Hope for a Cure

[silverchris9]

Hey all,

Just fyi, you can be cured from the disease that is socionics. After not thinking about it for a while, I have completely stopped involuntarily typing people I meet in everyday life. I think it's a useful tool for a sort of rudimentary understanding of people, a useful tool to get you off the ground in understanding how people tick, but maybe ultimately a little limiting. I think it could also be useful for literary criticism.

But yeah, I just thought I'd say that. Someone can move this to anything goes if you like, or this can turn into a real discussion of the merits and disadvantages of using socionics as a cognitive\social tool in real life. Either way.

I do still kinda miss this place, but I suppose it's like socionics---helpful and healthy at a certain phase of my life, maybe less helpful and healthy now? Not sure.

[Galen]

hey silverchris, I just discovered that you're black

[silverchris9]

rly?

[Galen]

but hey seriously

I think I've slowly come to realize socionics' limitations over the last year or so, as I don't apply it to new people I meet that fervently. I agree that it's a good tool for understanding people as starting points in relationship/interactions, but staying in that mindset too much ultimately limits the capacity for truly understanding people.


and yes rly, lol

[Absurd]

There is no cure for AIDS or HIV infection. Although antiretroviral treatment can suppress HIV – the virus that causes AIDS – and can delay illness for many years, it cannot clear the virus completely. Sadly, this doesn’t stop countless quacks and con artists touting unproven, often dangerous “AIDS cures” to desperate people.

It is easy to see why an HIV positive person might want to believe in a cure for HIV and AIDS. Access to antiretroviral treatment is scarce in much of the world. When someone has a life-threatening illness they may grab at anything to stay alive. And even when antiretroviral treatment is available, it is far from an easy solution. Drugs must be taken every day for the rest of a person’s life, often causing unpleasant side effects. A one-off cure to eradicate the virus once and for all is much more appealing.

Distrust of Western medicine is not uncommon, especially in developing countries. The Internet abounds with rumours of the pharmaceutical industry or the U.S. government suppressing AIDS cures to protect the market for patented drugs. Many people would prefer a remedy that is “natural” or “traditional”.

http://www.avert.org/cure-for-aids.htm

[babybow]

I donate 10 dollars to socionics hope for a cure. Please god help me, I have been praying for this horrible disease to stop but it has not...I cannot find an expert anywhere in my area.

[mu4]

This just means socionics has now sinked its claws into a pre-verbal/pre-conscious animalistic part of your psyche.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Hey silverchris,

I'm glad to see you're 'back', though I somehow don't get the impression that you intend to stay long. I'm glad because I thought your posts before, and like this now, were/are thought-provoking and insightful.

I agree, if you get away from any addiction for a long time, you eventually are free from it.

I do still kinda miss this place, but I suppose it's like socionics---helpful and healthy at a certain phase of my life, maybe less helpful and healthy now? Not sure.

However, I'm confused. Why did you come back? For socionics, for the people? Why did you leave? Do you feel you can have a healthier balance of socionics in your life now?

Sincerely,
SNAPS

[redbaron]

Snaps, I just now realized that your avatar is someone snapping their fingers. I'm a little slow. lol

Hi silverchris! nice to see you!

[Creepy-Snaps]

Snaps, I just now realized that your avatar is someone snapping their fingers. I'm a little slow. lol

Haha. Not only is it someone snapping their fingers... *drumroll*... IT'S ME! OMG

[glam]

of course socionics has its limitations, it is not purporting to be a magic key to understanding everything there is to know about people, and shouldn't be treated as such.

when people talk about their disillusionment with socionics due to its limitations, i have to wonder how much unlimited faith they were putting in it in the first place.

[Creepy-Snaps]

when people talk about their disillusionment with socionics due to its limitations, i have to wonder how much unlimited faith they were putting in it in the first place.

YOu mean... duality won't be a magical relationship that will make my life perfect?

