What makes a person averse to socionics?
Personalities most anti-socionics?
What makes a person averse to socionics?
I think that they are all LSIs hating the supervision of the ILEs that built this system.
Socionics -
the16types.info
An actual aversion rather than a lack of interest would most likely be born out of a fear of being pigeonholed, judged or discriminated against. I think that any person could have this reaction depending upon their own life experiences and the manner in which the theory is presented to them. For example I have found many ILE's to be very open and enthusiastic about the theory (I would not rule out socionic type playing some part in this), but there has been at least one who I've spoken to who has been very wary of these types of classifications. It should be noted that this person has personal experience of prejudice as the result of a socio-cultural imposed catagory. You may also find resistance amoungst those who actually do serious psychological research, who design and conduct well thought out studies rather than relying on a well formed but empirically hazy theory. Ultimately though I think anyone can be for or against this theory, I believe that at it's core it is sound and it intuitively makes a great deal of sense, it's not a cult and has in itself no potential to do harm, however there is a potential for socionics to be used as a way of limiting people, e.g. potentially great SEI scientists could be pulled out of physics classes and given the opportunity to use their "strengths" in cooking or whatever. So really I think a lot of it is down to how the idea is anchored and the seed is sown, if the idea is sold well in a manner appropriate to the audience, it should be received positively.Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
IEE-Ne
Some people think that it's morally wrong to "box" people in. They see only individuals and fail to see the connections that people have with one another. They are also paranoid about new concepts that differ from their concrete, literal point of view. I have a friend that's my dual. She's a SEI. Her and I would talk about socionics and type people all the time. Her husband, though, is an SEE and he would get really pissed if she even brought up personality types.
My husband has struggled with Socionics as he also sees it as almost 'wrong' to think that two people could be alike in a Socionics type way or maybe in any way at all. He doesn't get pissed off with me though when I talk about Socionics, he just finds it difficult to see possible connections or change his view or overcome his naturally repelling instincts on the topic and thinks I should have given up on this interest ages ago.
Though because I am interested he has set aside some of his hesitations, engages in conversations about the topic, tries to accept that there may be links and at times has even attempted to help me in this area.
What Athww said and I would add older people too. Not to dis the gammas though. I learned a lot from Ashton because he did doubt many of the basic ideas in the Socionics community.
It is not Socionics itself that some types may be adverse to. It's the culture and avenues through which socionics is presented (Mainly an Alpha NT/Beta NF domain currently).
IDK. Brutal reality kind of trumps this shit. Try feeding someone with a theroetical symbol. It doesnt work. I like the theory and all, but people have a tendency to run with this ball, call it the world, and run even further than they need to do with it.Relatively young + gamma + no interests which match up particularly well with socionics. People like Ashton, Cpig, k0rpsy etc etc are all over this lil' archetypes of theirs which consists of acting all smug, confident and "badass" and more vested in the "serious", "real" and "professional" as if that's "somehow higher" than "everything else". They just end up seeming like giddy lil' kids who arestarved, like some of the
ego losers of history like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer.
Oh, well yeah, duh. I thought the point was to select personality types that we generally deal with (socionics, enneagram, etc.) that tend to be adverse to it.
Where in the OP does tcaud ask for opinions on types?
"Personalities most anti socionics"
So, the personality most anti socionics is a personality that is anti socionics type stuff? I guess I just interpreted it that way based on how people began posting, and what tcaud generally goes on about.
MY B YO.
Paging Dr. Skinner...
edited for gayness
Last edited by strangeling; 07-20-2012 at 08:06 PM.
Project much?Relatively young + gamma + no interests which match up particularly well with socionics. People like Ashton, Cpig, k0rpsy etc etc are all over this lil' archetypes of theirs which consists of acting all smug, confident and "badass" and more vested in the "serious", "real" and "professional" as if that's "somehow higher" than "everything else". They just end up seeming like giddy lil' kids who are
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
ES**
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
ESE
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
As Britney says:
"There are two types of people in this world. Those that entertain/those who observe."
Objectively people who are anti-socionics are probably the Oprah real world preppy types who aren't insightful, they are like anti-loser and they just want to be popular as opposed to see things accurately. Even though we all say things like 'socionics is gay' none of us are really anti-socionics or we wouldn't be in a socionics forum. There is also hypocrisy with that, but everybody is a hypocrite so who cares?
lolRelatively young + gamma + no interests which match up particularly well with socionics. People like Ashton, Cpig, k0rpsy etc etc are all over this lil' archetypes of theirs which consists of acting all smug, confident and "badass" and more vested in the "serious", "real" and "professional" as if that's "somehow higher" than "everything else". They just end up seeming like giddy lil' kids who are
Sensors in general. There's not as much practical use for it. Look at the types that fill these boards: LII, ILE, IEI, ILI, IEE, EII. I mean what're the most common sensing types here, SLI/LSI???
Practically speaking, Myers-Briggs is used commercially and corporately to identify broad personality types. The four temperaments are great for business. Dating sites use their own brand of personality metrics, and people tend to be in-born with a subconscious understanding of who they're compatible with or not. Plenty of people-skills books if you want to improve your relationships with others, so what else can socionics really be USED for? Group dynamics, dating knowledge, relationship compatibility, people-skills, what? Socionics doesn't really have a niche benefit.
Of course it's more detailed in terms of the subtleties of compatibility. But I find myself constantly weighing how important it is to know the subtle details, versus the time it took to study socionics and the brain space/ brain cells it occupies. Detail is awesome, and I still find socionics worth the time-investment, but it seems like intuitives or more likely to study this detailed theory without even weighing the practical uses.
people who:
a) have little need for it because they can produce understanding of people and relationships without it.
b) have a preference for adjusting what they think based on what they see instead of vice versa.
c) have a healthy respect and appreciation for the mystery inside other humans.
IME:
- Intuitive types in general show more interest in the theory. (Ne-egos and IEIs seem to be the most common types here..?)
- Same goes for introverts/introverted subtypes of extroverts
- Si types, especially delta st:s, often show interest and are interested in learning the basics, but don't really get too deeply involved.
- Se-egos often seem hostile towards the whole idea, especially gamma sf:s. (This may have to do with me rubbing the unvalued Ne in their faces and not being able to present things in a decent Te+Ni way, but still, they seem to be the rarest types in the members list, too)
Socionics could be used just as widely and less copy right restricted to do what corporate Myers-Briggs people do, with optional higher levels of intertypes for those that can use it.
Socionics doesn't have a niche benefit? What? What are you doing on this site then? False equivalency.... Most of the tools you describe are the worst dumbed down tools you can buy. From a socionicsts standpoint they are inneffective if not downright deceitful. All it would take is someone with money, for example an ex-ceo or VP or that MB company to kickstart a new venture. People think the same thing about any idea that needs to be developed, all it really takes in this instance is some capital and a buisness plan. And if you have enough capital the buisness plan will follow, you just poach people from these other institutions. Your results would be the real game changer.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
