Does Socionics "Exist"?

[Radio]

Inspired by this:

The reason this guy's typings make absolutely no sense whatsoever is because he's not using socionics. He's creating his own 'personal system', aka pulling stuff out of his butt.

You could argue everyone has their own personalized version of socionics because once you assimilate the information, your understanding is further shaped by your own unique experiences and relationships. If the frequent arguments on this forum can be a basis for making a case, a lot of people tend to interpret socionics differently in their own unique way and no two people have the exact same typings.

So in the spirit of pointing out the obvious gigantic elephant in the room:

1. How do we understand "socionics" correctly?
2. Is there any way to reliably measure how correct my interpretation is?
3. Does this correct interpretation exist, abstractly, at all or is it inherently personalized for everyone?

[Reficulris]

Ohoh..this could lead into epistemology, philosophy of science and hot and heavy debates between Alpha Relativists and Deltanonian (yeah) absolutists!

**prepares weaponry** "Kidsgloves are off!"

Absolutism BOOOOOOOO! (socionics are made up! Therefor, it cannot represent a physical or metaphysical truth. We're all telling stories! Go Away I don't like yours!)

Edit: The thread this thread is a derail from depicts the forum at it's most laughable. There's people being rude about others being rude. Cool! People being all superiour about their typing methods using arguments from authority, Awesome! A lone ILI defending a rogue IEE, True Christmas spirit

[squark]

Some days socionics seems more like a religion than anything else, with arguments springing up over what its prophets (Jung and Augusta) may have meant by whatever and correctly interpreting their holy script.

But on a good day, it's simple pattern-forming and classification with enough agreement on categories to draw meaningful conclusions.

[xerx]

Eh, I've made it work for me. I type intuitively more than anything else and basically follow my instincts.

I stopped caring how other people type because of clashing intuitions that can't be resolved meaningfully.

[Zero11]

You guys are really having a problem with natural perspective shift. With that such discussions are obsolete.

[DaftPunk]

You guys are really having a problem with natural perspective shift. With that such discussions are obsolete.

Actually that's the problem with most conversation on this forum. You got it, I apologize in the name of the whole forum.

*jumps out of the window because of recognizing how meaningless life is with Ni-PoLR*

[strangeling]

The way I see it, Socionics is the map, but not the territory.

So the problem,
1. Person creates a socionics map with little details about the territory it's supposed to represent.
- Leads to Magical thinking

2. Lots of details are known about the territory, but then the socionics map doesn't know what to focus on; and so focusing on different things creates distinctly different maps.
- Leads to contradictions and a pessimism about whether thinking about this can be all that useful or 'real'.

3. The territory changes.
- Makes people think creating a socionics map is a losing battle.


But one can come up with a map that focuses on the prominent aspects of the changing territory. I suppose most don't care enough to do this though; so for them, Socionics wouldn't exist. Or if this isn't what one decides Socionics is to be, then it also wouldn't exist as well.

[Zero11]

@DaftPunk

Only because different viewpoint exist does not mean that there are mutliple truths. If you are comfortable with that, through synthesiszing the result, the disscusion on this part is therefore non-existent.

[bolong]

Actually that's the problem with most conversation on this forum. You got it, I apologize in the name of the whole forum.

*jumps out of the window because of recognizing how meaningless life is with Ni-PoLR*

all LSEs should do this.


J/K!

[DaftPunk]

all LSEs should do this.


J/K!

Thanks for making the LSE proof J/K!

[lemontrees]

I actually believe that it does, but that it's better at mapping out the structures b/t interactions (how IE's respond to each other) than saying what those IE's or types actually are. It's a contextual system, and I actually tend to think that socionics as conceptualized by Augusta is very alpha in how it deals with knowledge and meaning (i.e. pointing out the logical structures surrounding the "meaning" and letting you fill in different details in different situations.)

(I know some of these views must be unpopular- so many people think socionics is semi-bullshitty- so I feel vaguely queasy for verbalizing them. )

[Bardia]

Maybe, but also maybe not.




To answer more seriously... I think the idea that people value certain ways of processing information and place different values on the importance of different information is possible, but I'm not entirely certain that it works exactly like any of the models of socionics.

[Azure Flame]

socionics exists, although it is obviously incomplete. As with Ti, we can only map out as much as we can see, and not everyone thinks their perceptions are important enough to note, so we'll never get the whole story, only an asymptotic approach to it. I would say there are 32 distinct types instead of 16. This is based on experience. And I spend a lot of time interacting with people and asking them awkward typology questions to know just how retardedly complex and varied each type actually is.

How does one measure their perception against someone else's?

with objective data. Unfortunately, personality is largely an internal concept and objective data is hard to pinpoint for everyone to agree one. A lot of us search but often find nothing that is readily apparent. The only kind of objective data we can have are trends and correlations that lead to highly probably conclusions. I believe many of us came from the same seed but sprouted different colors.

in reality, there might be over 5000 different personalities that we just haven't mapped yet.

Socionics exists, but like artists observing an apple, everyone is going to have different things to say about it.

My identity of being a laser neon ninja robot phoenix is largely subjective, however people begin to see it in me when they view my accomplishments, as seemingly everything I do seems to revolve around it.

The core is only indicated by objective clues. Even our intuition is based on unconscious objective data.

So in a sense, socionics is an invisible concept.

Its possible that if I made a system that said all SLEs were by definition, racist, and that all ESIs are by definition strippers, that we'd have a completely different system entirely.

[Azure Flame]

Maybe, but also maybe not.




To answer more seriously... I think the idea that people value certain ways of processing information and place different values on the importance of different information is possible, but I'm not entirely certain that it works exactly like any of the models of socionics.

Yeah. Enneagram and instinctual variant combinations seem to throw a wrench into any interpretations of the functions I once had.

[Azure Flame]

I think at this point, my number one method of getting someone's type right is by listening to their music and comparing how it sounds similar to other people of that type, then relating it to enneagram and cross referencing it with quotes they've said.

once I get past all that bs rationalization it just comes down to how badly the person wants to be that type. lol.

[Esaman]

Alpha Relativists and Deltanonian (yeah) absolutists!

Don't you mean the other way around?

[Reficulris]

Don't you mean the other way around?

Are the Dalmotions the absolutist ones?? I never can tell, it's all depending on who you ask!

Hail Alphallusses!

[ashlesha]

i'm remembering that thread i made awhile back about consensus. as much as people look down on the idea, consensus on typings is the closest thing anybody has to an "objective" standard. (this isn't to say i believe "consensus is always right" or any nonsense like that.)

the other way people try for objectivity is to compare their data and interpretations to the writings of some other "official" socionist like aushra or something, but i don't really buy that because two different people can use the same writings to justify completely different typings because their interpretation of the writings, the person, and the behavior are so completely different, not to mention its mostly garbled, translated russian.

i don't think socionics "exists" and i'm usually skeptical of anybody who treats it like it does, for several reasons. unfortunately those people seem to often be taken more seriously since they speak with more authority and are more confident in their rhetoric. i do get frustrated and i wish people who believed in it would acknowledge that it is in fact a belief and they're not superior to astrology disciples or scientologists or anything. its also frustrating when people take socionics so much for granted that they expect certain behavior from you, or worse, frame anything you do or say within the context of preassigned socionical motivations because they value their belief more than they value the fact that you're an independent human being.

socionics is some Ti shit and trying to process it with Te you end up with these problems

[DaftPunk]

I think at this point, my number one method of getting someone's type right is by listening to their music and comparing how it sounds similar to other people of that type, then relating it to enneagram and cross referencing it with quotes they've said.

once I get past all that bs rationalization it just comes down to how badly the person wants to be that type. lol.

Mozart KV 412, KV 417, KV 447, KV 495, KV 525(eine kleine nachtmusik), turkish march

Enneagramm for sure 6

type me plz

[Azure Flame]

Mozart KV 412, KV 417, KV 447, KV 495, KV 525(eine kleine nachtmusik), turkish march

Enneagramm for sure 6

type me plz

what's the type you wanna be the most?