[strangeling]

when people talk about their disillusionment with socionics due to its limitations, i have to wonder how much unlimited faith they were putting in it in the first place.

Not that I think you are talking about me necessarily, but I want to interject:

My disillusionment is with other people not wanting to accept or understand each other. Socionics is a great theory with great potential, but only if it's used with the right intentions. Telling someone they are XXX type and that that is who they are and the relations they have will result from this, is just silly; it's stigmatizing and idiotic. But telling someone there are different abstract types of people and those types can have certain predictable relationships when they are immature or inexperienced or unaware of how very different someone can think from them, is another thing.

People are so frustrating to stigmatize everything. And the majority of people that go to these personality theories tend to have many problems. So it doesn't help anything and it's counterproductive stupid. It makes me slightly angry/annoyed to think about this. There's the kind of stupid where someone makes mistakes, but takes responsibility for them and learns from them, and the kind of stupid where personal mistakes are blamed on other people. How many times do people engage in the latter here? When do people ACTUALLY admit they have made a mistake? Or that things aren't as simply as they like to rationalize/say things are?

[glam]

Not that I think you are talking about me necessarily, but I want to interject:

My disillusionment is with other people not wanting to accept or understand each other. Socionics is a great theory with great potential, but only if it's used with the right intentions. Telling someone they are XXX type and that that is who they are and the relations they have will result from this, is just silly; it's stigmatizing and idiotic. But telling someone there are different abstract types of people and those types can have certain predictable relationships when they are immature or inexperienced or unaware of how very different someone can think from them, is another thing.

People are so frustrating to stigmatize everything. And the majority of people that go to these personality theories tend to have many problems. So it doesn't help anything and it's counterproductive stupid. It makes me slightly angry/annoyed to think about this. There's the kind of stupid where someone makes mistakes, but takes responsibility for them and learns from them, and the kind of stupid where personal mistakes are blamed on other people. How many times do people engage in the latter here? When do people ACTUALLY admit they have made a mistake? Or that things aren't as simply as they like to rationalize/say things are?

but none of these issues are the fault of socionics itself, they are with the people attempting to apply it.

[ashlesha]

socionics posits that there are 16 actual types with well-delineated relationships and the translated writings of "classical" socionicists do not leave much room for ambiguity in terms of those relationships or in terms of how well people can fit a type.

so to say that a dislike of socionics due to either disillusionment or a distate for others' strict application is the fault of humans and not "socionics" is just false.

[strangeling]

but none of these issues are the fault of socionics itself, they are with the people attempting to apply it.

Exactly.
Socionics is pointless without application.
And then the way people apply it, can make or break the theory itself, since it's all about what people get from it through application. If it isn't, then what is the point for you?

[strangeling]

This just means socionics has now sinked its claws into a pre-verbal/pre-conscious animalistic part of your psyche.

You're probably just saying this in jest, but still, just for the record, I suppose:

But anyone who is willing to entertain an idea without accepting it is going to do this? Isn't it the hallmark of many great scientists to obsess over ideas and abstractions as they relate to what they know empirically. Newton was known to have a mental breakdown at one point in his life and I don't doubt he had a certain obsessiveness some would call autistic. But should we call such a person animalistic? And many smart people have been known to gain success and fame, only to latter become hermits, as they realize the obsession that has been driving them was somewhat of an illusion or something that creates its own kind of problems. Even Carl Jung could be argued to be in this camp, yet despite everyone's seeming repulsion for his personality types and their desire to define those types apart from his ideas, he contributed a lot to psychology and probably had a greater appreciation for human suffering than that douche Frued and probably most contemporary psychiatrists and maybe even most therapists (at least from my experience alone). Jung even considered himself schizophrenic at some point in his life. Maybe it's true that if one wants to be understood they should seek someone that has experienced what they have; otherwise, it's almost expected to be misunderstood.

