Personal Detachment due to Socionics

[pluie]

Has anyone ever considered this possibility? People meeting someone and sort of taking them apart psychologically, before they even get to know them?

My very close ESI friend, (I'm fairly sure that's her type) just basically said that people like myself, somewehat engulfed in the world of socionc theory, are <b>like that</b> on here. She thinks that I get "too into it".

Any one share this perspective, or sort of lean towards it and push it aside in their mind? I have once or twice. All though, I think of socionics as more of something to be purely<i> interested</i> in, not depended on for interpersonal relationships. If you want to know someone, you should. Correct? Whether or not you have the impression of their "type" should not prevent you from carrying out this endeavor. Yes?

It can be tempting to sway away from the mere use of socionics as a tool, as opposed to something you take to heart and live by.

[Jarno]

yes there's some truth in it. though the respons is typical for an ESI.

they usually don't 'believe' in scientific models of people. They are to sober (narrow) minded for that.

[Creepy-male]

I like picking people apart with socionics.

It's also helped me be a little more self-aware.

Beyond that, it's only helped me filter which people I should actually make an attempt to engage contact with. Normally I'm pretty aloof... but that's no way to dualize!

[redbaron]

you know, I don't shy away from people due to knowledge of their type, but I AM aware of the limitations and realize that a relationship at a close distance will most likely not work out very well. I guess I don't consider myself detached as much as heading into it with realistic expectations. I've had some really nice interactions with my conflictors (I know one male and one female who I have regular contact with). But it doesn't go very deep and it never will. But that's fine! I guess in a way it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy if you do hold yourself back from particular people because of their type. Yet time and time again, socionics has proven accurate when describing interpersonal relations so it doesn't make sense to ignore it completely!

[Mattie]

I've talked about this with other people, but Socionics hasn't changed much how I act with other people. I already had "typing" or observing types of personalities before I knew of any personality theories, and I will naturally log behaviors as I see them and maybe comment in my mind if I don't need to concentrate on talking, and then at a later time when it occurs to me, I will think on what type of person that is. MBTI and Socionics just organized my thoughts in attempt to use one system of terms and associations for when I talk to other people, so I can try to sound as close to objective as I can instead of just saying "Well, I just feel this way!"

[ArchonAlarion]

more like my detachment has caused my interest in socionics.

Human relationships, something that has generally baffled and scared me, can now be explained by clear categorization and a demonstrable system.

That being said, I still think about it wayyyyyy too much, but that's cuz I'm a 6 with a hefty 5 wing and can't stop critically analyzing every consquence/interaction for fear of things spiraling out of control and certainty if I do not.

[Gilly]

more like my detachment has caused my interest in socionics.

lol same...

[xyz]

Socionics, for better or worse, tends to tweak up what weak relationships you goons already have in your lives.

[Brilliand]

more like my detachment has caused my interest in socionics.

Same here.

I think LIIs will do this whether they know Socionics or not. Probably ILEs as well, though I'm not as certain of that.

[DirectorAbbie]

Of course I do this! If I know someone's type, I know whether I should be myself around them, or whether I'll make an enemy by doing so. (All my enemies are one-way, by the way.)

[717495]

Same here.

I think LIIs will do this whether they know Socionics or not. Probably ILEs as well, though I'm not as certain of that.

would be too situational for most ILE to design, but I can see it being implied.

[Satan]

Has anyone ever considered this possibility? People meeting someone and sort of taking them apart psychologically, before they even get to know them?

My very close ESI friend, (I'm fairly sure that's her type) just basically said that people like myself, somewehat engulfed in the world of socionc theory, are <b>like that</b> on here. She thinks that I get "too into it".

Any one share this perspective, or sort of lean towards it and push it aside in their mind? I have once or twice. All though, I think of socionics as more of something to be purely<i> interested</i> in, not depended on for interpersonal relationships. If you want to know someone, you should. Correct? Whether or not you have the impression of their "type" should not prevent you from carrying out this endeavor. Yes?

It can be tempting to sway away from the mere use of socionics as a tool, as opposed to something you take to heart and live by.

just imagine people are naked when you first meet them, and that they're struggling to keep their clothes on.

[CILi]

Same here.

I think LIIs will do this whether they know Socionics or not. Probably ILEs as well, though I'm not as certain of that.

x17 (or whatever we're up to now).

Also (warning: this is pretty dry and boring), Cog-psychologists argue that personality "typing" and trait inferences are straight-up, normal cognitive functions. It's human. Socionics just gives us a well-organized, pseudo-scientific way of dropping people in boxes. Without it, people still do the exact same thing (as did we), though it's much more implicit and unconscious. Socionically-challenged folk don't go around pinpointing SLIs or super-ID functions, but they still compare people and faces they don't know to the exemplars (stored in memory) of those they do know.

Better put, all people categorize people. Some do it better than others. Some get so into it they seek science to better do it. And some get so into it they seek forums just to talk about it.

[Warlord]

I think I have become less detached from people because of socionics, compared to how I used to be.

[717495]

I think I have become less detached from people because of socionics, compared to how I used to be.

Duh, because you're unlike most people, remember? You're an ILI. You have to read a couple hundred pages just to understand how to have a conversation with one person.

[calenwen]

Has anyone ever considered this possibility? People meeting someone and sort of taking them apart psychologically, before they even get to know them?

My very close ESI friend, (I'm fairly sure that's her type) just basically said that people like myself, somewhat engulfed in the world of socionic theory, are like that on here. She thinks that I get "too into it".

Any one share this perspective, or sort of lean towards it and push it aside in their mind? I have once or twice. All though, I think of socionics as more of something to be purely interested in, not depended on for interpersonal relationships. If you want to know someone, you should. Correct? Whether or not you have the impression of their "type" should not prevent you from carrying out this endeavor. Yes?

It can be tempting to sway away from the mere use of socionics as a tool, as opposed to something you take to heart and live by.

I mainly use socionics to explain past/current relationships and not so much to "predict" future ones. Of course, I've been somewhat conditioned, I mean, I would probably never date an Alpha again, haha. But really, I don't recommend basing relationships purely off of socionics or over-analyzing every little behavior. I don't think people are that cut and dry.

yes there's some truth in it. though the respons is typical for an ESI.

they usually don't 'believe' in scientific models of people. They are too sober (narrow) minded for that.

lol

[MasterfulMischief]

People who have something to hide generally don't like being psychoanalyzed. Also, a person with a poor self image would dislike it when people infer anything about them as a person from their behaviour. When someone usually has a problem with psychology and related fields its usually cuz of this imo.

[sigma]

I've been accused of "typing people" of "not throwing myself in" of "being too cautious", "too narrowminded", "jumping to conclusions" and all sort of other things related to my use of socionics theory.
The best success I had so far is related to presenting socionics as describing "the tendency"... and providing information about what "might happen"... I've had more success presenting it as closer to astrology than as closer to science.

As for personal detachment, I view it as awareness. Socionics rises awareness about the dynamic of interpersonal relations. With awareness comes change. You simply cannot behave the same when you know things can go in a certain direction.

For example, I tried some kind of a "just sex" relation with a LSE (my contrary) and I ended up being accused that I treated her like a sex doll. And this happened in spite of being as tender and careful as I could be.

[Park]

People who have something to hide generally don't like being psychoanalyzed. Also, a person with a poor self image would dislike it when people infer anything about them as a person from their behaviour.

Bullshit. I disagree.

[Hitta]

I think the people here have turned socionics into a lifestyle choice and a law of existence rather than a theory of personality.

[DirectorAbbie]

I think the people here have turned socionics into a lifestyle choice and a law of existence rather than a theory of personality.

Lol. Not quite. I've turned it into a law of nature. Gravity makes things fall, and I'm activating an IEE.

[crazedrat]

Except socionics is not complete.. It is like looking to gravity to explain a plane crash

[Hitta]

Except socionics is not complete.. It is like looking to gravity to explain a plane crash

Yup, pretty much.

[jewels]

you know, even with all we know about socionics, it just can't come close to explaining what human connections are really about. That goes much deeper. The reason why you are obsessively drawn to one person and don't even see another isn't alway socionics related. Relationships are just kind of weird and mysterious, but at least socionics gives us one layer of understanding.

I can't explain why some people just grab my attention and I really connect with them and keep them in my life, even when it might contradict all logic (and sometimes socionics). And this is that layer beyond the socionics ideas, which while it does work to explain a lot, there is always something left out.

And though socionics does work and the intertype relations really do matter, it doesn't explain much beyond that. Such as someone just having great energy, or sometimes you don't even know why you just have to be friends with someone or see them again. Sometimes people just have a lesson to teach you, even if it's not something you want to learn.

I do pretty much unconsciously type these days, but it's no different than noticing if someone is left or right handed. It jumps out at me, but it still doesn't say very much about them as a person or what will happen. We can never fully understand people anyway.

[pluie]

yes there's some truth in it. though the respons is typical for an ESI.

they usually don't 'believe' in scientific models of people. They are to sober (narrow) minded for that.

hehehe. this is coming from a dual? hm.
interesting.

i definitely agree by the way

[pluie]

you know, I don't shy away from people due to knowledge of their type, but I AM aware of the limitations and realize that a relationship at a close distance will most likely not work out very well. I guess I don't consider myself detached as much as heading into it with realistic expectations. I've had some really nice interactions with my conflictors (I know one male and one female who I have regular contact with). But it doesn't go very deep and it never will. But that's fine! I guess in a way it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy if you do hold yourself back from particular people because of their type. Yet time and time again, socionics has proven accurate when describing interpersonal relations so it doesn't make sense to ignore it completely!

mmm. conflictors... trouble trouble, but yes. i agree/understand.

makes me sad sometimes... because it's sort of like, you understand WHY and HOW you don't get eachother/connect so well, so perhaps you might think that you can understand them because you understand pretty well how their perspectives are formed... thanks to Socionics... but.. there's still that wall.

at least that's how i see it. it's pretty frustrating when infatuation comes into play.

[pluie]

x17 (or whatever we're up to now).

Also (warning: this is pretty dry and boring), Cog-psychologists argue that personality "typing" and trait inferences are straight-up, normal cognitive functions. It's human. Socionics just gives us a well-organized, pseudo-scientific way of dropping people in boxes. Without it, people still do the exact same thing (as did we), though it's much more implicit and unconscious. Socionically-challenged folk don't go around pinpointing SLIs or super-ID functions, but they still compare people and faces they don't know to the exemplars (stored in memory) of those they do know.

Better put, all people categorize people. Some do it better than others. Some get so into it they seek science to better do it. And some get so into it they seek forums just to talk about it.

ahh! i love this! i love that you SAID this!

i've thought this...very similarly. and the way you worded it is great.

we all have the capability to come to these conclusions, sort of? this "type" perspective, yet, we lack the labels, and therefore the mental organization. but socionics sort of gives us that.

nice. if i'm understanding correctly.

[pluie]

Yeah, I think people do that, but when it comes to actually dealing with real people in real life circumstances, I rarely decipher them through socionics lenses because even though I can usually figure out their type, I still find them to be far more complex as individuals and see them for that. I rarely mix socionics with actual interactions because people are not as predictable as socionics would convince you they are, though people when they are really who they are, they usually show more typical type traits than when they are simply adapting and interacting with the multi-faceted world around them.

i'm jealous.