Theory I need fleshed out.

[QuickTwist]

OK, in Socionics you have these things called relationships and how they relate to other types. Sounds like a good idea right? Seems like there will be enough staples between commonalities between a particular type and how that type relates to other types right? Well I happen to think that Socionics is not at all all inclusive.

The main thing I want to say is that even if Socionics is true and true through and through there is something that it doesn't account for. That is the general attitude each person has toward the world. Now you might think this is covered pretty thoroughly based on Socionics theory, but the thing is individuals still have enough differences and variations that just because one type is suppose to get along with people of another type this is not exactly how it works.

Take LII for example. Its a type that goes based off logical inner systems which dictate how that individual thinks and acts, but it doesn't tell how that individual sees the world. I'd argue that the the thing that is dependent on how we see the world is largely based on a couple factors, but can be summed up to environment. So how does this work? So say you have a person who is naturally going to be an EII. Depending on how this person is treated through conditioning such as a pattern that is made apparent through the years growing up and as they come into adulthood this person has just as much chance at being an optimist as a pessimist. Let me explain as per example. One EII is treated like dirt as they grow up, abuse (emotional) runs rampant in the home and this person through nurture will have a low self esteem. Now take a person who was brought up in the rich 'burbs, had parents that actually knew how to parent correctly and this EII will have a much better opinion of themselves. This same concept holds true for any type. It doesn't even always need to be abuse or treated well to make an impact on how this person develops.

Depending on what people are exposed to has a great impact on how this person views the world through conditioning. So how does this tie into interrelating between types? Well it is simple really. Depending on how someone sees the world is going to have an effect on who they get along with. If two people who would normally, by Socionics theory not get along, but the way they see the world is largely the same based on what they have been exposed to in their life they might just be able to be really good friends. Same is true for people who would normally get along as far as types go, if what they have been exposed to in life is drastically different they may just not get along very well.

Thoughts?

[squark]

There are in reality many factors effecting how people get along or don't that are more important than socionics type. You could easily have a better relationship with a conflictor than a dual due to the impact of any number of those factors.

[QuickTwist]

There are in reality many factors effecting how people get along or don't that are more important than socionics type. You could easily have a better relationship with a conflictor than a dual due to the impact of any number of those factors.

Yeah, that's basically it. Its nature and nurture that shape us and I feel Nurture is left out of the picture for Socionics.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think having common shared values can be far more important than socionics types (and not just in extreme situations!), and that certainly, a person's ingrained cultural or social norms will affect how they seem and how they perceive themselves, as well as their outlook on life, their "philosophy" and/or religion.

This may only reflect the limitations of socionics theory at predicting and explaining intertype relations rather than a flaw with the theory itself. Having a limited pool of knowledge about the diverse ways individuals of each type manifest themselves is not something that can be immediately addressed (that would require a hundred times more people, probably, to start systematically recording life backgrounds - and typing people correctly will naturally be a key issue!).

As for how it affects matters practically...I think the theory provides insights into intertype relations and understanding the self even you are not sure what your type is (and perhaps indeed, if you are "sure" what your type is, but are actually wrong). I may not know for certain that I am EII, but I get utility from knowing what I believe I value, and what others value, and relating it to the ways in which behaviour manifests itself whenever I encounter it. I may not even be certain I am a IJ temperament type (which is useful in its own way), but I for example I am fairly sure I am an introvert, and that theoretical, I shoulfd benefit from complimentary extroverts.

[Jeremy8419]

Your theory ignores that Socionics proponents have relationship and identity issues to begin with. You're already looking at a marginalized sub-section of society. Relationship and identity issues are relative to weak intuition and ethics within the context of Socionics.

[Aylen]

OK, in Socionics you have these things called relationships and how they relate to other types. Sounds like a good idea right? Seems like there will be enough staples between commonalities between a particular type and how that type relates to other types right? Well I happen to think that Socionics is not at all all inclusive.

The main thing I want to say is that even if Socionics is true and true through and through there is something that it doesn't account for. That is the general attitude each person has toward the world. Now you might think this is covered pretty thoroughly based on Socionics theory, but the thing is individuals still have enough differences and variations that just because one type is suppose to get along with people of another type this is not exactly how it works.