[DaftPunk]

what's your favorite type?

something delta

[Azure Flame]

something delta

Think about what qualities you like most in other people, and those are going to be qualities you imbue.

[DaftPunk]

Think about what qualities you like most in other people, and those are going to be qualities you imbue.

You mean with that when I admire Ne and Fi the most that I am Delta ST?

[mu4]

Socionics is an attempt to explain natural phenomena in a structure manner via some ideas and models which are based on these ideas

1. Information processing (human minds processes information)
2. Information differentiation (information is differentiated by the mind and/or naturally differentiated in a way which suits the mind mechanism of differentiation)
3. Information preference (individuals prefer certain forms of information vs other form of information)

Up to here socionics is not that different versus most other studies, but Aushra makes an analogy which gives the mechanism for socionics.

4. Thermodynamic analogy (information is differentiated and transforms in a manner akin to thermodynamic stages of transformation)

These are to make socionics fit Jungian and Freudian psychology and form Model A

5. Information is further divided based on intratim and extratim elements. (object vs field)
6. Information is paired in mental blocks which contain an extratim and intratim element (mental blocks, these blocks form the Ego/ID/Super-ego + super-id within a human psyche, the super-id is more or less a socionics invention)
7. Information is arranged in the blocks based on Model A, with these rules of positioning. http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...itioning_rules

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ocionics_Model

Gulenko talks about some of the reasons why the arrangement is this way.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ion_metabolism

Augusta's comments.

The formulation of Model A is something that Augusta discusses in her writings, which are as of yet untranslated.

The typings in socionics all follow the model, and are compared to this model. However, it would be erroneous to think that Types conform to the model.

Human minds in no way regularly conform to socionic ideals any more than the human anatomy conform to anatomical models. The normal is the exception. Yet these models have great powers of education and analysis.

Does socionics observe real things, sure, but this doesn't mean the model is the best one. However, making a new one takes a bit of work.

[Azure Flame]

You mean with that when I admire Ne and Fi the most that I am Delta ST?

uh... no. forget socionics. What traits of other humans do you admire?

[DaftPunk]

uh... no. forget socionics. What traits of other humans do you admire?

true kindness, certain reliability, people who are them self, altruism, courage

[Azure Flame]

true kindness, certain reliability, people who are them self, altruism, courage

Define true kindness.

You want people to be dependable in what kind of situation specifically?

genuineness. Altruism and facing fears.

Based on this it sounds like Te valuing with regard to the dependability. What else?

[DaftPunk]

Define true kindness.

You want people to be dependable in what kind of situation specifically?

genuineness. Altruism and facing fears.

Based on this it sounds like Te valuing with regard to the dependability. What else?

Hard to describe it but I know it when I see it. For me true kindness is always linked to a certain degree to altruism. Benevolence or goodness might be a better word.

In general I like it when people hold their agreements and show up at time but what's more important that they're dependable in heavier situation e.g. they visit you at the hospital or share your grief when your doing bad.
I also value a certain softness I don't like people who always want to appear strong. Even though I might be a bit guilty of that. E.g. I was pretty impressed about a guy who admitted unpressed that he peed until 15 in his bed. In general I admire people who can be open and honest about their feelings.

I also value good manners and politeness e.g when people stand up for elders in the bus.

People who believe in something and act according to this I admire too.

[strangeling]

i'm remembering that thread i made awhile back about consensus. as much as people look down on the idea, consensus on typings is the closest thing anybody has to an "objective" standard. (this isn't to say i believe "consensus is always right" or any nonsense like that.)

the other way people try for objectivity is to compare their data and interpretations to the writings of some other "official" socionist like aushra or something, but i don't really buy that because two different people can use the same writings to justify completely different typings because their interpretation of the writings, the person, and the behavior are so completely different, not to mention its mostly garbled, translated russian.

i don't think socionics "exists" and i'm usually skeptical of anybody who treats it like it does, for several reasons. unfortunately those people seem to often be taken more seriously since they speak with more authority and are more confident in their rhetoric. i do get frustrated and i wish people who believed in it would acknowledge that it is in fact a belief and they're not superior to astrology disciples or scientologists or anything. its also frustrating when people take socionics so much for granted that they expect certain behavior from you, or worse, frame anything you do or say within the context of preassigned socionical motivations because they value their belief more than they value the fact that you're an independent human being.

socionics is some Ti shit and trying to process it with Te you end up with these problems

I believe I understand what you say, but it's strange to say that something like Socionics doesn't exist.

Because how does something "exist" for you? I'm personally not a fan of consensus or quantitative expectations in psychology, a field that is inherently subjective, due to its nature; because a mind can have quantitative actions and reactions, perhaps we can call them chemical reactions, but the actual feelings and thoughts created from that are abstract - being qualitative. And yet, we all seem to agree that we have feelings and thoughts, which becomes strange for someone that only believes the quantitative must be real, while the qualitative must not be.

It seems like you are using the poor ways that someone can understand and apply socionics in order to decide that it doesn't exist. It might not exist absolutely in a realistic sense, but there's a lot of dynamic ways to apply it to various people and get a better archetypal understanding between them, even if it still ends up being qualitative. Perhaps though, because of this, psychology is more of an art than anything else. But art is still very real in our thoughts and feelings.

[Esaman]

it is in fact a belief and they're not superior to astrology disciples or scientologists or anything.

Because all beliefs are equally valid and equally unreasonable. I am going to hurl.

Between this and OP what I got is that Fi egos or persons that have focus on interpersonal relationships if you will, have tendency to bring interpersonal perspective to areas where it is totally useless, particularly carnage of ideas for truthful representation of reality.

[olivetti]

Wading in the waters here - and trying to avoid the obvious minefields because I'm still learning - but it feels like the question could be, "when is a type not a type...and when does type X become type Y"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but socionics seems similar to typing systems in general because it senses patterns in the ways people do things, and those patterns can be mapped out to form a personality type structure. The more one acts out or typifies that pattern, the more likely that person can be placed into a neat little box and labeled. But IMO, there has to be a line to delineate one type, from another. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a pattern and everyone would act whatever way they chose, all the time, and no system could be applicable.

The reason scionics - or any typing system - works is because certain patterns of behavior tend to exist, and the patterns repeat enough times to observe some sort of logical consistency.

So short answer: Yes. I think socionics exists because we see patterns in individuals. Will we always act the same way within our same types? No - but if we're the one special snowflake and we act completely different from the type we've labeled ourselves to be, then perhaps we need to reexamine our label...

I don't think it's wrong to try out different type labels to see if they fit. But I think we have to be wise enough to know if we are that type or if we just want to be that type. If people see a different type in me, I wouldn't mind it; I'd examine every angle an ask questions of others to see if I can agree with their hypotheses. But getting angry and riled because I don't agree with that opinion? That seems like wasted energy to me. Observed behavior is what creates type classifications - to me, it isn't who we think we are. It's how we act.

Again, just my own two cents.

[ashlesha]

Because all beliefs are equally valid and equally unreasonable. I am going to hurl.

prove that your belief is more valid than the others. right, you can't.
there's nothing wrong with holding a belief, but attitudes like yours display my point.

Between this and OP what I got is that Fi egos or persons that have focus on interpersonal relationships if you will, have tendency to bring interpersonal perspective to areas where it is totally useless, particularly carnage of ideas for truthful representation of reality.

of course our outlooks on reality will influence our outlooks on this topic, but I don't know how you're looking at our posts and getting this. could you be more specific? like I said in my post, socionics is a Ti thing, but to disregard the Fi perspective when it comes to a system that deals largely with classifying interactions between people seems arrogant and unwise.

[ashlesha]

I believe I understand what you say, but it's strange to say that something like Socionics doesn't exist.

Because how does something "exist" for you? I'm personally not a fan of consensus or quantitative expectations in psychology, a field that is inherently subjective, due to its nature; because a mind can have quantitative actions and reactions, perhaps we can call them chemical reactions, but the actual feelings and thoughts created from that are abstract - being qualitative. And yet, we all seem to agree that we have feelings and thoughts, which becomes strange for someone that only believes the quantitative must be real, while the qualitative must not be.

It seems like you are using the poor ways that someone can understand and apply socionics in order to decide that it doesn't exist. It might not exist absolutely in a realistic sense, but there's a lot of dynamic ways to apply it to various people and get a better archetypal understanding between them, even if it still ends up being qualitative. Perhaps though, because of this, psychology is more of an art than anything else. But art is still very real in our thoughts and feelings.

i still referred to Ti and Te in my post- i'm not incapable of grasping abstract concepts or anything. where the problem with seeing socionics phenomenon as "real" comes in is that people believe that their conceptualizations are facts, and treat them as such. the unfounded confidence is offensive and it frames discussions in the wrong way. i can appreciate art, but i wouldn't argue that expressionism is objectively superior to cubism - which is the equivalent of the debates that happen here.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

*books space for educated future post*

[Reficulris]

*books space for educated future post*

*books space for smart ass and slightly insulting comment that is as silly and stupid as your post is educated*

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

*doesnt book post because refi is always so beige it hurts*

[Esaman]

prove that your belief is more valid than the others. right, you can't.

I can and I did. If you will do the work of finding the thread we had this conversation last time, I will point out how.

of course our outlooks on reality will influence our outlooks on this topic, but I don't know how you're looking at our posts and getting this. could you be more specific? like I said in my post, socionics is a Ti thing, but to disregard the Fi perspective when it comes to a system that deals largely with classifying interactions between people seems arrogant and unwise.

The drift was that interpersonal relationships have little to nothing to do with relationships between ideas and ideas and reality.

When you start from useless perspective "there are persons, they have differing believes" it is little wonder that you get nowhere and end up with "those are just believes" and "is it all subjective/relative ?" (OP).

There is no such thing as "just believes". There is reality and all believes are in relationship to it - reflect it to certain extend(including not at all). All believes also have reasons you believe them and those reasons have absolute quality level. One can end up wrong for a good reasons or right for bad reasons, but there is no improving the odds of having good reasons.

I don't disregard Fi perspective when it comes to interpersonal relationships. I might disregard it when it comes to informational metabolism intra and interpersonally, but this is not about any of that but about you reducing Ti to nothing by equating things that have it with thing that don't and inherently shitting on most of knowledge seeking which happens in not yet proven area you indiscriminately summed up as "just believes".

[wacey]

Do observable patterns of consistent relationships exist?

[Park]

*facepalm*
*suddenly realizes he's been a member of a religious group since 2005*
Time to convert. New year's resolution, here I come!

[Esaman]

how can you say that it's not a part of reality?
say that Fi has nothing to do with "reality" or "ideas" at all.

I have said no such things. Have another go at things you have quoted.

This "reality" you describe - surely we are simply seeing different perspectives of it, yes?

Lets not pretend that perspectives are all encompassing just from different angles. One sees limited amount of information of particular aspect. If looking in the wrong place (in relation to the subject of interest), you are not getting much. Not a rocket science.

Who's to judge the "absolute quality level" of someone's beliefs? You? You might view someone's reasons as better simply because you value Ti intelligence more than Fi, but ultimately that's still what you believe. It doesn't mean the other person is wrong or even that their reasoning is necessarily bad

Having just admitted that there is such a thing as bad reasoning you are not in position to criticize existence of "absolute quality level" of reasoning. Ohh there was "Who" question, I almost missed it because the answer is " Everyone who has interest truth and does not get bogged down in to irrelevant questions such as "who"". Very relevant to my point about Fi.

In my own personal opinion, what effect does it have if you know something that nobody else does? What effect does it have on the real world? I believe that's how Te/Fi perceives reality. You might hold Ti knowledge of an intricate idea nobody else has thought of, but if you can't do anything with that idea or change anything, it could be seen as just something you believe (although based on good reasoning) and a waste of time

I'll take that as rhetorical questions of Fe drawing.