Yeah.

The general trend I've observed is something like:

Alpha NT
Delta NF | Beta NF
Gamma NT
Alpha SF
Beta ST | Delta ST
Gamma SF

Top to bottom: from most likely to be interested to least likely.

[717495]

Based on my typings

Alpha NT > the incessant spawns of IEI, and ****** > Delta NF > Delta ST > Beta ST > Alpha SF > Gammas

[cracka]

I think there was always a SEE/ESE debate on her type. Maybe ESE. Idk, imo she wasn't at all like Cracker, Yellow, or Mountaindew. She was much more loose & free flowing, if that makes sense. I'd peg her as an irrational type.

Anyway, the point being is that I think some types, particularly extroverts would be more likely to take a hands on approach.

cracka with an a please... Cracker seems like an insult or racial slur...lol.


I can only speak for myself as far as ESE's go, I do find the theory interesting, I have just never cared much to learn it because I think it would actually be bad for me to do so.

I think if there were a reason for an ESE to learn it, they could learn it and become proficient at it. My biggest issue with it is that there is no right or wrong in regards to the theory, since it's just that, a theory. It's all a matter of what one person thinks vs what someone else thinks, with certain small bits and pieces that folks do agree on. I don't think there's even one function that is defined in a way that everyone would agree on...

If, as an ESE, I think I know something well and get told on a regular basis that I'm wrong and there's no way around that... I'm most likely not going to think I'm proficient at it anymore and give it up and find something else to take my time up...lol.

[Absurd]

In real life never bothered with it, still don't. It's like "socionics, eh? Great!" and go back to what I was previously doing.

[Trevor]

Yeah, I've found that ESEs are often interested in socionics, but they usually prefer to talk about it in person, not online in a forum. LSEs tend to see it as an interesting idea, but find anything beyond the basics to be too complicated and impractical to be worth thinking about. ESIs and SEEs, on the other hand, tend to be hostile to the whole idea.

Obviously there are exceptions, but that's the general trend I've observed.

If this is true; and if user Smilingeyes is LSE, as he claims to be; then he is one of those exceptions.

[Krig the Viking]

If this is true; and if user Smilingeyes is LSE, as he claims to be; then he is one of those exceptions.

I don't know much about him, but based on what I've heard, LSE doesn't seem like the most likely type for him. But that's a topic for another thread.

[squark]

People who in general are willing to entertain ideas and theories will be more likely to take an interest in socionics. Whether they come to a forum and chat about it is another story. Interest in and willingness to explore various ideas is not type related, even though people so often paint sensors as having no curiosity at all.

[Creepy-Snaps]

My friend twitch, who is now rather inactive on this forum as she is busy with college, talked me into joining this forum.

Joining a socionics forum is not something I was inclined to do... it IS rather boring typing online. Much more fun to communicate in person.

Learning the theory has been incredibly helpful... as a people-person, I feel strong in typing others, communicating in different ways, even playing match-maker for some of my friends.

However, there's not a whole lot of appeal in staying here. When there are countless IEIs supervising everything I post, Gamma NTs criticizing everything I say, most of the time blindly not even realizing I'm joking, then calling me stupid, and the LIIs are generally rather quiet... why stay?

Like cracka said, it's theory, and most threads just turn into a 'my opinion' versus 'your opinion' flamewar. There's no restriction on who's allowed to join this forum, so you can have a high-school dropout discussing intricate theory with a medical doctor. Opinions/credibility/knowledge get meshed, confused, and it's tough to have a socionics forum actually stay on topic, when the topic can be so abstract.

Maybe that's why I enjoy VI, as do other sensors generally more, IMO, because it's based on something observable. Still is the only real thing we have.

But anyway, not to get on a tangent. I'd agree with what others are saying. I'd say Gamma SFs seem to join the forum more often, more willingly, but their attention diverts, that they don't usually stay long.

If the question is interest in socionics... I'd say ESEs are incredibly interested, being people-persons. We can use the theory for many practical benefits, to make a positive difference in the lives of others. But joining an online forum, and staying... and putting in time to learn the theory... that's a whole other topic entirely.

[Beautiful sky]

The type who tends to not like things/judgements defining who they are into categories, Delta types, in general. They like to be seen as individuals.

[Creepy-pokeball]

The type who tends to not like things/judgements defining who they are into categories, Delta types, in general. They like to be seen as individuals.

I guess you lack the knowledge of the difference between Gamma and Delta Fi, then. Maybe some day you can at least understand frequencies.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Well, Krig, at the very least you can agree Smiles is Te, i hope - like you said tho it's for some other thread.

And how about Expat, also gamma. I also think some intps on here sound much too close to isfj to really be intp etc etc - oh, of course i won't name names, that'd be for *another* thread hehe

There have been people on here, either in the past or just on and off, who belonged to all quadras etc etc

And i agree w/Squark, of course: not everyone likes to or even has the time to join forums but that is not an indication of their interest in the theory

Expat is Delta.

[Creepy-pokeball]

One of the primary members of Socionics is an ISFj. She no longer frequents here, but she did at the begining. Her name was Olga. She produced a lot of wonderful works, most of which many ignored (not all) because they could not comprehend them. I could. She definitely had the unfettered, loose Ni, like all ISXjs do. I made a lot of works, as well, and I also made the original Russian to English transcriptions, but I deleted them all. Just as Olga is not here, neither are my works. Its a relation of receptivity that was completely lacking then.

Its not a question of which type this, which type that, but a question of whether or not the viewer is "willling to pick up the book." Who the viewer is depends on many other interrelations, including where the "book is," as one poster in this thread has pointed out.

[Absurd]

One of the primary members of Socionics is an ISFj. She no longer frequents here, but she did at the begining. Her name was Olga.

I remember her. Pretty nice.

[silke]

According to PerC published statistics (an MBTI forum) most prevalent type there is the Fi-Ne one, followed by both Ni-leading types and the Ti-dominant one. So INxx types predominate. The least common types are ESxx especially ESTJ and ESFJ, there is a bit higher activity on ESxP subforums. This is probably similar with Socionics.

[Beautiful sky]

I guess you lack the knowledge of the difference between Gamma and Delta Fi, then. Maybe some day you can at least understand frequencies.

Aloof. Maybe some day you can understand you're not Fe base type because you don't do Fe more than you do Te.

[Krig the Viking]

Dunno about that. There's a decent number of active γ-SF posters on here. About 3 SEEs and 3-4 ESIs.

Yeah, those are the obvious exceptions I was talking about (assuming they are in fact Gamma SF, which I have no opinion on). In my experience, though, Gamma SFs are more commonly either hostile to the idea of logically categorizing people, or at least strongly disinterested. Alpha SFs, by contrast, tend to be quite interested and find the idea intriguing, but feel a bit out of their depth trying to study the theory on their own.

Like I said, these are very general trends, and there will be exceptions. There are some ILEs who will be uninterested in the idea, just as there are SEEs who might find it useful.

[717495]

According to PerC published statistics (an MBTI forum) most prevalent type there is the Fi-Ne one, followed by both Ni-leading types and the Ti-dominant one. So INxx types predominate. The least common types are ESxx especially ESTJ and ESFJ, there is a bit higher activity on ESxP subforums. This is probably similar with Socionics.

No. Everyone online thinks they're INFP. Considering MBTI dichotomies I guess they are.

Like I think nearly no one here gets ego Fe on those MBTI function tests because it sounds like crap. Those aren't reliable for Socionics. Plus, N is correlated to P. Being xNxJ doesn't make someone some rare Ni individual, it's just one outlier like any other personality trait.

INFp is the most common type here anyway.