Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: difficulty in learning socionics and type

  1. #1
    Nevero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default difficulty in learning socionics and type

    is there variation in how easily different types assimilate and acclimate to socionics? do some types have an easier time than others picking up on socionics model and explanations?

    are there some types that have a hard time typing themselves or others? any types that have an easier time typing others but not themselves?

  2. #2
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,888
    Mentioned
    729 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes to all from what I have observed...but I would not be as open to accepting a typing from someone who is not sure of their own type first. People get me so mixed up with their self-typing changes that I just use it to understand myself, primarily. It is funny to see SOME people change the way they act toward another when they change their typing. I am pretty much going to treat them the same way even when they change their type until I get to know them better. There are going to be people I never get to know regardless of type, even if they are a socionic's dual because of differences in life experience and interests.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  3. #3
    killer wolf lemontrees's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    emotionz
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,114
    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I would find it weird if someone could usually correctly type others but be unable to type themselves at least somewhat correctly.

    I think it's more likely for someone to type people who are not the same type as the same type, etc. (and also be unable to place themselves.)

    I would think that ILE's would learn socionics fastest since it was created by one lol (and, conversely, for Fi-valuers to have a harder time?) However, in real life whenever I've talked to an ILE about socionics they've always tried to convince me that they are ethical, introverted, etc etc. Their basis for being ethical (when distilled) is usually "I'm always observing people and thinking very deeply to figure out how people relate." (basically, using Ti to "solve" the Fi-PoLR)

    So in essence, I don't know.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nevero View Post
    is there variation in how easily different types assimilate and acclimate to socionics? do some types have an easier time than others picking up on socionics model and explanations?

    are there some types that have a hard time typing themselves or others? any types that have an easier time typing others but not themselves?
    Probably anyone with strong intuition could pick it up. Logical types would be more objective when it comes to typing. I'm guessing people with Ne or Ti in either their ego or super id would have some ability to grasp it. Sensory egos would be better at picking up the observable manifestations of the functions in real life, but they likely wouldn't be interested in the theory to begin with. I'm thinking LIIs and EIIs would be very good at grasping the concepts but they'd integrate it into their existing Fi/Ti understanding and their accuracy in typing would thus be affected. ILIs and ILEs probably have the most potential to grasp it and apply it accurately. IEEs would also be able to, due to leading Ne, and may be more inclined to do so as it complements their creative function (Fi) rather than competes with it (as would be the case with ILEs). IEE's typing would be more subjective, however.
    Last edited by ConcreteButterfly; 05-20-2014 at 09:15 AM.

  5. #5
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,126
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know how you could come up with an accurate typing without being subjective. It's mostly relating a given thing to how it resembles past information and making value judgements to determine what is important to consider.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  6. #6
    Moderator Reficulris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,041
    Mentioned
    188 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nevero View Post
    is there variation in how easily different types assimilate and acclimate to socionics? do some types have an easier time than others picking up on socionics model and explanations?

    are there some types that have a hard time typing themselves or others? any types that have an easier time typing others but not themselves?
    Some types will have it easier picking up on the abstract model behind it (logical intuiitives) but will have more difficulties seeing it in practise or understanding the nuances that exist intra-types.

    Some types will have a very strong personal understanding of different types of people but will have trouble systemizing that information and or developing it into general rules (sensing ethicals)

    You can deduct from their information preferences and weaknesses how they'll digest socionics.

    That said, socionics isn't a concrete thing that can be "learned". Not like you can learn the rules of chess or the words of a poem. There is a lot of simultanious development Šnd memorization which basically means it's more like a language we learn where there's just a bunch of more specific words to name the flavours of human beings (just like eskimo's have different words for "snow"). I think, actually, the system in a way has the risk of hampering the natural understanding we have of people, reducing them to 16/32 types. Also, the system presupposes a certain symmetry internally which might not exist externally. In this sense this language might be akin to "only having the words for snow and trying to describe sunlight".

    Some types will take the above as law, some types will take it as art.


    TLDR: yuh, type will most probably impact how one interacts with socionics.

  7. #7
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You don't really know Socionics until you've practiced it long enough to get a "feel" for the different types.

    Type descriptions are an excellent resource, but people who try to find literal meaning in them end up questioning the theory or making up their own, though many are accurate for a subset of that type, which most people ignore for whatever reason.

    You need to have experience for the descriptions to come alive. And you need to have good intuition and a good imagination.



    If you wanna get good fast, just go with your basic social instincts (assuming you've developed them by meeting non-Internety people).
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  8. #8
    InvisibleJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Si vis pacem
    TIM
    para bellum
    Posts
    4,832
    Mentioned
    202 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is so hard that everyone is mistyped, so everyone is bad at socionics.

  9. #9
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reficulris View Post
    Some types will have a very strong personal understanding of different types of people but will have trouble systemizing that information and or developing it into general rules (sensing ethicals)
    This is basically me, except I think I have a decent grasp of the abstract model.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reficulris View Post
    it's more like a language we learn where there's just a bunch of more specific words to name the flavours of human beings
    This is so true.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reficulris View Post
    Also, the system presupposes a certain symmetry internally which might not exist externally.
    I think people expect an even distribution of types, but in my experience that is not the case.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •