Which type takes Socionics most seriously ?

[Amber]

Which type has the most permeable skin in front of Socionics ??? Who uses that most of all as a way of interpreting the world around the self or for self understanding ? and I don't mean only when he / she is on the forum.

?

[Waster]

Ti valuers.

[golden]

People in need of fodder for intellectual masturbation. People in need of ego props. Young people searching for selfhood. People who want to feel superior to others. People whose relationships have repeatedly failed.

The manner in which it's taken seriously varies with the individual.

The stereotypical answer would be Alpha NTs and E5s. I doubt that's accurate.

[ouronis]

Ti superid

[Words]

People in need of fodder for intellectual masturbation. People in need of ego props. Young people searching for selfhood. People who want to feel superior to others. People whose relationships have repeatedly failed.

The manner in which it's taken seriously varies with the individual.

The stereotypical answer would be Alpha NTs and E5s. I doubt that's accurate.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

And I love your avatar.

[Aylen]

[Amber]

People in need of fodder for intellectual masturbation. People in need of ego props. Young people searching for selfhood. People who want to feel superior to others. People whose relationships have repeatedly failed.

The manner in which it's taken seriously varies with the individual.

The stereotypical answer would be Alpha NTs and E5s. I doubt that's accurate.

I agree with that. No matter what experience and need they have, as types Alpha NT and Beta ST from what I saw online with Ti suggestive types next more in an automatic manner , like a game of curiosity.

But why E5s ?? who are supposed to be the most independent thinkers ? It would make sense that E1 and E6 takes that as a 'law' to follow or find safety in.

[ouronis]

From my observations here on this forum, Alpha NT, Beta ST and Ti superid. I had to beg my SLI-Te E8 husband just to take a socionics test, if that says anything...I could also see E6 getting invested in it, too, but my enneagram knowledge isn't the greatest.

So, essentially, the Alpha and Beta quadras.

[golden]

I agree with that. No matter what experience and need they have, as types Alpha NT and Beta ST from what I saw online with Ti suggestive types next more in an automatic manner , like a game of curiosity.

But why E5s ?? who are supposed to be the most independent thinkers ? It would make sense that E1 and E6 takes that as a 'law' to follow or find safety in.

With the caveat that I don't have a lot of enneagram knowledge, I see that E5 can think independently about it--socionics doesn't have to be a set of rules but just information to be considered. It's also a type that might benefit from support in terms of relationship information given the tendency to retreat.

[silke]

Which type has the most permeable skin in front of Socionics ??? Who uses that most of all as a way of interpreting the world around the self or for self understanding ? and I don't mean only when he / she is on the forum.

Ti valuers.

So, essentially, the Alpha and Beta quadras.

I did a survey of types present on this forum and another one. The most common element turned out to be Ne rather than Ti. This doesn't answer which types get most engrossed into socionics, however, the types that are most likely to register and participate in socionics discussions turned out to be Delta and Alpha Ne types.

Beta quadra is almost completely absent from the development of socionics, which has been brought to attention in Rus-speaking communities before. If you take a look at the types of some of the better-known socionists whose materials have been translated and published on this site, they ara Alpha or Delta in their majority, with a handful of Gammas, and fewest contributions coming from Beta quadra. (Some blame a lot of socionics deficiencies on this i.e. that information coming from Alpha quadra isn't sufficiently sorted by Beta, and as a result there are too many paradigms and re-interpretations floating around and not enough cohesive explanations.)

[strangeling]

I think it's rather complicated. I can say that I originally approached socionics with the idea that it could work if I applied it correctly, if I got at the core of everything under-riding it. And the idea that I could predict how well I'd get along with certain people seemed very intriguing. That said, I've had times where I've thought it made sense, only to learn something later that didn't mesh with the conclusions I had previously formed. So...I'm skeptical that human interactions can be resolved into a 16 type matrix because relationships rarely seem to play out so simply. They have twist and terms and changes of focus or motivations and people learn and adapt to one another and they grow and things just change, people change. But I do think there are archetypal themes within the relationship matrix that can be relatively observed and experienced, but that they are typically transient, depending on how people change.

So, potentially, any type that believes socionics predicts their relationships accurately probably takes it quite a bit more seriously because they think it's useful. I don't know which types those would typically be, but there does seem to be more of an inclination among people that have poor interpersonal skills, judging from the typology forums I've been on.

[chemical]

The two kinds of seriously show up: tinkering with it for interest vs practicing it (i.e. using it in daily life to understand things).

In my experience, the common denominator to the first is often Ti. The second is more complicated -- I've seen an assortment.

Neither of these is the same as silke's category of people who tend to show some degree of participation.

I tinker with the ideas more, and do not practice them in daily life much. Although if you count seeing the ideas pop up in life, yes that happens from time to time. But I'd call that an offshoot of my interest in just thinking about it.

In terms of being serious, I should say I am one of those prone to unorthodox thinking relative to the established rules of typology...so that tends to affect chances of "practicing" it. That said, I get along very well with what seems to be Gulenko's tendency.

[The Exception]

I know I take socionics waaaaay to seriously.

[Narc]

The frenzied fanatics are almost always LIIs.

[Esaman]

The frenzied fanatics are almost always LIIs.

In the land of unconsciously ironic...

[Beautiful sky]

EII wrll, nevermind, I'm not all about socionics when I'm away from the forum. Im all about my relationships

[Deer Woman]

I'd say LxI and ExE are the most likely. LxI use it as a substitute to understand relationships better (translating complicated Ethics language into something more natural - Ti) and ExE might over-rely on the source of structure (a Ti format, but geared towards relationships which is easier for ExE to digest and become passionate about).
That being said, ExE will not use it in a practical sense. More like a study. When it comes to interacting with people (for the most part), they toss off structure in order to express themselves more fully and engage others around them in the same thing.

Edit: I saw another post talking about the types of people on this forum...I think there may be more Ne cause A) Fancy, cool function that is trendy these days, even outside of personality typology circles and B) more likely to indulge experimental ideas like this in the first place.

[Rhaegar]

Alpha NT's seem to be the most prominent promoters of typology in my experience.

I on the other hand tell almost no one about typology. I am aware of the stigma and without proper background the knowledge is useless. I have no intention of sharing it with anyone outside those who have found it naturally. I consider it a private advantage in social context and in my case, a way of understanding both the difficulties and opportunities that I can have socially. It has served as a guide to understanding myself even better and relating that to a larger importance. I think of socionics and duality in particular as a confirmation of an instinct I've always about the fundamental nature of humanity. The Reinin dichotomies are probably the only things I share with others as they are more specific and easy to understand for a lay person. They can also be introduced one at a time without extra foundational knowledge.

[yeves]

NFs and introverted NTs

[The Exception]

The conflictor of the type that doesn't.

Well duh.

So which type takes it least seriously?

SEE? LSE? Both LII and IEI seem to take it most seriously from my observations.