Socionics is Unattractive

[Creepy-Snaps]

Although understanding intertype relations can be cool if played off a certain way, by and large it's misunderstood and misinterpreted by people who don't know you that well. You may be seen as a freak who analyzes people and compatibility.

Things go over people's heads. The longer you study socionics, the less you realize how other people don't understand.

Obsession with duality is unhealthy. Simply understanding socionics and duality won't make you closer to actually meeting a dual. You still must live in the real world.

Resorting to socionics to understand the relationships of everyone in your life isn't going to magically make them all better. It may help yes, but be wary of how much time you spend thinking about socionics versus how much time you spend actually living.

Discuss.

[Simon Ssmall]

I thinkyour frustrations come from the fact you are
Mistyped and didnt meet your dual who would never look at you like a freak as they are all loving and great listeners, the INFjs

[Creepy-Snaps]

I thinkyour frustrations come from the fact you are
Mistyped and didnt meet your dual who would never look at you like a freak as they are all loving and great listeners, the INFjs

Interesting.

Of course I have personal motivations in writing this, but I believe my general statements still apply to the vast majority of people here on this site, from observation of the past several months.

[Airman]

You're right , this socionics thing is overvalued, in fact 'duality' relations may not be the best, many other factors come into play. Quadra is also not the best at many times for friends and acquaintances. Even though you may be mistyped as SLE. As I think you VI LSI more than SLE.

Enneagram is much more practical and attractive imo.

[crazedrat]

I dont think this is any reason to say he mistyped himself. He seems ESTp. I complain ESTps / ESFps are whores all the time. I'd expect the Ses to complain the Ni types are lazy asses.

[Nowisthetime]

I thinkyour frustrations come from the fact you are
Mistyped and didnt meet your dual who would never look at you like a freak as they are all loving and great listeners, the INFjs

MD as LSE? that could be possible. I watched his videos again and actually, yeah... could be.

[crazedrat]

The Fe in him is obvious

[Korpsy Knievel]

It's incontrovertible that adopting a conceptualized approach to life can increases one's susceptibility to doubt, misguidance, dogmatism, and cognitive dissonance as one attempts to integrate questionable theory with solid fact. I find that socionics holds some pragmatic value but shouldn't be treated as holy writ. Others will disagree, sometimes vehemently. Here's why: an idea entertained by multiple parties will necessarily be understood in a pluralistic way. Even if one faithfully parrots the received wisdom of a revered master there is still an epistemic and phenomenological divergence in their individual ideations.

To further complicate matters, since socionics is rationalist and not clinically validated it's presently possible to only reach consensus of faith on its articles, not proof*. Given all this uncertainty and airy-fairy-ness, people unfamiliar or uncomfortable with schematizing human cognition are unlikely to have much patience for sitting through a lecture on what and who and why they are by some loon rambling on about dual-seeking and aristocracy and quadra values. Try discussing the psychology of sport fandom with people huddled before the boobtube to watch their local team. They'll quickly tire of your probing and strange jargon and conceptualizing and they'll say, "What you're saying is kinda interesting but I'm trying to watch the fucking game here." Also, try cramming human thought into neat little boxes after you've read a tiny bit about actual neuroscience. You will quickly find that the socionic model has far more to do with a mathematician's view of cognition than it does the workings of a real brain.

So I agree there's potential for socionics to be off-putting or misleading. But while it isn't perfect and entirely valuable, neither is it devoid of use, even as a hobby or adjunct to "real" psychology.

Regarding MtDew's type: On the grounds that you're consistent in being a didactic prig I find LSE quite apt for you, particularly since your admonitions rarely deviate from observations so trite as to merit no mention. You read like a self-help pamphlet written for salesmen.

* A wikipedia entry on socionics that touts its scientific validity by citing a socionics organization's socionics magazine is insufficient proof of proper peer review or falsifiability. Of the half dozen psychologists with whom I've discussed typology, only the Ukrainian had even heard of socionics and all of them dismissed MBTI and the like as parlor games or statistical astrology. MMPI and MCMI (if indicated) are their ipsative psychometric instruments of choice.

[crazedrat]

It's incontrovertible that adopting a conceptualized approach to life can increases one's susceptibility to doubt, misguidance, dogmatism, and cognitive dissonance as one attempts to integrate questionable theory with solid fact. I find that socionics holds some pragmatic value but shouldn't be treated as holy writ. Others will disagree, sometimes vehemently. Here's why: an idea entertained by multiple parties will necessarily be understood in a pluralistic way. Even if one faithfully parrots the received wisdom of a revered master there is still an epistemic and phenomenological divergence in their individual ideations.

