I was wondering if we could standardize it a bit more.
Printable View
I was wondering if we could standardize it a bit more.
i use several in my signature.
what i dislike is the use of those symbols on the left. i have to translate in my mind which takes more energy. i like the Ne/Fi/Se whatever better since it's a quicker understanding.
Why should we standardize it? What would that accomplish?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
I'm always looking from the viewpoint of someone new to socionics.
It would be helpful if he didn't have to look up who Don quichotte is, what a NeTi is etc.
Just one abbrevation for a type. I guess I like simplicity. :)
It's like keirsey uses Probing, Jung uses Irrational, MBTI uses Perceiving, al these different names don't make it more fun to start learning about it.
seems that NeTi is going for the first place.
nice.
I'm to the point where I read them all the same and don't really have to figure to switch between them. They's interchangable. The only ones that bug me are the nicknames because I honestly don't have any idea who most of those people are so they're meaningless to me (and aren't in my brains autoconvert function)
Anyways... yeah I think standardizing would be a good thing for the new people but I don't see it happening. It's been tried before and we just ended up creating another new way to do it to add to the mix :P
If by some amazing act of God we were to all start using the exact same way I'd want to go with the three letter codes or the two symbol ones. They've got the most "style" IMO
The styles I don't like are MBTI, name, and celebrity (the worst). The one I like best is Information. The one I generally use is apparently SG? :o :? Perhaps I should stop...
Actually, another way I've referred to types is by quadra, which dual pair (rational or irrational), and which half of the dual pair (introvert or extrovert) which reads like "Gamma irrational extrovert".
Yay! Joys come up with another way to name the types... get ready to get confused noob's! :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Joy
on a side note I take offense to your whole "people are incomplete unless they're in duality" thing... not that you care. People are full and complete by themselves.
Same. I guess if we were to standardize things, the three-letter acronyms (ESI, IEI, LSE, etc.) would be the way to go. If for no other reason than, it's the shortest to type out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
I like SG's style personally, although that's just because I'm an MBTI convert and so it gives me both an easy way to identify the type, and a way to tell that the person's actually referring to a Socionics type and not MBTI. Otherwise, the only ones I dislike are the celebrity and name style ones, since they're too obscure unless you know the links well enough.
The symbols rule! :)
They work for all languages and paradigms.
http://wikisocion.org/en/images/9/9f/BgpicEarth.jpg
That, Joy, is a horrible idea (and a terrific case for weak logic) :lol: That would cause nothing but confusion, and it's entirely too time consuming to even bother typing or reading :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
I use the Socionics anagrams. Easy, short, simple...
It would eliminate some confusion, and I'd like to see us all using official names; most people use SG's anagrams, which are just an uber-lazy way of not using the MBTI ones. We need to be practicing Socionics, not Ganinonics.
hahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Expat
.
I guess by bombarding people with loads of new and often interchangeable terminology, we simply reinforce the integral type of socionics and make sure a lot of people stay away who probably shouldn't get involved in it anyway.
I suppose that is one advantage to that system, but since English-language socionics is very heavily internet-based, the symbols are a real pain in the ass - they have to be stored as images, and the images have to be inserted using certain image names, which requires another naming system anyway. I like the MBTI codes because they are concise (3 vs. 4 letters is not a big difference), and they can do everything the three-letter codes can, and more. Which is easier (to type or say): introverted irrational or IP? Dismissing it because it comes from the MBTI is silly, and is the only possible argument in favor of the three-letter codes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Herzy
i actually dig the celebrity style the most, but i agree with those who think the symbol format isn't a bad idea.
Ricks probablly got a good point. In making it initially confusing we are probablly weeding out some annoying people :P
Haha yeah funnily enough i agree. Huxley and Gaben etc its damn cute. Although i do see it as detrimental. I think any names for things make people think things they shouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by implied
I dont like the 3 letters. IEE, ILE etc. Funnily enough i still have to say them out loud to remember what they are sometimes.
I like ENTp or NeTi
A conversation would get pretty annoying with pictures. I met an :Se: :Ti: last week and he was kissing a :Ni: :Fe: and then we all went out and met a :Te: :Si: etc
I like the way you think, and am also pro-standardization for the simple sake of efficiency. Yes, it makes things easier for newcomers. But regardless of how long one has worked with the theory, the manifold ways in which a type can be expressed in practice is just plain messy, i.e., messier than ideal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
(As a personal side note - ahh, it would be so nice to write like an ISTp. :D To be able to keep it short and sweet ... !)
btw, I don't like the symbols. For example, the I/E shadings are counterintuitive. F should be full plus signs. Such changes would help maximize unconscious intuition with respect to ... umm, universal standardization of symbols within the human psyche. But it's too late to change the system now, obviously, as that would create a lot of headaches for those who are used to the current method. Who created it anyway? Ms. Au`?