Take LII for example. Its a type that goes based off logical inner systems which dictate how that individual thinks and acts, but it doesn't tell how that individual sees the world. I'd argue that the the thing that is dependent on how we see the world is largely based on a couple factors, but can be summed up to environment. So how does this work? So say you have a person who is naturally going to be an EII. Depending on how this person is treated through conditioning such as a pattern that is made apparent through the years growing up and as they come into adulthood this person has just as much chance at being an optimist as a pessimist. Let me explain as per example. One EII is treated like dirt as they grow up, abuse (emotional) runs rampant in the home and this person through nurture will have a low self esteem. Now take a person who was brought up in the rich 'burbs, had parents that actually knew how to parent correctly and this EII will have a much better opinion of themselves. This same concept holds true for any type. It doesn't even always need to be abuse or treated well to make an impact on how this person develops.

Depending on what people are exposed to has a great impact on how this person views the world through conditioning. So how does this tie into interrelating between types? Well it is simple really. Depending on how someone sees the world is going to have an effect on who they get along with. If two people who would normally, by Socionics theory not get along, but the way they see the world is largely the same based on what they have been exposed to in their life they might just be able to be really good friends. Same is true for people who would normally get along as far as types go, if what they have been exposed to in life is drastically different they may just not get along very well.

Thoughts?

Yes.

[Reficulris]

Iirc the most reliable known predictor of future relationships known in psychology at the moment is stable vs unstable attachment style.

that is; were your parents good predicable parents that stayed together or not?

if both partners in a relation have stable style -> almost guaranteed relationship succes
if one partner has unstable style -> lot of variance leaning towards divorce
if both partners has unstable -> nigh guaranteed divorce


so yes parenting style and divorcing and such have influence on chance on long lasting relationships (I think they counted the number of > 10 years relationships between groups but I'm not completely certain on that)



edit: but with that statistical thing in mind; socionics just tests for compatibility in terms of values and information preferences. It's not far fetched to keep that in mind while picking a partner


btw: opposites attract is disproven by psychology so that's is kinda a strike for duality being an ok idea

[QuickTwist]

Iirc the most reliable known predictor of future relationships known in psychology at the moment is stable vs unstable attachment style.

that is; were your parents good predicable parents that stayed together or not?

if both partners in a relation have stable style -> almost guaranteed relationship succes
if one partner has unstable style -> lot of variance leaning towards divorce
if both partners has unstable -> nigh guaranteed divorce


so yes parenting style and divorcing and such have influence on chance on long lasting relationships (I think they counted the number of > 10 years relationships between groups but I'm not completely certain on that)



edit: but with that statistical thing in mind; socionics just tests for compatibility in terms of values and information preferences. It's not far fetched to keep that in mind while picking a partner


btw: opposites attract is disproven by psychology so that's is kinda a strike for duality being an ok idea

I largely agree with this and its a pretty standard metric to go by.

I think what we can gather here is that by and large if you have any given 2 individuals who are healthy minded and somewhat "normal" (I'm cringing myself using that word) then I think people are going to mostly behave in the way that the socionics interrelationships predict. I'd like to say neuroticism based on big 5 is prolly the contributing factor to if two individuals are going to get along, taking into account their type. I'd also like to say stress is also a pretty big factor for if two individuals are going to get along. If 2 types that would normally get along but one is constantly in a stressful environment that is going to have an effect on the relationship.

[Jeremy8419]

Iirc the most reliable known predictor of future relationships known in psychology at the moment is stable vs unstable attachment style.

that is; were your parents good predicable parents that stayed together or not?

if both partners in a relation have stable style -> almost guaranteed relationship succes
if one partner has unstable style -> lot of variance leaning towards divorce
if both partners has unstable -> nigh guaranteed divorce


so yes parenting style and divorcing and such have influence on chance on long lasting relationships (I think they counted the number of > 10 years relationships between groups but I'm not completely certain on that)



edit: but with that statistical thing in mind; socionics just tests for compatibility in terms of values and information preferences. It's not far fetched to keep that in mind while picking a partner


btw: opposites attract is disproven by psychology so that's is kinda a strike for duality being an ok idea

Problem with that is that in society, putting two unstables or two stables together, both end up being very unstable in different ways. The most "successful" couples, in my experience, are the ones who, together, have a balance after first internally balancing themselves. E.g., unstable learns stability, stable learns instability, together they balance all fronts.

[Capitalist Pig]

Problem with that is that in society, putting two unstables or two stables together, both end up being very unstable in different ways. The most "successful" couples, in my experience, are the ones who, together, have a balance after first internally balancing themselves. E.g., unstable learns stability, stable learns instability, together they balance all fronts.

hey i found your picture





woowwww gross man ur nasty

[Jeremy8419]

hey i found your picture



woowwww gross man ur nasty

You have odd gif's on-hand lol

[Rebelondeck]

.....because one type is suppose to get along with people of another type this is not exactly how it works....

.......Depending on how this person is treated through conditioning ...... treated like dirt as they grow up.........