Isn't this what people mean when they say there is a fine line between madness and genius? The only difference seems to be passion and a desire to go all the way in thought and energy, perhaps too far, an obsession to get a fuller truth about things. Yes, it probably means making more mistakes and causing them-self more pain and torment and seeming fanatic and insane; but what do you really know about something without going deep into it with all your energy? Without restricting any idea about it, until falsified, because you might miss something good if you do? Is this really the thought of an animal? Or just the folly of mixing ignorance and a hungry intelligence?

[glam]

socionics posits that there are 16 actual types with well-delineated relationships and the translated writings of "classical" socionicists do not leave much room for ambiguity in terms of those relationships or in terms of how well people can fit a type.

socionics is a model, meaning that the sixteen types and the intertype relations are explanations meant to predict the outcome of a certain phenomenon (human relationships) within this context, i.e. all other factors being equal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...rating_a_model

Modelling refers to the process of generating a model as a conceptual representation of some phenomenon. Typically a model will refer only to some aspects of the phenomenon in question, and two models of the same phenomenon may be essentially different, that is to say that the difference or differences between them is more than just a simple renaming of components.

Such differences may be due to differing requirements of the model's end users, or to conceptual or aesthetic differences among the modellers and to contingent decisions made during the modelling process. Aesthetic considerations that may influence the structure of a model might be the modeller's preference for a reduced ontology, preferences regarding probabilistic models vis-a-vis deterministic ones, discrete vs continuous time, etc. For this reason, users of a model need to understand the model's original purpose and the assumptions made that are pertinent to its validity.

there are so many other factors involved in human relationships beyond socionics that of course socionics cannot account for them all. as a model, it's not trying to do this (and it shouldn't).

it's not socionics' fault if people take it completely literally and try to apply it that way while forgetting its purpose, its limitations, and all the other factors regarding human relationships.

so to say that a dislike of socionics due to either disillusionment or a distate for others' strict application is the fault of humans and not "socionics" is just false.

how was what i said false regarding what Tackk wrote? s/he said nothing of the actual theory itself, all complaints were regarding the people involved in the socionics/typology community and how they use the theory.

i wasn't trying to make a blanket statement regarding people's reasons to dislike of socionics. i'm sure there are people who dislike socionics the theory itself for a variety of reasons. but that's not what i got out of Tackk's post.

[ashlesha]

for example, according to the model, duality is the best possible type of relationship and helps cover your weak spots while highlighting your strengths. there is really no other interpretation. so to say "duality is awesome and i should marry my dual" isn't really a stretch or a misapplication going purely by the theory.

[ashlesha]

iow, if you're doing it right you're doing it wrong.

[glam]

for example, according to the model, duality is the best possible type of relationship and helps cover your weak spots while highlighting your strengths. there is really no other interpretation. so to say "duality is awesome and i should marry my dual" isn't really a stretch or a misapplication going purely by the theory.

iow, if you're doing it right you're doing it wrong.

but people should recognize that not all duals are created equal, due to all other non-socionics factors. like i said, if people are going to ignore non-socionics factors while choosing who they're going to marry purely based on socionics, that's their problem.

[ashlesha]

but people should recognize that not all duals are created equal, due to all other non-socionics factors. like i said, if people are going to ignore non-socionics factors while choosing who they're going to marry purely based on socionics, that's their problem.

of course its their problem. its completely their fault. but they'd be following socionics to the letter. how can you not conclude, then, that socionics is flawed?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I think it's like this:

If life had no variables, socionics would work perfectly. We would just romantically twirl around with our duals all day in pure perfect light. Sounds like throw up on paper, but it really would be that exciting positive energy exchange feel.

But life has variables and adds complications to the mix... and so we don't usually like being bombarded with love or overly sweet messages because it feels divorced from reality. It sounds good on paper like on theory, like 'You're a shy sweet person (iei) so you want somebody to protect you and rape you when you really want it' or something... but what happens when somebody is Gay? I don't mean gay as in actual homosexuality, I mean gay as in non-dualistic thinking. What if a gentle soul is also appreciating somebody who is gentle? Socionics says that's not as good as liking a complement. But you feel a strong belonging with them more than the complement. Socionics tries to fanwank this by saying 'duality takes time to develop.'

