What are some commonly spread beliefs in socionics that you think are bull doo-doo?
Anything, from type descriptions to IEs to intertype relations to anything else in between. And I'm looking for constructive discussion on specific topics, not the general "socionics is BS" that keeps popping up. I don't really feel like writing another essay right now so I'll leave this one to you guys.
Some of the Renin dichotomies sound like bs, like the division between askers and declarers, anyone can be either depending on context. Eg At work if you're a boss you're going to be more of a declarer, if you are new to the job you'll be more of an asker.
Also the type descriptions are very generalized and limiting sometimes, like one that said you can not expect ILI to be emotionally involved, which is not true. I dislike them because they promote stereotypical attitudes towards the different types and close your mind off to experiencing people as individuals. Even people who have the same type are quite different , a lot depends on things like age, gender, socio-economic status, personal history, social history, genetic predispositions, physical health, etc which is not really talked about in the type descriptions. In some ways I believe mbti’s 8 function model by John Beebe, which involves Jung’s archetypes, is more accurate than socionics. The POLR function for example is simply described as a kind of blind spot or Achilles heel in socionics, but in Beebe’s model it is said to carry the archetypal energy of the ‘trickster’, which creates confusion and chaos, plays tricks on you, causing you to mistrust what you are experiencing. This seems to be how people actually experience it, not just as a weak spot, but something actually mentally undermining, something that warps reality for you, like you are walking through a hall of mirrors, or like you’re being gaslighted. The symptoms of a polr attack are similar to a person who has been mentally brainwashed or even poisoned. I don’t think socionics has looked into archetypes or the collective unconscious in general, a lot of what Jung wrote would develop the theory further but it probably wouldn’t be in line with the scientific perspective socionics is going towards.
Last edited by ConcreteButterfly; 02-28-2016 at 10:38 PM.
I've recently been wondering if dimensionality can be believed as a real limit to a types abilities (when i type it out it seems really wrong), and, along with that, I don't think that weaker functions imply you are somehow shut out from the reality others are experiencing.
there are too many to remember (maybe i'll try to fill this in as i notice them)
Ni = being insightful, being spot on in one's interpretations always, having *the answer* to every situation, being able to predict every outcome perfectly, being psychic, being right (iow, Ni is *not* omniscience)
natural thought processes that go on in *every* human mind, such as associations, intuitive leaps, connecting the dots and your ability to do this as seen by others is a measure of your intuition in socioncs, unless you are an Ne ego type, in which case you just spout a lot of nonsense, but you are still "intuitive" since you spout it so regularly ("nonsense" is defined by group opinion)
if you are not directly confrontational and abusive you do not value Se
Si ego types are mentally deficient - they cannot perceive patterns in time; they cannot connect the dots; they cannot understand or synthesize concepts; they cannot do the things that every human mind can do to some extent, iow.
most simple rules made about types - such as "Ne/Si types need a moment to ready themselves to do something, whereas Ni/Se types leap from their seats at once."
Everyone knows that ILE have wings
-
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
I, Hacim, do declare the following notions pertaining to Jung-based typologies to be complete and utter bull doo-doo:
...That you need other people to determine your type for you.
...That most inter-type relationships are guaranteed to end in disaster.
...That logical types are incapable of having emotional attachments.
...That ethical types are incapable of independently making clear and unbiased decisions.
Henceforth, any forum-goer caught using one of the above premises as justification for a claim pertaining to any Jung-based typology shall be turned over to the Spanish Inquisition, because nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition!
But seriously, you can't just float through the theory of Socionics without taking your time to process what it actually says. Making up a system that works only for you is most likely solid proof that you're misguided in some way. Claims should be supported with reason relevant to the theory, not supported by supposed intra-type facial structure correlations or "vibes" that people "just give off".
Honestly this is one of the more interesting questions. Are you incapable of experiencing what others of different types are experiencing? How different are you really? The way you answer this question puts you into a certain path from the very beginning of a top-down exploration of socionics.Originally Posted by Contra
It's also one of the very hardest questions to answer because you need decisive confidence in something you can never experience for yourself. There's always the idea that you can ferret it out for yourself. But then, doing this, your very lack of vision has ways of coming back and biting you in the ass. Answering this question might require a lot of study.
This has implications for things like artificial reality and social brain interfaces in general.
It does change a bit on the macro/overall life level. Started exercising with weights recently for first time in a decade, after finishing all my intellectual pursuits and needing a new hobby. After getting out of the gym sometime last week, things literally felt differently. Steering wheel feel was like a flashback. Same with the air, drinking water, sounds, etc. Was pretty odd tbh.
That you can type someone independent of context.
That types don't change throughout their lives.
The vibes are energy signatures, like a wave. It's Fe/Fi. People just use "vibe" due to lack of being able to classify what exactly they're trying to describe by "vibes."
People expect a lot of Spanish around these parts. Some kinda Mexican Apocalypse or something.
The belief that Se is all about 'pushing people around' all the time. Se is also just about using your senses to look at the material objects around you, and Se egos more easily enter a state of mind where they are seeing all the objects and can move among them in a sports-like way, like aiming things or throwing things. I know lots of Se egos who are not pushy. Drug use affects how pushy they are.
That's actually Te by the main schools. Objects and their properties are Te. Boundaries and their force are Se.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
