View Poll Results: Aw what the hell... polls are fun. How confident are you in the validity and accuracy of Socionics?

Voters
100. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's all bullshit.

    1 1.00%
  • It's a fun theory and all... but I don't know, but I'm sorta leaning towards "it's all bullshit".

    5 5.00%
  • While there's no way of KNOWING that Socionics is valid, I tend to think that it probably is.

    6 6.00%
  • I believe that Socionics is accurate and a valid means of categorizing people into one of sixteen types.

    3 3.00%
  • 85 85.00%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 82

Thread: the existence of types

  1. #1
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default the existence of types

    Until now I've always held a "Socionics could be accurate... but there's really no way of knowing" stance. I was willing to entertain the idea, assuming it's true for the sake of conversation. I didn't see any good reason not to. After all, it's an interesting theory. Plus it's the main topic of discussion here, and this forum has been pretty much my only social outlet for a while.

    I think there's something to functional preferences, but overall I'm leaning towards the "it's all bullshit" vote. It seems ridiculous to think that there's SIXTEEN types, and every single person in the world fits into one of those sixteen types, and everyone of each specific type uses each of the functions in a specific way according to what type they are. While some people possess traits that seem to be a perfect fit for a type, overall there are just too many variables in human nature for every person in the world (or even most people, or just the healthy people) to fall neatly into one of sixteen categories. I do not believe that this can be explained by differences in environment, subtypes, cross types, etc.

    That is all.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you hadn't added "there is no way of KNOWING" to alternative 3, I would have chosen that one. Now I chose alternative 4, but I'm not sure Socionics can't be improved, maybe even radically.

  3. #3
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The precise number 16 is an approximation of the model. It's not that important. What's important is what the model explains, and which can be observed.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    703
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics, like any good system for categorizing personalities, doesn't attempt to explain everything, but rather describe a limited set of characteristics. With that said, I'm in the #2 category (closest approximation to my own views). I seriously doubt there are actually 8 functions in the brain, and the "functions" merely represent groups of behavior that often are found to occur together. Personally, I'd like to do away with functions all together and rebuild socionics with the Reinin dichotomies. They're much less vague than the functional descriptions. The goals of socionics (intertype relations specifically) are worthwhile pursuits of study, as long as the significance of the relations is given the proper credit. Socionics, if it is a reasonably accurate, or at least workable, model of reality, could prove quite useful for understanding certain social dynamics. However, it will never explain the full gamut of human personality and should never seek to do so. In my experience, it handles communication style and overall theme of motivation fairly well, noting differences in the overall behaviors of various types. However, I doubt its ability to determine how a person would specifically act in a given situation.

    It is, however, entertaining to me, but then, I find entertainment in weird things.
    That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche

  5. #5
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics explains relations between functional preferences. You can choose the level of approximation you want to work with; at the smallest level, there is an infinite number of types; eventually, restricting the number of constraits, you get to a point where the number of types is equal to 16. You can say it is arbitrary, yes, but you can't say it doesn't exist.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  6. #6
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Facts:

    * Not all people thinks the same way.
    * Whitin a society, there is always people pushing in the opposite direction as you:
    -> Egoistic contrasting altruistic persons.
    -> Socials contrasting loners.
    -> Pragmatics contrasting idealistics.
    * It's been proven that there are several areas of intelligence, at least logic/mathematical and emotional. However, there are more developed theories around:
    -> http://www.professorlamp.com/ed/TAG/...lligences.html

    However, socionics fails to take into account some possibilities:

    * Professional psychologists know that the mind is far from static. Some events in life can cause severe changes in people's behaviour. This alone could break the type theory completelly, as the whole theory is based on the idea that type is static.
    * The mind is, after all, result of the operation of the brain. Even if socionics is accurate in general, it might still leave some persons without a clear type because the brain in each of us is a product of the genetic code we hold. It is likely that a person who inherited a genetic mutation that makes his brain work differently from the rest of the people will develop a way of thinking that is impossible to describe in socionics terms.
    * Socionics fails to explain why there are persons which are more easily to type than others. Some persons seem so well rounded that they escape the typical steretypes. For example, Leonardo Da Vinci and Thomas Alba Edisson are said to be have been ESTj. The steretype of ESTj is a person who finds it hard to use imagination - yet both are known for the opposite. ESTj are known for being conservative - yet both spent a good deal of their lives figuring out how to change the world.
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  7. #7
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    [quote="mikemex"]-> Egoistic contrasting altruistic persons.
    [quote]


    I wouldn't say that there's a contrast. If an egotist thinks only about himself, and an altruist about himself and others, then there's no contrast.

    Of course, if you mean that the egotist wants other people to fulfill his needs, then the contrast is present.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  8. #8
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiktionary
    altruist (plural altruists)

    1. One imbued with altruism; one who wishes well for others, not themselves.
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  9. #9
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikemex
    However, socionics fails to take into account some possibilities:

    * Professional psychologists know that the mind is far from static. Some events in life can cause severe changes in people's behaviour. This alone could break the type theory completelly, as the whole theory is based on the idea that type is static.
    Type is a stabile dynamic state, not a static, never changing state.

    * The mind is, after all, result of the operation of the brain. Even if socionics is accurate in general, it might still leave some persons without a clear type because the brain in each of us is a product of the genetic code we hold. It is likely that a person who inherited a genetic mutation that makes his brain work differently from the rest of the people
    True and within the model A this is possible. Check out tcauds work.

    * Socionics fails to explain why there are persons which are more easily to type than others. Some persons seem so well rounded that they escape the typical steretypes. For example, Leonardo Da Vinci and Thomas Alba Edisson are said to be have been ESTj. The steretype of ESTj is a person who finds it hard to use imagination - yet both are known for the opposite. ESTj are known for being conservative - yet both spent a good deal of their lives figuring out how to change the world.
    Where did you get that? ES*j-s are known exactly for not being conservative and being open minded, often controversial. It's the types in Ni quadras that are known for their close mindedness.

  10. #10
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    mikemex's post is a good example of strawman argument -- he tries to invalidate socionics by demolishing claims that socionics doesn't make.

    Quote Originally Posted by mikemex
    However, socionics fails to take into account some possibilities:

    * Professional psychologists know that the mind is far from static. Some events in life can cause severe changes in people's behaviour. This alone could break the type theory completelly, as the whole theory is based on the idea that type is static.
    Socionics is not concerned with anything that causes "severe changes". It's not even concerned with unhealthy behavior the way that the Enneagram or Oldham are. MBTI isn't concerned with unhealthy behavior either, except very peripherally. Socionics aims to describe how most people interact when in a healthy, "normal" state.


    Quote Originally Posted by mikemex
    .
    * Socionics fails to explain why there are persons which are more easily to type than others. Some persons seem so well rounded that they escape the typical steretypes. For example, Leonardo Da Vinci and Thomas Alba Edisson are said to be have been ESTj. The steretype of ESTj is a person who finds it hard to use imagination - yet both are known for the opposite. ESTj are known for being conservative - yet both spent a good deal of their lives figuring out how to change the world.
    Those stereotypes are the fruit of your own understanding, or at most of MBTI, not of Socionics.

    Again, strawman argument.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  11. #11
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    mikemex's post is a good example of strawman argument -- he tries to invalidate socionics by demolishing claims that socionics doesn't make.
    Precisely. I think this socionics is bull comes from people misunderstandings what socionics actually is, from warped understanding.

  12. #12
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "altruist (plural altruists)

    1. One imbued with altruism; one who wishes well for others, not themselves."

    So tell me how this conflicts with an egoist?

    1. a self-centered or selfish person (opposed to altruist).
    2. an arrogantly conceited person; egotist.
    3. an adherent of the metaphysical principle of the ego, or self; solipsist.

    If I am an egoist and I only think about myself and an altruist also think about others, I'll do things for myself and the altruist will do things for himself and for others, so there is actually no conflict unless the egoist harms other people, which is not included in the definition
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  13. #13
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    The precise number 16 is an approximation of the model. It's not that important. What's important is what the model explains, and which can be observed.
    I agree with this. You might as well object that:
    "Physics is bull. There is no way the complex movement of objects can be expressed in terms of simple little X's and Y's. There are so many things happening to an object as I throw it into the air that there's no way it ever follows the parabolic trajectory it's 'supposed to' according to physics equations. A little gust of wind here, or a slight bit of friction with the air, or some spin in the object is enough to radically change the trajectory, and so an actual parabola is hardly ever observed."

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Where did you get that? ES*j-s are known exactly for not being conservative and being open minded, often controversial. It's the types in Ni quadras that are known for their close mindedness.
    I am not saying that I'm not agreeing with the other things you say, but this statement of yours is obviously false. ESTjs are one of the most conservative of all the types, and they belong to one of the most conservative of quadras. Perhaps you were ironic?

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    The precise number 16 is an approximation of the model. It's not that important. What's important is what the model explains, and which can be observed.
    I agree with this. You might as well object that:
    "Physics is bull. There is no way the complex movement of objects can be expressed in terms of simple little X's and Y's. There are so many things happening to an object as I throw it into the air that there's no way it ever follows the parabolic trajectory it's 'supposed to' according to physics equations. A little gust of wind here, or a slight bit of friction with the air, or some spin in the object is enough to radically change the trajectory, and so an actual parabola is hardly ever observed."
    well, to be fair, this problem is addressed and largely eliminated in physics by the use of significant figures, which allows for all the forces in the universe except the gravity of the earth in this situation to be categorically eliminated, depending on the desired level of accuracy of the answer.

    furthermore, at higher levels of accuracy, such measurements as air resistance, friction, etc., are taken and factored into the result.

  16. #16
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Important to note that socionics explains what it claims to explain namely information metabolism. There are tons of other variables which impact personality that are more externally based and don't have much to do with socionics.

    Having said that, socionics seems to be an organized piece of the chaotic truth about relationships and personality.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  17. #17
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    You might as well object that:
    "Physics is bull. There is no way the complex movement of objects can be expressed in terms of simple little X's and Y's. There are so many things happening to an object as I throw it into the air that there's no way it ever follows the parabolic trajectory it's 'supposed to' according to physics equations. A little gust of wind here, or a slight bit of friction with the air, or some spin in the object is enough to radically change the trajectory, and so an actual parabola is hardly ever observed."
    No.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  18. #18
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics proposes static types. It even dares to suggest that functions have a fixed place whitin the mind. That's what Model A is all about; a "map" of the mind:

    Leading
    Creativity
    Role
    Shyness
    Area of comfort
    Hidden agenda
    Ignoring
    Demostrative

    According to such model, the leading functions define the position of all others.

    However, the brain is not static. At any moment the brain is creating and destroying synapses between neurons which slowly but surely change our behaviour over time. It's the way we learn and adapt to the world. If the brain changes over time, the idea of types makes no sense; it would rather be a description of states of mind, even if those states switch only after several years or decades, or not at all during lifetime.

    "Drastic changes" in behaviour, also, do not need to be unhealthy in nature. We all are capable of experiencing "profund", "life marking" events that produce drastic changes in the brain structure. It is the way that the brain reacts to perceived weakness, like realizing that we are mortal when our family or dearest friends die.

    By the way, explaining people from socionics perspective is inherently stupid. I know ESTj from close and I know exactly how they behave, so I simply do not care what socionics says about them. It sounds like when physicians told Marconi that radio waves could not be transmitted interncontinentally. A true scientist know that the ultimate proof for any statement is reality, so it is wrong to use science to predict as a general rule; it's nature is descriptive.

    So I belive it's you who are using socionics in an improper way; trying to shape reality from theory instead theory from reality.
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  19. #19
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You don't seem to realize that type ≠ person and is a theoretical model to explain people. It's as static as mathematical formulas are in explaining physics, or any other backbone. A type is an area, not a point.

  20. #20
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mikemex, you clearly have understood nothing about socionics yet pretend to speak about it as an expert, only making a fool of yourself in the attempt.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  21. #21
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Types exist.
    I question your definition of types.
    Probably isn't the same as mine
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  22. #22
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It seems like it's a common thing for Te/Ni types to complain about socionics, or other type theories in this way More than others for some reason IME. ( at this post)

    so lets get to the bottom of this:

    what really led to this latest thread, Joy?
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  23. #23
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP
    what really led to this latest thread, Joy?
    It's been slowly approaching the whole time I've been here... I knew this would happen sooner or later. I've never BELIEVED in Socionics. The different now is that it is that I no longer see any use in assuming for the sake of conversation that Socionics is fully valid and universally applicable.




    Like I said in the first post, I see distinctions between functions and I believe that people generally have functional preferences, but I fail to see why there couldn't be people who value Si and Se or Fi and Ti, etc.

    I use information elements and model A to define types. I fail to understand how there could be more than 16 Socionics types. If there are more types you're changing the theory to the extent that it really isn't even Socionics anymore. If we were to discuss another theory, I'd be inclined to say that unless the theory allows people to be any combination of types, I'd probably think of it the same way I think of Socionics.

    I'm sure there are people who fit into types, all 8 functions... but I don't think everyone does... in fact I'd be inclined to say that most people don't. This isn't my official conclusion and I obviously haven't done any research studies or anything of the sort, and I don't claim to understand ever single aspect of Socionics. I'm of the opinion that there's no way to KNOW whether or not Socionics or any other type theory is accurate (especially universally). That said, my stance at present, based on my understanding of humans, is that Socionics (or any such typology) is not universally applicable.

    Basically I'm saying that while Socionics as a theory makes sense, the application of it (or any such typology) does not because it's not possible to create enough categories to encompass all of humanity so that every individual fits neatly into their slot. Even if they came up with some sort of biological test to determine people's types, that still wouldn't necessarily prove that every single person would fit perfectly into one of those types.

    I don't feel that it's fair to compare Socionics with physics because nothing about Socionics is objectively quantifiable or measurable. It's only observable in a subjective manner because no one can fully understand why other individuals behave the way they do. They can only guess. Physics may use theories and equations, but there are things that can be objectively measured and quantified, such as the speed and distance the ball is traveling. Using the ball example... Sure there are many other factors involved, but I can't think of any that can't be measured or quantified in some manner. This makes it possible to develop abstract theories and laws that are applicable to what is being studied. Humans just aren't that simple. (No, I'm not a physicist.)

    Again, to make sure we're clear, I'm not trying to convince anyone or prove anything, and I don't KNOW what I've said here to be true... I'm just inclined to think that there are a whole lot of people who don't fit into any of the Socionics types.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  24. #24
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I suppose the question then becomes... How useful could Socionics be if only some people actually fit into one of its types? Seems like trying to apply it would cause more confusion and misunderstanding than anything.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  25. #25
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Quote Originally Posted by UDP
    what really led to this latest thread, Joy?
    It's been slowly approaching the whole time I've been here... I knew this would happen sooner or later. I've never BELIEVED in Socionics. The different now is that it is that I no longer see any use in assuming for the sake of conversation that Socionics is fully valid and universally applicable.
    That sentence says it all.

  26. #26
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics never has, isn't, and never will be, useful for the average person or ordinary pop-psyche enthusiast. Sorry.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  27. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    Socionics never has, isn't, and never will be, useful for the average person or ordinary pop-psyche enthusiast. Sorry.
    We'll judge that AFTER it's been taught at HS level for a couple years. Plus: socionics isn't finished yet....

    I think socionics has great potential for world peace.

  28. #28
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    That sentence says it all.
    What do you mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    Socionics never has, isn't, and never will be, useful for the average person or ordinary pop-psyche enthusiast. Sorry.
    perhaps "of benefit" would be a better way to say it than "useful"

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    Socionics never has, isn't, and never will be, useful for the average person or ordinary pop-psyche enthusiast. Sorry.
    We'll judge that AFTER it's been taught at HS level for a couple years. Plus: socionics isn't finished yet....

    I think socionics has great potential for world peace.
    I dunno... I think people will always find reasons to brutalize and kill eachother.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  29. #29
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "We'll judge that AFTER it's been taught at HS level for a couple years. Plus: socionics isn't finished yet....

    I think socionics has great potential for world peace."

    I'm sorry to tell you that you and your pet project have absolutely no practical potential and will only be useful as another tool to allow employers to discriminate against various employees and bypass various complaints of discrimination.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    Socionics never has, isn't, and never will be, useful for the average person or ordinary pop-psyche enthusiast. Sorry.
    We'll judge that AFTER it's been taught at HS level for a couple years. Plus: socionics isn't finished yet....

    I think socionics has great potential for world peace.
    ROFL

  31. #31
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    That sentence says it all.
    What do you mean?
    A part is that you make it sound like socionics exists as a belief. Your sentence is tragicomic.

  32. #32
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It was intended to sound that way... er... something like that... I can't say the word "tragicomic" ever came to mind.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  33. #33
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    Socionics never has, isn't, and never will be, useful for the average person or ordinary pop-psyche enthusiast. Sorry.
    We'll judge that AFTER it's been taught at HS level for a couple years. Plus: socionics isn't finished yet....

    I think socionics has great potential for world peace.
    You're a nutter.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default I understood Socionics like this:

    I've heard about socionics a long time after i've noticed that there must be different functions in peoples heads appearing over and over again in often different, sometimes same mix.

    They're like mathematic formulas, acting like a filter, or even a structure where you can press reality through and appending to the formular different versions of reality arrives. Reality is about informations what your sins are able to explore and whats in your mind already.

    But its not like a door like the hypothalamus wich is filtering whats is necessary, it feel like it happens after that and the functions telling you how to handle its given information.
    Its also the cause of why you like or dislike *elemtary* things (like going out).
    If you think about why you think like youre thingking you'll end up at the essentials of socionics.

    They're reality building functions and are expressed in peoples face, movement, thoughts and more. They're *forming* people.
    Thats also why people of the same type look similar and the type would never change (type based the person itself could change often in life, like "going where").

    Socionic is also able to explain relationships between different reality building functions.
    Like if [X = a - b] would be a function of person X and [Y = - a + b] would be a function of person Y they will complement each other [a - b = - a + b] to 0 what can be interpreted as a relationship between them.

    am i right?
    ISTj

  35. #35
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'll take one from "What the Bleep" - Types are just like atoms: tendencies.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  36. #36
    Khamelion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    U.S.
    TIM
    SEE-Fi 6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    3,828
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    You might as well object that:
    "Physics is bull. There is no way the complex movement of objects can be expressed in terms of simple little X's and Y's. There are so many things happening to an object as I throw it into the air that there's no way it ever follows the parabolic trajectory it's 'supposed to' according to physics equations. A little gust of wind here, or a slight bit of friction with the air, or some spin in the object is enough to radically change the trajectory, and so an actual parabola is hardly ever observed."
    No.

    Yeah, I don't see how that is the same thing.

    In essense, typing is noticing similarities in people and catagorizing them in order to "better understand" human behavior. It only works in a very VERY broad generalization, and you have to remember that. People are not slaves to "their type" if they choose to say they are of a certain type.

    Although, some aspects of type descriptions are helpful in human relations, such as getting along with the people in your life and understanding yourself.

    It seems a lot of people think of functions and types as rules for measure.
    I see types as guidelines, because they are.
    SEE Unknown Subtype
    6w7 sx/so



    [21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
    [21:29] hitta: and not dying
    .

  37. #37
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    I'm sorry to tell you that you and your pet project have absolutely no practical potential and will only be useful as another tool to allow employers to discriminate against various employees and bypass various complaints of discrimination.
    I am inclined to agree with that. MBTI already causes enough damage in that area.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clover
    People are not slaves to "their type" if they choose to say they are of a certain type
    .

    I'm not sure what you mean.

    I don't think Rick meant that Socionics is as precise as physics, or even that it could be as precise as physics by taking into account all factors like air resistance etc -- his point was, I think, rather that to say that it's invalid because it's not accurate to a tiny degree is to miss the point, which is, indeed, that it works within broad generalizations, if you will.

    I agree with Joy that not everyone is equally easily seen as one clear type among 16. But what's so surprising? It is a model to reflect reality as an approximation. Perhaps a better model could use 100 types. Even that would still be an approximation.

    But look at it from another point of view -- let us say that we here (and that's just an online interaction) will never agree, say, on whether rmcnew is an ENFp or INFj. So? The point is that nobody's ever seriously suggested that he might be an ISTj or ESTp, or that tcaudilllg might be an ESFp. People have different preferences that do point towards "types" and they do affect human relationships (while not remaining the only factor); whether everyone always, necessarily, easily fits into precisely one of the 16 types is, to me, secondary.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  38. #38
    Khamelion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    U.S.
    TIM
    SEE-Fi 6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    3,828
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I mean people are not slaves to the descriptions of their "type", regardless of whether or not they believe it is their type or not.
    SEE Unknown Subtype
    6w7 sx/so



    [21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
    [21:29] hitta: and not dying
    .

  39. #39
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clover
    I mean people are not slaves to the descriptions of their "type", regardless of whether or not they believe it is their type or not.
    But what does it mean to be a "slave" of their type? Everyone has free will. Everyone can choose to act like any type, and everyone can follow any profession they want to and be successful. However, a person who, following their most natural priorities, motivations and behavior, would be typed as an ENTj, will find it more stressful relating to someone who, under the same criteria, would be typed as an ISFp than one who'd be typed as an ISFj. That can be clearly observed, I have observed that, and so have many others. If others can't observe it, I think they're wrong. That's it really.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    But look at it from another point of view -- let us say that we here (and that's just an online interaction) will never agree, say, on whether rmcnew is an ENFp or INFj. So? The point is that nobody's ever seriously suggested that he might be an ISTj or ESTp, or that tcaudilllg might be an ESFp. People have different preferences that do point towards "types" and they do affect human relationships (while not remaining the only factor); whether everyone always, necessarily, easily fits into precisely one of the 16 types is, to me, secondary.

    yes. perhaps more important than the actual types, i think, are the general ideas and characteristics of the types, which can be applied in some cases to members of other types; however, if one understands how these characteristics work in the context of one particular type (for example characteristics of a particular type's duality) they can often be similarly applied to anyone expressing that trait, even if perhaps not of a particular type. i have seen plenty of this, but i mostly attribute it to inexperience and erroneous typing. even if not, conclusions based on such traits and impressions are still valid.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •