Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Does socionics try too hard to make fit everything together neatly?

  1. #1
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,244
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Does socionics try too hard to make fit everything together neatly?

    Functions, intertype relations, dichotomies, etc. Socionics does a lot to try to fit everything together in this interconnected labyrinth, and while that would be nice if everything happened match to up perfectly, I feel as if many of the nuances, deviations and factual insights are ignored in order in to maintain this nice neat interconnected matrix of ideas. Model A for example universally applies IEs to act in certain way depending on which function they in, but doesn't give us any insight in how exactly each type specifically uses each of the functions in their daily lives, or in what ways the same IE can manifest differently even when they are in the same function, which is something I have observed between Kindred and Look-a-like types.

    The main point I am trying to make is that I think socionics should put more effort into going in-depth about each type, element, relation etc. and extracting insightful information rather then trying to maintain the model the information is in.

  2. #2
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    &*self
    Posts
    872
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Without a solid base, it is chaos.
    salmon

  3. #3
    nefnaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The dichotomies and intertype relations fall neatly out of Model A, so another way of phrasing your question is whether or not Model A is satisfactory. The answer is that of course it is not completely satisfactory, but it is nevertheless a very useful model. One thing the model lacks (among others) is anything that would account for subtypes. Everyone agrees that there are subtypes, but beyond that different models and theories abound.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddytextures View Post
    the same IE can manifest differently even when they are in the same function, which is something I have observed between Kindred and Look-a-like types.
    Many socionists have noticed the same thing, and that is partially what motivates the "+/-" theory of IEs which extends Model A. Essentially this theory holds that every IE comes in a Democratic and an Aristocratic flavor.


    Another thing to keep in mind is that the predictions and nuances of Model A (or whatever is one's preferred model) should be constantly checked against reality to see if they have any validity or need to be revised. If we don't do this, then the theory is likely to stagnate and misguided ideas will prevail. But this also leads to another problem: checking the theory, in most cases, means referring to our own personal experiences with individuals of a known type, and all individuals are shaped by age, sex, experiences, cultural background and countless other factors in addition to type/subtype. Most probably no two socionist will agree perfectly on all of the finer details in terms of what the model actually means.

  4. #4
    Contra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    TIM
    ILI-Ni
    Posts
    1,405
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    nef naf's got it.

    As for subtypes, i think that if they exist (in the accepting-producing model) they are highly subject to change. Really, i think any model that provides more subtypes such as DCNH is more likely to be accurate for its ability to better characterize variability/complexity of the person

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There are two ways to look at a relatively intricate model like model A (as opposed to doing something like going with plain Jungian dichotomies). One is to view it as "adding too many assumptions." Another is to say that it is describing the richest phenomena you can muster from the basic foundation of the Jungian dichotomies/attitudes.

    My preference has come to be to simply say, hey, there are times when it's helpful to just call a square a square -- use more direct, simpler models. No, model A doesn't apply to anywhere near as many things as the average socionist seems to think, and I think the more "dry" trait theory often does better at many of the purposes they use it for.

    OTOH if you really precisely define what kinds of psychological types issues model A does cover (or rather, has the potential to cover), it becomes highly interesting, and to this day I still think it's my favorite implementation of Jungian-rooted concepts. But I won't deny I use it for more esoteric stuffs than I do for practical reasons, but I find this is what I'm interested anyway. Creating interesting abstractions to play with.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Try too hard to make the intertype relationships fit together with the functions? The fuck?

    It makes complete sense. If you don't understand it and it comes off as 'try-hard' then you don't understand it. Your TIM is also LII/SLI while you've been a member for 1 year. In this case it's not the system but it's you. Get your shit together

  7. #7
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,633
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nefnaf View Post
    The dichotomies and intertype relations fall neatly out of Model A, so another way of phrasing your question is whether or not Model A is satisfactory.
    This. Also, Augusta said that everything in the theory came directly out of her personal observations. Personally I have also found it to match my own observations, with some minor modifications and improvements. Unfortunately, since we don't really know the same people (except celebrities, and there is disagreement about their types), there is only so much one can do to demonstrate this. If you don't buy it then I guess either you can do some more homework or leave it.

    I will say, though, some of the classical descriptions, things like Reinin dichotomies, are not really accurate IMO. But it's more a case of just ignoring some superfluous categories rather than changing the fundamental theory.

  8. #8
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,244
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dedication View Post
    Try too hard to make the intertype relationships fit together with the functions? The fuck?

    It makes complete sense. If you don't understand it and it comes off as 'try-hard' then you don't understand it. Your TIM is also LII/SLI while you've been a member for 1 year. In this case it's not the system but it's you. Get your shit together
    Allow me to kindly say, fuck off.

    The inconsistencies between different models is precisely reason for my undecided typing. By some models I'm LII and others, SLI. Others see a lot of Ti and Ne in my post yet I match up perfectly with some SLI descriptions, the SLI description in WSS being one example which I resonated 100% with. My gripe with the models (model A mostly) isn't they don't make sense but rather that they fail to outline important notes.

  9. #9
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Depends on which type you ask.

    A lot of stuff is cultural societal some are program function. These things have to be discerned

  10. #10
    SongOfSapphire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    513
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Imo all systems try hard to make everything fit, sometimes forcing things. I still think they can be useful/interesting/worthwhile models, as long as you allow reality to shape the theory and don't try to use theory to shape reality...socionics included.

    See my signature :-)
    "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra

  11. #11
    Mallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Washington
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is impressive with compartmentalizing information accumulated from observation and research in psychology, in general. But Socionics does have a distinct and even inevitable flaw that every system will always have, and that's trying to mesh everything together perfectly into this little box. That's why there are some things from little bits of words to sentences to even paragraphs in each description that one will not relate with, despite the perceived accuracy that person will connect with. Myself included. Socionics does try to maintain consistency by not cramming all the information in places it shouldn't belong, but the fact of the matter is there's more to a person than the typology and other systems that connect like enneagrams, DCNH, astrology, MBTI, etc. Those contributing factors are upbringing, health, and personal idiosyncrasies and experiences. Nobody will wholeheartedly relate with every single word from that description they relate most with. There is always more to an individual.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    ESI 684
    Posts
    661
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mallan View Post
    Socionics is impressive with compartmentalizing information accumulated from observation and research in psychology, in general. But Socionics does have a distinct and even inevitable flaw that every system will always have, and that's trying to mesh everything together perfectly into this little box. That's why there are some things from little bits of words to sentences to even paragraphs in each description that one will not relate with, despite the perceived accuracy that person will connect with. Myself included. Socionics does try to maintain consistency by not cramming all the information in places it shouldn't belong, but the fact of the matter is there's more to a person than the typology and other systems that connect like enneagrams, DCNH, astrology, MBTI, etc. Those contributing factors are upbringing, health, and personal idiosyncrasies and experiences. Nobody will wholeheartedly relate with every single word from that description they relate most with. There is always more to an individual.
    Of course. When nobody is a pure type. I'll quote Jung when he said of pure types: "Such a person would surely find himself using my services". You know

  13. #13
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,633
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mallan View Post
    That's why there are some things from little bits of words to sentences to even paragraphs in each description that one will not relate with, despite the perceived accuracy that person will connect with. ... Nobody will wholeheartedly relate with every single word from that description they relate most with. There is always more to an individual.
    This says more about the overall utility of type descriptions than it does about socionics, not to mention the quality of the ones that actually exist. Many traits are correlated with type, yet very few of them are absolutely true of all members of a type. It is much easier to give absolute descriptions of the IM elements (and to the functions, but that's more subtle), from which you can derive expected type behaviors. The behaviors are somewhat secondary to the model itself; you can change your opinion on them somewhat without contradicting Model A necessarily.

  14. #14
    stronger, faster, weirder
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE 8w9-2-5 SX/sp
    Posts
    1,445
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddytextures View Post
    The main point I am trying to make is that I think socionics should put more effort into going in-depth about each type, element, relation etc. and extracting insightful information rather then trying to maintain the model the information is in.
    It does already. There are tons of details out there with type descriptions, and socionics schools have been constantly developing and collecting more empirical information. An example of this is the +/- theory as nefnaf mentioned, and other such attempts to flesh it out by other socionists.

    My solution for the time being is to recognize, rather than to ignore, real-life deviations to the information posited in socionics articles, and to constantly develop and update my own "model" in my head. We can each develop our own understanding and add to those of others here on the forums by openly discussing personal insights and experiences in regards to the socionics model. Perhaps eventually a model can be created that is more unifying of all these details and nuances in personality that will be more useful and informative than the current model.

    I really think that you must be a Te creative type because you seek to derive practical implementation using Ti structures (Te distilled from Ti demo), and really all of your threads are about this. If you don't see the model as useful, don't use it. Form your own insights and use those. Understanding human behaviour is difficult and trying to predict it using a formula-like model is absurd, and it's absurd to expect too much from something like this. Learning basic principles from psychology, sociology, and biology, will serve you more if you're looking for something to give you factual insights.

  15. #15
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Person View Post
    Yes the hypothetical models people have designed to support this theory are to a large extent imaginative. It's best to get a solid understanding of many many type examples before you start implying there's a model or system to be set in place. Socionics as an observation of distinct cognitive values and chemistry is clearly observable, as well as the 16 types. However there are just too many added details and stereotypes people unnecessarily throw into what types are.
    Such as quadra values?
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  16. #16
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Person View Post
    .
    I find that the Reinin dichotomies you use are just too many added details and stereotypes, at best. At worst, they are divisions with incorrect descriptions that unnecessarily binarise and exaggerate traits (whether as an inherent part of the theory, or by people's attempts at utilising it).
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  17. #17
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Person View Post
    I've never used Reinin dichotomies.
    You have. I noticed even recently you said that a tool using Reinin dichotomies to explain differences between two types was a handy tool.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  18. #18
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Person View Post
    They are demonstrable within the types and most likely accurate, complicated in nature to explain, but I've never used them. That would be like using overly specific function descriptions to type people, when you already know the general essence of each type. They wouldn't fit everyone.
    You have also referred to them in typing threads when attempting to provide evidence for a typing.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  19. #19
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Person View Post
    Provide evidence for this. Not sure what you're referring to, or attempting to prove with all these paradoxical comments.
    Quote Originally Posted by 717495 View Post
    I'll start it off by suggesting that he's an Alpha. Most everything I know about him suggests "judicious" and "merry."
    Quote Originally Posted by 717495 View Post
    Aristocratic means ethics are paired with intuition, and democratic means logic is paired with intuition

    And Silly and Charming is for the Fe/Ti spectrum, and "serious" business and edgy relates more to Fi/Te, hence merry and serious.

    I put a few lines up on wikisocion that states that Decisive people tend to make decisions quickly on a small piece of evidence, how it says Ni types survive in situations where information is scarce, so they're more influenced to decide. Judicious people are more inclined to build a profile about a decision, gather everything they need, before they come close to making an official decision. They're also more inclined to not see how obvious the situation has turned into, because they regard the evidence as not substantial enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by 717495 View Post
    I agree with Marie that Fi/Te valuers tend not to make fun of people, or even consider doing so. Although there can be influences to this. For instance, my Fe/Ti valuing brother has a big influence on me to make fun of people, as he naturally finds tons of behaviors of people amusing, where my natural stance on that is trivial, and so he opens my mind to the exercise once in a while. And there is a typical difference between Fe and Fi valuing I think. Fi valuers tend to find things "silly" in people, not really all out make fun of them as a person, or force reactions out of them. There can be similar symmetry along the line that not all Fe/Ti valuers like to make fun of people, etc and that some merry types could have a lot in common with serious types along these lines.
    Quote Originally Posted by 717495 View Post
    Maybe. However some major differences between Archon and myself could be in temperament and the merry/serious dichotomy, not just VI alone. Reasons for continually typing myself as ILI have been because I fit the caricature of IP temperament and Fe PoLR so well. Reinin dichotomies and getting typed by description and VI by some experienced Russian enthusiasts on various websites have all yielded a result SLI, and I guess I should mention intertype relations. But thank you for your opinion, which I still take into account. I'm not blocking out any information.
    Quote Originally Posted by 717495 View Post
    Yeah, also you're sort of arguing against Expat's typing as Te dominant, when you put Ashton as Te dominant, in this line of reasoning of what is Ti vs Te, gilly. It makes more sense to look at the "comprehensive theoretical framework" in context of being an intuitive type, where as Beta STs who are less theoretically based like Abbie, Ezra, Ashton, etc. will use more of a concrete, factoid, list like thing, and essentially feed off of Ni dominants explanation of the concepts--how Ashton likes when dolphin, allie, archon etc. explain in-depth concepts so he can agree with them. Same thing Expat and niffweed does, is explain in-depth concepts (the N(i) portion of the theory) and rely on a more "comprehensive theoretical framework," and Ezra likes it too.

    Anyway, I'm still unsatisfied. I think Ashton shows Ti, merry values, EP-ness, Se dominance. Might not be your stereotypical ESTp, forum pushover, but not much of an ENTj. I dislike the ideology that goes along with what an Ni type is. You're more convinced that most people I see as Beta and have developed Beta tinged Ti, are Ni egos. Expat and Rick, or whoever else I think knows, wouldn't agree with that.
    Quote Originally Posted by 717495 View Post
    Well I tend to see you as a merry type, also Fe interactive. It has nothing to do with being socially isolated. Whenever have I said that I am? Serious types will be less playful and really less into the whole social game, this much is true, and this doesn't mean Fe-PoLRs are socially isolated, or that I type socially isolated people as Fe-PoLR, but that they have a naturally vulnerability and deficiency with Fe. I easily can go to parties, funner interactions, etc. but don't really see much of the point, as it's draining on my Fe-PoLR. I do well hanging with some close friends and developing those personal bonds.
    Quote Originally Posted by 717495 View Post
    People don't know sh** about serious types. He's about as EP, and merry as you can get. Just look at his temperament and how he's speaking/acting. Probably ESTp > ENTp, decisive > judicious.
    Quote Originally Posted by Person View Post
    EII-Ne > LII-Ne. He comes across too down-to-earth to me to be Merry, though he explicitly seems a bit odd and distanced for my tastes, perhaps sx last.
    .
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  20. #20
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Person View Post
    You have to provide evidence that I use Reinin dichotomies, not quadra values.

    I hadn't even settled on a type for myself back then (thanks to the foul play of Socionics descriptions and models,) so my opinions wouldn't mean anything in context to what they do now. What precisely do you want, SubT, or wish to prove?
    Merry, Serious, Aristrocratic, Democratic, Judicious, Decisive etc. are all Reinin dichotomies. You were utilizing them even recently.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddytextures View Post
    Functions, intertype relations, dichotomies, etc. Socionics does a lot to try to fit everything together in this interconnected labyrinth, and while that would be nice if everything happened match to up perfectly, I feel as if many of the nuances, deviations and factual insights are ignored in order in to maintain this nice neat interconnected matrix of ideas. Model A for example universally applies IEs to act in certain way depending on which function they in, but doesn't give us any insight in how exactly each type specifically uses each of the functions in their daily lives, or in what ways the same IE can manifest differently even when they are in the same function, which is something I have observed between Kindred and Look-a-like types.

    The main point I am trying to make is that I think socionics should put more effort into going in-depth about each type, element, relation etc. and extracting insightful information rather then trying to maintain the model the information is in.
    Everything except for male/female, same as other typology systems, which is probably why they all leave everyone with jack-squat of value and appeal to people with unfortunate parental situations or gender/sexual identity issues.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •