A Note on Intertype Relations

[Galen]

I see a lot of "I like a non-dual, what should I do" threads being thrown around, so I'd like to take the time to make a few points:



1. Aside from a few key elements, all people and their personalities are different

As a species, most all human beings have the same basic desires and necessities: food, shelter, friendship, fulfillment, etc. The methods by which they go about attaining these things are as numerous as there are people alive to do them. Factors such as gender, age, culture, geography, religion, social status, sexuality, occupation, personal interests, childhood experiences, and biological/physical/psychological health and well-being to name only a scant few all color how an individual understands himself and relates to others.


2. Socionics is only one factor out of hundreds

As a system of so-called "information metabolism," Socionics attempts to describe only the most basic and abstract of cognitive patterns. While this is still a relatively important aspect to how people understand the world, the information that's fed into these different pipelines of information will always differ to some degree. While Socionics can relegate to some degree the basic methods by which people communicate with one another, this by no means precludes the possibility of two people with opposing IE values understanding each other or coming to agreements on similar topics; I see it happen all the time. The only really immediate factor that I see socionics playing on a person's personality is in temperaments, and even then how the temperament manifests is subject to external factors.


3. Relationships are inherently fluid and complicated

Given the inherent complexity of one human being and his own understanding of the world, for him to be in such a comfortable and intuitive sync with another person doesn't happen very often at all. Most times, he will have to do the dance of attempting to understand those things outside of his immediate purview, such as conflicting ideologies, lifestyles, interests, even the other person's physicality. Plus given how often people's personalities change depending on their current life satisfaction, world experiences, or even something so trivial as mood, the nature of these relationships will also morph and change to some degree. As Socionics is purported to be a static depiction of the human psyche, it cannot account for whatever psychological or physical changes two people undergo between each other or in what ways their relationship will pan out in the long run.



In short, if you two like each other and really find that you work well together in practice, Socionics should not dissuade you from pursuing it

It's a good tool for understanding what sorts of vague underlying thought patterns you are best equipped to metabolize, but Socionics will never be the end-all-be-all. If you love, like, or even have a simple passing crush on someone, it's fine to keep Socionics in mind to get a sense of how you two interact. But you must understand that there has to be something more immediately aligned between the two of you in order for a relationship to be truly rewarding and fulfilling.

[717495]

Most of the duality marriages I've seen have been Christians.

[thePirate]

Most of the duality marriages I've seen have been Christians.

do you ever post anything worthwhile

[717495]

Amusing or worthwhile? It's dubious to say that much on the whole forum is worthwhile, the point of having a discussion where most of us drivel about our short-sighted acumen of abstract psychological types, it reminds me of insights on the streets. By comparison, it is truly less amusing. But I tend to think most of my limited perspectives on Socionics are accurate and worthwhile, that is, something to pay attention to if you haven't. I also intend to spread around these worthwhile links to rather perceptive material on the subject (check signature.)

[ashlesha]

why do people use so many words for this when "socionics is meaningless" conveys the exact same thing in less time?

[tcaudilllg]

In all my experience, I've found that type is not as important as attitudes towards types. Delusional pursuits of worlds where this or that function is not required will estrange you from people who see that function as the centerpiece of their social and personal development. It's not about how a person is when you meet them, but whether you and they can accept one anothers' trajectories of attitude development.

There may well be potential in the study of these "growth types".

[Galen]

why do people use so many words for this when "socionics is meaningless" conveys the exact same thing in less time?

Because I'm not saying that it's meaningless, rather that its importance as to how two people get along tends to be way overblown as it's prone to other external factors. In the same way, I wouldn't completely judge the merit of a relationship based solely on a person's choice of hobby or income bracket, although they are both important things to consider.

[ashlesha]

ok so like if you were to estimate all factors that influence relationships between people in a pie chart.
lets say shared language and culture are 50% for example.

what would socionics be? 1%? 30%? 12%?

i know this is an annoying and unanswerable question, lol. but its representative of where my mind goes when i see, essentially:

"it doesn't matter. but it does."
"don't put too much faith in it. but be careful around your conflictor."
"duality is bogus. god i fucking love my dual boyfriend."

[Galen]

ok so like if you were to estimate all factors that influence relationships between people in a pie chart.
lets say shared language and culture are 50% for example.

what would socionics be? 1%? 30%? 12%?

I haven't thought that far deep into it, nor do I think I could even begin to quantify its level of importance this way.

i know this is an annoying and unanswerable question, lol.

Then why ask it?

but its representative of where my mind goes when i see, essentially:

"it doesn't matter. but it does."
"don't put too much faith in it. but be careful around your conflictor."
"duality is bogus. god i fucking love my dual boyfriend."

I don't think what I'm saying is as contradictory as you think. What I'm trying to convey is that Socionics is one factor out of many, and depending on what other uncontrollable variables there may be, what I see as being generally believed about intertype relations is taken out of context.

[ashlesha]

I ask the question because I feel like i could trust that people were bullshitting less if things were better quantified.

as it stands its like being able to play both sides of the fence. if you type a couple as a dual its a sign of socionics working and if they break up you can fall back on its infallibility. you can type a person whatever you want because their relationships matter as much as you want them to.

thats why I don't like these long explanations about how socionics doesn't account for everything when.. no shit. it seems almost dishonest in its long windEd effort.

[mu4]

Communication matters and intertype relations is just a explanation for communication and miscommunication based in information preference.

Do not mistaken the study for the thing itself.

Of course communication is not the only thing in a relationship, material necessity, lust, exploitation are all part and parcel of this thing. Socionics matters if you want equal mutually beneficial and sustainable relationships of good communication. As far as the study goes, it's at about a 1 sigma level of reliability of less but given divorce rates are still high, even 1 sigma of reliability is desirable.

If socionics as a study has a capacity to lower divorce rates 5% then it's not meaningless.

Communication is generally cited as the #1 or #2 reason for divorce, with infidelity being the other partner so to speak. What socionics studies is one of the main factors of relationship stability, but it is not communication itself nor the engagement of a relationship itself.

Human relationships have always been a messy business full of inequities, exploitation, pain and heart ache, etc... It is also a source of great joy, benefit, children, comfort... Whatever knowledge that can improve these relationships is worthwhile.

[FoxOnStilts]

ok so like if you were to estimate all factors that influence relationships between people in a pie chart.
lets say shared language and culture are 50% for example.

what would socionics be? 1%? 30%? 12%?

The problem with this statement is that socionics can't be quantified in terms of meaningful or meaningless or "useful"*. Ideally, it's the kind of theory that explains what's already there. Sort of like how gravity still exists, even if you don't know the theory behind it. That's what socionics tries to do. Explain what's already there. So is the type of people you hang out with and how you communicate meaningless? Of course not. From that point of view, of course socionics isn't meaningless. Is sitting around thinking about types and how you are SOOOO you're type and EWWW CONFLICTOR and CUMMMMM DUAL useful or meaningful? If anything, I think that can easily be detrimental, like whoever it was that said that they would go out of their way to ONLY befriend and get to know people they typed within their quadra. That's just silly.

I like it from a theoretical point of view, just because it's in my nature to want to know "why" people behave the way they do. Do I apply it to my life? No, not really, it doesn't make that much of a difference irl, but it's still interesting for me to think about every now and again. But in general, that's how I feel about my entire field of study, so that might be why. Anthropological theory is very interesting as well.

[Galen]

I ask the question because I feel like i could trust that people were bullshitting less if things were better quantified.

as it stands its like being able to play both sides of the fence. if you type a couple as a dual its a sign of socionics working and if they break up you can fall back on its infallibility. you can type a person whatever you want because their relationships matter as much as you want them to.

Are you saying more that the system itself is flawed, or just that the people applying it are contradicting themselves? I don't think people being disingenuous with their typing schematics is reason enough to dismiss the theory altogether.

thats why I don't like these long explanations about how socionics doesn't account for everything when.. no shit. it seems almost dishonest in its long windEd effort.

Except that a good chunk of people on here don't understand that it doesn't account for everything; this post was addressed primarily to them, as evinced by the header.

[ashlesha]

Are you saying more that the system itself is flawed, or just that the people applying it are contradicting themselves? I don't think people being disingenuous with their typing schematics is reason enough to dismiss the theory altogether.

i don't think anybody is consciously and deliberately disingenuous about it.
i think that taking it seriously and applying it as though it holds water requires some self-deception.

given the fact that it's inherently a fuzzy and unquantifiable ideal the honest approach if you're going to use it at all is to say "lol ok lets play with this bullshit." to say "its real, BUT..." is an apologist kind of thing.

the model in and of itself says that duality is the best possible relationship. and experience says that is not always true. whether or not you consider that a problem with the theory seems to be arguable i guess, but my opinion is yes. its either true or untrue, and its untrue.

meh i'm torn between being tired of talking about it and wanting to keep trying because i can't convey my thoughts 100% and it frustrates me into wanting to continue lol.

[mu4]

The problem with this statement is that socionics can't be quantified in terms of meaningful or meaningless or "useful"*. Ideally, it's the kind of theory that explains what's already there. Sort of like how gravity still exists, even if you don't know the theory behind it. That's what socionics tries to do. Explain what's already there. So is the type of people you hang out with and how you communicate meaningless? Of course not. From that point of view, of course socionics isn't meaningless. Is sitting around thinking about types and how you are SOOOO you're type and EWWW CONFLICTOR and CUMMMMM DUAL useful or meaningful? If anything, I think that can easily be detrimental, like whoever it was that said that they would go out of their way to ONLY befriend and get to know people they typed within their quadra. That's just silly.

I like it from a theoretical point of view, just because it's in my nature to want to know "why" people behave the way they do. Do I apply it to my life? No, not really, it doesn't make that much of a difference irl, but it's still interesting for me to think about every now and again. But in general, that's how I feel about my entire field of study, so that might be why. Anthropological theory is very interesting as well.

I would say socionics can be pretty useful to some people. Like, don't dump your dual and marry your conflictor.... in order to avoid...

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusive...re-gold-digger

[ashlesha]

this is a tired analogy but seriously can you not see us all having very similar discussions that we have here on the forum with the words "pisces" and "aries" substituted? you put a pisces and a cancer together and a good deal of the time they'll work and you can say fuck yeah astrology, this shit clicks! and sometimes it won't go well and you can say oh well, there are other factors, astrology doesn't explain everything after all....

ITS NO DIFFERENT DUH DUH DUH

[ashlesha]

actually it is different.

because afterwards you can say: "oops, they were actually a taurus all along"

LOL

[mu4]

this is a tired analogy but seriously can you not see us all having very similar discussions that we have here on the forum with the words "pisces" and "aries" substituted? you put a pisces and a cancer together and a good deal of the time they'll work and you can say fuck yeah astrology, this shit clicks! and sometimes it won't go well and you can say oh well, there are other factors, astrology doesn't explain everything after all....

ITS NO DIFFERENT DUH DUH DUH

Wrong, because pisces and aries are based on star signs and such and socionics is based on information metabolism, information processing and information preference. Two of which I have a extensive background in. Information processing and information preference are absolutely valid and useful and your very experience here is based on both of those concepts put into practice.

You put two people who can communicate together and they will do better, that's just common sense.

The XXX and YYY tags we place on individuals is just a prediction of their information preference based on available information concerning how these individuals communicate.

I've said this many time before, socionics is closer to weather prediction and recommendation systems. There are incredibly sophisticated systems for weather prediction today which work thru information processing. There are many information systems which predict compatibly between individuals against other individuals, like e-harmony, ok-cupid, etc, as well as predict compatibility between individuals and products, such as Amazon, Netflix, Google, etc.

Socionics provides a viable framework to interpret and design predictive mechanism for all sorts of relationships.

[Galen]

this is a tired analogy but seriously can you not see us all having very similar discussions that we have here on the forum with the words "pisces" and "aries" substituted? you put a pisces and a cancer together and a good deal of the time they'll work and you can say fuck yeah astrology, this shit clicks! and sometimes it won't go well and you can say oh well, there are other factors, astrology doesn't explain everything after all....

ITS NO DIFFERENT DUH DUH DUH

I know nothing about how astrology supposedly works or what it says, so I don't think it's fair for me to dissect this analogy. What I would ask, though, is what astrology attempts to define about people and what its proponents have observed in others to support the claims they makes.

You're right though, the situation and conclusion you've drawn does match up to how people see Socionics, which is the exact same conclusion I've come to in the op. I don't understand what's getting you in such a huff.

[ashlesha]

hkkmr planets are at least real, information elements are imaginary. you can't say "oh but information elements"like that actually means anything lol.

Galen idk what to say, if we have reached the same conclusions you wouldn't be as comfortable with it as you are.

[Galen]

hkkmr planets are at least real, information elements are imaginary. you can't say "oh but information elements"like that actually means anything lol.

Unless you can, which he seems to be doing.

Galen idk what to say, if we have reached the same conclusions you wouldn't be as comfortable with it as you are.

What's confusing me is that it sounds like you're treating "it doesn't explain everything" the same as "it explains nothing."

[mu4]

hkkmr planets are at least real, information elements are imaginary. you can't say "oh but information elements"like that actually means anything lol.

Galen idk what to say, if we have reached the same conclusions you wouldn't be as comfortable with it as you are.

When did I ever say information element? And information processing and preference are quite real and far more applicable for the communication of human beings then star signs.

Anyways, all the words we're using are imaginary in the sense that it requires your brain to interpret these words in order to make sense of them but some words might reflect actual reality, while other words don't.

See information processing, in action.

[ashlesha]

What's confusing me is that it sounds like you're treating "it doesn't explain everything" the same as "it explains nothing."

you are treating "it doesn't explain everything" as "it explains some things"
thats why I bring up astrology (sorry for the "red herring"whatever I'm aiming for honesty not logic)- it sure could explain "some things"if you WANTED it to but what does that really mean in terms of its validity. nothing

its what you make it. what you make in your head. its in your head. that doesn't mean its outside of it too.

I can make it explain some things too. doesn't mean it actually explains anything.

[redbaron]

I just wanna say, not necessarily defending astrology, but I want people to be aware that astrology doesn't claim that you're only your sun sign. It's actually very complex. It looks at all the planets in your natal chart but then ALSO follows the transits of the planets throughout your life. So don't be so quick to dismiss until you understand it a bit more clearly (which is what I would say to people about socionics as well).

[Eliza Thomason]

@Galen, that was well said. I had some thoughts along these lines and started writing them, but I really can't take the time to finish now. You said a lot of what I was going to say here anyway. But basically, Duality brings contentment, the others do, too, but also require growth, to various degrees. (Though there is need for growth in Duality, too...)
@polikujm I wonder why?
@Shayley - why do you agree with polikum's observation?

I could say I agree, but that would be unfair. The only Dual couple I can think of is Christian. But the only married couples I knew real well, other than family, were Christians because that was my whole community when I was married. (I did not know the marriages of my colleagues at work). Of all those marriages, I know only one Dual couple, and I was intrigued by their contentment.

I know Paul Newman and his actress wife were happy Duals, and I am not sure that they were Christian. There are other examples of this of course.

But assuming your observation is based on a more diverse pool of married couples than my own, it is interesting to think of why that would be. In practicing Christian communities, you are more likely to abstain before marriage, which gives you more opportunity to actually date, vs. hookup, and dating you get to know a person. I would add that there is more validation and support for "just dating" in Christian comunities, whereas you have to be very countercultural to do that in the community at large in our times. "Just dating," you can make a decision based on the person you have gotten to know, vs. based on the fact that you are VERY attached now because you have been intimate. So this could be a reason for that.

The Dual couple I knew had such constraints on their dating, as they had been long-practicing Christians. The SEI wife was very understanding of my difficult marriage, even though hers was so good, because she had dated a very controlling young man in college, and could imagine her life could have gone the same way. (Her understanding was a real balm, because there was a problem of judgment in that community that the wife must not being doing something enough, or right, if her marriage is unhappy - and those in better marriages would council those like me to be more like them! Very frustrating!)

I was not a long-practicing Christian when I met my ex and I should have known better, but he pursued me avidly and romantically and I excused myself with "I just couldn't help it" and justified it with "We are in love and are going to marry anyway". (I was also ready to marry, and letting whatever happened with in-love happen was sort of a choice). But looking back, I would have benefited so much from more self-control, and I could have avoided what we Catholics call "near occasion of sin" and put my mind to only knowing him better. And I was real good at looking for excuses to do what I wanted, and asked at the time: "Where in the Bible does it say we need a piece of paper to be married? We are already married in our hearts." (answer: it doesn't, thats why you need a Church and not just the Bible alone). So instead I just got attached (comes with intimacy) and did not question the warning signs (though there weren't that many - but since he was out of town, he could hide them, and he did). But our problems were not type related (we had some of those, but I could have lived with them) but dysfunction related.

[ashlesha]

I just wanna say, not necessarily defending astrology, but I want people to be aware that astrology doesn't claim that you're only your sun sign. It's actually very complex. It looks at all the planets in your natal chart but then ALSO follows the transits of the planets throughout your life. So don't be so quick to dismiss until you understand it a bit more clearly (which is what I would say to people about socionics as well).

yeah astrology can be interesting to talk about as a way to frame behavior just like socionics can.

they're both make believe though. doesn't mean they can't be fun

[redbaron]

In practicing Christian communities, you are more likely to abstain before marriage, which gives you more opportunity to actually date, vs. hookup, and dating you get to know a person.

Or alternatively, date LESS and end up getting married sooner than you should because you want the sex (even if it's not a super conscious thought, how can that not play a part in the timing?). Honestly, I wish I hadn't saved myself for marriage. It was fine in theory and if you end up in a good marriage, it's great. But wow, I missed out on so much learning and experience and I ended up thinking that sex was a certain way that it was between us. Since then I've discovered that it's very much more (and so much better) than that!

[redbaron]

yeah astrology can be interesting to talk about as a way to frame behavior just like socionics can.

they're both make believe though. doesn't mean they can't be fun

also, just because something can't be proved, doesn't make it not true.

[anndelise]

you are treating "it doesn't explain everything" as "it explains some things"
thats why I bring up astrology (sorry for the "red herring"whatever I'm aiming for honesty not logic)- it sure could explain "some things"if you WANTED it to but what does that really mean in terms of its validity. nothing

its what you make it. what you make in your head. its in your head. that doesn't mean its outside of it too.

I can make it explain some things too. doesn't mean it actually explains anything.

Try thinking of it as merely one of many ways of categorizing people. He's quiet, she's outspoken, we all do these kimds of categorizations.

An example, The 5 love languages is also a categorization. It,s not 'true' but it is a handy way of viewing one portion of compatibility between people. Knowing what love language a partner or friend shows can help you (general you) not only recognize when they are showing love, but also ways you can help show your love to them. It's not the end-all-be-all of determining success in a relationship...but that doesn't mean it's a useless categorization method/theory.

Socionics would be similar, imo.
Even if some of its practitioners think it's the ultimate determiner.
And this is where Galen's post is relevant...describing so many other parts of a relationship that these 'one-true-way'ers seem to forget or ignore exists.

Then there is also the difference in mentalities between people who view socionics as a descriptive categorization model...vs those who view it as a prescriptive model.

[ashlesha]

also, just because something can't be proved, doesn't make it not true.

sure. it just makes it a matter of faith.

[Eliza Thomason]

Or alternatively, date LESS and end up getting married sooner than you should because you want the sex (even if it's not a super conscious thought, how can that not play a part in the timing?). Honestly, I wish I hadn't saved myself for marriage. It was fine in theory and if you end up in a good marriage, it's great. But wow, I missed out on so much learning and experience and I ended up thinking that sex was a certain way that it was between us. Since then I've discovered that it's very much more (and so much better) than that!

Yes, it certainly can be that way, too - hurrying into marraige just to be intimate. But I was intimate with my husband before I married him, which made me all the more determined to stay with him (and ignore warning signs), as in my mind we were "already married". I have seen countless woman stay in bad relationships because they are attached because of intimacy. I think that is the normal state for a woman when she shares her whole self sexually. Your whole self comes with it. We normally do not separate out. All of us comes together as a whole package!

A friend of mine had strict dating rules grilled into her, that she agreed to and adopted as her own, was publicly engaged (on a cruise, in front of his whole family) and planned a wedding, and bought a dress, and sent invitations, but her parents encouraged her to listen to the doubts she was having, as relationship issues arose in all the planning, even though it meant canceling her wedding. We are not all beneficiaries of such sensitive thoughtful parents... She did pick another eventually, saving even the kiss for the wedding day (not what I would do) and the intimacy, as was the dating and courtship, is quite fine she says. They are both happy.

I don't know if they are Duals. I suspect they are both introverts, so then, not. And one of my brothers has a terrific marraige, seems like Duals, but I suspect they are both extroverts. I could be wrong about my brother... not sure.

[anndelise]

We humans are inveterate classifiers. We classify just about everything, dividing our world into a wide variety of arbitrary categories. Different people will often classify things in different ways. For example, some might put all their socks in one drawer and all their underwear in another; others might put thermal longjohns and thick wool socks together in one drawer, bikini briefs and ankle socks together in another. No classificatory system is inherently 'better' than another. The only criterion for the success of a classification system is its utility. Because different people have different needs, what 'works' for one individual may not for another. But this lack of universality doesn't dissuade each of us from working out a system that is right for our purposes. Try as we might, we cannot seem to resist grouping, organizing, and classifying everything we come across.

http://www.elasmo-research.org/educa...n/taxonomy.htm

[ashlesha]

Try thinking of it as merely one of many ways of categorizing people. He's quiet, she's outspoken, we all do these kimds of categorizations.

An example, The 5 love languages is also a categorization. It,s not 'true' but it is a handy way of viewing one portion of compatibility between people. Knowing what love language a partner or friend shows can help you (general you) not only recognize when they are showing love, but also ways you can help show your love to them. It's not the end-all-be-all of determining success in a relationship...but that doesn't mean it's a useless categorization method/theory.

Socionics would be similar, imo.
Even if some of its practitioners think it's the ultimate determiner.
And this is where Galen's post is relevant...describing so many other parts of a relationship that these 'one-true-way'ers seem to forget or ignore exists.

Then there is also the difference in mentalities between people who view socionics as a descriptive categorization model...vs those who view it as a prescriptive model.

socionics as a model does not account for things like:

"this by no means precludes the possibility of two people with opposing IE values understanding each other"

when galen said that, he was saying "socionics is wrong."

and that's fine. but he can be HONEST about it. and SAY: "socionics is wrong."

[mu4]

socionics as a model does not account for things like:

"this by no means precludes the possibility of two people with opposing IE values understanding each other"

Socionics never says this and frankly thinking that this is what socionics says is a misunderstanding of this topic. Just because someone understands someone else, doesn't mean it's a good understanding or a cooperative understanding.

From my understand of what you say, I disagree with you.

The truth is people barely understand the words they are saying, they've been taught these words and gained a understanding of these words, they have feelings, emotions which color these words, unconscious and primal drives affect these speech acts. Yet despite this so much of our own communicate is obscured from ourselves.

when galen said that, he was saying "socionics is wrong."

and that's fine. but he can be HONEST about it. and SAY: "socionics is wrong."

It's easy to say socionics is wrong, just as it's easy to say that you are wrong. Nobody in any of their speech acts or understanding is "right". We're just dumb animals in the grand scheme of thing, making the best of what limited powers of understanding and comprehension we have.

[ashlesha]

Socionics never says this and frankly thinking that this is what socionics says is a misunderstanding of this topic. Just because someone understands someone else, doesn't mean it's a good understanding or a cooperative understanding.

From my understand of what you say, I disagree with you.

The truth is people barely understand the words they are saying, they've been taught these words and gained a understanding of these words, they have feelings, emotions which color these words, unconscious and primal drives affect these speech acts. Yet despite this so much of our own communicate is obscured from ourselves.



It's easy to say socionics is wrong, just as it's easy to say that you are wrong. Nobody in any of their speech acts or understanding is "right". We're just dumb animals in the grand scheme of thing, making the best of what limited powers of understanding and comprehension we have.

lol here socionics is a convenient way to explain why you just said a bunch of random shit that has nothing to do with what i said.

when you eat cholesterol it is bad for your arteries.

some people speak sign language.

so there.

