Socionics isn't Real
It's just an imaginary made up system that attempts to group people using semantics, but it's really just people being delusional and playing tricks on their own mind. If you believe in Socionics it just means you're weak minded and are incapable of distinguishing reality from fiction.
Edit: This is an April Fool's joke.
Last edited by Raver; 04-02-2014 at 07:19 PM. Reason: April Fools
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
My biggest issue with the whole concept is that it locks people into rigid intertype relationships and does not give any practical solutions to overcoming any conflicts or whatever...it's just pretty much, like, you're doomed deal with it. There are plenty of methods of achieving harmonious relationships with people if you feel it is worth the effort to understand them and let them understand you. I would think it would be easier to avoid conflict if you are already aware there might be issues as socionics would point out but maybe it is more of an easy excuse for how people behave toward one another more than anything. You are my conflict so I will not like you regardless... I just can't see myself buying into that. It is an outdated system at the very least.
Even the types of romantic/erotic is outdated...infantile, victim etc..
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Personality traits are "constant", so it serves a purpose. It's not "ideal" at this point in time, but it reins in what would otherwise be total, unintelligible chaos.Originally Posted by Raver
I am totally with you, and in my encounters with other types in everyday life, I try hard to seek ways of bridging the incompatibilities. in my experience, however, with some intertypes (e.g. conflict, supervision), the best way to remain on good terms is really just to avoid close interaction. I've learned that the hard way. The reason is that try as hard as you can to get along, you just can't change the way your mind works (which is what socionics is really describing), and neither can they. With certain other intertypes, you may be able to play more to one of your strong functions that the other party also values (e.g. business partners can bond over their creative functions even though their dominant functions are incompatible).
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
raver, what happened that got you so disillusioned?
Me, at this point, i've seen socionic intertypes play out over long-term too often to not believe it (even when i initially had mistyped the people involved). When socionics doesn't work, it's most likely that mistyping is happening (either of yourself, or of those you are dealing with); sometimes it's hard to tell that is the case until after you've been interacting closely for a while. Once you realize the type, it gets easier to recognize in others. It's hard to learn socionics from an online forum, because how things manifest isn't always clear, and it's the general demeanor that needs to be sized up for an initial typing -- not always an easy task.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Maybe as we continue to evolve, on this lovely little planet, things will change. Too bad it's my last cycle here. I'll be cheering from the sidelines though.Unless I end up on another planet or something. Perhaps there will be contact and we will be experiencing interplanetary relations. Setionics I will have to trademark before I die for my future ET self to recognize should it/he/she visit Earth. hahah
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Well Socionics is certainly real, but whether or not it accurately models reality is another matter.
wrong pill Neo
anglas u watered down nonbeliever
gg sir. gg
I don't agree, I've seen it play out in my own life too many times not to believe it, it's at least pointing in the right direction. There's a lot of factors it doesn't take into account though like race, age, gender, etc.etc so I expect it to be replaced by something even more accurate in the near future.
If it's not real to you, it's because of how you define it.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
well... it's not that strong of an argument. I've seen it so it's real is basically what all religions, conspiricy theorists and ufo spotters use as fundament.
If you don't see it than you don't understand it isn't a good argument either; it's like "i have new clothes, if you think i'm naked you're too stupid to see my clothes".
the only relevant response to the OP is: opinions are like assholes....
I mean, the question wether or not socionics is worth time is a (inter)personal one. If it isn't interesting to him anymore than he can spend his time doing something else. By posting this he's just provoking reactions like yours, which, kinda are pointless which makes his op pointless..
maybe...
but thinking of socionics as real and then realizing its not is kind of a powerful shift. like people who used to believe in religion are often the most outspoken against it because theyve dealt with the guilt and fear and realized that its not necessary. similar concept. when you realize it, then it just feels right to speak up. (okay, maybe not you. but me. and maybe raver.)
Well I believe it for reasons beyond that, it's just that my own experience is the strongest argument *for me* because I'm kind of skeptical about psychology in general. It has been very accurate in predicting how people in *my* life will interact, which is more than what most theories have been able to do. I don't think personal experience should be your only basis for believing or discrediting it though, you're right about that. In my case it aligns with other ideas I've been studying about how the body (and larger systems) process energy.
and yes obviously OP is just trying to inflame people, but there's no reason why we can't seriously consider the topic anyway
Even if it is real, so what? Reality doesn't equate with anything else save for the mere fact of its existence. Feces are real, it doesn't mean that you spend all day smelling shit... pain and hurt and hatred and arrogance are all 'real' - most people try not to dwell on that 24/7. Even if our polrs are real, what good is it to mentally masturbate over some psychological weakpoint that we have no control over? We are all hannibal lectoring ourselves.
But yeah, follow your ego function - it's the path of self confidence.
Certainly the explanation of the mind as something that does information processing, and has information preference is quite valid. How dynamic and the structure of the preferences are is a subject of exploration and debate. Socionics is really not in disagreement with the majority of information science, nor is the division of the mind into functional specializations something strange, socionics doesn't seek to explain everything it just some macro observations of long term human interaction. In short term interaction a lot of other factors can apply.
Hold on everybody, I'm building "Model W" at this very moment.the structure is there, the right wording isn't there, and this may take a while...
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
1. OP is just trying to inflame people.
2. We have been over this shit.
3.There is no proof in the form of empirical evidence in peer-reviewed studies. So you either buy in to the logic and see enough correlation in your personal experience or you don't.
4. Hardly anyone is interested in proselytizing socionics.
Don't think socionic theory has significant amount of truth value to it? Hopefully that will prevent you from cluttering the forum with your typings and interpretations on socionic theory from now on.
Hold on everybody, I'm building "Model W" at this very moment.
Lol "Model Woof" I love it!. Can you work on a theory of how to work at said 'doomed' relationships ... and add that to the mix? It's a pretty big ask. If/When you have time.
Now this is a story all about how, my type got changed, turned upside down. Just wait for a minute and watch chatbox right there, & I'll tell how Gem became the moderator with blue hair.
In typology central friended and praised, on the picture thread was where she spent most her days. Chilling out, selfies, relaxing all cool, And all typing some people and getting them schooled.
When a couple of girls who were up to no good, Started annoying her & her friends in the forumhood, She got in one little flame war & got pissed off & said 'I'm moving in with that exboyfriend in the forum with the socionics toffs.
So Gem pulls up to the forum for a year without being a hater, And yells to typocentral 'Yo creeps! Smell Ya later', Became a mod in her kingdom she was finally there, To sit on her throne as the mod with blue hair.
InvisibruJim
This should be a forum meme.
Someone should compile a list of people that decided socionics wasn't real and then use that to justify typings of them. lololol
What do you mean, it's your last cycle here?Maybe as we continue to evolve, on this lovely little planet, things will change. Too bad it's my last cycle here. I'll be cheering from the sidelines though.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
I believe in reincarnation and have known since childhood that it was my last life on earth. Please don't ask how I know, I just do.I believe everyone on their last life will instinctively know when they ask themselves the question. I understand that it is not an accepted belief for many so maybe that is why more people don't even consider it. Everything I have endured in this lifetime is basically clearing up old karma with people. I have spoken to mystics, psychics and spiritualists who have confirmed this without me telling them. I also believe my Vedic astrology chart hints at this as well. Thanks to Rat I know that since he did my chart. It was very enlightening and he gave me a lot of info.
Last edited by Aylen; 04-02-2014 at 04:22 AM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
So, where to, next?I believe in reincarnation and have known since childhood that it was my last life on earth. Please don't ask how I know, I just do.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Don't know exactly. I just assume it will be my choice after I die. I might choose an existence that has no ethics, logic or emotions, especially no emotions, just a purely sensory experience where everything is pleasant or maybe just choose to experience myself without a physical body at all, just consciousness, for a few thousand years, in our time, to rest.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Happy April Fools guys, this thread was just me playing a silly prank. I'm kind of surprised no one suspected that it was a prank considering it's April Fools today.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
lol... good one! I was a little suprised to see you write that OP... I thought something had happened in your life!
Happy April Fools guys, this thread was just me playing a silly prank. I'm kind of surprised no wonder suspected that it was a prank considering it's April Fools today.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Thanks. Well, everything is fine atm. Not the best, but not the worst either.lol... good one! I was a little suprised to see you write that OP... I thought something had happened in your life!
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Agreed, it cannot be ideal as the map is not the territory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%...itory_relation. Socionics is merely a map of an aspect of the human mind, it cannot describe everything about it, but it cannot be ignored either.
Well said, mistyping people in Socionics is one of the aspects of Socionics that I find to be frustrating as it can lead to false conclusions, which is why I believe one must find the perfect balance for them in applying Socionics to real life.
I find there's even more things that Socionics doesn't cover psychologically. It may cover some aspects of the human personality, while completely neglecting others. So it is not the end all of the human personality, but that doesn't mean that it's fictional due to the fact that it's merely limited.
My real thoughts on Socionics is that it's a limited personality system so it should only be given limited consideration as a result.@Raver finally
I hope I didn't get you too worried with my April Fool's joke William. I sometimes take jokes too far, maybe you can blame that on the fact that I'm an IEE.Like I told WA, my life isn't exactly in the best shape, but it's not in the worst shape either. I look at every life experience as necessary to evolve even if it may not be positive. As for my sappy threads, I was probably feeling a bit down and confused at the time, but I feel I've made some headway on that area since then so thanks for the concern.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
April Fools isn't real ... just like socionics
Happy April Fools guys, this thread was just me playing a silly prank. I'm kind of surprised no one suspected that it was a prank considering it's April Fools today.
Nice april fools joke
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
