I like the descriptions, especially for LII as I relate to it well. I thought I'd point out that the ILE link leads to the ILI description, and vice versa.
I also like Integrator and Energizer instead of Intro(tim)vert and Extro(tim)vert as the latter are overused and misunderstood by many.
it's basically everytime the 8 information elements, except in differing order. i don't like those descriptions at all, they are not about types they are about parts.
i've seen way better and more detailed and type specific descriptions. Using only the 8 elements is rigid and not broad enough. As if they are scared to move away from the theory. Also only the first two elements are most easely visible in a type, when writing 8 elements it's like they all get the same weight.
I think it's right and good to avoid moving away from the theory. That is the backbone of our understanding. Without it, we could go astray.
One input I'd like to add about how socionics could be presented as a better version of mbti is to emphasize the way in which socionics is able to cut through micro and macro cultural distortions by focusing on people's immutable characteristics. We can assume on a certain level that people are expected to 'act normal' within their environment and strive to meet both personal and external social expectations and we can also assume that many people are aware of their weaknesses to a modest extent and make a conscious effort to hide them or obscure them using their strong functions. For example, I know some esfps and infps who are very accomplished academically and are even considered to be intellectuals by most of their acquaintances, while at the same time people who know them personally know that they are very insecure about their intellectual abilities and when you look at the course of their education and career it's clear that they've maximized the use of their creative fi/fe functions in order to supplement their te/ti polr. I've found the same thing to be true of a number of fe/fi polr types who are nonetheless viewed as very socially confident and charismatic except by people who know them very well. A honda civic will never be a lamborghini, but if you put enough work into it, it can pass as a competitive street racing car.
MBTI has limited appeal because it's designed around people who obviously have a distinct type. Socionics has the potential to appeal to the much larger mass of people who consider themselves 'normal' and are dismissive of the very concept of personality types because it delves into the core structure of people's psyche rather than merely focusing on external features which can be adaptations or 'masks' rather than authentic personality traits.
Last edited by shadowbox; 06-23-2015 at 08:48 PM.
So...its like a school question where they ask you to re-write the literature using your own words? (its good by the way, not so new insights, but a nice rewording of previous ideas).
Ps though, your idea about gammas not showing kindness unless there is 'earned' trust is kind of retarded, I just mean, do you really think that's true? That four personality types make their kindness clear only to compatriots? Its just more then a little silly....
Last edited by wacey; 06-25-2015 at 05:33 AM.
Well, I meant ILI especially out of Gammas, given that they have R6 and E4, this means that not only do they place a large importance on the closeness of personal relations, but also do not think to reach out to others emotionally. This general philosophy is shared by other Gamma types, i.e. protect those you trust and be wary of those you don't, but does not manifest to the same level as with ILIs. ESIs do also tend to be more aloof at first until they get to know you (R1), but are still capable of conveying warmth to others when there is a need (E7). They are possibly more harsh though if you have crossed them. LIEs tend to be more automatically helpful and forthright to people around them as they are only R5 but E3. SEEs tend to actually be quite gregarious (E8), but will still be selective (R2) behind all the social energy and interpersonal interaction.