URGENT: Questions to the Socionics Institute
Hi all,
Transkar is going to the Socionics institute today or tomorrow! He asked me if any of us has any questions to them. Please post them ASAP so i can send him a list of questions to ask!! This is your chance, get the mysteries of socionics solved indefinately!
Questions like "is Maritsa full of shit" or "is banning someone a breach of free speach" will not be asked!
Thx!
Ref
1. Do they enjoy ripping people off of their hard-earned money to give them a fake piece of paper that certifies them as an expert in an entirely fictional field of study?
2. Do they realize just how full of shit they are, or do they actually believe their own bullshit?
3. What are their expectations of ever being taken seriously outside a minority group of small-minded half-wits?
I'll send these questions paraphrased as follows:Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig
1 What would they say is the value of a socionics certificate. How can one best capitalise on such certificate?
2 What foundation is socionics grounded on? Is there any chance of external validation of the theory?
3 How can we educate the masses to the true worth of socionics? Are other people crazy?
Is it true that if I change type to LSE that both the length and girth of my penis will increase noticeably?
How does one´s DCHN subtype affect one´s erotic attitudes? I have a vague glimpse of 1-2 answers, but it´s way to fuzzy and foggy and I kind of hope Monsieur Gulenko or some others from his school of thought can make me see the light at the end of the tunnel.
As you can see, I´m chill and I actually take 2 major Socionics theories very seriously. Hope it´s free, coz I´m not gonna pay for this. I´d rather buy some new sex toys.
Last edited by Amber; 06-16-2014 at 10:44 PM.
Keep em coming people!
This is actually a very interesting question.
I'm glad someone else takes this stuff seriously.
Ah, finally, we have begun sending emissaries to the East.
My question would be something to with testing the validity of socionics by finding a metholodogy or test to determine socionics type and then recording the longevity of relationships in some meaningful and consistent way.
@Reficulris, there's a difference between being politically correct and manipulating legitimate criticism. If you don't like some questions, simply ignore them, but don't remake them to the point of inverting their original purpose. No buttlicking for the "experts" plz.
In the Socionics Institute, questions make you.
Last edited by MensSuperMateriam; 06-16-2014 at 09:38 PM.
Would it be ok if @Capitalist Pig's question was replaced with "Hi, I'm Transkar, I think you guys are idiots, could you please punch me in the face?"
Would killing your super-ego, conflictor or dual (for different reasons, obviously) be a legit defense in a court of law? Would the institute back the accused up?
If two powerful conflictors join together, and put aside all differences, could they rule the world?
Is self-dualization transcendent and as close to Nirvana humans can get?
Real world problems...
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
smashing.
that or at least any kind of crime committed against your conflictor. if you raped your dual (by total chance as a stranger, just cause your suggestive did the trick), would they make a case for you to be acquitted?
this thread makes me want to cry.
there's an actual socionics institute?
wtf did i stumble upon years ago?....
You can ask them to type me lol
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Oh yeah, that reminds me. Is NPA theory the biggest fraud perpetrated against personality/psychology enthusiasts since Freud? Add that question por favor.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Gulenko kinda spoke on this already:
As types with variable metabolism, Dynamics can rapidly grow stout, though just as quickly lose weight if they fall into a state of emotional distress. Statics have the opposite problem, of a stabler weight and build: if already seriously fat (or thin), they remain so for longer times. Their bodily metabolism is more invariant.
Again, we need to find these journals:
http://socionic.info/esocjur.html
Indeed, it's simply nonsense.
No need to get so defensive. I wouldn't really include astrology with any of those since it seems to be a more spiritually based concept. My question would be just as valid as yours though.
Pod'lair is not really on my radar. Is it fun?
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Haha I was thinking the same thing about you wanting them to comment on whether or not they heard of NPA and how it relates to socionics. I will save you the suspense, they probably haven't and it doesn't.
3. Have they heard of NPA theory and are they looking into it any, in any way? Can it be combined/reconcile with an energy metabolism (EM) type system/typology, or anything else in socionics, for that matter? http://npatraits.homestead.com/http://members.boardhost.com/npatheo...tml?1402926880http://members.boardhost.com/npatheo...362531331.htmlhttp://npatheory.homestead.com/files...cy.latest2.pdf
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Zap I have read about it and I feel it should be placed in the same category as the "everything is fucked up" theory. That's my opinion. I had an "are they fucking serious with this nonsense?" reaction when I first read it.
Last edited by Aylen; 06-17-2014 at 01:13 AM. Reason: was distracted
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
There are unconfirmed reports that an Imperialist Western dog has crossed the Eastern border into Russia with his head sticking out of a garish tank-top.
He was seen armed with an ice cream and heard to say "Those who are brave do not hide their faces behind masks".
As our forces made a heroic tactical retreat, our foe reputedly exclaimed "Why are you afraid of being judged?" while standing rampant in a dangerous and provocative manner.
I don't remember reading that....can you link the post
I think it's because I'm more outspoken on this forum of my hatred for ignorance and morons.
edit: Also, as I'm getting older, I'm growing ever more intolerant of other people's shit.
Last edited by Capitalist Pig; 06-17-2014 at 07:01 AM.
let's call it Negativism and Constructivism for the time being
omg I've just pictured this, lmaoooo
as for questions, nothing new: Do they have any methods/plans of developing such - that can provide fairly reliable statistic data on the % of particular types within society (as in general society of the whole planet and within particular countries/cultural regions)?
I'm kind of curious how they'd go about it, cause so far any data and statistics are heavily coloured by the fact that the people taking the tests had to somehow already get interested in Socionics, which might be correlated with their type, thus making the general statistics useless...
ask gulenko what his pin number is.
Last edited by bg; 06-17-2014 at 10:48 PM.
yeah, this would also be great if they could mention the longevity of these marriages - whether the data was applicable to the marriages which "survive" a certain amount of time? or just a statistic based on a particular moment in time and the number of marriages existing at that moment noted without any regard to longevity? (this would actually show whether intraquadra relationships are less prone to dissolve or whether they are just more likely to take place in general - with longevity being more dependend on outside socionics factors such as commons goals, maturity, etc.
I mean 40% of marriages being duals plus on top of that 30% of marriages being intraquadra non-duals giving 70% of all marriages being intraquadra kind of clashes with the over 50% rate of divorces, right? at least purely socionics-wise it does seem to clash.
oh and also it would be interesting to find out how many of the intraquadra marriages which do have longevity are people's first marriages?
Jeez, for the sake of being totally clear here; i send Cpigs original questions to Transkar.
My restating his questions was humoristic, but i guess it takes some experience with me to be able to know when i'm joking and when not. Anyway, you presume too much.
Thanks for all the questions guys! I've send them to him, but i'm not sure they'll reach him on time, i was late (slept in) and his time is a few hours earlier than mine...
if you read my earlier post again you might see that I actually asked questions that were supposed to discern whether the intraquadra marriage is more likely to last with relation to their statistics and what they (in the Institude) defined as a successful marriage, whether they just counted the marriages taking place at some point of time and that's it end of story to them or whether they assumed longevity matters (I mean let's assume they counted half of the dual couples when they were one day after getting married - such statistic only shows that they did get married and I am interested in the course of marriage since the intraquadra marriage success is implied all over this forum and throughout the relations descriptions)
(I'm pretty much repeating myself here, I think there's a fair chance you misunderstand me and misunderstand you when I come to think about it, not sure if my ramble below will change it, cause we just might be looking at things from completely different perspectives and phrasing our statements in a way that doesn't resonate with the other. Quite likely you hit my PoLR, lol). The part you quoted is out of context and is referring to this socionics ideal of a longlasting blissful dual union - the key phrase in the part you quoted is "at least purely socionics-wise it does seem to clash"
sure, if you put it like this - the answer presents itself more in line with the earlier mentioned statisticsIf you assume humans are polygamous and naturally go through various relationships/marriages throughout their lifetime, then you would expect the number of divorces to still be high in comparison to the number of intraquadra marriages, but that the number would still be more proportional than comparing interquadra marriages & divorce rates. (For example, a polygamous dual-marrier might have 2 marriages in their lifetime compared to a polygamous interquadra marrier who might have 4 marriages in their lifetime.)
however, I didn't think (as you suggested) in terms of people being monogamous per se... but personally I do think that being monogamous is both a choice to make for each person (pretty much defines how relationships go in one's life - I know people who decided not to get married precisely for this reason, they didn't believe it could be a lifelong relationship) and also for some people it's a choice easier to make than for others (it seems to be a spectrum from my current pov).
Having said that, I wouldn't call a marriage which ends in divorce a successful marriage. Given the assumption that people marry wanting to spend their lives together, if they divorce = failed marriage. Sure, there is a multitude of factors and it can end in an ugly stormy divorce or as a calm mutual decision. Still the end result - it ends, hence not successful. I guess it boils down to what you assume is successful. Now then there's a divide into happy and non-happy within those that remain married also, so it's not that simple either. By my standards a successful marriage is (simplifying) one that both lasts and is happy.
Of course you're free to have a completely different opinion, but the above one is my personal one and one that led me to ask the earlier formulated questions in the way that I did.
not sure if this was just thrown in completely off topic or if you're linking this to what I was loosely saying above about factors of success at the end of my last postA bit offtopic, but I used to think the success of marriages depended on spending time together to build the relationship, as more important than the bread & butter answer of "communication and expectations". But now I'm starting to think it comes down to the guy not being a bum and sitting on his ass and/or the girl not being too bitchy. /2cents
personally I'd say that if people expect to meet smn they fit with seemingly perfectly and understand each other seemingly perfectly (the dual concept pretty much), and then assume that this will be enough for the long run - then that alone could be an explanation for high divorce rate even if all marriages were duals and all people felt strongly monogamous lol
and yeah, part of a successful marriage is what you phrased as the guy "not being a bum and sitting on his ass and/or the girl not being too bitchy", lol
...but then again even this is a matter of preference - some guys like "bitchy" girls cause they keep them interested and some girls prefer guys who are "bums" (not saying that it's necessarily a majority of people with such preference - I'm guessing that not - but there are happy couples with partners like this nevertheless too)
this subject is pretty much a neverending story to discuss
tl;dr whether people are not monogamous/people are monogamous was not the part of my questions. My questions were about marriage success rate. The only assumption there when I think about it, was pretty much that people who are getting married are those who choose to be/act monogamous (and this is pretty much implied by the definition of marriage itself and wasn't the subject of my question).
Last edited by aisa; 06-18-2014 at 09:09 AM.
HERE WE GO!!!
Sol the result is these minutes of his interview with Olga from the socionics institute rather than answers to your questions (cuz i sent them too late :S).
It seems it's not as cult like or idiotic as we (I?) presumed. Transkar found a pretty sane and collected individual and they seem at least to be working at things constructively.
Without further ado? here is what Transkar sent me. (also @William: Yes, they have an email adress so we can send our questions there later. Also, Transkar asked me to ask you (to ask me) if you already figured out your type?
We spoke of VI. She personallly did not like the idea of VI and does not use it in her methods of typing
In terms of duality they conducted experiments on married young couples and found 25% of them were conflictor relations and experienced many problems. This was test was done twice. When they were married and then a year later
Originally there were only three quadras when they conducted experiments, the leftovers who did not want to be with the other three were eventually made into delta
They did not feel comfortable in their originally three groups and were then put into a fourth quadra where they felt psychological comfort
We spoke a lot about ways of typing. One of the ways she determines types is to put one individual with another and give them a problem to solve and the two discuss it.
She interviews them of course and also provides a questionarre, but the main way is to see how they approach issues. They want me to do a video for them in english
We also spoke a lot of quadras akd relations to business
There was a study on an alpha businessman who started a business with his small group of alpha friends. Eventually it became a large beta institution and he was losing control and sales due to the nature of the large beta group. This led to the next quadra, gamma. She was saying that gammas are the best with sales but are often found on the streets and not in bigger institutions. So this guy finds a gamma who cuts the fat from his beta organization, lowers the amount of people, and makes ot profitable again. The number of people working for him went from 120 to 50.
Also type shouldnt change
Thats why they put people together to study their interactions. Trying to figure out your type alone does not provide favorable results. You have to see how you interact with others on issues is what she said
They creating socionics to smooth relations between individuals of varying types amd quadras in business amd interpersonal relations....that is where it is suppose to be valid is what she said
Also meilom there is a publication on intertype marriages on socionics.info
They want to work with native english speakers in the west to provide more publicity for them.
She actually saod once she leaves the institution she does not thinl about socionics
She sticks to studies. They like conducting social experiments
This Refi again: If you read throughout all of that it seems they have a rather healthy approach to socionics (in ways perhapse better than the ones on the forum?) and they seem to be willing to take time to equace/entertain/brainwash us westerners. This should be taken into account when mocking them!
Transkar has their email and so any futher inquiries could go directly to them
yours,
Baby-Giraffe-out!
Interesting....We spoke a lot about ways of typing. One of the ways she determines types is to put one individual with another and give them a problem to solve and the two discuss it. She interviews them of course and also provides a questionnaire, but the main way is to see how they approach issues. They want me to do a video for them in English
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
Thanks Ref. I actually found this all pretty clear, concise and validating my own beliefs about socionics.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
These answers are very promising!
(although much of it is in line with Rick has told us before, e.g. about VI tending to be a fringe theory only used by cult-like people with any degree of obsession.)
I think the stats on marriages and socionics was actually on the socioniko.net website...although there was more than one study
If you use Wayback Machine on this link, there is one such study (which was linked on socioniko.net but seems to be broken) http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/et/asimbieng.html
...it is somewhat limited in the breakdown of its results though, amongst other things
There are some more marriage stats on this page (by Bukalov and Karpenko):
http://socionics.us/philosophy/type_distribution.shtml
Yes however you'll be too busy working to use it.
Easy Day
What have you done for Socionics besides shit out your own stupid theories and jerk off to my name? Oh thats right, you sit here on the internet and dont try to bridge the gap between east and west. Stupid motherfucker.
I love you too. Where do you live btw? Do you live in the states?
Okay good, so youre in the states. Do you ever visit florida? Ive been to pennsylvania once during the wintee. Looked like a nuclear winter in the mountains but at the same time it was very beautiful. Saw lots of Amish people. Where do you want to go?
Okay, well, youre more than welcome to come hang out with aylen and me down in florida. We both live close to each other. If you want to crash at my place let me know. Maybe i can bring you on a little tour of your motherland and one day you can reclaim your birthright
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
