Your Particular Interest in Socionics

[Logos]

This is not so much a thread about what attracted you to Socionics, but rather what seems to be your particular sub-field of interest within Socionics that you enjoy either learning about or developing? Hitta has the +/- thing going on for him, and TC developed the dual-type theory. Jonathan seems to be snug on misconceptions of Ne vs. Ni (and creativity). And Expat seeks to expand the understanding of the basic 8 functions and 4 Quadras. I know I am generalizing a bit here, but I am trying just to give a basic idea of what I am trying to talk about here. But to give you a more developed idea, I will share mine.

For me the aspect of Socionics which has my attention deals primarily with the behaviors that people exhibit in regards to type, quadra, and function identification. (Why do people personify functions? Does behavior change with a change in type identification? Do type labels affect the perception of the content and individual? etc.) This most likely stemmed as an extension of my interest in political science in the behaviors which people exhibit towards party and issues identification. So while I do have a great deal of interest in expanding my knowledge of the functions, types, and quadras, I also try and be attentive to not just the content of Socionics, but how people talk about it as well as why this may be the case. I think that this is perhaps a neglected aspect of the dynamics of Socionics.

[Ezra]

I like the functions the best. And the 'small groups' (temperaments, clubs etc.). That's what I'm constantly referencing on wikisocion.

Also, as "useless" as they are to the goddamn LIEs (Expat, Joy, Salawa) on here who "sometimes" do them "for fun only" (they make this point so they don't look like Ti lovers ), I love correlations. They are fun, and I derive immense pleasure from categorising everything into a system. I think that's what draws me to any personality system - being able to categorise. I love it. It's not so much what is useful about categorising as it is about my enjoying typing and analysing people. Making everything "make sense". NT; Rational all the way, baby.

[munenori2]

I suppose my interest in learning about socionics has to do with self-growth. I generally think in terms of how capable or valuable each of the interlocking pieces are in fitting into a holistic perspective of the world I see. Even though my understanding is pretty meager, it's served as a good wake-up call in many ways.

[cracka]

I'm not interested in socionics as much as I'm interested in the people that are interested in socionics.

[Ms. Kensington]

I think i am interested in function pairs and how they relate. I am interested in function strength and what that means. I am interested in consciousness away from perception.

[normal]

my interest in socionic follow the same propose of munenori; self-growth. Plus, I like the self-understand concepts because my lack of introvertism in my life played to me very bad consecuence.

[normal]

it's not boring yet

Yes, i have to agree. Still not boring yet.

[aestrivex]

i fail to understand the differentiations that this topic is making between different people's interests in socionics at all.

[Logos]

i fail to understand the differentiations that this topic is making between different people's interests in socionics at all.

My interest in Socionics is due to the fact that it is a cohesive system of relationships through modular functions. But my interest within it also amounts to the dynamics of behavior of type identification and association.

[tcaudilllg]

My interest in Socionics is due to the fact that it is a cohesive system of relationships through modular functions. But my interest within it also amounts to the dynamics of behavior of type identification and association.

Ah, so you're wanting to understand how actual type identification influences the person? Well then, let me ask you this: would you be interested in knowing about how, say, a certain function pairing can create a "might makes right" mentality?

[aestrivex]

My interest in Socionics is due to the fact that it is a cohesive system of relationships through modular functions. But my interest within it also amounts to the dynamics of behavior of type identification and association.

thank you for that completely uninformative definition of socionics. incidentally, you might be interested to learn that i like chocolate chip cookies because they're a type of food.

now can you explain what this topic is?

[UDP]

Hmm good question.

[Logos]

thank you for that completely uninformative definition of socionics. incidentally, you might be interested to learn that i like chocolate chip cookies because they're a type of food.

now can you explain what this topic is?

It is the difference between why you find a subject interesting versus what in the subject is of particular or specialized interest to you. The distinction is subtle, but it is present. TC is not interested in Socionics because of dual-type theory, but he is interested in developing it. Hitta is not interested in +/-, but his interest is in this specialized field.

P.S. Chocolate chip cookies are awesome!

[UDP]

There are a lot of good and intelligent people here. In fact, one of the biggest draws is having such an assortment of people all in one place.

[Logos]

Ah, so you're wanting to understand how actual type identification influences the person? Well then, let me ask you this: would you be interested in knowing about how, say, a certain function pairing can create a "might makes right" mentality?

Yes, but let me explain myself a better in this matter to give you a better idea. Once a person seems to have identified themselves with a type, their axis of perspective begins to revolve around that point of view and it begins to affect their perception of relationships and function-valuing on the board, which coincidentally can shift just as readily if they are convinced otherwise. Let us say that my actual type was LII, but the type that I believed myself to be is an ILI. Would SEEs necessarily respond to what would be in my posts in the same manner than if I had labeled myself as an LII? While those who may know the system well enough would be able to perhaps pick it out, it seems that not everyone would but there would be those who would work under the misconceptions of my ILIness (and perhaps even defend it) despite the overall quality of LIIness. But it also seems that this type-identification works not only on an inward personal identification, but also projectively onto individuals with which the subject may have complicated issues with. It is like when we read all the posts (for example) of "I hate ESIs" or "I hate ESEs" and it seems as if the person's hate is almost misplaced upon a type that becomes an objectification of their anxieties instead of the person who is the perceived as the problem and that the individual is not of the type, but that the type becomes a representative of the individual of conflict.

[aestrivex]

There are a lot of good and intelligent people here. In fact, one of the biggest draws is having such an assortment of people all in one place.

i find half of the people here to be intolerable idiots or intolerable jerks.

[mikemex]

jerks.

Speaking about jerks.

[leckysupport]

I'm not interested in socionics as much as I'm interested in the people that are interested in socionics.

Me too. But lately I've been getting more interested in Socionics.

[Kristiina]

thank you for that completely uninformative definition of socionics. incidentally, you might be interested to learn that i like chocolate chip cookies because they're a type of food.

hahhaaaa This could be the funniest post you've written in a long time!

[snegledmaca]

I see socionics as a subfield of study of informational transmission, a subfield of information technology. Basically, my interest is in defining the relations of information transmission and processing. I am highly intrigued by the idea of an informational metabolism and to be honest can't see how nobody though of it before because it makes so much sense. On my own I have made certain equations and theories regarding information transmission and processing between objects in general, not just living being. The major issue I have is with the structuring on the psyche, the various models. I don't really trust them and rather hope to someday derive such models on the basis of observation of interaction of systems. I'm hoping these will not only be applicable to humans but to all living being. I see great potential of socionics in the field of AI and in the field of search for life. If we could understand how life processes information, what it's unique link to information is I think we could recognize it in shapes we now can't even begin to imagine it existing. So I guess you could say I'm interested in socionics because I have a vision of it's evolution and want to bring it to it's full potential.

[Ezra]

I'm not interested in socionics as much as I'm interested in the people that are interested in socionics.

Good answer.

[normal]

I have to be a bit more honest.

I use socionic to distract me. i dunno why still not boring me but its helps me a lot.

[BLauritson]

For me, it used to just be the types and functions that made me interested in studying it. Nowadays I just play around with concepts in my head (but only "sometimes" and "for fun" of course ) and basically just like to deepen my understanding of types and why they behave how they do. Basically I'm an armchair psychologist who thinks about much of behaviour in terms of Socionics. I think that answers the original question. If it doesn't then I apologise profusely and shall engage in extremely harsh self-flagellation in order to be worthy of begging forgiveness.

[Jarno]

to niffweed
1. To inflate one's own intellectual ego and provide no content for discussion.

100% true

[Ezra]

I use socionic to distract me.

From what?