ESTjs and ISTps how did you get involved with socionics?

[Creepy-Snaps]

What attracted you to socionics? How did you gain an interest in personality types?

I think back to my childhood... although I was mostly laid-back and followed the rules, sometimes I'd get into fights with other kids, argue excessively, lose my temper easily, not care what other people think, and blatantly ignore people who I thought were stupid.

It seems like having an appreciation for being different from others takes maturity... and really trying to understand other people, even when you disagree with them. For me, socionics is a fun and interesting way for me to understand the people in my life better.

But for LSEs especially, it seems like we're more inclined to be out and about with friends, or doing something productive. Not posting on an internet forum about personalities lol. Truth be told, I probably wouldn't have joined if not for my friend Twitch. And I look through the threads, and I don't notice too many LSEs, I only see two who are really active, Director Abbie and Ryu. Is it safe to say LSEs are a rare breed on the forums, not naturally drawn to personality types? Or maybe I just haven't noticed you!

Which leads back to my question. What made you interested in socionics? Why did you decide to join the forum, and what keeps you active? <-- These questions may be answered by any type, not just LSEs.

[April]

I introduced two LSEs to Socionics, and they both seemed to have a strong aversion to it. Another one seemed not to really care. I think it seemed lacking in evidence and practical application to them. So, I'd be interested in the answers to these questions, too.

[Shagbag The Wizard]

In my experience with LSEs so far, most of them are very slow to come round to a new way of looking at things (reinin negativists, naturally suspicious / skeptical etc).

And on top of that they seem generally very impatient and not likely to actually read through several metric tons of socionics material to familiarise themselves with the subject.


Of course, this is only based on the LSEs I've known over the past few months. Maturity levels will obviously be a factor.


(And btw, welcome......great to see a new LSE on here)

[Words]

I introduced two LSEs to Socionics, and they both seemed to have a strong aversion to it. Another one seemed not to really care. I think it seemed lacking in evidence and practical application to them. So, I'd be interested in the answers to these questions, too.

Yes, i've found this. I know one who is interested in MBTI because he got a course on it at work, but he thinks socionics is completely stupid.

They're right actually, it's predictive and testing powers are shocking when you look at it from a neutral perspective.

[Shagbag The Wizard]

They're right actually, it's predictive and testing powers are shocking when you look at it from a neutral perspective.

I think this really depends on the socionics experience of the person doing the testing.


Speaking of testing, I have actually been asked at work (college) to run an aptitude testing program for students based on socionics, but have declined several times as I don't think socionics is useful in determining peoples' abilities / interests / career possibilities.


Not that MBTI is any better.

[Words]

I think this really depends on the socionics experience of the person doing the testing.


Speaking of testing, I have actually been asked at work (college) to run an aptitude testing program for students based on socionics, but have declined several times as I don't think socionics is useful in determining peoples' abilities / interests / career possibilities.

Did you actually think about what you wrote before you wrote it? You are just supporting my point. Say it takes years to 'master' socionics to some still subjective level of typing, then you have a situation where two identicals don't get on due to some non-socionic reason, ie bad breath, they like the same girl, or you have 2 people in different quadras and they are the most experienced people for the job then you put them in the job and they as adults work together anyway. This is all bullshit in the eyes of most LSEs who want immediate results, not some subjective wishy washy nonesense.

Not that MBTI is any better

Why is it not?

[ashlesha]

Say it takes years to 'master' socionics to some still subjective level of typing, then you have a situation where two identicals don't get on due to some non-socionic reason, ie bad breath, they like the same girl, or you have 2 people in different quadras and they are the most experienced people for the job then you put them in the job and they as adults work together anyway. This is all bullshit in the eyes of most LSEs who want immediate results, not some subjective wishy washy nonesense.

well put.

[Shagbag The Wizard]

Did you actually think about what you wrote before you wrote it? You are just supporting my point.

Lol. Dude, I wasn't arguing, just adding my experience to support your statement.

Say it takes years to 'master' socionics to some still subjective level of typing...

I think socionics is more objective than most people would care to admit. Specific behavioural traits can be objectively observed and stack up in favour of a certain type.

The 'subjective' part then is the experience needed to identify those behavioural traits in the first place, and this can only be gained by actual time spent observing people and building up a mental database of "what to look for when typing someone".

(That is obviously too much initial effort for some people, who find it much easier to dismiss the whole thing as crap.)

then you have a situation where two identicals don't get on due to some non-socionic reason

Again, that simply takes experience and maturity to recognise, it's not a fault of socionics.

This is all bullshit in the eyes of most LSEs who want immediate results, not some subjective wishy washy nonesense.

Lol, I know, it sucks. That's why they need their patient EIIs.

Why is it not?

Im sure there are threads around here on that very topic. If I remember, there might also be an article somewhere on Rick's site about it. (Sorry, you'll have to google it, I'm a bit busy at the mo.)

[Words]

Lol. Dude, I wasn't arguing, just adding my experience to support your statement.

OK then, show me a study where it's predictive powers are evident then i'll consider it worthwhile, since you say it's down to the socionics experience of the person doing the testing'.

One experienced socionist, Rick De Long, states that people still reject their duals and that type doesn't explain everything.

I think socionics is more objective than most people would care to admit. Specific behavioural traits can be objectively observed and stack up in favour of a certain type.

The 'subjective' part then is the experience needed to identify those behavioural traits in the first place, and this can only be gained by actual time spent observing people and building up a mental database of "what to look for when typing someone".

(That is obviously too much initial effort for some people, who find it much easier to dismiss the whole thing as crap.)

Oh right, socionics isn't subjective, I must have missed that part where the whole thing is based on a philisophical approach with almost no, well none, empirically published studies, and that basically no one, not even the 'experienced socionists' can agree on peoples types.

Again, that simply takes experience and maturity to recognise, it's not a fault of socionics.

I guess you don't get how useless socionics is in a practical sense then say for, most LSEs.

Lol, I know, it sucks. That's why they need their patient EIIs.

To learn socionics? They're maybe better off single.

Im sure there are threads around here on that very topic. If I remember, there might also be an article somewhere on Rick's site about it. (Sorry, you'll have to google it, I'm a bit busy at the mo.)

I just thought you'd support your opinion with something more substantial than....nothing.

[Shagbag The Wizard]

OK then, show me a study where it's predictive powers are evident then i'll consider it worthwhile, since you say it's down to the socionics experience of the person doing the testing'.

Experience and knowledge go hand in hand. A psychologist fresh out of uni is not going to be on the same level as a seasoned expert in the field, even though they are working from the same theoretical base. Does one bad / inexperienced psychologist discredit the entire field of psychology?

Just as surely there are good and bad socionists, and experience of course makes all the difference. The theory itself should be judged on its own merits, not on the ability of its practitioners (or lack thereof).

One experienced socionist, Rick De Long, states that people still reject their duals and that type doesn't explain everything.

I agree with Rick 100%. Obviously there are many factors that mould our personalities, but underneath all of that we are still emphasising certain types of information.

Rick also talks about complimentary and resonatory traits, and the necessity of having both for a successful dual relationship.

Certainly in my own experience I have not been "attracted" to every single dual, but there is definitely a distinct ease of communication with all of them. I still find it fascinating to observe the info elements at work behind their otherwise unique personalities.

Oh right, socionics isn't subjective, I must have missed that part where the whole thing is based on a philisophical approach with almost no, well none, empirically published studies, and that basically no one, not even the 'experienced socionists' can agree on peoples types.

Dude, even doctors disagree on things sometimes. Does that discredit all of medical science?

Baby -> bathwater.

I guess you don't get how useless socionics is in a practical sense then say for, most LSEs.

Hmm.........as far as I know, there are LSEs on here who seem to take it pretty seriously.

Speak to Ryu, Abbie etc.

To learn socionics? They're maybe better off single.

As you wish.

I just thought you'd support your opinion with something more substantial than....nothing.

Lol, gimme a break man. MBTI is kind of a long discussion that I just don't have time for right now, and in any case it has already been discussed elsewhere on this forum so just search for it.

I think you will find the general consensus on this site is that MBTI is not to be taken too seriously.

[Words]

Thank you for wasting my time. Also you aren't EII.

Dude, even doctors disagree on things sometimes. Does that discredit all of medical science?

Baby -> bathwater.

There is something wrong with you when you say socionics is like medical science.

Edit: You're not EII.

[leckysupport]

What attracted you to socionics? How did you gain an interest in personality types?

I was mostly interested in how MBTI tests worked. So curiosity.

what keeps you active?

Well, I'm not exactly a very active poster but I do visit the forums a lot.

I find gaining experience in typing led to me attempting to understand people and that in turn led to making observations about people, their thoughts, ideas, institutions and relationships. Observing and attempting to understand these sort of things naturally led to me getting a better idea how the world works. Which as you might have guessed can be useful.

Overall I think socioincs on its own is completely useless due to reasons mentioned by everyone else in this thread. In fact I believe it to be so useless that I barely ever discuss socionics with other forum members in private and come to think of it this might be the reason I barely post.

Anyhow, I'm here basically because all of the by products of learning about socionics.

[Trevor]

...and that basically no one, not even the 'experienced socionists' can agree on peoples types.

They agree often enough.

[Words]

They agree often enough.

Another unqualified statement. How often is often enough and who are they?

[Trevor]

..and who are they?

Just look around you.

[Words]

Just look around you.

Yes, i've read Expat types David Cameron as EIE and Sergie Ganin types him as SLI.

[Trevor]

Yes, i've read Expat types David Cameron as EIE and Sergie Ganin types him as SLI.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. They managed to agree on 7 of their dichotomies. Isn't that encouraging? Thanks again for proving my point.

[Words]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. They managed to agree on 7 of their dichotomies. Isn't that encouraging? Thanks again for proving my point.

I've no idea what you're talking about, you're strange.

[protoss]

i've tried to explain socionics to two LSEs, idk if socionics is ish and annoys some LSEs but the answer i got was basicly: "OK, THAT SOUNDS NICE -NOW STOP SMOKING POT, CUT YOUR HAIR, AND GET A JOB!"

idk if socionics seems very +ish and very impractical (-ish) so socionics aint something that usually LSEs get pulled in to (?)

[DirectorAbbie]

There shouldn't be an apostrophe in the title.

...and blatantly ignore people who I thought were stupid.

I blatantly ignore stupid people, too. Stupid teachers don't like being ignored.

What attracted you to socionics? How did you gain an interest in personality types?

I've always been interested in personality typings as a good way to catagorize people. In eighth grade one of my teachers had us do a personality test for Lion, Badger, Koala, or Porpoise. I kept that paper with me for years and tested my family. Then my brother introduced me to socionics, which I found to be a much more reliable and useful (more labels per label) way of labeling people.

In my experience with LSEs so far, most of them are very slow to come round to a new way of looking at things (reinin negativists, naturally suspicious / skeptical etc).

Being introduced by a reliable source helped with this. Being introduced to enneagram via socionics helped with that. If I were introduced to socionics the way i introduce people to it, I would be skeptical.

And on top of that they seem generally very impatient and not likely to actually read through several metric tons of socionics material to familiarise themselves with the subject.

Of course. For those of you who post long boring-looking paragraphs or highly theoretical material, I don't read it. I like bullet points and pictures. I made my own charts to introduce myself to socionics.

[Absurd]

Was tired of reading news on some portal, saw "your horoscope for today". Thought, why the heck not as long as I am here. Registered on a horoscope forum out of sheer curiosity. Posting, laughing my arse off. A waste of time after two months. Stopped posting. Someone posted a link to a MBTI test. Once again, wanted to see what it is. Didn't last longer in duration than the horoscope 'love'. Found socionics browsing through the MBTI forum and here I am not paricularly involved once again.

[DirectorAbbie]

Absurd is not LSE.

[Absurd]

Absurd is not LSE.

Your red emergency ignore button doesn't seem to work, DA.

[April]

I've always been interested in personality typings as a good way to catagorize people. In eith grade one of my teachers had us do a personality test for Lion, Badger, Koala, or Porpoise. I kept that paper with me for years and tested my family.

Which one were you?

Also, I support an LSE typing for Absurd. But I think you already knew that.

[Words]

He's a good laugh so I don't care if he's Mary Poppins

[Absurd]

Also, I support an LSE typing for Absurd. But I think you already knew that.

same

It's not a joke. I agree with that typing too.

He's a good laugh so I don't care if he's Mary Poppins

Thanks a lot.

EDIT:

It's not a joke. I agree with that typing too.

I don't think Maritsa would even notice whether I'm telling a joke or not.

Looks like you're just going to have to get to know him a little better then, if he will let you.

I will. My name is Frank, I'm 12 years old. I've been interested in socionics since the age of 10. That's three years already. Two tough years.

By the way, I see you're your own dual, Maritsa. That's what I call the epitome of efficiency. I'm going to copyright that.

[ashlesha]

Also, I support an LSE typing for Absurd.

same

[DirectorAbbie]

Which one were you?

Koala.

[CILi]

Koala.

...Yummy.





(P.S. - Lion.)

[Beautiful sky]

same

I hope this is a joke because you and April are the only ones laughing.

[Suz]

I hope this is a joke because you and April are the only ones laughing.

It's not a joke. I agree with that typing too.

[Beautiful sky]

And where is his Si? I want proof...hahahaha

[Suz]

And where is his Si? I want proof...hahahaha

Looks like you're just going to have to get to know him a little better then, if he will let you.

