Why Socionics Fails

[Rooster_Ferret]

LOL, I just wanted to get your attention, read this interesting article:

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/0...addiction.html

Seriously, though I will tell you why socionics fail in simple terms because as the great Alford Korzybski said, "The map is not the territory". This is why people will continue to ignore socionics when it comes to real life social problems.

[Rooster_Ferret]

No.

[Gilly]

Thanks for reminding me. Bye guys.

[crazedrat]

'the map is not the territory'
'we need a map'

.....

[strrrng]

Seriously, though I will tell you why socionics fail in simple terms because as the great Alford Korzybski said, "The map is not the territory". This is why people will continue to ignore socionics when it comes to real life social problems.

Actually, you're right, in a way. This is one of the major problems with peoples' misunderstandings of socionics today. They assume the map is the territory (i.e. "classical socionics") and fail to simply observe the functions and whatnot in their actual form, instead relying on overly-simplistic models that detract from substantial experience.

Although, we still do need a map. It is just simply a matter of exploring the territory, drawing up a rough estimate, and going from there. The map should be continually refined, obviously.

But even if the map isn't the territory, does that mean that the map isn't valid -- at least in regards to the portion that it supposedly covers? Why should people ignore socionics simply because it has yet to summate the entire terrain? That's why we have multiple psychological theories, which hopefully intertwine with each other on more fundamental levels, and which can be cross-referenced to give a multi-dimensional, consummate map of the territory.

[Rooster_Ferret]

Actually, you're right, in a way. This is one of the major problems with peoples' misunderstandings of socionics today. They assume the map is the territory (i.e. "classical socionics") and fail to simply observe the functions and whatnot in their actual form, instead relying on overly-simplistic models that detract from substantial experience.

Although, we still do need a map. It is just simply a matter of exploring the territory, drawing up a rough estimate, and going from there. The map should be continually refined, obviously.

But even if the map isn't the territory, does that mean that the map isn't valid -- at least in regards to the portion that it supposedly covers? Why should people ignore socionics simply because it has yet to summate the entire terrain? That's why we have multiple psychological theories, which hopefully intertwine with each other on more fundamental levels, and which can be cross-referenced to give a multi-dimensional, consummate map of the territory.

Indeed, you got it, but instead of staring at the map, I think a lot of the forum members here would find it useful to actually walk in the territory in order to gain a broader perspective of the reality of personality types.

[strrrng]

Indeed, you got it, but instead of staring at the map, I think a lot of the forum members here would find it useful to actually walk in the territory in order to gain a broader perspective of the reality of personality types.

You think you've been here long enough to make such an assessment?

Have you walked the territory? Do you have an understanding of the map yet?

[mikemex]

I deliberately avoid socializing in the forum, that's why I'm so dry at times. I do it because I believe that such things interfere with the quality of a discussion. Personalizing the discussions is worthless, so I reply to the ideas themselves.

Among other things, I avoid using names and emotional appeals, such as praise. I've always been the same way and this has always won me some kind of ostracizing.

My life is fulfilling without the forum, however. I use socionics on a daily basis, just like you do mathematics for the rest of your life after learning it in the school.

[jewels]

"I use socionics on a daily basis, just like you do mathematics for the rest of your life after learning it in the school."

Mikemex, I found that to be very interesting.

It makes me feel better about my constant typing. I just now typed a homeless guy (ESTp) talking to a hipster (INFp) who were standing in line for the bathroom at the starbucks. They had a very nice little conversation in which the ESTp asked the INFp about his iphone. The ESTp wanted to know if the blackberry or the iphone was better, and the INFp suggested the iphone, but said they extended his contract. Somehow, it was very cute! The INFp was very nice and had that calm thing where he didn't even judge the guy for being homeless (and he smelled), he was just interested in answering his question the best he could. He somehow made the ESTp seem less rough and more chill. It was so cute!

Anyway, I think there are some underlying ideas about socionics, like the functions, that do hold true in all situations. The type descriptions of course will differ from person to person, but the foundation of how someone thinks can be explained by the theory, which is pretty cool and extremely useful for getting along with others. I like socionics and I don't get why so many people challenge whether it's useful or not.

[Khola aka Bee]

Forget the map, it's a freaking lion! Get back in the car!!!11!

[cracka]

Forget the map, it's a freaking lion! Get back in the car!!!11!

You forgot something...lol

[07490]

I deliberately avoid socializing in the forum, that's why I'm so dry at times. I do it because I believe that such things interfere with the quality of a discussion. Personalizing the discussions is worthless, so I reply to the ideas themselves.

Among other things, I avoid using names and emotional appeals, such as praise. I've always been the same way and this has always won me some kind of ostracizing.

My life is fulfilling without the forum, however. I use socionics on a daily basis, just like you do mathematics for the rest of your life after learning it in the school.

I admire that.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I deliberately avoid socializing in the forum, that's why I'm so dry at times. I do it because I believe that such things interfere with the quality of a discussion. Personalizing the discussions is worthless, so I reply to the ideas themselves.

Among other things, I avoid using names and emotional appeals, such as praise. I've always been the same way and this has always won me some kind of ostracizing.

I wonder if this is an effort for you, like you have to work on your detachment from forum in small part but also avoiding emotional appeals and such. Also just curious, do you find it difficult to not personalise a discussion? I don't know if it's always worthless, but I can see why you'd think that (I think)

[misutii]

LOL, I just wanted to get your attention, read this interesting article:

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/0...addiction.html

Seriously, though I will tell you why socionics fail in simple terms because as the great Alford Korzybski said, "The map is not the territory". This is why people will continue to ignore socionics when it comes to real life social problems.

The Map is obviously not the territory. The Map is a general reconstruction of the territory from bird's eye view that is necessary to use in order to avoid getting lost within the territory. The map is also generally useful for planning the conquest of new territories or to invite friends to come, enjoy and discuss, the state of the territory you've already acquired. In the case of 18th Century Poland it was also used, by the Prussians, Austrians and Russians, for the country's cleanly partition.