Rejection of Socionics by Quadra?

[some chair]

Within the people of each Quadra, do you think there are approaches to rejecting Socionics, such as replacing it with a derivative or alternative system? I see some Alphas doing this. Personally, whatever Quadra I'm in, I don't see much use for the system as is, since it's bound by seemingly unsound internal logic.

Moving beyond type, what do you, the reader, accept or reject about Socionics? What do you dislike? What have you found useful?

[Beautiful sky]

Any member of any quadra can reject Socionics, overall, it is much easier to present it to an Extravert than in Introvert because of that positive relation that Es have with people. Introverts are always at a self guard. Overall, I like to make a personal relation with an Introvert first, and then when I value the relation will I talk about Socionics, if at all. I'm the advocate of talking to people about Socionics, but I don't really make new relations that often so I don't actually talk about Socionics past my Socionics friends and forum friends.

[DaftPunk]

Any member of any quadra can reject Socionics, overall, it is much easier to present it to an Extravert than in Introvert because of that positive relation that Es have with people. Introverts are always at a self guard. Overall, I like to make a personal relation with an Introvert first, and then when I value the relation will I talk about Socionics, if at all. I'm the advocate of talking to people about Socionics, but I don't really make new relations that often so I don't actually talk about Socionics past my Socionics friends and forum friends.

Advocatus Diaboli

[anndelise]

Moving beyond type, what do you, the reader, accept or reject about Socionics? What do you dislike? What have you found useful?

For starters, I consider socionics to be a 2D (norms/rules) model of what goes on inside people's minds and of how people interact. NFs already deal with this to the point of 3D/4D processing. So Socionics is one, of many, possible lenses for communicating insights and understandings. But as with any communication lense, it limits certain information in order to focus on other types of information. Socionics also describes stereotypes, while few real people are limited to being a stereotype.

I got into personality typing because a) my brother/friend was interested in it, and b) I needed some help in understanding some of what was going on with my daughter. Personality theories was one of many avenues I was researching for that last purpose.

I was frustrated in those earlier years because most of socionics discussions seemed to involve taking examples of an element (Te, Fi, etc) and treating that example as THE definition of it. Few people seemed to be looking at the concept of the element and seeing it's wider and basic meaning. So I dug further down, to get at what made up each element and learned about the aspects (internal/external, involved/abstract, static/dynamic, object/field, and the one that means integral/discrete). Once I learned about those, socionics began making more sense than the simplistic "Si is health" crap we still see today. Aspectonics also gives another way of looking at types, quadras, and even intertype relationships.

I also like the dynamicness of the dimensions (1D experience, 2D rules/norms, 3D situational, 4D developmental/global). For me, the dimensions offers an alternative to Model A, though I don't refer to it as such when on this forum. The dimensions also show more clearly to me how the elements and types develop and interact in communications. Especially since I see 1D all the way to 4D as being along a continuum rather than as discrete steps. This can help explain some of the differences amongst the same types, as well as how one might go about improving their ability to process a particular type of information.

I also find it more useful to type information, or to delve into the kinds of information an activity requires, than to type a person. For example, health. There are so many approaches to "health" that it seems rather stupid to me to limit it to Si. Si is only one approach to health. Health also incorporates many things, such as physical health, mental health, disease, etc. narrowing that down further, physical health incorporates disease, nutrition, exercise, bodily processes, etc. Narrowing Exercise down further one gets large body movement, fine motor control, balance, flexibility, strength, stress, ripping and rebuilding of muscle tissue, accelerated heart rate, sweat, exhaustion, etc. So, on the one hand we have Socionics people saying that Si is health and comfort, but who don't even look at the contradiction of how exercising is moving out of the body's comfort and relaxed zone...stressing it out, sweating, hurting, ripping muscles, etc...and exerting one's will over one's own body when the body wants to destress from it all. This process, however, these same people will define as Si ignoring. So which is it...Si or Si ignoring? While according to aspectonics, or rather my understanding of aspectonics, Si information would include 1D experiencing the physical sensations, 2D having an idea of what those physical sensations mean, 3D knowing how to adjust situationally to those sensations, and/or 4D possibly knowing how those sensations develop and how to adjust for them as it's happening, to achieve a desired result. Now, any type can exercise, any type be concerned about their health, any type can read/study on what to do under particular conditions/situations. And...any 4D Si type can decide that they choose "comfort" rather than stressing their bodies out. And, instead of working on gross motor activites, prefer to work on fine motor activities such as, say, developing a fine hand for painting on a needle head. This requires strong awareness and control of one's body through space, it's a dynamic process because the hand and muscles are constantly changing positions, flowing from one change through the other. It requires being IN one's body, feeling it, being involved in the process. Abstracting during it would pull the person away from the physical/spatial awareness. It is a dynamic and integral process...the flow of movement and constant adjusting required for this amount of fine motor control. And it is explicit, it is well defined in that it utilizes concrete information, physical muscles, provides concrete feedback, and doesn't rely on finding a meaning. This would be a better example of Si than "health & comfort", imo.

Sorry, I know the previous paragraph is long and ran into a tangent. I'm sure I missed much of what I had intended to communicate when I started it. So feel free to ignore it. I'm too scattered right now to edit.

[krieger]

i could see a means of rejection peculiar to alpha being to contrast it against a whole array of alternative theoretical frameworks and categorizations that can conceivably be made. in socionics' case that would be things like Reinin, dual-type theory, etc, etc, all of which have only limited merit from the point of view of someone who takes them all into consideration equally since they're just one out of many possible choices from the typologico-conceptual toolbox.

[xerx]

i see it as the most logically-constructed typological system out of the three main options [mbti, enneagram, socionics], with tremendous explanatory power when used correctly. it's the most falsifiable of the three owing to the ability to test type conjectures via their intertype relationships, which is a more easily quantifiable property than type descriptions and definitions.


[edit: virtually everyone in the community who types me thinks i'm an alpha]

[InvisibleJim]

Moving beyond type, what do you, the reader, accept or reject about Socionics? What do you dislike? What have you found useful?

I reject that socionics is 'specifically prescriptive' and rather appreciate that socionics value is in being 'generally descriptive'.

Like the rest of typology, its interesting to know but it shouldn't change your world and you shouldn't use it as a decision making tool. It isn't that accurate and people are more elaborate. But we find value in models like this all the time in business, sciences and engineering to suggest if its 'good' or 'bad' but there is always a much bigger nod to 'empiricism' than socionics or mbti or any other analytical psychology pseudoscience has.

[ashlesha]

there's nothing (or very little) actually to socionics in reality. its just words and ideas that people attach their own meanings to. ie. there is no such thing as a "correct" typing since a type is an idea and not something out there actually existing. until there's an empirical basis behind it all, which i seriously doubt will ever even come close to happening, its nothing but entertaining bullshit. (i'm skeptical about intertype relationships being used toward that end since relationships are hardly discrete and measurable things.) i guess most people here see this as a "rejection," but i think its just a matter of putting it in the right perspective.

[glam]

alpha: omg i'm bored with it now, next

beta: omg this is total bullshit, [other system] is so much better

gamma: omg it's all theory that doesn't describe reality

delta: omg you can't place individuals in these arbitrary boxes

[blackburry]

alpha: omg i'm bored with it now, next

beta: omg this is total bullshit, [other system] is so much better

gamma: omg it's all theory that doesn't describe reality

delta: omg you can't place individuals in these arbitrary boxes

hahahahahahah

[mu4]

Philosophically and structurally socionics is sound, it's basically matches what cognitive science and information science is doing today.

Application wise socionics is a long ways away from technological implementation, it's still in the self-interpretation phase of development like most self-help books and understandings such as Enneagram, MBTI, The "Secret".

You can't deny the communication differences people exhibit, and this is a trait that is highly predictive in relationship success. Communication is pretty much the #1 predictor in relationship success.

I reject socionics descriptions/definitions and literature, as these are only empirical observations of a small segment of individuals.

The basic of socionics is fairly wells studied.

Temperament Ij-Ip-Ej-Ep are well studied and easily observable in clashes you will encounter in day to day life.

Rationality and irrational don't mix and Extroverts tend to try to occupy the spotlight and this can crowd out other extroverts.

Logic vs ethics and intuition vs sensing are also fairly well studied.

What socionics supposes is that these traits form a part of the human communication apparatus and a large part of it. There's still other parts that are probably beyond this interpretation of the psyche, as they preexist human cognition.

There's a lot of things that socionics don't deal with or organize, and those are simply left for others to study and integrate within a more holistic understanding of the human psyche. I see a lot of rejection of socionics in the sense that is simply is not concerned with certain things the individual studying socionics might not be concerned about.

