usefulness of socionics

[ambivalent existence]

so.. let me explain my viewpoint first. I've been thinking and come to the conclusion that types obviously don't exist as clear-cut or as idealized in theory, not just because this stuff is not objectively measurable with currently known tools that are considered to be objective in a scientific way, but also because I tend to think that the functions are rather like cognitive skills, and "usage" of a function (usage = you are currently looking at the world from one kind of viewpoint) is partially situational. Sure, we probably have some tendency that's partially inborn to prefer certain functions more, but I guess you also change slowly over time, depending on your experiences and your responses to those experiences, and thus can slowly change emphasis on preferences. And depending on what you learned to do in a certain kind of situation, your response in a specific situation may entirely differ from what your "type" would usually do. You can also develop techniques to respond to certain situations in a better way that would otherwise require your weaker skills. Thus, a normal well balanced person doesn't and shouldn't really fit under one clear-cut type at all. And then at this point the whole concept of types and duality and all that ceases to have much point. Two such people who also match on values outside the ones socionics attempts to explain, should work out together, regardless of their "type". This of course doesn't mean problems can't come up, but if they aren't too big, they can be solved.

So, my question is, why do some people here tend to take some of this theory seriously? Or maybe my impression is incorrect and nobody here actually tries to govern any part of their life based on just a theory, though when I see questions in the forum like "how to recognize my dual" etc. etc., I can't tell how serious that stuff is. I mean, it would rather limit one's viewpoint to look for a "dual" based on a theory.

I guess I just don't see the usefulness of this theory at this point and I'm asking how it helped other people in an objective way.

[Beautiful sky]

check out my link to my business website, that is why I take Socionics seriously

It is measurable with tools, you just have to know what to look for and how to apply it.

You don't see the "usefulness" of this theory LOL. Ok. Let's see. You can date 1000 people one date at a time to find a match or you can pick the one(s) out without dating them ALL and from those one(s) you can make a decision on which one fits you better (aesthetically).

Oh yes, you can try to figure out what someone really wants from you or know that they are applying pressure, will, on you just by looking at them and say "no, I've had enough, bye" in an instant.

You'll know the sensitive ones from the more gruff ones and the less sensitive and maybe you can be more yourself around one and adjust to being more "reserved" around the other.

[ambivalent existence]

check out my link to my business website, that is why I take Socionics seriously

It is measurable with tools, you just have to know what to look for and how to apply it.

exactly what tools do you use to measure then?

[ashlesha]

i want to reply to this but i'm super tired and i don't know how coherent i'll be.

i don't know how seriously everybody takes it on the whole but even when you don't take it seriously - you see you type this person X and that person Y and it goes according to socionics plan and it becomes "real" to you. look, its working! even when you don't think of it as something to be taken seriously. and so there's sort of a mix of not taking it seriously and taking it seriously that happens. and i think thats what people mean when they talk about it as a virus or whatever. how do you not take something too seriously when you see it everywhere?

something that i think is a big part of this is that for example if you see a happy couple you're probably more likely to type them as duals than as conflictors. so then its confirmed to you. look, theyre duals. and theyre so happy. socionics works! but its all backwards and forwards at the same time.

you create what you see and you see what you create. dun dun dunnnn.

lol i have no idea how much sense this makes. basically its all bullshit but it fucks wif yer head mann.

[Beautiful sky]

exactly what tools do you use to measure then?

I use Visual Identification and when I'm not a 100% certain as pictures can be bad sometimes, I apply Jung's Model and look for type related patterns, watch for logical interrelations between what the person says, does, interacts with certain kinds; how they take other's will, how they respond to the display of certain functions; how they respond to my primary functions' information output (as my primary function is my type).

An example:

TeSi type, being Te first, judge the effectiveness, quality, of things that are being performed...they will voice out their opinions on things that work by saying such things as "that works." When they let their suppressed Fi come to the surface, they begin speaking about their hurt emotions surrounding what things past relations did to them that hurt their feelings; they become more empathetic as they have to concentrate less on Te and allow their Fi to "shine through" from their subconscious...that makes them a less driven more balanced person.