[Beautiful sky]

Oh god you are something else. That's ok; he's a very nice guy. I don't need permission to "get to know" people; I have my subjective gauge and an ability to critically analyze on my own terms.

[Marie84]

But for LSE's especially, it seems like we're more inclined to be out and about with friends, or doing something productive. Not posting on an internet forum about personalities lol.

Pretty much. I actually got around to reading your type thread posted in your pic thread and you do sound like an Ni PoLR at the very least, so I would imagine you guys don't like to waste time on something like this. Not to say it's impossible for LSE's to take an interest in this, especially if you've found a productive reason for wanting to learn it, and it sounds like you have

It seems like having an appreciation for being different from others takes maturity... and really trying to understand other people, even when you disagree with them. For me, socionics is a fun and interesting way for me to understand the people in my life better.

Which leads back to my question. What made you interested in socionics? Why did you decide to join the forum, and what keeps you active? <-- These questions may be answered by any type, not just LSE's.

I think it was around 4-5 years ago someone sent me a link to an MBTI test, I took it but found the results rather vague and spotty, so I did a search for MBTI to learn more about it. I think it was on the MBTI page on Wikipedia that I saw a section on Socionics, which I found to be more in depth though incredibly complicated and confusing
Nevertheless it ignited my curiosity so I started to read-up on it and eventually came across this forum. I didn't join since I felt that I didn't know enough to contribute but I continued to read, as well as search for other sites, even the Russian ones which I just used Google translate and Babblefish.
It eventually started to make sense, all the symbols and definitions became like a second language. So I finally joined up and hesitantly began posting here

[Marie84]

...Yummy.



Koala Yummies

(P.S. - Lion.)

OMG my childhood! And Pocky sticks. Japanese sugary snacks are the best :coke:

[Beautiful sky]

What attracted you to socionics? How did you gain an interest in personality types?

My mom was the first person to type me. She did it with one sentence, which was, "Honey, you have enormous empathetic ability, compassionate, kind, and you love to help people."

LOL I guess that would make me an empath in MBTI

It's easy to tell that I see possibilities and potentials in human beings, and I value individual nature of human kind no matter how catagorical the Socionics or MBTI typing is like.

I became interested in Socionics five years ago and learned to VI from Dr. Volkov (a) LOL; one of the writers in the socionics website. I love her she's very nice.

LSE's, like you said, are very active and productive and usually wouldn't waste their time on an internet forum, but it's nice when you do. It's nice when you can give time to your introverted dual, who usually stay in and write on a forum.

[Words]

My mom was the first person to type me. She did it with one sentence, which was, "Honey, you have enormous empathetic ability, compassionate, kind, and you love to help people."

LOL I guess that would make me an empath in MBTI

It's easy to tell that I see possibilities and potentials in human beings, and I value individual nature of human kind no matter how catagorical the Socionics or MBTI typing is like.

I became interested in Socionics five years ago and learned to VI from Dr. Volkov (a) LOL; one of the writers in the socionics website. I love her she's very nice.

LSE's, like you said, are very active and productive and usually wouldn't waste their time on an internet forum, but it's nice when you do. It's nice when you can give time to your introverted dual, who usually stay in and write on a forum.

Interesting, are you gay?

[Suz]

Oh god you are something else. That's ok; he's a very nice guy. I don't need permission to "get to know" people; I have my subjective gauge and an ability to critically analyze on my own terms.

I wasn't giving you permission. I was telling you that that's what you'll need to do if you want to see his Si, since you obviously dont know him well enough.

[Suz]

My mom was the first person to type me. She did it with one sentence, which was, "Honey, you have enormous empathetic ability, compassionate, kind, and you love to help people."

LOL I guess that would make me an empath in MBTI

It's easy to tell that I see possibilities and potentials in human beings, and I value individual nature of human kind no matter how catagorical the Socionics or MBTI typing is like.

I became interested in Socionics five years ago and learned to VI from Dr. Volkov (a) LOL; one of the writers in the socionics website. I love her she's very nice.

LSE's, like you said, are very active and productive and usually wouldn't waste their time on an internet forum, but it's nice when you do. It's nice when you can give time to your introverted dual, who usually stay in and write on a forum.

Your biggest weaknesses which are keeping you from applying your "education" correctly are:

1. you do not gather enough information to make your typings

2. when you try to gather information in your very incomplete way, you have a lot of trouble keeping an open mind. You've already assumed things about the person and that's what seems to color the info that you receive.

3. you think a little bit too much of the compliments people have given you in the past. Thus, it makes you very cocky and causes you to jump to conclusions (and incorrect typings).