[anndelise]

socionics as a model does not account for things like:

"this by no means precludes the possibility of two people with opposing IE values understanding each other"

when galen said that, he was saying "socionics is wrong."

and that's fine. but he can be HONEST about it. and SAY: "socionics is wrong."

I don,t think he was saying socionics is wrong any more than if he were to say that an outgoing girl can understand a quiet guy. Or that a non-english speaking person can understand what an english speaking person is getting across. Details may get lost during the interpretation process, but the overall gist might be understood....don't swim in that river!! (I might argue that most usamercians would likely not get what a non-english speaker is trying to say, however, lol.)

Even in socionics terms, we all have the experience of each of the elements which we draw from in our everyday life. Some people just happen to be more comfortable dealing with certain types of information than others. Even a mechanic can understand much of what a librarian says...and vice versa...though on some topics they'll have no experience to draw from, which will make communications a bit difficult.

But even identicals from different cultures are still going to be influenced by their cultures...and so may draw different conclusions based on differing experiences from cultural (and other) influences. Or even religious beliefs...a christian and an athiest likely won,t grasp how the other thinks...mainly because they draw different conclusions...but, they could both still process or value Ni+Fi information. Just not all Ni info is exactly the same...and not all Fi values are exactly the same.

[anndelise]

socionics as a model does not account for things like:

"this by no means precludes the possibility of two people with opposing IE values understanding each other"

when galen said that, he was saying "socionics is wrong."

and that's fine. but he can be HONEST about it. and SAY: "socionics is wrong."

Also, you're focusing on right/wrong...true/false...rather than useful/not-useful.
(I've fallen into this as well, I'm not saying it's wrong to think this way.)

[ashlesha]

I don,t think he was saying socionics is wrong any more than if he were to say that an outgoing girl can understand a quiet guy. Or that a non-english speaking person can understand what an english speaking person is getting across. Details may get lost during the interpretation process, but the overall gist might be understood....don't swim in that river!! (I might argue that most usamercians would likely not get what a non-english speaker is trying to say, however, lol.)

Even in socionics terms, we all have the experience of each of the elements which we draw from in our everyday life. Some people just happen to be more comfortable dealing with certain types of information than others. Even a mechanic can understand much of what a librarian says...and vice versa...though on some topics they'll have no experience to draw from, which will make communications a bit difficult.

But even identicals from different cultures are still going to be influenced by their cultures...and so may draw different conclusions based on differing experiences from cultural (and other) influences. Or even religious beliefs...a christian and an athiest likely won,t grasp how the other thinks...mainly because they draw different conclusions...but, they could both still process or value Ni+Fi information. Just not all Ni info is exactly the same...and not all Fi values are exactly the same.

english and spanish are real things. a librarian is a real thing. a mechanic is a real thing.

its pretty hard to fool yourself into thinking you can speak spanish when you can't. or to mistake a librarian for a mechanic to the point you try to convince them they're wrong and they're actually a mechanic.

i have an idea of what "Fi" means. but it is absolutely nothing except "my idea of what Fi means." it is not "Fi."

so whether socionics "works" or not is moot. it cannot work. it does not work. it does not operate in the sphere of "working." it should be treated as a mind game. that's what it is.

[mu4]

lol here socionics is a convenient way to explain why you just said a bunch of random shit that has nothing to do with what i said.

when you eat cholesterol it is bad for your arteries.

some people speak sign language.

so there.

Well you're not being random here, you're being facetious. That's entirely non-random.

Anyways, the things socionics make no comment on is left for other studies, as long as what socionics makes comment on is true or even somewhat true, it is valuable.

[mu4]

english and spanish are real things. a librarian is a real thing. a mechanic is a real thing.

A computer is a real thing, a brain is a real thing, communication is a real thing, a human being is a real thing. This is what socionics is talking about.

Brain, human beings, communcation. Stop thinking of the abstractions and start thinking of what the words mean.

What is a feeling? What is a thought? What is a intuition? What is a sense?

It's all information, and real in the sense that it is in the mind which a real part of our physical self.