Convince me about Socionics!

[melindap]

Let's say I am someone who just came from a MBTI / Jungian Function background, trying to branch out to Enneagram and / or Socionics..

How would you word it or explain it so much so that I will be convinced that Socionics is really much more accurate / useful / better (for a lack of a better word).

[sbbds]

- Socionics has a system of intertype relations as one of its core features, which instantly makes it a lot more applicable to reality in comparison and allows it to be tested/checked against reality; this also makes it way easier to narrow down your type
- Russians created it and they are smart and mysterious
- Carl Jung was a pervy guy with a moustache who had a fetish for Jewish women, and A. Augusta was a female social worker who developed Socionics while working with a team of educators IIRC
- Pretty shapes
- Weirder, cooler, smarter people are on our forums ; )

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Socionics sees the bigger and deeper picture beyond society's veil, MBTI is just some illuminati thing where they want you to know how your personality can be turned into a corporate drone. Socionics has that stuff too, but it's also more than that, like intertype relationships/how people tend to feel about one another and what causes communication clashes or cuddles. Not just some like fake social worker pamphlet your counselor gave you in eighth grade with the politically correct interracial group sitting in the cafeteria.

[sbbds]

^^^^^^^^^

Socionics shows you and makes you understand why it's like that.

[consentingadult]

I believe nobody can be convinced about Socionics by someone else. The theory is too large and way too complicated (not so much its technical nature, but the road to true intuitive understanding), and there are no shortcuts to understanding. Socionics either grabs you by the balls or it doesn't.

When I started out with Socionics, I came from MBTI, of which I had already concluded that it was a dead end. At first I assumed Socionics suffered from the same issues, but somehow I felt Socionics was providing the potential to accurate answers that didn't suffer from Forer-Effect. That is what kept me investigating the theory and testing it in a feedback loop against reality. Socionics is mastered in an anti-positivist way, which is why is it difficult to transfer the knowledge. The burden of proof is on the pupil, not on the master.

The only person that can truly concinve you about Socionics, is you yourself.

[Memento Mori]

Russians created it and they are smart and mysterious

True.

[melindap]

Interesting... yeah I guess I do need to experience it myself, but so far my journey into it hasn't been that smooth.. :/

[consentingadult]

Interesting... yeah I guess I do need to experience it myself, but so far my journey into it hasn't been that smooth.. :/

And it won't be smooth I can tell you. Most of us took years to arrive at a deep understanding.

[consentingadult]

I actually wanted to recommend some parts of the Socionics article on wikipedia, but I see it has been messed up by -probably- those people of the Word Socionics Society. Now the descriptions of e.g. the information elements have gotten more abstract and if I may say so, vague.

Here is an old version of thr socionics page on wikipedia, with a desciption of the Information Elements. It's a good start at understanding what the information elements are about and might possibly trigger your interest to find out more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ation_elements

[Aylen]

One cannot be convinced of socionics. You must have faith in the system. The system has faith in you... Also what CA said. Welcome to the voi...er...forum.

[Grendel]

Neither have any evidence, but nor does the pseudoscience of mainstream psychology. If you have to pick one or the other, upgrade to Socionics.


Ditch MBTI and behead those who condone Keirsey. Socionics is the interesting one. At least it gives a facade of working with a complex framework, rather than giving you a retarded normie sticker to show off to the coworkers you hate during water cooler break.

[Skepsis]

It is true right up until you come to understand, like MBTI, that it is false. Enjoy the journey!

[Exodus]

The descriptions in socionics are much, much more specific and clearer than MBTI ones. This is partly due to the intertype and inter-element relationships. Socionics is much more centered on functions, which makes the theory more nuanced, unlike MBTI which essentially replaced Jung's functional model with simplistic dichotomies and then tried to tack them back on later. Functions allow you to describe behavior and type interactions dynamically and specifically.

[melindap]

Thanks consentingadult (feels funny to say thanks to a consenting adult haha) your link really is quite useful.

Anyway, from that, what I understand is that it's totally different in Socionics and it's something like......

A floating ball. Floating amongst many other balls in a room.

So for Te, it's about finding the most systematic efficient way to get these bunch of balls out of this room.

And for Fe, it's about finding the most convincing way to get these bunch of balls excited to wanna get out of the room.

Followed by Se, realizing that the balls are not out of the room and that they should be out of the room by any means necessary.

And Ne, at a meta level, knowing that the balls will eventually move out tomorrow but not right now because that's just how it's going to be.

Then we have Ti, studying the various balls in the room, grouping them up to its own categories of yellow balls, big balls, bouncy balls, etc.

And Fi, understanding that yellow balls float higher and big balls are disgusted with small balls, etc.

Finally we have Si, understanding how these balls feel in relation to their surroundings, from the perfect temperature to the hardness of the floor (although they are all floating lol).

And Ni, understanding the surrounding, but that which doesn't even exist, perhaps they are thinking of a giant dungeon room the balls are in right now, with its own built in suns and moons floating around.

What do you guys think? Any way I deviated from the actual meaning? Do correct me peeps!

[Exodus]

@melindap the Ti, Fe, Si ones are good, but Ti deals with systems in Socionics, not Te, so "most systematic" should be replaced with "most efficient".

[Rebelondeck]

Socionics cannot be compared to MBTI because both are trying to describe different perspectives - so it's apples and oranges. Both systems have collected accurate observations based on their own category definitions. MBTI seems to have better descriptions of observable (not motivational) behaviour while Socionics categorizations can be better adapted to an actual artificial-intelligence model of information processing although it hasn't done so yet. The existing models of both systems do not reflect function, which should address the acquisition, flow, alteration and or creation of information; their models are no more than various interpretations of data but this data would be useful in validating a true information processing structure.......

a.k.a. I/O

[melindap]

Alright, I've edited it!

[Sol]

the easiest way which may be effective:

1) give me your videointerview
2) do IR test
3) look at the match of the results

-

1) identify correctly your type and types of people near you
2) check how IR theory fits to expected IR effects
3) in case the types were correct - you'll get the new Faith

[Metamorph]

You can tell Socionics is true because of the truthiness and the fact that its name is not at all reminiscent of Dianetics.

Also, the framework sounds way cooler. MBTI is like "yep, you like arguing about ideas so Ne." Socionics is like "the awareness of time is due to information flow through the internal dynamics of fields." If you can learn socionics do particle physics or something with more gatekeeping next if it interests you.

[Myst]

Socionics cannot be compared to MBTI because both are trying to describe different perspectives - so it's apples and oranges. Both systems have collected accurate observations based on their own category definitions. MBTI seems to have better descriptions of observable (not motivational) behaviour while Socionics categorizations can be better adapted to an actual artificial-intelligence model of information processing although it hasn't done so yet. The existing models of both systems do not reflect function, which should address the acquisition, flow, alteration and or creation of information; their models are no more than various interpretations of data but this data would be useful in validating a true information processing structure.......

a.k.a. I/O

Disagree, it's too lightweight for that

It does have something that you can definitely add from it into that true information processing structure lol

[Alomoes]

Big draw for me is plausible relation theory, which I really can't or didn't find elsewhere. (Even if it's very jank) I could care less about pretty much everything else. Sadly, they're not entirely fixed to type, which is why I don't fix the two, and drives that less than caring nature for everything else. I also like the functions, because it's a fun explanation for the thoughts, beliefs, and actions of different people.