Hello, Friends.

[Neolux]

Hello,

I hail from a forum where Socionics (Wow, i'm surprised Socionics hasn't been added to this forum's dictionary ) was looked upon by people who hadn't even investigated it as utter shit. Without even reading the articles, Socionics is viewed as scandalous at that forum (A MBTI and Enneagram Forum). I didn't know what to think of it for a while, but yesterday I started to read some of the articles listed in the "Introduction to Socionics" and after reading about the Information Elements, I found myself understanding what the functions were really about for the first time. Instead of mixing and matching from descriptions of functions, I found out how the Information Elements are really the essence of the functions. I don't know a whole lot about Socionics yet, but I am really, really interested in discovering more, and sharing discoveries with all of you people.

For a while (in MBTI) I believed I was INTP. This was because I subscribed to the classic definition of introvert (quiet, contained, contemplative, etc.), until a friend (Who happened to be into Socionics) told me that he thought I was ENTP. I thought for a while about the functional stack, and I realized the difference between an Introvert and a Functional Introvert. So far, Socionics has supported this idea, and it makes a lot of sense.

I could be either ILE or LII, but I am more convinced of ILE. My confusion may also have something to do with my Enneagram being 5. I am unsure of my variants, but my friends believe I am Sp/Sx.

~ I'll see you around the forum.

[Persephone]

Welcome, XXTX member.

[Ron Mexican]

Was this forum PersonalityCafe?
And welcome

[Beautiful sky]

Hi. Without coming off rude I just want to say that you can't be both you can be either because the info stacking are different and because quadra values and relationship dynamics is as well

[some chair]

Socionics is pretty shit though. The real problem is that MBTI/Enneagram people don't realise their favoured system is also shit. HEXACO or bust, yo.

My favourite interpretation so far is Reinin's. Not all of it, but his idea of functions as being needs is a good start to produce something fluid and not tangled inside the theoretical mess and bizarre assumptions of Socionics.

[Neolux]

Socionics is pretty shit though. The real problem is that MBTI/Enneagram people don't realise their favoured system is also shit. HEXACO or bust, yo.


My favourite interpretation so far is Reinin's. Not all of it, but his idea of functions as being needs is a good start to produce something fluid and not tangled inside the theoretical mess and bizarre assumptions of Socionics.

Yeah, I agree. Any attempt to model the human psyche is going to be inherently shit if it isn't neurology. People often criticize Socionics for being too complex, but considering how complex our psyche is, don't you think complexity is a step in the right direction, and not the wrong one?


I agree, every system was pulled out of someone's ass. I think Enneagram started with the Babylonians or something.

Was this forum PersonalityCafe?
And welcome

Nah, its called NFgeeks. It's a Facebook forum. You might see some of the admin's videos on YouTube. Don't go there, its a shithole now. People are banned without explanation. I have gone on PersonalityCafe, however.

[some chair]

Yeah, I agree. Any attempt to model the human psyche is going to be inherently shit if it isn't neurology. People often criticize Socionics for being too complex, but considering how complex our psyche is, don't you think complexity is a step in the right direction, and not the wrong one?

I'm pro-systems thinking and pro-complexity, but Socionics is a mixture of rigidity and simplifications. Like why does "need" ? It looks like an artefact of wishful thinking. Why is an IJ element coupled with an EP element? Why are people rigidly static or dynamic? Why can't an ISE exist as a type? This is one kind of "complexity"; layers and layers of internal logic and abstract calculus based on something between nothing and very little.

The other type of complexity is looking at humans as layers of interacting components, like the intermix of the dopamine pathways and regulation from the three main opioid receptors and serotonin (and possible crosstalk mechanisms through NO and inhibitory/excitatory amino acids that haven't been discovered or considered). Zooming out, the diet also has influence on the brain. The changes to gut flora through life have an impact as well. So do environmental chemicals that affect the mother and the child through gestation. And then there are social and psychological forces that shape people as well.

This leads to another of my beliefs, that humans aren't "neurological". This is a hyper-reductionism. We're neuro-bio-psycho-social processes that exist as much as our own subjective experiences and senses of self, as they do in the capacity of subjective appraisals and narratives of others.

[Flaxe]

There are some interesting points you bring up there. I'm inclined to agree with your questions and pro-systematic thinking. So far, the models available seem to all measure different dimensions - while being perceived/received by many as all-encompassing. (Which in turn seems to cause agreement/disagreement depending on various factors.)

Personally, I found socionics being able to provide a good base for behavioural understanding, without passing judgment on how "appropriate" the different types of functions are in a general setting. (Situational suitability is a different question, as each situation most likely requires its own system, designed for the specific goal in mind.)
Though just like you, I believe it is lacking dimensions. Socionics is not all-encompassing, it is only a piece of the puzzle. The other pieces of the puzzle may - or may not be available at this time. They probably are, but we somehow need to connect those pieces - one way or another - to get a bigger picture.

Until then, we may as well work with what we have - until it proves to be wrong. At that point, we will search for a new way to incorporate the newly provided information and expand the model, right?

[InvisibleJim]

These derp thread titles always piss me off.

I don't know you yet, do I get a hello too?

Hello by the way.

[ashlesha]

hey

[Olimpia]

Hello, friend.