They only exist in your imagination, Atari.Originally Posted by Atari
It's sad that you take this fiction as the Absolute Truth.
They only exist in your imagination, Atari.
It's sad that you take this fiction as the Absolute Truth.
Some puzzles are probably best left unsolved:
But you are basing your disagreement with socionics in pain and discomfort. Your two stances are mutually excluding and contradicting each other. I agree with the fun part tho.
Last edited by Hope; 12-29-2018 at 11:24 PM.
Never said it was the absolute truth. Its sad you are imagining stuff.
Last edited by Hope; 12-29-2018 at 11:31 PM.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
Sure socioncs can cause pain. But I still believe it's a wonderful tool. You should just be careful when using it, and that should be made clearer.
Personally I discovered it at a moment in my life when I was surrounded by deltas and it was starting to severely damage my self esteem. Not only did socionics help me to understand that nothing was actually wrong with me but it also helped me to understand why I wasn't getting along with the people around me and gave me tips on how to manage those relationships.
But yes, there are some dangers that need to be addressed.
I remember when I first read the IEI description. I knew right the way that it was my type. Still, something was off... I didn't relate to the parts about being so inactive and fragile and needing help to achieve things. Maybe it's just the way that it was put but still, idk.
The problems began when I started believing that maybe I should try to fit the descriptions more. Like "maybe I am just pretending not to be fragile? Maybe I should be looking for a knight in shining armor as well? Cause apparently that's all I'm good at."
That fucked me up for a while.
I subconsciously considered that socionics provided me with an ideal that I should try to reach. I snapped out of it fairly quickly but still I feel like the theory can cause some kind of weird mini personality disorders because of the way it is presented.
The Socionics literature tells us " Hey, this is what you are!" when really it should say "Hey, there goes an insight on how your brain works. Use it to better your understanding of who you are. It will help you to optimize the efforts that you put into achieving your goals, and it may even help you to set goals for yourself that ought to be more fulfilling."
But the latter sentence is too complex and too boring. It's less marketable.
I remember a type description that said something like "When Zukhov walks into the room everybody starts working". Like really? So you're gonna have the next SLE walk into the office tomorrow convinced that he has that kind of power? What's going to happen when he realizes that he doesn't? Will he feel like he doesn't live up to the name?
These descriptions were written with the intent to sell weren't they? They are so romanticized that they turn reality into a novel in which every type of the socion is a one dimensional character.
Also I feel like every type description should be preceded by a statement such as "This was not written by God. The author of this article is him/herself a part of the socion and thus is necessarily biased."
It's important because at first we base a lot of our knowledge on these descriptions. It's only later that we are able to accurately conceptualize each sociotype thanks to our own experience.
Well said, my least favorite aspect of Socionics is ITR. The main reason being that duality alone is not enough to determine whether a relationship will be good or not. It is just one aspect out of many. So if you get two people that are duals and something that is non-Socionics related, but is psychology related is not compatible then the relationship will not work. However, duality will work as long as other psychological aspects that are non-Socionics related are compatible too.
The same goes for non duality too especially for within quadra, but outside of quadra too. If you are compatible with your partner in every way, but with Socionics then the relationship can still work. Socionics is merely one aspect of predicting relationship success or failure, but not the entire picture. So Socionics is overbearing in the sense that it think it can override non-Socionics psychological factors that can influence relationships when the simple truth is it cannot.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
There are really only subjective reasons for justifying Socionics.
"Well Socionics works in my experience, and it confirms with personal my observations, so it must be true"
"Well Socionics has personally helped me with things, so it must be true"
(funny how they never refer to the very subject that they're referring to, as in other people. They all only refer to themselves).
But there never is any objective reason.
How come there never is any objective reasons, like "Well it must be true, because if it were it in any other way, then nothing would make any sense, and nothing would work".
If you could explain something in any other ways just as well, then it probably isn't true.
I don't base my disagreement with anything simply on pain and discomfort because just because something's painful or uncomfortable doesn't mean it's untrue. For example, a few days ago I noticed my tire was flat, and even though that sucked ass, the fact that it sucked ass wasn't a basis for me to disregard the fact that my tire was flat.
When cognitive dissonance occurs, it's a specific kind of discomfort caused by the fact that thoughts don't logically add up. When thoughts don't logically add up, they don't reflect reality. So cognitive dissonance in particular serves as a bullshit detector. I don't think I'm unique or that my personality is particularly unique for experiencing cognitive dissonance. For example, when you notice that your family member or SO says something that counters what they said yesterday on a hard-and-fast basis, cognitive dissonance makes you acutely aware of a contradiction. And whether you value truth or whether you value your own comfort, the impulse will be to resolve the contradiction. I assume that's what you're doing right now, so a distinction between general pain and cognitive dissonance in particular should rectify your confusion. More saliently, when new information counters Socionics theory, it causes cognitive dissonance, so the contradiction needs to be resolved either by refining the theory or throwing it out.
Why am I focusing on pain in the OP? Because pain is a persuasive tool to employ with everyone I've met, one way or another...
Last edited by Desert Financial; 12-30-2018 at 02:55 PM.
Every "pain" in this thread should be read and sang in Adam Gontier's voice:
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
You’re still complaining that Socionics causes pain even though in the post of yours she quoted you said that you value pain. That’s what she means by mutually exclusive and contradictory. You can’t use something to complain about / have a stance against, and value it, at the same time.
I understand exactly what she means. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm complaining that Socionics doesn't reflect reality. Period.
You equated cognitive dissonance to mental discomfort caused by contradictory thoughts. Then you repeated socionics causes discomfort. Now you try to say its not so much about discomfort but just cognitive dissonance because I pointed out how it was against beta main values.
I think you created this thread with your real concerns and now you are trying to add some make up. :3
I'm in a on-again, off-again relationship with Socionics, which causes pain.
i unironically love this song
i've always been a kind of dreamy/melancholic person who appreciates an impetus, so identifying as IEI has worked for me, i'd even say in a lot of ways i'm a walking stereotype but more or less, it's made me realize there's a lot more people like me than i'd ever want to admit
Well then, I guess it's time to completely let go of Socionics.
Oh well the trick here is not to take it as ready and something that has tangible utility.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I'd prefer it be ready and have tangible utility.
But one way or another, users here just use it as a vice and focus on "Socionics implications" rather than the content of what you have to say, which is retarded because "Socionics implications" just rest on inductive reasoning based on nothing.
I don't think that it's controversial to say that there have been plenty of criticisms of things like Socionics, personality theories, trait theories, Freudian & Jungian psychology, etc., from the "scientific psychology" and "academic psychology" community. None of those ideas stood up to the criticisms and the empirical and experimental testings well. They've all had rather unimpressive results, that were lacking in both predictive and explanatory power. They've all had fundamental problems in their theoretical perspectives, and it was simply that the other alternative theories that had been proposed, which provided better explanatory and predictive power, were preferred.
It seems that the most widely accepted theory in the current field of psychology that can predict human behavior as well as to explain it, is the Albert Bandura's theory of Self-efficacy, and Social Cognitive Theory. Basically, it's more commonly thought that it's the one's own thoughts and cognition which interacts in complex ways with the situation and the environment, that will affect the human behavior as well as to actively create certain behavior in the future, rather than to think that our behaviors are simply innate or fixed. Or to think that the point is to find differences in people, because that doesn't at all predict how people will act in different situations.
People who still think that there's something to Socionics, are simply ignorant of all the progress that psychology has made since the days of Freud and Jung. They're both seriously outdated theories that almost no serious psychologist take it seriously nowadays.
There's simply not going to be a "big breakthrough" which Socionics will supposedly make sometime in the future, and it's only a matter of psychologists not being aware of it. They already know plenty of things like Psychodynamic theory, personality theories, trait theories, etc. They're all aware of it, they've all tried it and tested it, and found that it didn't work. It's just as simple as that. They came up with new theories that gave them better results, which were obviously preferred.
the common case for being negative to Socionics are wrong types
What do you want to say about the content?
Do you think 7.7 billion people can correctly fit into 16 categories without divergent explanations?
Don't you think people have an essence that doesn't change?
Do you think 7.7 billion has to correctly fit in categories if people want to focus about its implications?
Don't you think that observations of implications can change the content or the interpretations of the content?
What do you think would happen in the world if people only focused on tangible or proven/provable things?
Fair enough if its causing you cognitive dissonance and pain.
And they lived happily ever after. Or at least until the vortex of madness swallowed them and their feeble un-socionical mind.
Memento mori.
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
Absolutely. The common case I have witnessed of resistance towards Intertype Relations are people at stages in their life who are still trying to salvage failing and detrimental relations while telling themselves they can be with whomever they like. One of my closest mates has been on the rebound from a breakup he took ages to get over, with a type that was flat out shitty for him (Extinguishment Relations). I had long tried to counsel him on the nature of their issues, their types, and what to look out for in the future, but, being on the rebound, he ardently rejected IR (he's familiar with Socionics) and stubbornly told himself he could make it work with any woman he wanted.
IR tries to free people of this entropy, this wasted energy and potential, by aligning with complimentary natures, but people insist on wasting their time and energy overexerting themselves for sub-par relations. In our "you can be whatever You want" culture, the relativistic nonsense of "all options are valid" has yet to be stamped out by the truth of discernment, and so people waste their time and potential pursuing both goals and people that are not conducive to their nature. I have seen many assert that excluding or filtering Your relations through IR is essentially unfair, which is flat out not true, and even if that were the case, so fucking what!?. IR is clear on the fact that most types can operate perfectly fine as acquaintances, but the closer You wish to be with a person, the more reconciliatory, mutually beneficial, and generally conducive to longevity Your relations will be with certain alignments - even in the absence of a formal theory this is axiomatically, unequivocally true; no one person is equally compatible with all types of people, to even suggest that would be delusional at best. You can be 'friends' with anyone, but the extent to which relations are strained or confluent is what IR maps out.
Someone who is not mistyped and is using IR to their benefit will be rewarded with far more strength; the closer to the mark (their Quadra) they get, the more the undistilled and essential self emerges and mutually strengthens with their partner.
"We live in an age in which there is no heroic death."
Model A: ESI-Se-
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 1w2, 2w1, 6w7
Instinctual Variant: Sx/So
@Luminous Lynx I don't think I can be with anyone I want - people have limitations and real factors contribute to what makes a relationship sustainable or compatible.
Absolutely not. The categories should account for variance in some way. For example, if Model A made it clear that it defined tendencies rather than hard-and-fast rules, it would make a step in the right direction because that would account for changes in cognitive function dynamics. The categories should not aim to account for all of personality or all of cognition in the way some of the users here attempt to use Socionics. Room for more variance should exist. One error lies in the fact that Socionics models don't really clarify this - they fail to explain all of their component parts in a dynamic way. What I'm getting at in the OP is that cognitive dissonance occurs when the categories are either too inflexible or made to be catch-all explanations.
People possess a genetic code that roughly stays with them, but even that is subject to epigenetic changes. So I have no argument that concludes that people have a permanent essence. Extreme circumstances such as psychological or physical trauma tend to impact core traits, so change is liable to happen.Don't you think people have an essence that doesn't change?
If that's the claim the system makes, then it should live up to its claim. Your question is too vague.Do you think 7.7 billion has to correctly fit in categories if people want to focus about its implications?
This question is too vague.Don't you think that observations of implications can change the content or the interpretations of the content?
If the world only focused on provable things, then humanity would suffer much less bullshit con-artistry, because at the very least those things would be falsifiable, and therefore able to be criticized. If it only focused on proven things, then we'd see less innovation and understanding of new things. But ideas should at least have a proof-of-concept. I argue that even consciousness is essentially tangible because the universe is composed of tangible substance (energy), so focusing on this is tantamount to focusing on reality, which would be great.What do you think would happen in the world if people only focused on tangible or proven/provable things?
This should be carved in stone.
That's only because you are looking for something to be true, therefore you'll find "evidence" "confirming" it everywhere. Much like you'll find "evidence" for Santa Claus being real everywhere, if you believe that Santa Claus is real.
See this:
"You don't seek to prove scientific hypotheses right, you only prove them wrong."
When you're with someone so compatible with you that they meet your needs fully, you realize that Socionics theory is at best a path, but not the destination. Because when you're with someone who has mutual understanding with you, your manufactured self-concept dies in the mutual acceptance, and only the real "you" remains. That said, to reference what you said in another thread - I understand exactly what it's like to be willing to die for someone like that. But I'm sure that won't stop people in this thread from invalidating me.
Ne polr
Congrats, you just denied that there could only be one reality.
This is why I said that people with the most intricate explanations are spewing the most bullshit and are not to be trusted.
All you have to do is type yourself, that's all. Don't explain a thing.
Do you think all people interpret reality in the same way? Do you think you interpret the reality as it is?
I’m not putting words in your mouth, it’s the thread title LOL
But just because I said it doesn't mean I'm complaining!
No, I'm saying that only one interpretation of reality could be correct. Or at least, approximately correct.
If you think that reality or the interpretation of it is only a matter of psychology, then that's relativism.
Nope
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
