Socionics was created by America for the Soviets
I have no idea either way but a lot of things about it just seem suspicious. For one, Soviet Russians didn't exactly have glam rockers or 50s housewives, and for another thing, it looks suspiciously similar to MBTI in how it's formatted. I read an article a while back saying "the need to put everything into neat categories is characteristically corporate America" although it was just referencing MBTI and not socionics at all. So, discuss.
Fun conspiracy question: If America created it, what was the original purpose of introducing this?
Or wait, I can answer this myself: for purposes of collective confusion!
To get people used to capitalismOriginally Posted by Chae
the need to put everything into neat categories goes back at least to the ancient Greeks (you might say its the cornerstone of western civilization); just sounds like another uninformed conspiracy theory
If you now manage to connect Socionics -> people and capitalism -> money, this could be a thing.
This thread is about having fun, not actual conspiracy
Wut /squints/ Need to metabolize this.This thread is about having fun, not actual conspiracy
Socionics = social economics
If this is so, why can I be a mixed temperament, but I can't be a mixed sociotype?
I mean it's generally easier to make decisions about other people, if they are simplified into categories. Don't you think? But heh, the outcome of doing so might not be so great. It's like playing your chances, and you might be completely wrong in the end.
i think you can be a mixed sociotype it just depends on what you mean by mixed sociotype... reality is something more than a Ti category, Ti describes things, it doesn't make them what they are. if you understand "mixed sociotype" as something logically possible, i.e.: not a "square circle" then of course you can (in terms of pure possibility) be that. the problem is a lot of Ti types would understand "mixed sociotype" to be, by definition, a contradiction-in-terms, thus impossible on those grounds. If you're coming it from the point of view of Fi, we're all "square circles" if you think about it--that's very much the human condition in a certain sense. Or just coming from perhaps a different individual Ti, such that "mixed sociotype" is coherent. I guess it would be your job to explain such a thing in a way that was convincing however, if you want anyone else to believe it ("why can't I?" really means "why won't other people accept?"). As for you, yourself, the individual, the subjective self, you can of course, and will, understand things in exactly the way you choose toSocionics = social economics
If this is so, why can I be a mixed temperament, but I can't be a mixed sociotype?
Sociotypes are defined as not being able to be mixed, and that's what separates it from a lot of other modern typology systems.
In that case, contact-inert might be breaking socionics, since its subtypes are basically other types. Contact-inert will take us back to the old days of the four temperaments and bleeding people with leeches, DCNH or bust.
exactly, so if you want them to accept that one could be a mixed sociotype you need to provide psychologically convincing grounds with which to do so. its not impossible, just unlikely. its akin to a paradigm shift. your subjective understanding of sociotypes might indeed allow one to be mixed, even as others reject such a thing. I'm not saying such a thing would be accurate or defensible, but it would be possible. in fact, id say %100 of us hold one indefensible thing or another in our heads that would fall into this category, we just don't realize it yet, so its not as outrageous or stupid as it sounds, in facts its so common its invisible
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote