im confused again.
is socionics true or not?
im confused again.
I don't think it is as cut and dry as being "true" or not. There are some who have apparently devoted their waking lives to it; conversely, there are people on this forum that bash it ceaselessly without even subscribing to a type. I'd fall in the middle of that spectrum.
It all comes down to being a theory developed in the former USSR that attempts to describe the human psyche with 8 ideas, which are structured to fit 16 individual molds. Though Socionics is good for understanding the people around you, especially for people who get caught up in crazy theories and ignore reality like me, you can't claim that it is a 100% empirically verified view of the mysterious and complex human psyche.
Oh is that what true means?
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
It's "true" in the sense that it describes real, observable patterns. But those patterns are based on only a small percentage of people, with more data the patterns could very well change, and the conclusions based on them change as well. Take it as a theory in progress, not as fact, because that's all it really is.
I'll put it this way: if you take the common trait-theoretic associations made to the types, the verdict is that yes, there exist people of each of those sorts out there, but it's safe to say that the traits bundling together to make a given type do not need to bundle together in a given individual. That is, someone can have X trait from EII, Y trait from ILI, and so on and so forth.
Hence, it's clear one cannot simply flesh out in non-abstract form what the type patterns are about in any given one way and cover the entire assortment of how people actually turn out.
The pure abstract blueprints for cognition, OTOH, we can certainly define, but the question becomes to what extent do types look this way? And the answer to this is tricky: type in any of the Jungian offshoots is both psychological and informational... and there's no clear way to identify any particular set of psychological motives entirely with a set of cognitive patterns. What's more, many psychological motives are more or less determined by the various complexes people are in the grips of (which the enneagram gets into in a more psychospiritual language).
I'm reasonably sure that one has to sift past this to really get at what the whole Jungian type concept was ultimately getting at, which is typing the ego, which is a certain core pattern of simultaneous psychological need and informational orientation.
The ego attitude is what one's most individual contributions/slants are to determining the course of the motives, however influenced by complexes and so forth one otherwise is.
So like I've said elsewhere, to the extent one wants to use this stuff to make some high level characterizations of ego attitude, to the extent a reasonably differentiated one exists, this stuff can be good.
Otherwise, the reality of one's deployment of function-attitudes is they're unlikely to fit any specific model across everyone. But here's the rub -- Jung already knew this, in that he already attributed much functioning to the unconscious, and considered that which is truly the work of the ego a particular part. In some cases he considered telling these two apart easy -- in others, not so much.
I'd view the many blocks of the sociomodel in relation to characterizing the ego itself, rather than everything that eventually comes to be in its field.
The problem is that to a large extent, the different information elements simply characterize different domains of awareness, and they're often just operating on different planets. So in terms of raw development skills and the like, there's no one rule. There are people terrible at everything, others good at everything.
There's not like ALWAYS a conflict among these things.
In terms of justifying and establishing some kind of core ego attitude though, holding one perspective more absolute and the other more relative, yes there we've got a conflict.
I also am something of a skeptic about how these models breaking the types into people relating to Ti+Fe vs Fi+Te and so forth are dealing with the two supposed opposites... in too many cases I find it diminishes that Ti and Fe are worlds apart...I get the sense people sometimes steer too close to portraying these as working together in tandem -- the original theory was supposed to be that one characterizes the unconscious of the other type, so it's more like you can get indirect glimpses in select circumstances that this is a dual perspective on what's going on.
In many cases I think you're just dealing with someone who has a complex about the other pairing, and thus "likes" one of the two pairs. Which I think runs contrary to what this stuff really should be about.
Last edited by chemical; 07-30-2015 at 09:20 AM.
I think that socionics has some truth to it, in that it does describe people we all probably know. We also see ourselves in some of the descriptions. However, it is seriously loaded with biases, especially the typing process. It assumes that there is a base function that each person prefers, which has not been demonstrated to be true in any empirical way. This is important because of the implications of such a system. Imagine if socionics were universally adopted and you were applying for a job. The employer gives you a certified test to determine your type. You turn out to be his/her conflictor, and as a result do not end up with the job. Now the odds of your boss being "mistyped" is very high to begin with. It is also likely, despite the test being certified, that you were not typed correctly. You may not even be conflictors! But that could be the entire basis for hiring or not hiring you.
That is the weakness of cognitive functions, that they cannot be wholly proven or disproven, and even certified practitioners don't agree on typings. What is often reverberated within typology communities is the apparent oppositeness of cognitive function when comparing two similar types. Take the INTj and INTp for instance. They do not share the same functions and should be easily distinguished from one another. Then why is this so difficult to do. Because in reality we have mostly blended types and too much effort is placed into finding the "true" type, which is either the type you want to be, or the type you want others to be. You assume it must exist and look until one has a subjective confirmation. People make money off this and people believe it because they want it to be true so any evidence is good enough.
it is till it's not and it isn't till it is
and crows will blacken the sky
and the Old one will go
and the emerald child will transpire for one is nothing and nothing is one
The psyche complexity is far more complex than socionics makes it seem. The description of how the interactions within environment and genetics work for the conscious functions to arise is weak. I made a model that solves these problems but will not share until finished.
I totally agree with chemical. I am trying to solve this with functions dynamic that are gained through childhood.
it is in superposition
it is epistemically underdetermined
it has a fuzzy truth value
Mu!
Last edited by krieger; 07-30-2015 at 01:02 PM.
In the Ti way, yes it very much is.Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
In the Te way, I kinda doubt it.
So...define "true"?
there are a lot of criticisms of "socionics" - which, NB, is a gaseous cluster of associations, not a unified framework - from Ti's PoV, not just Te's.
So say we all.
There is a Te PoV in Socionics? I...must've missed it!
find back that smilingeyes thread about how to "use people as tools" based on their sociotype. unfortunately it was probably permanently destroyed by a forum wipe. if it exists, ath/zap/n0ki will know how to find it though.
Some things related to Socionics are true. But if you type someone wrong (this happens often), then it's doubtful to get good results, even if something was true in theory.
And many things are affected by different factors besides Jungian types. So results are not always same as they are expected to be in average.
in addition to what krieger said, i think you can see the difference in how various socionics communities approach the topic. people might disagree with this, but this is what i see:
at the moment this forum, the16types comes from a more Ti POV, especially Alpha Ti. there isn't a focus on implementing socionics knowledge, the focus is more exchange of ideas and theories here, coupled with a lot of socializing and non-socionics talk. different socionics theories aren't officially accepted/rejected by any one "authority", anything can be published as an article or thread here and discussed by the members. there is small relative membership compared to other typology sites, but the general socionics understanding here is pretty "deep". it's run by an ILE.
something like World Socionics Society comes from a pretty Te POV (especially Gamma Te), having explicitly rejected parts of socionics they don't find useful or applicable (things that many Ti people might find integral to the theory), with a focus on "standardizing" socionics knowledge and promoting it, while having types like LIE and ILI in charge as their "experts" on socionics. they have a large and growing membership, but my guess is that the average level of socionics understanding per member is probably lower than what you'd find on the16types, due to their focus on packaging up socionics for the masses.
(disclaimer: this doesn't mean you won't find Gammas who prefer the the16types, or Alphas in the WSS, etc.)
Why is it that there are only 4 four axis that an individual could be born with? What determines which one you are born with? Why are people born on one extreme end of each axis? Why do you need duality? (Why do you have to merge with the opposite of yourself?What's the point?) Why isn't it valid to merge with someone from a different axis to achieve a larger sense of unity with others?
I think there's often a struggle between the people with a somewhat more glorious outlook on type vs the people like me who have a more yeah yeah does it make sense WTF attitude. I find it is better to just document and classify the different variations with some subtyping and liberally be OK with that.. some kind of really want to stick to the "TRUE ONE ACTUAL" type idea and thus don't warm up to the alternate approach.
I think if you want to be realistic, you can get places with treating the main type as an overall best-fit to one of the models for the very core slant you display, to the extent one exists, and allow for variations by inventing subtypes of your own liking (e.g. by fiddling with the existing literature and tweaking it to be more realistic)
I have zero idea about WSS's workings, but I have seen a lot of truth to this sort of "split" occurring in socionics followers. Interestingly socionics seems to appeal for two separate reasons to Te vs Ti valuing types.
I really like the core ideas socionics presents, but I have observed there's a greater tendency for Te-valuers to turn it into a sort of machine (OK honestly, usually they're Te-egos, not IEEs and stuff) that "works" and so forth... those like me tend to spend a little more time just exploring ways to define what it's all about, and so forth.
Sometimes it's applicable; sometimes it's not.