Alphas tend to be concerned with internal problems within socionics, rejects application in a normative fashion, take it as a high potential curiosity
Beta tend to take a all or nothing position on it's validity or invalidity
Gammas tend to be generally skeptical stick to what they know, however don't be surprised if they make decisions based on socionics no matter how much they complain about it
Deltas tend to complain about how socionics homogenizes individuality in a homogenized way, reject anything analytical and non applicable

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

It doesn't really do anything but re-confirm where I stand personally with people, something I've always been sensitive about. I guess I wanted to use it to find 'true love' but... I'm also a bitter realist and that probably doesn't exist.

So I can deeply anaylze why me and one person gets along or doesn't get along using socionics, but it doesn't really do anything to help me change the dynamic. Oh I think I've said before that if I force myself to not be myself and to be manipulative, I can get people to like me utilizing functions I know that person enjoys - but it doesn't last very long. I will end up like going back into my sweethearted slash ornery infp campy self that loves what I love and they will either like me for it or not.

There's just some types of foods and flavorings and art styles you never ever learn to like based on who you are... and socionics to me represents that. idk. I could say a billion things about this topic.

[Bardia]

I'm kind of on the same page as Ashton and lungs in finding it minimally interesting and severely lacking overall. I feel this way about most personality typologies. I also found it unhelpful to me in that I was putting people in too much of a box because of it. I have found much better systems for understanding some aspects of people such as maladaptive beliefs or interpersonal styles but not as much about normality.

[Beautiful sky]

An individual is not made of nature alone...take an LSE, you bring them into a room and set rules and you slip against these rules and they jump at you to remind you about them; this is their nature, but their nurture has it so that they want something they find a way to get it even breaking objective rules because someone somewhere taught them that "yeah, rules exist, but you can get away with these things as long as you don't get caught" or "sometimes the fastest way to your goal is to break a rule" or "manipulation of your objective works better when you know the rules and you can effectively act in a way to obtain your objective." People still respond to their base function, because they are aware of it on a regular basis, however nature can either enhance that or totally mess a person up. I've seen some messed up duals out there, who are unkind, use people when they act outside they justify their actions and these justifications step into "rules of thumb" territory, the "rule of thumb" being that yes a law may not state that specifically, however you should know enough that when you act that way you're hurting someone else. Then, the Te types don't care what they do and how they act with people, being as mean, cunning, manipulative, unkind and insensitive as imaginable. The only cure is having someone around that reminds them of the frailty of humanity, responsibility in kind and considerate ways, not just greedy and self serving. But, even then you have duals who reject such people. What is there to do? Find someone who has been raised well, who has values beyond objective and manipulative goals.

[Absurd]

LUL at empiricism. I'm looking forward to see on my own eyes how people who advocate it experience Socionics sensually.

It's like saying "I don't see hydrogen, so it isn't real."

"I don't smell anything, so nothing is burning" totally omitting the fact that sense of smell in humans can be a bit lacking. Hey, I can be talking to bears on here, so don't be harsh on me - I never can tell whom I am responding to myself.

Besides, any theory requires evidence, and where there is none evidence, it isn't even a theory.

So, better start at that point. No offence...

You wouldn't be even abe to practise medicine relying solely on empiricism. Quacks.

And fuck John Mill.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Then, the Te types don't care what they do and how they act with people, being as mean, cunning, manipulative, unkind and insensitive as imaginable.

I thought you valued and dual seeked te. seems like a harsh criticism for something that romantically is supposed to make you feel good. Or maybe you really are enfj like a lot of people say. Jadae is also very enfj-ish and your previous fling with him could be identical-based. Then you ended up not liking each other for non-socionics related reasons.

[Beautiful sky]

I thought you valued and dual seeked te. seems like a harsh criticism for something that romantically is supposed to make you feel good. Or maybe you really are enfj like a lot of people say. Jadae is also very enfj-ish and your previous fling with him could be identical-based. Then you ended up not liking each other for non-socionics related reasons.

He's ENFj? news to me!!!
Also, it would help if you saw someone in real life to see if they are an introvert or an extravert. I'm just stating a fact about Te types and how they can be, my dual cousin is one and so are so many of my friends. They say the same things about themselves, that on one hand they want to be seen as someone who is "good" and does things with "good intentions" but on the other they will do and use any measure to obtain what they want, like lie about leaving their wives for sex with someone else and say "well, how else can I get her to sleep with me?" It's typical Mitt Romney thing and even Arnold thing too, be seen as good but do bad things but get support and love because "we're not perfect."

Jadae is LSE. We've met several times and he's typed the other LSE in my family.