QuickTwist,

I agree that environment has a huge impact on personality, which is also highly influenced by type; the same environment will impact different types in different ways. From the same environment, an EII may become a social worker while a LII, a killer. All types can be sinners or saints depending on environments and body chemistry. Barring induced brain abnormalities, a bad environment doesn't always create personality problems; a cedar can grow straight and tall in a stony environment. We cannot totally blame what we are on from where we came, although it does influence us greatly as does type. Also for example, a female will likely have different priorities from a male of the same type as would the same types from different countries. Understanding and acceptance are more important in cementing a strong relationships than type which is only about information processing style.

a.k.a. I/O

[QuickTwist]

@Andreas, @Rebelondeck,

The thing is, even the people in the mental health field don't really know conclusively how environment shapes us to be the people who we are in any kind of predictable manner. There are even few studies that can even be reproduced with the same results. The thing about psychology is that it is completely different in every single person alive.

[QuickTwist]

Even I know how predictable it is, I can't said it verbally, it needs too complicated words to explain.

Lol, this quote makes me remember why people have different strength and weaknesses.

So, what do you want? Do you want psychologist and any mental health field people know how predictable environment shape us? Do you want to tell that Socionics is not at all inclusive? I accept your thoughts. You don't give a bad or wrong statement. Just remember, not all people will understand what we understand, and sometimes we don't understand what they understand.

16 intertype relationship is not inclusive, but,



So, do you want to read more than 16 intertype relationship? Because I'm not gonna read that. 120 are too much to read. I prefer "read" that big number in life reality, not in a book.

Just take all my answer as a grain of salt. ^-^

My point is that everyone, to some degree, is dynamic by nature rather than static. If you ask someone to take a personality test, and have them take it 3 times, what are the chances they answer the exact same way every time? That is my point.

[Rebelondeck]

......... I still believe that Socionics isn't as simple as you think.

Andreas,

I think that type is much simpler than Socionics models describe. It's the fractal-like patterns created by input-output processes that obscures the simplicity of type.

a.k.a. I/O

[mu4]

Iirc the most reliable known predictor of future relationships known in psychology at the moment is stable vs unstable attachment style.

that is; were your parents good predicable parents that stayed together or not?

if both partners in a relation have stable style -> almost guaranteed relationship succes
if one partner has unstable style -> lot of variance leaning towards divorce
if both partners has unstable -> nigh guaranteed divorce


so yes parenting style and divorcing and such have influence on chance on long lasting relationships (I think they counted the number of > 10 years relationships between groups but I'm not completely certain on that)



edit: but with that statistical thing in mind; socionics just tests for compatibility in terms of values and information preferences. It's not far fetched to keep that in mind while picking a partner


btw: opposites attract is disproven by psychology so that's is kinda a strike for duality being an ok idea

http://www.personal.psu.edu/afr3/blo...s-attract.html

It's more complicated than that. The study also deals with attachment styles and it's more to do with compatible attachment styles.

The results? Couples who were neither close nor too distant but "somewhere in between" had the strongest relationships (Watson). Lead author of the study David Frost emphasized the need for this balance. "People who yearn for a more intimate relationship and people who crave more distance are equally at risk of having a problematic relationship," he explained (Watson). This concept can also be applied to non-romantic relationships.

What we can take away from this study is that a healthy relationship consists of a balance in closeness and distance. The way I see it is this: when we're looking for someone to date, we're looking for someone who complements us, kind of like how salt complements pepper and peanut butter complements jelly. Too much similarity makes the situation pretty dull and too much dissimilarity makes it extremely nasty (and frustrating).

Duality is a complementary relationship formed based on dissimilarity in some areas but similarities in others. It seems to be backed by this study.

Both conflict relations and duality are opposites just in different ways and that's why two otherwise similar people(in some ways) can be such different sort of relationship for another.

[QuickTwist]

http://www.personal.psu.edu/afr3/blo...s-attract.html

It's more complicated than that. The study also deals with attachment styles and it's more to do with compatible attachment styles.

The results? Couples who were neither close nor too distant but "somewhere in between" had the strongest relationships (Watson). Lead author of the study David Frost emphasized the need for this balance. "People who yearn for a more intimate relationship and people who crave more distance are equally at risk of having a problematic relationship," he explained (Watson). This concept can also be applied to non-romantic relationships.

Duality is a complementary relationship formed based on dissimilarity in some areas but similarities in others. It seems to be backed by this study.

Both conflict relations and duality are opposites just in different ways and that's why two otherwise similar people(in some ways) can be such different sort of relationship for another.

But Mu, how does attachment styles tie into conditioning or nurture?