[glam]

of course its their problem. its completely their fault. but they'd be following socionics to the letter. how can you not conclude, then, that socionics is flawed?

i never said socionics wasn't flawed? all models are limited somehow in explaining the phenomenon they are addressing, and models also often go through changes with the discovery of new data (something which socionics could benefit from, imo), in order to be refined & improved.

i also never said anyone should follow socionics "to the letter", in fact i'm arguing the opposite - for people to recognize its limitations due to its status as a model. anyone who uses socionics in such a way might as well declare it their religion.

i don't understand what exactly it is you're disagreeing with me about.

[ashlesha]

i don't understand what exactly it is you're disagreeing with me about.

i know you are arguing against people following socionics to the letter. you were just also saying it wasn't socionics "fault."

and i wouldn't put it that way either - i wouldn't place "blame" on a model instead of the people using it. but people misapply it when they use it correctly. it IS a problem with the theory.

i'm not even really sure if thats an important point of disagreement, though. i think in the end it probably comes down to how much value we place on it in terms of whether its worth trying to apply it or not.

[glam]

i know you are arguing against people following socionics to the letter. you were just also saying it wasn't socionics "fault."

and i wouldn't put it that way either - i wouldn't place "blame" on a model instead of the people using it. but people misapply it when they use it correctly. it IS a problem with the theory.

i'm not even really sure if thats an important point of disagreement, though. i think in the end it probably comes down to how much value we place on it in terms of whether its worth trying to apply it or not.

understand socionics -> understand its limitations -> apply it if you will

if people on step #3 misapply it because they skipped step #2, that's not socionics' fault for someone not understanding that the theory isn't a magic wand for their relationships should they choose to apply it.

i think the disagreement could be related to that, what you said said regarding each individual's determination of its value, interpretation of socionics as a theory, and also on what the "correct" way to apply socionics is.

because i suspect we probably disagree on what "using the model correctly" (among other language throughout this conversation) actually means. but i don't really feel like arguing semantics to be honest.

[ashlesha]

if a product doesn't work as the label describes, there's a problem with it. shrug.

[krieger]

if a product doesn't work as the label describes, there's a problem with it. shrug.

just with the label.

[mu4]

if a product doesn't work as the label describes, there's a problem with it. shrug.

There is something we like to call user error... I would say model is not practice or a tool, it's just a explanation which can be used to design tools and practices.

Socionics/psychology is still going thru a phase of discovery and experimentation and has very limited powers of practice. And due to the complex nature of what is being tackled the practice is fairly unpredictable as a result.

I always view socionics as like predicting the weather which of course is not something that everyone can do.

Very few people can produce the OS for a Iphone, but quite a few people can use software on the Iphone or play a game. There is a model/design of the Iphone OS and any other OS but it's highly unlikely even with knowledge of that model, anyone could produce a functional version of the OS, just as knowledge of thermodynamics does not let one produce an adequate engine.

[ashlesha]

just with the label.

thats what i was getting at with this:

for example, according to the model, duality is the best possible type of relationship and helps cover your weak spots while highlighting your strengths. there is really no other interpretation. so to say "duality is awesome and i should marry my dual" isn't really a stretch or a misapplication going purely by the theory.

aren't the product and the label the same thing in this case? is duality the best relationship or is it not the best relationship?

once you start getting into "sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, it depends, etc. etc...." .....then you're not even going by the model anymore.

[silverchris9]

This just means socionics has now sinked its claws into a pre-verbal/pre-conscious animalistic part of your psyche.

Oh def.

Why did you come back? For socionics, for the people? Why did you leave? Do you feel you can have a healthier balance of socionics in your life now?