To further complicate matters, since socionics is rationalist and not clinically validated it's presently possible to only reach consensus of faith on its articles, not proof*. Given all this uncertainty and airy-fairy-ness, people unfamiliar or uncomfortable with schematizing human cognition are unlikely to have much patience for sitting through a lecture on what and who and why they are by some loon rambling on about dual-seeking and aristocracy and quadra values. Try discussing the psychology of sport fandom with people huddled before the boobtube to watch their local team. They'll quickly tire of your probing and strange jargon and conceptualizing and they'll say, "What you're saying is kinda interesting but I'm trying to watch the fucking game here." Also, try cramming human thought into neat little boxes after you've read a tiny bit about actual neuroscience. You will quickly find that the socionic model has far more to do with a mathematician's view of cognition than it does the workings of a real brain.

So I agree there's potential for socionics to be off-putting or misleading. But while it isn't perfect and entirely valuable, neither is it devoid of use, even as a hobby or adjunct to "real" psychology.

Regarding MtDew's type: On the grounds that you're consistent in being a didactic prig I find LSE quite apt for you, particularly since your admonitions rarely deviate from observations so trite as to merit no mention. You read like a self-help pamphlet written for salesmen.

* A wikipedia entry on socionics that touts its scientific validity by citing a socionics organization's socionics magazine is insufficient proof of proper peer review or falsifiability. Of the half dozen psychologists with whom I've discussed typology, only the Ukrainian had even heard of socionics and all of them dismissed MBTI and the like as parlor games or statistical astrology. MMPI and MCMI (if indicated) are their ipsative psychometric instruments of choice.

wow, try harder

[Creepy-female]

You read like a self-help pamphlet written for salesmen.

I would shit my pants if Mountain Dew showed up on my doorstep selling the Dirt Devil SD20000

[crazedrat]

I would shit my pants if Mountain Dew showed up on my doorstep selling the Dirt Devil SD20000

Ahem...
I will now unequivocally demonstrate your imagined cartoon playscript is not only logically blemished but also irrevocably purposeless, fiend!

shit (one's) pants

verb - intransitive

figuratively: to be extremely scared.
by WalterGR, Sacramento, CA, USA, Aug 31 2009
literally: to defecate ("shit") in one's pants.
by WalterGR, Sacramento, CA, USA, Dec 25 2010

As we decidedly behold, undue horripilation would be an immoderately hysterical response to such dismissible happenings, you devil.

[Slacker]

Although understanding intertype relations can be cool if played off a certain way, by and large it's misunderstood and misinterpreted by people who don't know you that well. You may be seen as a freak who analyzes people and compatibility.

Things go over people's heads. The longer you study socionics, the less you realize how other people don't understand.

Obsession with duality is unhealthy. Simply understanding socionics and duality won't make you closer to actually meeting a dual. You still must live in the real world.

Resorting to socionics to understand the relationships of everyone in your life isn't going to magically make them all better. It may help yes, but be wary of how much time you spend thinking about socionics versus how much time you spend actually living.

Discuss.

1. I would never talk to people other than my husband IRL about Socionics because they'd think I was crazy.

2. Obsession with anything is unhealthy. I don't know if understanding socionics would make you more likely to meet a dual unless people are better at typing people than they seem to be.

3. Understanding relationships because of duality can make some better. Maybe not close relationships, but some relationships I have with people have been helped because I no longer take some things personally I used to take personally, and I no longer think people of wildly different types have something wrong with them.

[mu4]

It's incontrovertible that adopting a conceptualized approach to life can increases one's susceptibility to doubt, misguidance, dogmatism, and cognitive dissonance as one attempts to integrate questionable theory with solid fact. I find that socionics holds some pragmatic value but shouldn't be treated as holy writ. Others will disagree, sometimes vehemently. Here's why: an idea entertained by multiple parties will necessarily be understood in a pluralistic way. Even if one faithfully parrots the received wisdom of a revered master there is still an epistemic and phenomenological divergence in their individual ideations.

To further complicate matters, since socionics is rationalist and not clinically validated it's presently possible to only reach consensus of faith on its articles, not proof*. Given all this uncertainty and airy-fairy-ness, people unfamiliar or uncomfortable with schematizing human cognition are unlikely to have much patience for sitting through a lecture on what and who and why they are by some loon rambling on about dual-seeking and aristocracy and quadra values. Try discussing the psychology of sport fandom with people huddled before the boobtube to watch their local team. They'll quickly tire of your probing and strange jargon and conceptualizing and they'll say, "What you're saying is kinda interesting but I'm trying to watch the fucking game here." Also, try cramming human thought into neat little boxes after you've read a tiny bit about actual neuroscience. You will quickly find that the socionic model has far more to do with a mathematician's view of cognition than it does the workings of a real brain.

So I agree there's potential for socionics to be off-putting or misleading. But while it isn't perfect and entirely valuable, neither is it devoid of use, even as a hobby or adjunct to "real" psychology.

Regarding MtDew's type: On the grounds that you're consistent in being a didactic prig I find LSE quite apt for you, particularly since your admonitions rarely deviate from observations so trite as to merit no mention. You read like a self-help pamphlet written for salesmen.

* A wikipedia entry on socionics that touts its scientific validity by citing a socionics organization's socionics magazine is insufficient proof of proper peer review or falsifiability. Of the half dozen psychologists with whom I've discussed typology, only the Ukrainian had even heard of socionics and all of them dismissed MBTI and the like as parlor games or statistical astrology. MMPI and MCMI (if indicated) are their ipsative psychometric instruments of choice.

I think this is fairly generic skepticism that I see constantly, talking about socionics as typology is people's biggest mistake.

Socionics is information processing, and cognitive psychology, not typology. Typology is just a logical consequence of the model. Socionics also doesn't predict behavior but information compatibility, it predicts the compatibility of mental states. This is actually something that is entirely well accepted now vs the past where psychology was behaviorism and empiricism. Especially now that mental states can be analyzed with new instruments, cognitive psychology is where the action is.

What Socionics does is provides a model of information interaction analogous to thermodynamics.

You also think that rationalist ways of thought as being bad, the truth is that without them, most of science wouldn't exist.

[Simon Ssmall]

Interesting.

Of course I have personal motivations in writing this, but I believe my general statements still apply to the vast majority of people here on this site, from observation of the past several months.

No, I talk about socionics all the time and never did I have problems with it. I just try to explain Model A in detail so it would not look like other typologies but as a science. Because Socionics is science and based on facts and observations. I have conducted tests with people and will probable make a paper about it and I dont think it is crazy or anything. You probably just do not know how to talk to people, the INFj being gentle and all loving would help you a great deal with this.

[Korpsy Knievel]

You also think that rationalist ways of thought as being bad, the truth is that without them, most of science wouldn't exist.

Rationalism without evidence is just empty formulation.

[Korpsy Knievel]

wow, try harder

Fill this out and return it to my secretary:

[Simon Ssmall]

Korpisy you are an INTp and your dual SEE would help you a great deal dealing with someone like crazedrat as SEEs would be able to bully everyone around you so they would never touch you. Glad I could help , I hope you will meet a nice SEE soon. If you want I can hook you up with someone as there are plenty of SEE people here.

[crazedrat]

Stop spamming this forum with your useless comments

[Simon Ssmall]

Stop spamming this forum with your useless comments

I AM NOT SPAMMING. DO NOT LIE!

[Simon Ssmall]

Thi sis a socionics forum and I discuss socionics. You only flame. So dont lie I spam!

[crazedrat]

You don't contribute to real socionics discussion. You just make whimsical associations and throw them out there.

[Simon Ssmall]

You don't contribute to real socionics discussion. You just make whimsical associations and throw them out there.

Where is your contribution??

[crazedrat]

use the search feature

[Simon Ssmall]

use the search feature

I do not understand. It is mostly spam whatever you post so I am not sure what to look for. Sorry I have weak sensing, my dual usually helps me with that. can you post a link?

[Creepy-]

The point is merely to know, for me, not to improve. I need to know why things are the way they are.

[Simon Ssmall]

The point is merely to know, for me, not to improve. I need to know why things are the way they are.

Ti seeking. You need someone to explain you how something works in a way you would understand.

[Jinxi]

Ti seeking. You need someone to explain you how something works in a way you would understand.

That guy and EyeSeeCold think they're ILIs when they're LIIs. Ha. Ha. Fail.

[Simon Ssmall]

That guy and EyeSeeCold think they're ILIs when they're LIIs. Ha. Ha. Fail.

I agree EyeSeeCold is LII but he is too stubborn to accept. Why you say nil is LII?

[Jinxi]

I agree EyeSeeCold is LII but he is too stubborn to accept. Why you say nil is LII?

The guy is EyeSeeCold's bitch at the INTP forum.

[Simon Ssmall]

The guy is EyeSeeCold's bitch at the INTP forum.

Please dont use swearwords, unless you are joking of course

[Jinxi]

Please dont use swearwords, unless you are joking of course

I'm joking.

[Simon Ssmall]

I'm joking.

Oh ok then, I understand.

[Jinxi]

Oh ok then, I understand.

Good. Let's understand EACH OTHER now.

[FDG]

You read like a self-help pamphlet written for salesmen.

Seconded.

[mu4]

Rationalism without evidence is just empty formulation.

There is plenty of evidence, in fact, all of science is collecting mountains and mountains of evidence. Empiricism without rationalism is just data, without understanding.

If you view socionics as information processing and compatibility rather then a typology, then you can start putting together the evidence with the theory. Socionics also ties into with some behaviorist work(like operand conditioning).

Positive reinforcement=Ego
Negative reinforcement=Super-id
Positive punishment=Super-ego
Negative punishment=Id

It's a very simple step, "There are different kinds of information that people prefer which corresponds to the different forms of operant conditioning" in order to create the very framework of Model A, except without using Freud, Jung, or any thing you might find questionable.

The fact that different avenue of psychology can easily derive these same deductions, make socionics a very compelling study.

The only problem with socionics is one of measurement.

Types are predictions, inter-type relations between types are predictions. It's entirely possible to formulate a study and test the models. However, the problem is that it's a grey region how to identify information preferences and without that technique consistant and human-separated, it's only as good as human observation and that's not reliable.

The problem of socionics and socionics experimentation is not for a lack of data, evidence or models, but a lack of instrumentation. When you really understand that, you'll understand that this has been one of the fundamental problem of science from day 1, rather then rationalism, empiricism. You couldn't find a atom until you had the device that could see it.

However, socionics as a hypothesis give us a very good idea where to look, which is in the information processing areas of the mind and not by some self-answer testing mechanism, but via things like EEG/CT/MRI.

You keep looking for people to give you proofs, go find it yourself or forget about it.

[Simon Ssmall]

Too much Ti in this thread. Can someone translate this for me? I do not understand. Where is my dual when you need one, activity partner will do to as they are great at explaining things to me.

[eSDe]

Socionics is Unattractive - yes, but only if you can't explain it to the others.

.F.u.c.k. .i.t. - look at other side:

Socionics is effective - because you can use it as persuasion model of communcation and it works.. great

[VILEvenezuelan]

While I don't plan to stop using it anytime soon, there is definite merit in the question.

"Mind Reading" behavior, as its often called in therapeutic circles, can create absurd amounts of anxiety. Knowing things through socionics that you otherwise wouldn't can get you used to holding all the cards, developing patterns of control that are hard to break.

The key seems to be balance- as with everything obviously. I wonder if since I use socionics as a surrogate for my PoLR, it can be more unhealthy for me to obsess about than others?

Hmmmm...

Also, explaining socionics to people is fun maybe the first million times, but then you realize after all that effort explaining (more often arguing over)the basics, most people are done with the subject and you get no substantive conversation as a social reward!

Just make sure socionics is your tool, not the other way around.

[redbaron]

Although understanding intertype relations can be cool if played off a certain way, by and large it's misunderstood and misinterpreted by people who don't know you that well. You may be seen as a freak who analyzes people and compatibility.

Things go over people's heads. The longer you study socionics, the less you realize how other people don't understand.

Obsession with duality is unhealthy. Simply understanding socionics and duality won't make you closer to actually meeting a dual. You still must live in the real world.

Resorting to socionics to understand the relationships of everyone in your life isn't going to magically make them all better. It may help yes, but be wary of how much time you spend thinking about socionics versus how much time you spend actually living.

Discuss.

I do not discuss socionics with anyone who's not on this forum. lol

It can be hard to meet a dual. This is true. But whereas before knowing socionics I would NEVER have thought I'd get along with an SLE, now I can recognize them and try to strike up a friendship, knowing that the benefits will be worth the trouble. That's worth something.

Understanding relationships and people (whether through socionics or enneagram) doesn't automatically make your relationships better but, like Slackermom said, it might help you to realize that other people aren't crazy.

Oh, I have also been stuck in that position of "knowing" things because of socionics, which can be awkward. For example, you can guess how someone else's relationship is going if you know the two types, especially when you have other small bits of information and time for observation. Suddenly you can see & understand things that no one else can. It's... weird.

[DividedsGhost]

There is plenty of evidence, in fact, all of science is collecting mountains and mountains of evidence. Empiricism without rationalism is just data, without understanding.

What evidence? Many can't agree on anything, not even celebrity typings posted on other sites. It's frequently argued that they are wrong and the profiles and descriptions are wrong. And if someone says something is wrong then they are told it's because they aren't trying hard enough to understand or that they just need to keep looking. The Russians only provide descriptions with function element definitions that don't map to the functions of a type in reality; they provide no scientific study for bias, forer effect, or any of those such things. There's always something that is wrong and all people do is try to assert what insights they think they have found. This has all the makings of the beginnings of a religious cult.

You keep looking for people to give you proofs, go find it yourself or forget about it.

That is what people do! Because that's all that can be done with this theory. Adapt it into something you believe works and makes sense, taking for granted the theoretical premises for all the functional relationships. No one has provided a reasonable basis for any of this. It's just explanation after explanation to reason out anything that doesn't make sense. It's patchwork, but eventually you have to patch up so many holes it's just not worth trying to reason the theory as it stands anymore, instead of tearing it apart to form things starting with careful consideration of the theoretical premises.