[Radio]

So, my question is, why do some people here tend to take some of this theory seriously? Or maybe my impression is incorrect and nobody here actually tries to govern any part of their life based on just a theory, though when I see questions in the forum like "how to recognize my dual" etc. etc., I can't tell how serious that stuff is. I mean, it would rather limit one's viewpoint to look for a "dual" based on a theory.

I guess I just don't see the usefulness of this theory at this point and I'm asking how it helped other people in an objective way.

i'm not sure if socionics has helped me in any way. typology* in general has slowly (and unconsciously) propagated a tendency in me towards holding preconceived notions about people, a habit i now consciously try to repress, leading to a certain (deluded) arrogance that you understand people better than others but that's obviously bullshit considering how every person has their own unique habits, quirks, interests, beliefs, likes and dislikes, sense of humour, and while there might be some correlation and overlap of these with types, it's much less jarring to approach people as individuals and understand them for what they are, in my opinion.

in retrospect i can see some interesting parallels with socionics relationships and my own type, but i dislike the idea of holding prejudice towards your opposing quadra or w/e. in a sense though, it has made me aware of my limitations and weaknesses, and that i think is the only positive thing coming out of my personal discovery of socionics, because i constantly work on improving these and if there seems to be conflict with people who roughly correlate with socionics conflictors or superego relationships, it gives me incentive to work on eliminating these differences and to work towards becoming a more well-rounded individual.

i've learned a lot more about myself reading about cognitive biases and defense mechanisms, and complexes, or at least i think i do, and that has a lot more to offer in my opinion than socionics ever could.

* typology meaning enneagram, mbti, socionics, jcf, et al, not jung.

[ambivalent existence]

i want to reply to this but i'm super tired and i don't know how coherent i'll be.

i don't know how seriously everybody takes it on the whole but even when you don't take it seriously - you see you type this person X and that person Y and it goes according to socionics plan and it becomes "real" to you. look, its working! even when you don't think of it as something to be taken seriously. and so there's sort of a mix of not taking it seriously and taking it seriously that happens. and i think thats what people mean when they talk about it as a virus or whatever. how do you not take something too seriously when you see it everywhere?

something that i think is a big part of this is that for example if you see a happy couple you're probably more likely to type them as duals than as conflictors. so then its confirmed to you. look, theyre duals. and theyre so happy. socionics works! but its all backwards and forwards at the same time.

you create what you see and you see what you create. dun dun dunnnn.

lol i have no idea how much sense this makes. basically its all bullshit but it fucks wif yer head mann.

I get what you mean, don't worry

here's my take on this: none of the things that you described is based on objective measurement so it's rather pointless to rely on it too much.

here's some examples for the above description where it wanders away from being objective is: 1) the idea of clear-cut types is based on a concept that is not proven as existing in reality 2) you do the typings based on your own subjective thinking ("this person seems to be that type") 3) you operate with assumptions taken from theory not yet verified via your own thorough observation (such as "happy couple? oh they must be duals, not conflictors").

btw I did not want to criticize you personally in any way. this was a generic impersonal analysis of the description you gave

[ambivalent existence]

I use Visual Identification and when I'm not a 100% certain as pictures can be bad sometimes, I apply Jung's Model and look for type related patterns, watch for logical interrelations between what the person says, does, interacts with certain kinds; how they take other's will, how they respond to the display of certain functions; how they respond to my primary functions' information output (as my primary function is my type).

An example:

TeSi type, being Te first, judge the effectiveness, quality, of things that are being performed...they will voice out their opinions on things that work by saying such things as "that works." When they let their suppressed Fi come to the surface, they begin speaking about their hurt emotions surrounding what things past relations did to them that hurt their feelings; they become more empathetic as they have to concentrate less on Te and allow their Fi to "shine through" from their subconscious...that makes them a less driven more balanced person.

I'm not going to argue with you about VI. even a theory that's not totally correct can be sometimes applied in a constructive way, I guess.

but none of what you said is objective measurement.