I just stopped by to post something because I thought about the forum, like you'd think about a bar or restaurant you used to frequent, you'd wonder how the people are doing, etc. I don't really intend to start posting a lot again, although who knows I might stop by more. Anyway, I didn't leave consciously or on purpose, like I didn't think about socionics in general less consciously or on purpose. I honestly just got busier and less bored and also probably happier after being in college for a while (I guess the last time I posted on here with great frequency was like my sophomore year of college? Maybe the summer after?) And re: socionics, shrug. I dunno.

And also thank you for the compliment!

Hi silverchris! nice to see you!

Hola! How are you? Hope everything's well.

of course socionics has its limitations, it is not purporting to be a magic key to understanding everything there is to know about people, and shouldn't be treated as such.

when people talk about their disillusionment with socionics due to its limitations, i have to wonder how much unlimited faith they were putting in it in the first place.

Yeah. I was going to argue with you about that, but you're right. Even though I talked a lot about the limitations of socionics, I think I imagined it had more explanatory scope\power than it actually does. I also think I underestimated the negative impact of the sort of biases that thinking about people through the lens of socionics gives you. But I think I got out of it one really positive idea which is an understanding of just how radically different different people's perspectives and modes of interpreting life and motivating action and all that really are. I think the big negative I got from it was overrelying on it as a social guide. Being a naturally analytical person, I didn't so much have a fantasy of meeting my perfect ideal heavenly SLE soulmate (I mean, I guess I did have an idealized view of duality, but that wasn't a huge motivating factor) as a fantasy of using socionics to help me find more\better\more fulfilling friendships. It's like, you don't have to actually be better at interacting with people, you can cheat by only hanging out with people in your quadra (which you will discern using your mystical socionics powerz). That was the fantasy, I think. And I think it led me to underestimate the importance of circumstance, external similarity, and shared experiences in making good friendships. I probably started having less faith in socionics when I realized that a lot of my close friends were almost certainly not the types that they were "supposed" to be according to socionics. So then I (subconsciously) figured out that life was more accurate than my socionics-based model of it, and thought about socionics less. It also probably had to do with the fact that I started posting a lot more here around when I first got into college, when I knew I'd be meeting a lot of new people and building an entirely different social world. So yeah, unrealistic expectations. I had them.

EDIT: Oh, and of course I'm sure I also had some of the other normal less-then-noble reasons to be into socionics. What? A polr explains all of my personal weaknesses? What? Everybody I don't like is my conflictor and there are no other factors except personality that may be playing into my reaction to this individual? Really? You don't say! So that was something else to get over.

[krieger]

a lot of people when complaining about the supposed "limitations of socionics" are really in a struggle against the unrealistically elevated expectations they themselves formed prior to coming to terms what the theory ever was about.

classic case of "blame the system, not yourself".

[ashlesha]

a lot of people when complaining about the supposed "limitations of socionics" are really in a struggle against the unrealistically elevated expectations they themselves formed prior to coming to terms what the theory ever was about.

classic case of "blame the system, not yourself".

this makes me wonder if you understood anything i said here. ):
i think i would just be repeating myself at this point.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

i've noticed a pattern of beta NFs and fear of being seen as or even feeling not-so-healthy mentally.Maybe it is a Ni and Fe conflict.

[Iris]

I do still kinda miss this place, but I suppose it's like socionics---helpful and healthy at a certain phase of my life, maybe less helpful and healthy now? Not sure.

I enjoyed reading your posts in my lurking days, and found much of what you wrote to be helpful to me. So thanks, and I hope you will continue to post. Who is that in your avatar?

[leckysupport]

classic case of "blame the system, not yourself".

Nah, the system is either counter-productive or useless at best, regardless of anyone's personal feelings or whether or not the theory is epistemologically true imo.

[Radio]

Who is that in your avatar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Whitman

[glam]

ok, i take back everything i said in this thread. i now declare socionics the ultimate enemy - wicked, tricksy, and false, it is!