A profound flaw in Socionics

[mikemex]

Nature is cheap, it doesn't allow anything to exist for long unless it's really useful. For that reason we have boolean logic in our minds: it makes the world easier to handle. It's far easier to use statistics to find out what's more likely and prepare for it, instead of preparing for all options regardless of like hood. However, as much as it helps to increase the efficiency of our actions, it distorts our perception of reality. For example, just because about 99% of the trees are 1m or higher is not a reason to state that a tree is a big thing; buy a Bonsai if you don't believe me.

The flaw I see in Socionics is that it promotes the black-and-white-ish world view in which everything is artificially set to belong to a certain arbitrary category, which, in turn, excludes the contrary one. Like with fuzzy sets, the belongship to a category doesn't really imply the absence from other; thus defeating the dichotomic model.

I think I can explain this better through a biological example. You might have heard about DNA code. It's composed by four basic amino acids: adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine. Now, what makes an organism is not the basic components themselves, but the order in which they are arranged. Trying to state that an organism "is far more cytosine than adenine" is as absurd as Socionics stating that "someone has preference of Se over Ne". It's as simple as that.

The thought process is an extremely complex flow of a few basic operation modes. Just because we are starting to understand the way of operation of each basic mode, it doesn't mean that we understand the whole system.

Individuals are forced to belong to a certain type, but differences between members of a type can be as great as those between members of different types. It's just a matter of what we focus ourselves at.

[FDG]

As usual, most of your critiques are based on a complete lack of understanding of the most advanced elaborations of the model, which have been tailored in a way as to minimize the number of such flaws.

[mikemex]

Sorry but what model in particular are you talking about? I ask because I've briefly checked out all the "improved" models proposed by the people around here and I've seen nothing new. They like re-arranging things, but that doesn't change the basic concept. It's like applying some make up.

The important question is: how can we be certain that we give a proper interpretation to the facts? We laugh at the idea today, but if you lived 3000 years ago, it would have been pretty "logical" that the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.

The same happens to people involved in socionics: how can they be sure that what they observe in people is really explained by the theory?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

You raise some interesting points Mikemex, but I think ultimately, it might be useful to ask yourself -- do you think that it (socionics) works?

Sure, we can categorise it and look for ways to talk ourselves out of it till the cows come home, but let us step back from the categorisation, the theory, and ask yourself, as I say.. Do you think it works, more or less as can be expected, for you and your life?

Now for me, I evidence clear qualities of what could be described as S. Infact I think I could sit down and write a pretty good description of Si, because I would just have to talk about myself. So I would have to say that I am an S person, an Si person. Sure it may be a category on a basic level, but it doesn't not have to be a rigidly specific one? If you don't expect me or peoples to be like robot and fit neat and tight into one specific description(s) - if you don't want to box and package people too tightly, then yes, I think you can see (and I can see) that the types work.

My advice brother, is not to expect too much from it. One cannot predict people and their behaviour(s) with 100% accuracy, to do so would be like predicting lottery numbers. But I have experienced far too many relations which fit the pattern for there not to be something to this.

I'm happy to accept that socionics plays a role in my life. But of course it isn't everything in my life!

It works more or less..so I say lets take the Te approach and be happy with it

What do you say?

[mikemex]

I was talking to my mother today. I said that she should stop going to the church. It doesn't imply to stop believing in what she believes; just stop being part of an institution, a criminal one. One which has killed so many people and perpetrated so many acts of horror and dehumanization that all other political institutions seem harmless in comparison. But she goes to support it because she (mistakenly) believes it's a positive environment.

Thing is, it all begins with having correct ideas. One should always strive to have them.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I was talking to my mother today. I said that she should stop going to the church. It doesn't imply to stop believing in what she believes; just stop being part of an institution, a criminal one. One which has killed so many people and perpetrated so many acts of horror and dehumanization that all other political institutions seem harmless in comparison. But she goes to support it because she (mistakenly) believes it's a positive environment.

Ok. What you are saying is true. But then, two things: what has your mum done - - she hasn't done anything bad. And the basic idea of the church could be viewed as 'good.' So what should happen? Should your mum stop going to church? But then she will be miserable because she likes it and it makes her happy and then she has it taken out of her life. Happyness is more important that some empty wooden almost Ti based principle here which doesn't change anything.

Thing is, it all begins with having correct ideas. One should always strive to have them.

You shouldn't get yourself too obsessed with correct ideas mate.

Ask yourself.. Does socionics work? If you think it does, apply it to your life. If you think it doesn't, then stop. If you think it does apply but this forum doesn't, then stop coming to this forum.

And at the same time, your mum is happy and your approach is too obsessive and doesn't change anything. Next you'll be telling me not to eat cheesecake because it's bad for me and it makes more sense to eat an apple. Haha forget it mate i'll eat my cheesecake .. and yeah you know you don't need to exhaust yourself with correct thinking..and then you need to categorise correct thinking and it becomes Ti but you are ENFp dude and you know and stuff!

Relax, have a beer, let things be, no?

(Live it! )

[jessica129]

Cyclops, you're back already? lol.

[tiny_dancer]

True sign of an addict. Says he's leaving, and he's back within a month... no willpower

[xyz]

Mikemex, do you believe Socionics encompasses 100% of a person's "Personality"?

[Steve]

You just spoke my mind (mike). While I find socionics interesting and agree with the general idea, more and more I feel that by studying it, I'm rejecting my own possibilities by the black and white mentality where one analyzes things to the point where they think by acting out of type means that they might be some other type and lose their own identity to assimilate with their 'type' and worse expect others to be true to their type than to themselves.

Right. I've been studying socionics for 2 years, and in the end my journey has basically shown me that socionics is just one aspect of what goes on with people, and yes, it is generally interpreted in an overly black and white way. I've been guilty of that too. Analyzing and trying to globalize anything too much isn't good and gets extremely limiting.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

And that's the technical discrepencies. I have not even mentioned how bad it could be if socionics was a mainstream ideology...discrimination, discrimination, discrimination.

All kinds of word. If this shit was mainstream, everything that was a bit weird, quirky, hard to define (like a lot of homosexuals) would be tortured, belittled, mocked, discriminated against more than they already are. Anything that doesn't really belong in a dichotomy.

People who aren't very intuitive or have much compassion would get a thrill out of it, however. As will people that over obey social norms and fitting in. Soccer moms and a lot of simple-minded elementary school teachers. Anybody with idealistic Jew Man powers would know something wasn't right, however.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

socionics actually explains many things that humanity couldn't answer for centuries.

Socionics does no such thing. You are idealizing it way too much because it sounds pretty and it looks good.

[Ms. Kensington]

to belong to a certain arbitrary category

but it also tells us you don't like Ti in much less time than you did.

[Ms. Kensington]

i think my last post was also really Ti, sorry if it offended anyone

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think I can explain this better through a biological example. You might have heard about DNA code. It's composed by four basic amino acids: adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine. Now, what makes an organism is not the basic components themselves, but the order in which they are arranged. Trying to state that an organism "is far more cytosine than adenine" is as absurd as Socionics stating that "someone has preference of Se over Ne". It's as simple as that.

Just because it is unlikely that an organism has more moles of cytosine than adenine doesn't mean that a person cannot have a preference for Se over Ne.

This would be like saying "because a tonne of feathers has the same mass as a tonne of bricks, a person cannot have a preference for Macclesfield Town over Manchester United".

[tcaudilllg]

I was talking to my mother today. I said that she should stop going to the church. It doesn't imply to stop believing in what she believes; just stop being part of an institution, a criminal one. One which has killed so many people and perpetrated so many acts of horror and dehumanization that all other political institutions seem harmless in comparison. But she goes to support it because she (mistakenly) believes it's a positive environment.

Thing is, it all begins with having correct ideas. One should always strive to have them.

I KNEW IT: you're immanent in the 3rd transcendent function. You hate anything associated with institutionalism, which you see as a threat to your individualism. I won't say that institutions cannot be corrupt to the core, but not all of them are. Let's be clear on one thing though, that religion != institution.

What are your thoughts on authority vs personal freedom?

[JuJu]

I agree that socionics has a lot of merit from my personal viewpoint. I don't think anyone would blame a theory for any discrimination for such blame belongs to those who discriminate (hence why I hate it when people blame a religion for unlawful acts instead of those who committed the acts).

It may sound like a fickle concern, but imagine a world where stuff like socionics or typology was knowledge so common that it was not even questioned. Bullets and Doves got my point. Maybe it's the wanna-be novelist in me churning ideas, but I could see some fucktard(s) wanting to discriminate (think about psych related genocide, not likely in our world as it is, but if we lived in a different time and in a different kind of world, anything is possible). Hell, the fact that MBTI is being used in some cases to evaluate job applicants is a little bit of a concern. One thing leads to another. I mean, socionics is way too obscure and is hardly considered credible by what I've gathered from drifting through the typology community in the West (thank you socionics.com for making us look like nut-jobs =P). But it is hard to predict what will occur in a year, let alone fifty or one hundred years.

I think I'm rambling more than anything. I don't think many would take this seriously anyways (we are a very small minority, of course, this is still very obscure in comparison to MBTI which is far less accurate but seems less likely to generate as many distinctions as socionics does...I mean, look at the bashing that has gone on here time to time in the last few years).

I hope that Socionics is never used to demonize anyone, nevermind ppl en masse. To protect against this, maybe Socionics.com should stay up ad infinitum so that everyone can think that the theory is nuts, haha... Regardless, I see where you're coming from.

Personally, I can't say that knowledge of Socionics has had many (if any) negative ramifications for me, but I can see how it could negatively affect some ppl, limit some ppl, confuse some ppl, (especially since unlike MBTI, Socionics can take an awful long time to get a handle on, and thus can be easily misapplied in the meantime,) etc. I'm glad that I learned about it in my 20s, after I already had a pretty good handle on myself... If I'd come to it earlier, I imagine that it might have confused me even more than I was... Perhaps needless to say, I don't speak for anyone but myself re: what age is good to learn about it. Maturity levels differ, as does intelligence, appropriate perspective on Socionics' limitations, und so weiter.

I'd be lying if I didn't say that Socionics has made me more sympathetic to ppl who have different views than me, and different ways of expressing them... It's taken YEARS to learn Socionics to the degree that I have--but during that time, my relationships and self-understanding have really benefited from it... As of now, I'm grateful. (It could all change, hehe)

[crazedrat]

this is a flaw that tcaud and his posse are working on correcting. i guess i am kind of part of that posse, in an indirect way, too. so i definitely agree with you, up until you draw a conclusion.. at which point you are wrong. but yeah, read some of the articles in the article section.. dating back a long while, and you will find alot of shit on this topic.