[ambivalent existence]

i'm not sure if socionics has helped me in any way. typology* in general has slowly (and unconsciously) propagated a tendency in me towards holding preconceived notions about people, a habit i now consciously try to repress, leading to a certain (deluded) arrogance that you understand people better than others but that's obviously bullshit considering how every person has their own unique habits, quirks, interests, beliefs, likes and dislikes, sense of humour, and while there might be some correlation and overlap of these with types, it's much less jarring to approach people as individuals and understand them for what they are, in my opinion.

in retrospect i can see some interesting parallels with socionics relationships and my own type, but i dislike the idea of holding prejudice towards your opposing quadra or w/e. in a sense though, it has made me aware of my limitations and weaknesses, and that i think is the only positive thing coming out of my personal discovery of socionics, because i constantly work on improving these and if there seems to be conflict with people who roughly correlate with socionics conflictors or superego relationships, it gives me incentive to work on eliminating these differences and to work towards becoming a more well-rounded individual.

i've learned a lot more about myself reading about cognitive biases and defense mechanisms, and complexes, or at least i think i do, and that has a lot more to offer in my opinion than socionics ever could.

* typology meaning enneagram, mbti, socionics, jcf, et al, not jung.

thanks for your opinion. I do agree that stereotypes are bad (which is really what my post was about in short!) and also agree that this assumption in the theory that everyone has weaknesses is useful. and yeah, using more than just one theory is more useful as well.

[Ryan]

It is a model by design that could be applied in many ways. There isn't a divine purpose to it. Some have used these tests to create dating sites, others used it to recruit employees. Then there is the fact that socionics includes many concepts that are used in our daily lives, so I think of it as another way to study these concepts further for my own amusement. It all depends on what do you want to achieve.

[ambivalent existence]

It is a model by design that could be applied in many ways. There isn't a divine purpose to it. Some have used these tests to create dating sites, others used it to recruit employees. Then there is the fact that socionics includes many concepts that are used in our daily lives, so I think of it as another way to study these concepts further for my own amusement. It all depends on what do you want to achieve.

it's a model yes. but I see it as not a good enough model to totally rely on in these applications. sure, the model itself isn't bad at all, and it could help in certain things, but I disagree with some conclusions that *seem* to be drawn from it by its designers/users:

1. types exist and you are one specific type
2. interactions can be well defined (such as duality)

I would not rely on these ideas. the theory itself could still have some practical use, if the predictions it makes work out more often than random.

[BreeZ]

For me socionics is best kept to myself, it's not something that i'll be very open about because it's the experience that counts when using socionics. I've always been very cautious not to let socionics be the basis of my life, maybe until i have enough experience then I'll be confident enough to say "Yep it's true alright". Typology in general has helped me learn about myself but most of all has helped me drop a lot of hurt coming from other people- simply because they were just being themselves. But of course there are many other things that can hurt you other than someone hitting your PoLR/ignoring functions and i've gotten a face full of the combination.

[Ryan]

Have you tested any of these conclusions? Settle on a type first then ask if it could change. You said that type could change. How often? Frankly? Not important. Start from now. If this moment was all you had in life what type would you be? If you can't choose one type then yes this theory probably won't be of much use to you.

Have you taken any other test before? MBTI?

The second conclusion is highly dependent on the first.

[ambivalent existence]

For me socionics is best kept to myself, it's not something that i'll be very open about because it's the experience that counts when using socionics. I've always been very cautious not to let socionics be the basis of my life, maybe until i have enough experience then I'll be confident enough to say "Yep it's true alright". Typology in general has helped me learn about myself but most of all has helped me drop a lot of hurt coming from other people- simply because they were just being themselves. But of course there are many other things that can hurt you other than someone hitting your PoLR/ignoring functions (duh) and i've gotten a face full of the combination.

According to socionics my brother is my so called conflictor? and i would probably say it's very accurate. I know it's self-typed and you're right we can make mistakes! just like how i mistakenly thought my brother was my "activator" simply because we had those *good non-conflict moments- fun times*. But i didn't know until one day he told me that he was an ISTp in myers briggs, and i was really skeptical. And it all came to me that he was definitely SLI, my main problem was that i didn't have enough experience with SLE's to type him properly- Or i was just being stupid.

Hmm I still think about socionics a lot, always at the back of my head...i've come to realize that if i don't pay attention enough to people's type i can get myself into some really bad situations.

Um, as to your "yep is true alright" -- I already determined for myself that there is no absolute truth and also where the limitations of the model are. So for me this point would never come and that's fine.

I will say, the PoLR concept is what helped me the most too I'm not a specific type, sure, but I do seem weakest in a certain function so I call that my PoLR.

I would be careful with that conflictor idea. I'm typed as ILE by most people here, including VI, and my mother is a clear ESI, that is ILE's conflictor, and we hardly ever conflict. so...

[ambivalent existence]

Have you tested any of these conclusions? Settle on a type first then ask if it could change. You said that type could change. How often? Frankly? Not important. Start from now. If this moment was all you had in life what type would you be? If you can't choose one type then yes this theory probably won't be of much use to you.

Have you taken any other test before? MBTI?

The second conclusion is highly dependent on the first.

IMO, there is way too many contradictions observable in reality for those two statements to be true "as is". I've listed a few thoughts of mine that make me think this way. it doesn't mean the whole thing is useless, it just means it's not absolute. I didn't say type can change, this is more relative than that I said emphasis may change, and even that only slowly. and yepp, second conclusion is dependent on the first one.

I'm ENTP in all the MBTI tests I've ever managed to locate online (like 20-30 tests!). I will not identify with a type, because I will not fit into any type stereotype. I do know which four functions are valued by me though, but even that's meaningless as the so-called unvalued ones can also be valued at times.

edit: ok, not "meaningless", just not absolute is what I mean.

[Slacker]

it's a model yes. but I see it as not a good enough model to totally rely on in these applications. sure, the model itself isn't bad at all, and it could help in certain things, but I disagree with some conclusions that *seem* to be drawn from it by its designers/users:

1. types exist and you are one specific type
2. interactions can be well defined (such as duality)

I would not rely on these ideas. the theory itself could still have some practical use, if the predictions it makes work out more often than random.

I believe your two points are true, only because I've seen it in my life. But I don't think it should be taken too seriously, because it is vague, and it can't be tested or anything like that. But you are a bit new at it to make definitive conclusions about it one way or the other, IMO. And I still think you don't really understand the theory that well, but it is vague and it takes a while.

[ambivalent existence]

Settle on a type first (...) Start from now. If this moment was all you had in life what type would you be? If you can't choose one type (...)

btw, do not misunderstand me - if I needed to pick a type in terms of the rules of the theory, yes I can pick one.

I will not identify with the stereotypes for it though... so in that way I cannot choose a type.

[ambivalent existence]

I believe your two points are true, only because I've seen it in my life. But I don't think it should be taken too seriously, because it is vague, and it can't be tested or anything like that. But you are a bit new at it to make definitive conclusions about it one way or the other, IMO. And I still think you don't really understand the theory that well, but it is vague and it takes a while.

I'm new to the site, but I've been dealing with the theory since last year on and off. It's not vague at all, it's a theoretical model of reality that still needs improvement and I'm sure there is no disagreement on that or is there?

[PistolShrimp]

Most of the intertype relationships in my life do seem to play out as predicted by Socionics, assuming I've typed everyone correctly. There are some exceptions I've noticed, and Socionics type is obviously not the be-all-end-all of relationships.

I think the thing I like most is the explanation of the dual-seeking function, because it helped me to appreciate just how lucky I am to have grown up with the guidance of a healthy dual parent. I feel like a pretty well-rounded person because of the advice my SLE father has given me over the years. I recognize my desire for Se and seek it out to get a boost whenever I'm feeling stuck.

[Slacker]

Well I guess I mean the understanding of new people of it is vague, and a year "on and off" makes you new at it.

[Absurd]

ok, not "meaningless", just not absolute is what I mean.

You're trying explaining this in terms of laws, that is, the influence of your past life experiences on modeling/creating your "personality". In other words, in accumulated changes in the quantity reaching a threshold after which additional accumulation results in a dramatic change in quality. That is not going to work at all, for you're actually implying a change in quality resulting in a change of quality all the time which literally means a chemical intervention where you get a new kind of organism completely different from the original one.

[Slacker]

Even among people who have been here a long time, we disagree about specifics and disagree about how to type and specific people's types. I think there's a level of vagueness to the whole thing in general.

[ambivalent existence]

Most of the intertype relationships in my life do seem to play out as predicted by Socionics, assuming I've typed everyone correctly. There are some exceptions I've noticed, and Socionics type is obviously not the be-all-end-all of relationships.

I think the thing I like most is the explanation of the dual-seeking function, because it helped me to appreciate just how lucky I am to have grown up with the guidance of a healthy dual parent. I feel like a pretty well-rounded person because of the advice my SLE father has given me over the years. I recognize my desire for Se and seek it out to get a boost whenever I'm feeling stuck.

er, what does "desire for Se" mean for you? =P

(I was told off here before by other people not to use such vague expressions and I'm curious anyway)

[ambivalent existence]

Well I guess I mean the understanding of new people of it is vague, and a year "on and off" makes you new at it.

fine, ok =P

Even among people who have been here a long time, we disagree about specifics and disagree about how to type and specific people's types. I think there's a level of vagueness to the whole thing in general.

ya, that's the thing I'm talking about

[ambivalent existence]

You're trying explaining this in terms of laws, that is, the influence of your past life experiences on modeling/creating your "personality". In other words, in accumulated changes in the quantity reaching a threshold after which additional accumulation results in a dramatic change in quality. That is not going to work at all, for you're actually implying a change in quality resulting in a change of quality all the time which literally means a chemical intervention where you get a new kind of organism completely different from the original one.

that is actually an interesting philosophical question for me, when does quantity change into quality? =)

please understand I'm not saying I changed types or anything. I only talked about different quantities ("different emphasis").

[Absurd]

that is actually an interesting philosophical question for me, when does quantity change into quality? =)

You keep adding a single soldier to each side in a battle, and the accumulated, uniform changes are going to result in dramatic qualitative changes in what occurs on the battlefield. You can even reverse the outcome.

[ambivalent existence]

You keep adding a single soldier to each side in a battle, and the accumulated, uniform changes are going to result in dramatic qualitative changes in what occurs on the battlefield. You can even reverse the outcome.

I know this, but why or how it changes so suddenly is the question. it's nice to talk about this issue, even though totally off topic here =P

[Absurd]

I know this, but why or how it changes so suddenly is the question. it's nice to talk about this issue, even though totally off topic here =P

Everything I said is based on historical facts. While some soldiers are more skilled in large cavalry maneuvers, some are skilled in other, for example. So, if a better soldier, better than his brethren is added to one side, then a a reversal of outcome is not surprising at all. That's how a change in quantity results in change of quality.

[Ryan]

What did you think of the link I gave you yesterday? It's unfortunate that the unvalued functions weren't included. I hope you didn't take a wrong impression from that. It's the only thing that bothers me about those descriptions. I would have preferred to know how every function mainfest in each type, even the unvalued ones. It's such a pity because I think the descriptions are really great.

[ambivalent existence]

Everything I said is based on historical facts. While some soldiers are more skilled in large cavalry maneuvers, some are skilled in other, for example. So, if a better soldier, better than his brethren is added to one side, then a a reversal of outcome is not surprising at all. That's how a change in quantity results in change of quality.

oh obviously I meant it on a more general level.

[ambivalent existence]

What did you think of the link I gave you yesterday? It's unfortunate that the unvalued functions weren't included. I hope you didn't take a wrong impression from that. It's the only thing that bothers me about those descriptions. I would have preferred to know how every function mainfest in each type, even the unvalued ones. It's such a pity because I think the descriptions are really great.

sorry, could you remind me what link exactly? I read through many... but I guess you mean the one that described valued functions in a pretty cool way, much more detailed than wikisocion (that's the site where I got most of my socionics understanding).

it didn't change my evaluation of which functions are valued for me, though.

[Ryan]

sorry, could you remind me what link exactly? I read through many... but I guess you mean the one that described valued functions in a pretty cool way, much more detailed than wikisocion (that's the site where I got most of my socionics understanding).

it didn't change my evaluation of which functions are valued for me, though.

Yep, that one. You should chech hkkmr's thread when you got time.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...sites?p=848192

This site especially has lots of different descriptions, from different authors. And lots of other silly stuff. Run it on google translate, it's in russian.

http://socionic.ru/index.php/

[Absurd]

oh obviously I meant it on a more general level.

You call it subjective but still use objective methods to get what you came for - you take tests. That's pretty funny, but the joke is on you. Anyhow, back to off-topic - another example of quantity changing quality, again, an objective one are colours of the rainbow. After shortening the wavelength of light, you produce a quantitative change which means colour of light changes from red to orange, through yellow, green, blue, indigo ending in violet. That's a change in quality. I'm sure you view colour as being subjective and based on human perceptions, same as with this theory you stated before in this very thread.

As a matter of fact wave length of light is objective, that is, can be measured objectively taking x-rays. Due to the (quantity) wave length, x-rays can penetrate the body. Not all light can do this. The change in what the light itself can actually do, is determined by the length (measurement of a quantity) of the wave.

[ambivalent existence]

You call it subjective but still use objective methods to get what you came for - you take tests. That's pretty funny, but the joke is on you. Anyhow, back to off-topic - another example of quantity changing quality, again, an objective one are colours of the rainbow. After shortening the wavelength of light, you produce a quantitative change which means colour of light changes from red to orange, through yellow, green, blue, indigo ending in violet. That's a change in quality. I'm sure you view colour as being subjective and based on human perceptions, same as with this theory you stated before in this very thread.

As a matter of fact wave length of light is objective, that is, can be measured objectively taking x-rays. Due to the (quantity) wave length, x-rays can penetrate the body. Not all light can do this. The change in what the light itself can actually do, is determined by the length (measurement of a quantity) of the wave.

well I view a lot of things as based on human perceptions, but I accept the scientific methodology as being the most objective we can get, especially if it's combined with a reductionist viewpoint. In psychology, the latter requirement is not as simple to comply with as in other sciences, and that has consequences in my view.

[ambivalent existence]

Yep, that one. You should chech hkkmr's thread when you got time.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...sites?p=848192

This site especially has lots of different descriptions, from different authors. And lots of other silly stuff. Run it on google translate, it's in russian.

http://socionic.ru/index.php/

uhm, thanks but why are you recommending all this? do you think I'm unsure about my typing?

ps: I don't really have patience to sort through google translated shite

[Ryan]

Nope. I thought you would want to read more on the subject.

What are you valued functions btw?

[Absurd]

well I view a lot of things as based on human perceptions, but I accept the scientific methodology as being the most objective we can get, especially if it's combined with a reductionist viewpoint. In psychology, the latter requirement is not as simple to comply with as in other sciences, and that has consequences in my view.

Call it how you want. Scientific, esoteric, magical and so on. As long it works and gets the job done, I don't have a problem with it. I'm mostly interested in things that allow me to learn, measure, or look for tangible information and utility.

As for your type, you're going to argue this ad infinitum. Have fun.

[ambivalent existence]

Nope. I thought you would want to read more on the subject.

What are you valued functions btw?

I do want to read more, but I don't have that much time for it everyday, so it will take a bit longer than that thanks though.

as for functions. Ti > Te, Fe > Fi, Se > Si. but I'm not really up to debating this, I'd view that as a waste of time, unless there is a goal with it. (I sure had a goal with it previously, but no longer.)

[ambivalent existence]

Call it how you want. Scientific, esoteric, magical and so on. As long it works and gets the job done, I don't have a problem with it. I'm mostly interested in things that allow me to learn, measure, or look for tangible information and utility.

As for your type, you're going to argue this ad infinitum. Have fun.

Na, I got bored with it

[Ryan]

No prob.