It's true in the sense that it represents different ways of orientating ourselves with reality, but false in that such a thing is not directly correlated to the concrete world. Typing people is pretty much an intuitive, perhaps philosophical endeavor, rather than a science, which some people seem to expect it to be.
my new will wolf hair watercolor brush is true
-
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
Have a date rich your conflictt relation
Dual type
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
One thing people can really help the reality of this stuff by doing is to sort of stop "segmenting" the 4 original Jungian functions into what they try to make out to be 8 totally different things. It's a lot truer to what's going on that there's 2 different attitudes (very different, yes, in pronounced cases) to the same overall process, so yes one could call them separate processes, but not totally separate.
Example being, Fe v Fi... in one case one really notes the living interaction between objects, how one affects the other, arouses it, or does not. In the other, just the a priori existence of a relation at all. Without the relation, there would be no influence. Without the influence, there would be no living manifestation of the relation.
Often one perspective is emphasized more, the idea being that any process manifests through consciousness, and consciousness is always colored with some attitudinal bias.
^That's exactly what I have wanted to address, chemical. To use the example you've given for Fe and Fi. Some people may be dominant ethicals, but that does not mean that one necessarily has to prefer Fi or Fe. The theory says you must, or else....
One may prefer one over the other in certain contexts, with an average that divides a preference between the two equally. Socionics, and not even Jung as far as I'm aware, doesn't address this issue: You can have ambiverted preferences. Fi dom vs Fi/Fe vs Fe will be three entirely different personalities.
In a sense of ways
I do not want to live in a world where socionics is verifiable truth. I prefer to keep it all a theory. Right next to my astrology and numerology. I can imagine if certain groups had their way they would create a computer program that accurately measured functions and could match people up with their duals. It could be quite lucrative if ever presented as an exact science. I don't personally see that ever happening. New theories will replace it in time and people will explore what comes next in the hopes of understanding themselves and their relationships better.
Feeling attraction/chemistry or falling in love randomly with someone so bad for you, that is is like riding an emotional roller coaster, might be a thing of the past, If socionics was an absolute. I love all those things. Unwrapping people. Stripping away their layers, slowly, until you discover their core for yourself and they discover yours.
Socionics is not the brave new world I would be comfortable in. I have wondered if Jung is having a laugh at us all or rolling over in his grave
“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
Something else
I somehow believe that Jungian Typology is not just bullshit. But I am unsure if my belief is justified. The problem with socionics in my opinion is that it's to much theory made out of very little evidence. It's a Model for the sake of having a Model.
Jung started with 8 Types who have auxiliary functions what makes 16 types. Jung's simple Model is easier applicated than socionics who defines every function to the extreme and give it a clear role. The more a Model goes into detail the likelier it is wrong.
Typologie will always be about behavioursm and information processing. Even Jung used lots of behaviourisme descriptions in his work. But I think one of the bigest flaws in Jungian Typologie is the use of the four letter code. IMO especially the last letter is the problem J or P. This is because Jung described pure types in his work. Obviously a pure Te type is rational to the extreme and a pure Si type is irrational to the extreme but in real life the auxiliary function compensates for most people. This is also the reason why for example in the big 5 concentiousness and extroversion are belle-curve distributed (I am aware that Jungian Introversion and Extroversion are different from the Big 5). The use of the four letter code also strenghtens the focus of Jungian tyopology systems on descriptions only focused on behavioursme and stereotypes.
I really think that people who share the same axis according to valued functions (Ni/Se, Ne/Si, Fi/Te and Fe/Ti) get in average better along and therefore building quadras was a smart idea. Nevertheless socionics really exagerates it again with its very well defined interpersonal relationships.
Put simply, there isn't any reason to think there a "function" solely called Te or Ti. There were 4 functions, not 8, and in fact Jung's exceptional interest in the 2 attitudes E/I was why he even gave a whole portait to what a consciousness looked in a thinking-E and thinking-I type, and so forth. Basically, extraverts who showed their extraversion through thinking predominantly, and so on.
To create a single category called Te or Ti itself is a move away from what E and I traditionally mean, because in the end of the day they were not information types, such as structural or pragmatic logic, but rather were attitudes which influenced processing. I'd say socionics is a slight move away from modeling consciousness exactly as it happens, and is more towards the cognition side in some ways than Jung was -- that is, the refined, processed types of output.
This is because for Jung, the main thing was the attitudinal types, not the information types.
And in some sense, I think attitudinal types are really closer to the study of types of psychology. On the other hand, a theory like socionics goes closer to information processing while still retaining a lot of the psychology that influences it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
