Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things

[reclaimpower]

I am curious. Does anyone think socionics could potentionally be a dangerous thing for certain minds? I've noticed in myself that I have to becareful not to take it too seriously or I'll fall into the trap of forgetting I am a person, and people are just people, and there are more than 16 people in this world.

I can say that I've seen some people taking it too seriously in both socionics and mbti forums, identifying so strongly with a type, that they fit the type instead of letting the type fit them. I myself do this whenever I have formed a typing thread, and so I fuck up on knowing my type, fitting whatever type I relate to at the moment, and becoming something I'm just not. This is possibly the most honest thing I have said here. I think I see other people do my mistake too. In a way socionics can create a mask for people to be fake, and find a fake sense of identity, that they lack in the first place.

But I think the worst and most dangerous thing in socionics is the relationship part. I think it gets to the point that some people only want to be in a relationship (romantic or just friendly, whatever you want it to mean) with their duals, which is bullshit. I know I want the closest people to me to be the ideal type, because I want them to definitely feel that way about me, and having an external system telling me that gives me an unrealistic sense of security in the relationship. They should like me, because I'm their dual, or semi-dual, or whatever. It gives a false illusion of a healthy relationship, but in reality your conflictor is just as likely to helpful to you as your dual. But the people I don't respond well to, I just love to turn into my conflictor. It just doesn't work like that. But I still do it, and I see people doing it in multiple forums, and in people I tell socionics about seem to quickly agree with me when I try rationalizing their relationships with socionics. I think someone on this forum said becareful what you put in peoples' heads or something like that. It's a good point, I fucked things up for people using systems like these to rationalize relationships and it was irresponsible, with bad consequences, but I think I'm not the only one who makes mistakes like these, so I think it should be something said.

I guess I mainly want to know if anyone else sees the cons in socionics, and even more broadly, psychology, astrology, numerology, anything to do with analyzing behavior and identity. I also would like people to point out the pros if they like, and see them, this is not a socionics bashing thread, speak positively or negatively. I'm just a negative person, so I found it easier to point out the problems I see. And plus, I suck at directing people from thread derailment, and I have a feeling people will want a positive spin somewhere so this is me avoiding any responsibility for the direction this thread follows.

I think that there are people it is dangerous for, because they have not formed a solid identity on their own. They are so sensitive to external things, they need it to tell them who they are, so these people, like myself, are so easily trapped in becoming a type instead of a person. I think there also are people who have formed a solid sense of self, who can see beyond the types. These are the people socionics can be a healthy tool for.

You can be any type, just like you can be anything, which is just another way of saying you're nothing yet. That's my problem. That's the problem with people who take socionics too seriously. They have no foundation of their own, so they substitute it with an echo of a person, rather than being the real thing.

So what be ye opinions? Do you see any negatives, or positives of socionics toward the human psyche? Is it damaging to you, or reinforcing? Does it enable you or liberate you? What say you?

[Crispy]

It just doesn't work like that

Since one of the major foundations of socionics is the inter-type relations, I believe if you don't see the intertype relations in reality play out more or less the same way they do in the theory(or believe it doesn't work like that), it means you believe the theory is false. Therefore, from my interpretation of your point of view, the theory is helpful to noone.

And ideas don't kill people. Tangibles kill people!

[reclaimpower]

No, not false. Incomplete. The theory is helpful to those who don't see it as absolute.

[Crispy]

In that case it is incomplete. But only in the sense that it doesn't have infinite types. Nothing a few dozen subtype theories couldn't fix.

[discojoe]

tl;dr

Summary, please.

[Crispy]

Summary was the last sentence:
"So what be ye opinions? Do you see any negatives, or positives of socionics toward the human psyche? Is it damaging to you, or reinforcing? Does it enable you or liberate you? What say you? "

[reclaimpower]

Summary: Um, socionics can be harmful to people who lack identity thus identify with too much with the theory of the types, than being actual people. But socionics can be helpful to those who let the type fit them than trying to fit a type. Basically, I am trying to see if other people see cons or pros of socionics. I want to know what people think as far as it affecting someone, and who can benefit, and who cannot. I also would be interested in examples of peoples' experiences as far as how it affects them, or how they see it affecting people, postively or negatively.

And ideas don't kill people. Tangibles kill people!

Ideas can direct people to direct tangibles to kill people. It starts with an idea and ends with the Holocaust. But ideas also can direct a person to cure a disease. It's what people do with them that matters, that's kind of what I was getting at here, partially.

[Pookie]

the helpful part about putting people or yourself in boxes, is when you reflect on where the boxes do not apply. Yin and Yang man, too much water can even kill you.

[Existential Potato]

First, you describe how people would tailor themselves to their type, or would use their type's shortcomings as an excuse or explanation for their own short comings that are not socionically applicable. You go on to explain the issue of people typing based on how much they like people, creating rifts and bonds where none existed before.

I agree that both these things are problematic and exist. In order to avoid them, I try to type purely based on functions and nothing else. Also, I try to be open to all types of relationships even if I think they are not within my quadra/are my dual, because I may be wrong.

However, I'm an all or nothing kind of person. I wouldn't settle for less than ideal; I don't compromise myself. Ideally, once I have mastered socionics, I will be able to actively seek out member of my qudra/my own dual. The problem I see you discussing in your post is that people try to do this without obtaining a higher understanding of the theory, and end up ruining themselves. Is that correct?

[xerx]

Honestly, understanding people with socionics has helped me to humanize them. Seeing people as logical systems brings them closer to what I can understand, which not only helps me relate to them better, it lets me know what they need so I can help them and what their boundaries are.

Anyone who thinks socionics is dehumanizing usually doesn't have Fi PoLR and can't picture the level of anxiety and almost absolute uncertainty, including jealousy and paranoia, we have in our relationships with other people.

The enneagram otoh seems a little dehumanizing (for lack of a better word) to me because it focuses too much on emotion and not enough on the intellect and information processing.

[xerx]

However, the theory has a big potential to be abused, precisely because it's so powerful (and usually accurate).

[Existential Potato]

Ya, I agree with both of you. Someone really ought to update the 'general issues' section of wikisocion because I think many of these topics were outlined there but much of it was lost in the data wipe.

[reclaimpower]

The problem I see you discussing in your post is that people try to do this without obtaining a higher understanding of the theory, and end up ruining themselves. Is that correct?

More that people should first have a higher understanding of themselves. But your point is one I should take into consideration. My failure is that I have not studied socionics in depth. Doing so could lead to a higher understanding of myself. I suppose the two come together really.

Socionics and the relations portrayed, ime, describe what actually happens. But yes, people can take the wrong approach by over-analyzing things in terms of socionics. Again, socionics is little more than the skeletal structure. It does not describe the muscle matter and such to make an analogy that it does not remotely describe what it tries to describe. But just because of that, it doesn't mean what it is saying is wrong.

It's fine to take socionics seriously. I think you are confusing taking it too seriously with expecting socionics to subdue reality. The skeletal structure upholds the muscle mass and keeps things in place, but you shouldn't try to cram the muscle mass into the skeleton. But people more or less do that with the theory

I can see what you're saying. I think you're right. The skeleton and muscle metaphor is a helpful one. I didn't think of it that way but it makes sense. I think I was trying to make the muscle fit into the skeleton myself, which is what led me to criticize the theory when I found doing so doesn't work.

Even if you have exceptional understanding of music theory and can get an idea, until you have heard and have interacted with the music by listening, you are missing a most vital sense of the picture.

Which may explain my stance on the relationships between types. I am inexperienced in all human relationships so I may be unable to appreciate this part of the theory, unless I open myself to them eventually. This was another helpful analogy. Hmm, I was being unfair with some of what I said in my original post. I wasn't seeing the whole picture.

Though going back to music, I admit that knowing the music's underlying structure will possibly make me appreciate the music more intellectually and know how to understand how these theoretical components create certain atmospheres, but often when I can understand the underlying foundation via intellect, it can make the music lose the luster it would have if I was ignorant and hearing the music for the first or second time and not knowing why I am affected by what I am hearing.

I think everything can be analyzed and be made logical, even that thought to be magic or what seems magical. I guess this goes with the magic that music, relationships, or whatever evoke to those who don't actually understand it to see it is guided by reason, if you dig deep enough

This makes sense. I think when the music loses its luster is when it is a good idea to forget though. To stop analyzing and just be. Socionics can be useful, but it is a pattern that already exists without the theory. The system describes the pattern, but it doesn't direct it. The magic you described is still there, regardless of formulas or dissection, the formulas merely interpret what is. However, learning it before forgetting can help one understand where others come from I'd imagine, which is always a good aim.

Honestly, understanding people with socionics has helped me to humanize them. Seeing people as logical systems brings them closer to what I can understand, which not only helps me relate to them better, it lets me know what they need so I can help them and what their boundaries are.

Anyone who thinks socionics is dehumanizing usually doesn't have Fi PoLR and can't picture the level of anxiety and almost absolute uncertainty, including jealousy and paranoia, we have in our relationships with other people.

This is an interesting statement. I didn't consider that. No, I probably couldn't imagine. It works reverse for me, the system makes me paranoid, by thinking, "what if the people I care about are really my conflictors or some other disagreeable relationship and I'm just oblivious, maybe I have their types wrong. The relationship will end in ruin I just know it. I'm fucked for caring about them." Which only proves I need to gain a better understanding of the system or else abuse what it says only to destroy what is already good.

[krieger]

However, the theory has a big potential to be abused, precisely because it's so powerful (and usually accurate).

/puke @ bolded

The abuse is in how people expect it to be accurate. Only as long as people only expect to get general, indicative results is there a chance for it to lend a positive influence.

[reclaimpower]

@reclaimpower

What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you a crack head? Retarded? A cockswallowing, disease ridden, fish smelling, crab laden, vagigihole? Holy fuck.

Let me lay it out for you.

1.

I am curious. Does anyone think socionics could potentionally be a dangerous thing for certain minds? I've noticed in myself that I have to becareful not to take it too seriously or I'll fall into the trap of forgetting I am a person, and people are just people, and there are more than 16 people in this world.

First off, if you take anything too seriously, you're probably insane. The fact that you can forget you're a person only seconds that notion. Disassociative disorder anyone? Seriously, go slit your wrist and die. Please, I'm beggiiiiing you. And if you use an electric razor, you're doing it wrong. Yeah, you probably needed that pointed out considering how utterly retarded you are.

2.

I can say that I've seen some people taking it too seriously in both socionics and mbti forums, identifying so strongly with a type, that they fit the type instead of letting the type fit them. I myself do this whenever I have formed a typing thread, and so I fuck up on knowing my type, fitting whatever type I relate to at the moment, and becoming something I'm just not. This is possibly the most honest thing I have said here. I think I see other people do my mistake too. In a way socionics can create a mask for people to be fake, and find a fake sense of identity, that they lack in the first place.

First, you just cut yourself at the knees as far as obtaining any credibility. You admittedly contradict yourself, and more than that, you wear a fake mask. Great job. And the "this is probably the most honest thing I said" is basically a confession to being a liar, and your previous posts, including the beginning of the one you said that in, is now put into question. Great job establishing ethos to your audience!

3.

I know I want the closest people to me to be the ideal type, because I want them to definitely feel that way about me, and having an external system telling me that gives me an unrealistic sense of security in the relationship.

You really really really need to get laid.

4.

I think someone on this forum said becareful what you put in peoples' heads or something like that. It's a good point, I fucked things up for people using systems like these to rationalize relationships and it was irresponsible, with bad consequences, but I think I'm not the only one who makes mistakes like these, so I think it should be something said.

That is all.

5.

I think that there are people it is dangerous for, because they have not formed a solid identity on their own. They are so sensitive to external things, they need it to tell them who they are, so these people, like myself, are so easily trapped in becoming a type instead of a person.

Projection? That's right, you're easily influenced you prick, don't go putting that trait on other people though. Oh yes, I know your type. "I'm my own person, I think for myself, I don't want anyone to ever influence me, antiestablishment all the way" (you probably even like Ayn Rand, but she'd label you as secondhanded as they come) and yet, you're asking people here to make up your mind for you, maybe give you a little reassurance that you're not insane. The only problem is, you are. After all, you're talking to yourself right now. In fact, most of this is you insulting yourself, what the hell is wrong with you? Do you think its mere coincidence you find yourself on a psycholgical forum or what?

6.

You can be any type, just like you can be anything, which is just another way of saying you're nothing yet.

Thats basically what you just did to my screen when you wrote that.

7.

That's the problem with people who take socionics too seriously. They have no foundation of their own, so they substitute it with an echo of a person, rather than being the real thing.

Why the fuck are you here? I just thought I'd ask you that.

8.

So what be ye opinions? Do you see any negatives, or positives of socionics toward the human psyche? Is it damaging to you, or reinforcing? Does it enable you or liberate you? What say you?

What are you, a retarded emo pirate on PMS?

9.

My failure is that I have not studied socionics in depth.

There's an obvious solution to that. But a better one is to cut off your dick and kill every member of your family. Evolution would be most appreciative

10.

I am inexperienced in all human relationships so I may be unable to appreciate this part of the theory, unless I open myself to them eventually.

Intimicy issues anyone? Seriously, go experience real people... and get laid!

And what is with "Children shouldn't play with dead things?" What the fuck? You couldn't find more shit in Paris Hilton's mouth as she rimmed a moderately obese, middle class, lesbian dwarf hooker, than you'd probably find in a mind like yours.

Essentialy, you fail at life.

Fucking nerd, get some sun.

Oh and btw, your posts are way too long.

Now as to not derail the thread: socionics can be misused, but its just a theory, you study it, you see if you can apply it in your life in a useful way, if not, discard it. It has no power over you, aside from what you give, just the same as with any other thing in life, including people. Use some willpower, think a little less about useless things, and experience life.

[reclaimpower]

Just cuz I was bored, and Azeroffs had a great idea for entertainment, yet I didn't see it happening anywhere.

[reclaimpower]

My bad. Long posts are bad ass If I had the stamina, I'd write one right now, but I'm sleepy and about to go to bed, only to regret all this in the morning, being true to the thread that inspired me out of lurking for a couple minutes.

So we'll just go with your epic long post being the most epic in all epicness, I wish I could give you a monetary reward rather than lame thumbs in the air, but.... no, I'm too cheap for that, so have my black empty soul instead.

I wonder if its type-related that I'd rather give you my soul than my money.

[blankblank]

Having a highly sarcastic view of the theories will solve all those over-trusting problems.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I am curious. Does anyone think socionics could potentionally be a dangerous thing for certain minds? I've noticed in myself that I have to becareful not to take it too seriously or I'll fall into the trap of forgetting I am a person, and people are just people, and there are more than 16 people in this world.

Not really. Very empathetic, all-around good people are into socionics. As for taking it too seriously, honestly I don't know what to say except for that we all take things seriously sometimes.

I can say that I've seen some people taking it too seriously in both socionics and mbti forums, identifying so strongly with a type, that they fit the type instead of letting the type fit them.

This is kinda fake and unnatural though. Are you sure they're really doing this? This sounds so insecure me, that not even the dorkiest dorks of high school would do something like that.

I myself do this whenever I have formed a typing thread, and so I fuck up on knowing my type, fitting whatever type I relate to at the moment, and becoming something I'm just not.

I used to do the same thing. Instead of looking within yourself, look outside of yourself and the sorts of people you naturally prefer to share your heart with. Socionics is based on intertype relationships, the personal identity part of it is flexible. I notice that I have a natural eroticism for estps and everything else seems to fit when I noticed a lot of things outside of myself. Socionics is primarily about how you fit into the greater outside world, not so much the ego-ridden insanity of 'Who am I?'

This is possibly the most honest thing I have said here. I think I see other people do my mistake too. In a way socionics can create a mask for people to be fake, and find a fake sense of identity, that they lack in the first place.

I don't see this. I think people think other people are being fake when they're really just being them. "Oh nobody can be THAT nice he must be hiding something." Or "Hmm he's probably a decent guy deep down. Maybe this asshole thing is a facade?" (usually if the asshole in question is hot as hell) But that's not true. It's just people feel better when they think they are piercing beyond some sort of veil/facade but really, they're just observing how things are. There are no mysteries, it's what you see is what you get.

But I think the worst and most dangerous thing in socionics is the relationship part. I think it gets to the point that some people only want to be in a relationship (romantic or just friendly, whatever you want it to mean) with their duals, which is bullshit.

I never thought this. But duals are a lot better for some things, like sharing your heart with somebody. Do you want to talk about your deepest, most precious innermost feelings with everybody? Nobody does this because of all the clashings it provokes.

I know I want the closest people to me to be the ideal type,

Dude. If they are already close to you, and it's comfortable then they probably ARE already your ideal types. You're thinking too much about it!

because I want them to definitely feel that way about me, and having an external system telling me that gives me an unrealistic sense of security in the relationship.

You're contradicting yourself. You said the 'closest people to you' and then you go on to say that it might be an unrealistic sense of security. That doesn't make any sense. Why did you let them in in the first place if they weren't compatible or secure?

They should like me, because I'm their dual, or semi-dual, or whatever.

They DO like you for you, and them being your dual or semi-dual or identical or any other compatible types tries to explain the reason why, and the underlying psychological processes. That's it! You're thinking about this backwards.

It gives a false illusion of a healthy relationship, but in reality your conflictor is just as likely to helpful to you as your dual.

No, they aren't. They are only helpful for help you to discover what you don't want in life and the types of people you don't want to interact with ...but a true conflictor is gonna psychologically clash with you. It doesn't mean you can't work with theme or get along in a 'business type' sense. But anything personal and 'heartfelt' is going to be dangerous.

But the people I don't respond well to, I just love to turn into my conflictor. It just doesn't work like that. But I still do it, and I see people doing it in multiple forums, and in people I tell socionics about seem to quickly agree with me when I try rationalizing their relationships with socionics.

Sorry but you're not making much sense any more.

I think someone on this forum said becareful what you put in peoples' heads or something like that. It's a good point, I fucked things up for people using systems like these to rationalize relationships and it was irresponsible, with bad consequences, but I think I'm not the only one who makes mistakes like these, so I think it should be something said.

You're missing the whole point. We prefer different types of people and socionics helps explains that. Other people make us feel things that others don't, other people naturally make us happier than other people. We can show basic respect for everybody on the planet, but we're always going to prefer the company of some people over the others. Do you naively let anybody in your living room?

I guess I mainly want to know if anyone else sees the cons in socionics, and even more broadly, psychology, astrology, numerology, anything to do with analyzing behavior and identity.

I see the pros. I think they're mostly right, because everybody that I observed in reality has fit them to a T. And they try to talk themselves out of it how they're not like that, but they clearly ARE like that, and they're just driving themselves silly not aligning themselves with who-they-really-are. Very intelligent professoinals have studied this thing years before you did, and I'm sorry babe but they know what they're talking about. Socionics is a fact of nature, just like the laws of physiscs. It sounds like you need help really understanding it or something.

I also would like people to point out the pros if they like, and see them, this is not a socionics bashing thread, speak positively or negatively.

SOCIONICS IS NOT POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE. IT'S NOT A VALUE THING. IT'S NOT RIGHT OR WRONG. The sun and moon isn't 'right' or 'wrong' it's just the sun and moon. Socionics simply IS. It's a facet of reality. Like Gilly says, it's already in everything else already. Btw a wise gay man (not me) once told me that the only way to not understand anything is to put an 'evil' or 'good' modifier on it. And that's *exactly* why you can't let yourself understand socionics.

I'm just a negative person, so I found it easier to point out the problems I see. And plus, I suck at directing people from thread derailment, and I have a feeling people will want a positive spin somewhere so this is me avoiding any responsibility for the direction this thread follows.

You just have misdirected guilt. I don't see you as this horrible bad person that you see yourself as. Even if you did do something bad, you can correct it.

I think that there are people it is dangerous for, because they have not formed a solid identity on their own. They are so sensitive to external things, they need it to tell them who they are, so these people, like myself, are so easily trapped in becoming a type instead of a person.

Identity is never solid. It's always a flexible, malleable thing on its own anyway. You can't form a solid identity even if you try, you can only know what feels great to you in that moment. It's like a song. Either somebody really likes the music or they can't relate to it at all. You only can relate to it if you yourself had that same exact feeling. And if you think 'everybody feels the same things' you'd be wrong, that's just a naive thing people tell themselves. There's no evidence to support that is the case.

I think there also are people who have formed a solid sense of self, who can see beyond the types. These are the people socionics can be a healthy tool for.

You keep acting like 'seeing beyond the veil of things' is this wonderful thing. But in truth there is no veil. You just think that because of your own unique perceptions. You're not seeing through people. You're seeing them the way that you want to see them. Or you're just going by what they're showing themselves as. Either way though, that's not seeing 'beyond' anything. When somebody else tells you who they are, believe them.

You can be any type, just like you can be anything, which is just another way of saying you're nothing yet.

You're misunderstanding. You can't be anything, well you can- but that something should align with your sense of sense or you're not going to stick with it. You could study to become an astronaught but if your heart is not into it; you'll never become an astronaught. You have to align with your own source like Esther Hicks said. If everybody can be anything then why are people the way they are instead of 'everything.' You're not facing reality here and you're being quite silly. Look around. People aren't 'everything' and anything, people simply ARE THE WAY THAT THEY ARE.

That's my problem. That's the problem with people who take socionics too seriously. They have no foundation of their own, so they substitute it with an echo of a person, rather than being the real thing.

You're being so silly. An echo is just as real as anything else, it's another facet of reality that's just as real as anything else. A 'veil' is just as real as the real world beyond that REAL veil. Everything is real and everything is true. Nature includes *everything.* Nothing is fake. Being fake is real. An estj business man who has a high paying job and is 'real world success like' is being just as real as an emo infp artist who is more "rawly insightful."

The first principal of gay shamanism is that all perceptions are true, everything is true. God lets 'everything be.'

[reclaimpower]

I know, lol I realized some of this a while ago, and also started actually reading more about the theory. I regretted writing the original post for a while, that's why I made fun of it. I do appreciate what you said though, a lot of it gave me a new perspective to consider, for example maybe things are as they appear instead of trying to pierce a veil all the time. So thanks for sharing shaman wisdom with me

[Milo]

Summary: Um, socionics can be harmful to people who lack identity thus identify with too much with the theory of the types, than being actual people. But socionics can be helpful to those who let the type fit them than trying to fit a type. Basically, I am trying to see if other people see cons or pros of socionics. I want to know what people think as far as it affecting someone, and who can benefit, and who cannot. I also would be interested in examples of peoples' experiences as far as how it affects them, or how they see it affecting people, postively or negatively.

old thread with some great point that I've had on my mind ever since I've noticed how some people will distort themselves to fit into their preferred type. But if there weren't any types, I think people with false and lacking identities will find something else as a substitute (their fb or tumblr account, some celebrity, fad, or political movement),out of which socionics is like a kids' playground and the less harmful identity drug of choice.

[DirectorAbbie]

Dead sticks make excellent playthings.

[quetzlabcoatl]

my soul was already dead before socionics

[ashlesha]

Dead sticks make excellent playthings.

"until somebody loses an eye" - my mom

[uncivilized]

People always have stupid criteria for determining who their friends and lovers are. If it isn't socionics, it's going to be which bands you listen to, or if you like peanuts in your candy bar, or whatever. At least socionics offers a pseudo-scientific hypothesis that goes a bit deeper than those factors for determining if someone has the right dynamics for pursuing a relationship.