Socionics is wröng

[Tigerfadder]

I been giving this some thoughts and it have to be said not to confuse newcomers.

Since the dawn to Socionics the theory have been build upon the idea of duals. Jin and Jang right. We have logic and ethic, sensing and intuition. Why not make a pair of the opposite side, its a great way to stabilise the society. So lets break it down, why is not the traditional conflictor the dual and verse verse?

In the traditional Socionics there was probably a distinction which is not made today. If you were Ni first you are Se last. But today we have additional dominated theory which is spin. It says that duals are actually more alike than what we used to think and that duals share spins. IEI and SLE use very different functions but they share the values of which connect them. Conflict however breaks them all and thus is the new dual.

The next step would be to not praise dual the way we do but recognize that Socionics is build upon this laws of making clear distinctions and that maybe having blindspots is the way to go.

[Sol]

why is not the traditional conflictor the dual and verse verse?

You may try to compare them. Then will tell us - is IR theory wrong.

> It says that duals are actually more alike than what we used to think

people with 3 different dichotomies are alike? good fantasy

> IEI and SLE use very different functions but they share the values of which connect them. Conflict however breaks them all and thus is the new dual.

really good weed

[Bertrand]

why is not the traditional conflictor the dual and verse verse?

this is your brain on singularity

because the creator of the system made an unconscious Fi Ni Te Se (aka gamma style) call. the point is if you want to date you conflictor to go ahead and do it. conflict is just a label. lets not get too autistic and blame the theory and the words, it doesn't dictate reality, it just slaps a label on it

[lavos]

The answer is simple: because is in practice, getting along with a conflictor long-term is a pretty hard endeavor, while with the right dual it is a breeze. One is made for you, and the other is not.

[Number 9 large]

the difference is the values valued. i thought this was kindergarten socionics

[Chae]

Oh - I sënse !

[Tigerfadder]

the difference is the values valued. i thought this was kindergarten socionics

It is xd We need to step up from the "valued" labels.

[Number 9 large]

It is xd We need to step up from the "valued" labels.

what u mean we need to step up..

[Tigerfadder]

what u mean we need to step up..

Evolve, stop using mbti and start doing socionics so to speak

[Number 9 large]

Evolve, stop using mbti and start doing socionics so to speak

okay...

[Tigerfadder]

this is your brain on singularity

because the creator of the system made an unconscious Fi Ni Te Se (aka gamma style) call. the point is if you want to date you conflictor to go ahead and do it. conflict is just a label. lets not get too autistic and blame the theory and the words, it doesn't dictate reality, it just slaps a label on it

The best relationship is probably the activation from my point of view. Shared intro vs extro, compliment each other and same quadra.

[Bertrand]

activation is good, hard to truly relax though, which can be rough on Si types

[Tigerfadder]

activation is good, hard to truly relax though, which can be rough on Si types

Now you stuck on those labels again. Si is about sensation not relaxation. ;p Sorry for being a dick about it.

[Bertrand]

Now you stuck on those labels again. Si is about sensation not relaxation. ;p Sorry for being a dick about it.

rough can be good, how about that

thats the entire point of maybe marrying your conflictor is good

but as a practical matter most people probably don't want that, although perhaps they should. I mean perhaps the best thing for everyone is to die on a cross. transformation takes place at the coordinates of the greatest pain, and if transformation is the goal perhaps pain is good. others would say pain is bad by definition.

it comes down to Fi v Ti the difficulty with socionics is one side is essentially forced to speak for the other, but if you keep in mind its just words you can get over that and see what they're really pointing to

[SongOfSapphire]

The answer is simple: because is in practice, getting along with a conflictor long-term is a pretty hard endeavor, while with the right dual it is a breeze. One is made for you, and the other is not.

Pretty much this.

Socionics is makes use of observations. The system does not prescribe what should happen; it describes reality. Kind of like physics or biology, etc. describe how things work.

[SongOfSapphire]

rough can be good, how about that

thats the entire point of maybe marrying your conflictor is good

but as a practical matter most people probably don't want that, although perhaps they should. I mean perhaps the best thing for everyone is to die on a cross. transformation takes place at the coordinates of the greatest pain, and if transformation is the goal perhaps pain is good. others would say pain is bad by definition.

it comes down to Fi v Ti the difficulty with socionics is one side is essentially forced to speak for the other, but if you keep in mind its just words you can get over that and see what they're really pointing to

There is conflict in any relationship if it goes on long enough and/or reaches a certain depth. My husband is my dual and we fight at times. But bc we are duals (which is just a way of saying we have complimentary ways of seeing the world and expressing our views about it) we can achieve mutual understanding and work things out relatively easily AND get along better afterward (it seems to me, at least, as we seem to maintain and even build respect and understanding afterward). With a conflictor, that's not going to happen and is probably not even possible.

Conflicts bt duals can (and in my experience usually do, as long as a relationship is already established) bring about greater understanding and depth of the relationship once you get through them; conflicts w conflictors make the relationship worse and worse.

[Muddy]

No one should base socionics around duality or any intertype relation, you're asking for incorrectness with reality if you do. A lot of the problems with socionics comes from when people warp facts/observations in order to get them to better agree concepts with concepts such as duality. There is almost certainly some truth to the duality, yes, but people should also accept that duality may not be exactly as it is commonly described and to not totally accept or reject socionics based whether they think duality exist or not.

[Singu]

this is your brain on singularity

because the creator of the system made an unconscious Fi Ni Te Se (aka gamma style) call. the point is if you want to date you conflictor to go ahead and do it. conflict is just a label. lets not get too autistic and blame the theory and the words, it doesn't dictate reality, it just slaps a label on it

Yeah, because any opinion that you don't agree with, is because they're brainwashed by lizard-men.

Or maybe you're just delusional.

Or perhaps I should ask you a question. Can you explain how they brainwash others? Can you explain how that works? Can you explain anything at all? Are you even coherent and making sense most of the time? Or do you just make things up based on your "intuition", as it gives you mysterious answers unexplainable by science? Do you just say that the answer is because of "Fi! Unconscious call!" and stopping there and leaving it at that - but never actually having explained anything? Those are called fake explanations.

[Tigerfadder]

No one should base socionics around duality or any intertype relation, you're asking for incorrectness with reality if you do. A lot of the problems with socionics comes from when people warp facts/observations in order to get them to better agree concepts with concepts such as duality. There is almost certainly some truth to the duality, yes, but people should also accept that duality may not be exactly as it is commonly described and to not totally accept or reject socionics based whether they think duality exist or not.

It is based in duality. The first book of socionics was called "duality of man".

[Tonatiuh]

I have a sneaking suspicion that socionics is evil. Cuz of duality.

[Muddy]

It is based in duality. The first book of socionics was called "duality of man".

Perhaps socionics was originally jump-started from the idea of duality but that doesn't mean it is or should be based around the idea now. If observations are made consistently that conflict with parts of the duality theory, we need to adjust our understanding of duality/IRs rather then warping facts to fit the concept of duality. This isn't to say I don't think duality has any validity, but we shouldn't clutch to it and judge the entirety of socionics as being right or wrong based on whether duality holds up or not.

[Bertrand]

that sounds good in theory but bifurcating people is not an empirical thing meant to reflect reality, rather its a way to schematize things in order to locate position on a grid. the names and grid is somewhat arbitrary. its purpose is not to reflect reality but to track relative changes. you can't get away from duality because its an implication of dichotomous cognitive functions. you would have to radically reconceptualize everything to get away from implications of duality. in other words, systems like big 5 solve the problem but they also do away with much of the function. socionics without duality is hard to imagine

[Pallas]

I have a sneaking suspicion that socionics is evil. Cuz of duality.

Duality is Satan in Kabbalah. Someone call in Madonna.

[Pallas]

Perhaps socionics was originally jump-started from the idea of duality but that doesn't mean it is or should be based around the idea now. If observations are made consistently that conflict with parts of the duality theory, we need to adjust our understanding of duality/IRs rather then warping facts to fit the concept of duality. This isn't to say I don't think duality has any validity, but we shouldn't clutch to it and judge the entirety of socionics as being right or wrong based on whether duality holds up or not.

If you transcend the prototype, you've gone from improving the original to making something new inspired by the old thing.

[Pallas]

It is based in duality. The first book of socionics was called "duality of man".

Aushra was obviously just trying to justify male homosexuality in Russia. that's why all the original VI pics look like David Bowie shit