usefulness of socionics

so.. let me explain my viewpoint first. I've been thinking and come to the conclusion that types obviously don't exist as clear-cut or as idealized in theory, not just because this stuff is not objectively measurable with currently known tools that are considered to be objective in a scientific way, but also because I tend to think that the functions are rather like cognitive skills, and "usage" of a function (usage = you are currently looking at the world from one kind of viewpoint) is partially situational. Sure, we probably have some tendency that's partially inborn to prefer certain functions more, but I guess you also change slowly over time, depending on your experiences and your responses to those experiences, and thus can slowly change emphasis on preferences. And depending on what you learned to do in a certain kind of situation, your response in a specific situation may entirely differ from what your "type" would usually do. You can also develop techniques to respond to certain situations in a better way that would otherwise require your weaker skills. Thus, a normal well balanced person doesn't and shouldn't really fit under one clear-cut type at all. And then at this point the whole concept of types and duality and all that ceases to have much point. Two such people who also match on values outside the ones socionics attempts to explain, should work out together, regardless of their "type". This of course doesn't mean problems can't come up, but if they aren't too big, they can be solved.

So, my question is, why do some people here tend to take some of this theory seriously? Or maybe my impression is incorrect and nobody here actually tries to govern any part of their life based on just a theory, though when I see questions in the forum like "how to recognize my dual" etc. etc., I can't tell how serious that stuff is. I mean, it would rather limit one's viewpoint to look for a "dual" based on a theory.

I guess I just don't see the usefulness of this theory at this point and I'm asking how it helped other people in an objective way.

check out my link to my business website, that is why I take Socionics seriously :p

It is measurable with tools, you just have to know what to look for and how to apply it.

You don't see the "usefulness" of this theory LOL. Ok. Let's see. You can date 1000 people one date at a time to find a match or you can pick the one(s) out without dating them ALL and from those one(s) you can make a decision on which one fits you better (aesthetically).

Oh yes, you can try to figure out what someone really wants from you or know that they are applying pressure, will, on you just by looking at them and say "no, I've had enough, bye" in an instant.

You'll know the sensitive ones from the more gruff ones and the less sensitive and maybe you can be more yourself around one and adjust to being more "reserved" around the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

check out my link to my business website, that is why I take Socionics seriously :p

It is measurable with tools, you just have to know what to look for and how to apply it.

---

exactly what tools do you use to measure then?

i want to reply to this but i'm super tired and i don't know how coherent i'll be.

i don't know how seriously everybody takes it on the whole but even when you don't take it seriously - you see you type this person X and that person Y and it goes according to socionics plan and it becomes "real" to you. look, its working! even when you don't think of it as something to be taken seriously. and so there's sort of a mix of not taking it seriously and taking it seriously that happens. and i think thats what people mean when they talk about it as a virus or whatever. how do you not take something too seriously when you see it everywhere?

something that i think is a big part of this is that for example if you see a happy couple you're probably more likely to type them as duals than as conflictors. so then its confirmed to you. look, theyre duals. and theyre so happy. socionics works! but its all backwards and forwards at the same time.

you create what you see and you see what you create. dun dun dunnnn.

lol i have no idea how much sense this makes. basically its all bullshit but it fucks wif yer head mann.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

exactly what tools do you use to measure then?

---

I use Visual Identification and when I'm not a 100% certain as pictures can be bad sometimes, I apply Jung's Model and look for type related patterns, watch for logical interrelations between what the person says, does, interacts with certain kinds; how they take other's will, how they respond to the display of certain functions; how they respond to my primary functions' information output (as my primary function is my type).

An example:

TeSi type, being Te first, judge the effectiveness, quality, of things that are being performed...they will voice out their opinions on things that work by saying such things as "that works." When they let their suppressed Fi come to the surface, they begin speaking about their hurt emotions surrounding what things past relations did to them that hurt their feelings; they become more empathetic as they have to concentrate less on Te and allow their Fi to "shine through" from their subconscious...that makes them a less driven more balanced person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

So, my question is, why do some people here tend to take some of this theory seriously? Or maybe my impression is incorrect and nobody here actually tries to govern any part of their life based on just a theory, though when I see questions in the forum like "how to recognize my dual" etc. etc., I can't tell how serious that stuff is. I mean, it would rather limit one's viewpoint to look for a "dual" based on a theory.

I guess I just don't see the usefulness of this theory at this point and I'm asking how it helped other people in an objective way.

---

i'm not sure if socionics has helped me in any way. typology* in general has slowly (and unconsciously) propagated a tendency in me towards holding preconceived notions about people, a habit i now consciously try to repress, leading to a certain (deluded) arrogance that you understand people better than others but that's obviously bullshit considering how every person has their own unique habits, quirks, interests, beliefs, likes and dislikes, sense of humour, and while there might be some correlation and overlap of these with types, it's much less jarring to approach people as individuals and understand them for what they are, in my opinion.

in retrospect i can see some interesting parallels with socionics relationships and my own type, but i dislike the idea of holding prejudice towards your opposing quadra or w/e. in a sense though, it has made me aware of my limitations and weaknesses, and that i think is the only positive thing coming out of my personal discovery of socionics, because i constantly work on improving these and if there seems to be conflict with people who roughly correlate with socionics conflictors or superego relationships, it gives me incentive to work on eliminating these differences and to work towards becoming a more well-rounded individual.

i've learned a lot more about myself reading about cognitive biases and defense mechanisms, and complexes, or at least i think i do, and that has a lot more to offer in my opinion than socionics ever could.

* typology meaning enneagram, mbti, socionics, jcf, et al, not jung.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lungs

i want to reply to this but i'm super tired and i don't know how coherent i'll be.

i don't know how seriously everybody takes it on the whole but even when you don't take it seriously - you see you type this person X and that person Y and it goes according to socionics plan and it becomes "real" to you. look, its working! even when you don't think of it as something to be taken seriously. and so there's sort of a mix of not taking it seriously and taking it seriously that happens. and i think thats what people mean when they talk about it as a virus or whatever. how do you not take something too seriously when you see it everywhere?

something that i think is a big part of this is that for example if you see a happy couple you're probably more likely to type them as duals than as conflictors. so then its confirmed to you. look, theyre duals. and theyre so happy. socionics works! but its all backwards and forwards at the same time.

you create what you see and you see what you create. dun dun dunnnn.

lol i have no idea how much sense this makes. basically its all bullshit but it fucks wif yer head mann.

---

I get what you mean, don't worry :)

here's my take on this: none of the things that you described is based on objective measurement so it's rather pointless to rely on it too much.

here's some examples for the above description where it wanders away from being objective is: 1) the idea of clear-cut types is based on a concept that is not proven as existing in reality 2) you do the typings based on your own subjective thinking ("this person seems to be that type") 3) you operate with assumptions taken from theory not yet verified via your own thorough observation (such as "happy couple? oh they must be duals, not conflictors").

btw I did not want to criticize you personally in any way. this was a generic impersonal analysis of the description you gave :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

I use Visual Identification and when I'm not a 100% certain as pictures can be bad sometimes, I apply Jung's Model and look for type related patterns, watch for logical interrelations between what the person says, does, interacts with certain kinds; how they take other's will, how they respond to the display of certain functions; how they respond to my primary functions' information output (as my primary function is my type).

An example:

TeSi type, being Te first, judge the effectiveness, quality, of things that are being performed...they will voice out their opinions on things that work by saying such things as "that works." When they let their suppressed Fi come to the surface, they begin speaking about their hurt emotions surrounding what things past relations did to them that hurt their feelings; they become more empathetic as they have to concentrate less on Te and allow their Fi to "shine through" from their subconscious...that makes them a less driven more balanced person.

---

I'm not going to argue with you about VI. even a theory that's not totally correct can be sometimes applied in a constructive way, I guess. :)

but none of what you said is objective measurement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radio

i'm not sure if socionics has helped me in any way. typology* in general has slowly (and unconsciously) propagated a tendency in me towards holding preconceived notions about people, a habit i now consciously try to repress, leading to a certain (deluded) arrogance that you understand people better than others but that's obviously bullshit considering how every person has their own unique habits, quirks, interests, beliefs, likes and dislikes, sense of humour, and while there might be some correlation and overlap of these with types, it's much less jarring to approach people as individuals and understand them for what they are, in my opinion.

in retrospect i can see some interesting parallels with socionics relationships and my own type, but i dislike the idea of holding prejudice towards your opposing quadra or w/e. in a sense though, it has made me aware of my limitations and weaknesses, and that i think is the only positive thing coming out of my personal discovery of socionics, because i constantly work on improving these and if there seems to be conflict with people who roughly correlate with socionics conflictors or superego relationships, it gives me incentive to work on eliminating these differences and to work towards becoming a more well-rounded individual.

i've learned a lot more about myself reading about cognitive biases and defense mechanisms, and complexes, or at least i think i do, and that has a lot more to offer in my opinion than socionics ever could.

* typology meaning enneagram, mbti, socionics, jcf, et al, not jung.

---

thanks for your opinion. I do agree that stereotypes are bad (which is really what my post was about in short!) and also agree that this assumption in the theory that everyone has weaknesses is useful. and yeah, using more than just one theory is more useful as well.

It is a model by design that could be applied in many ways. There isn't a divine purpose to it. Some have used these tests to create dating sites, others used it to recruit employees. Then there is the fact that socionics includes many concepts that are used in our daily lives, so I think of it as another way to study these concepts further for my own amusement. It all depends on what do you want to achieve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan

It is a model by design that could be applied in many ways. There isn't a divine purpose to it. Some have used these tests to create dating sites, others used it to recruit employees. Then there is the fact that socionics includes many concepts that are used in our daily lives, so I think of it as another way to study these concepts further for my own amusement. It all depends on what do you want to achieve.

---

it's a model yes. but I see it as not a good enough model to totally rely on in these applications. sure, the model itself isn't bad at all, and it could help in certain things, but I disagree with some conclusions that *seem* to be drawn from it by its designers/users:

1. types exist and you are one specific type
2. interactions can be well defined (such as duality)

I would not rely on these ideas. the theory itself could still have some practical use, if the predictions it makes work out more often than random.

For me socionics is best kept to myself, it's not something that i'll be very open about because it's the experience that counts when using socionics. I've always been very cautious not to let socionics be the basis of my life, maybe until i have enough experience then I'll be confident enough to say "Yep it's true alright". Typology in general has helped me learn about myself but most of all has helped me drop a lot of hurt coming from other people- simply because they were just being themselves. But of course there are many other things that can hurt you other than someone hitting your PoLR/ignoring functions and i've gotten a face full of the combination.

Have you tested any of these conclusions? Settle on a type first then ask if it could change. You said that type could change. How often? Frankly? Not important. Start from now. If this moment was all you had in life what type would you be? If you can't choose one type then yes this theory probably won't be of much use to you.

Have you taken any other test before? MBTI?

The second conclusion is highly dependent on the first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BreeZ

For me socionics is best kept to myself, it's not something that i'll be very open about because it's the experience that counts when using socionics. I've always been very cautious not to let socionics be the basis of my life, maybe until i have enough experience then I'll be confident enough to say "Yep it's true alright". Typology in general has helped me learn about myself but most of all has helped me drop a lot of hurt coming from other people- simply because they were just being themselves. But of course there are many other things that can hurt you other than someone hitting your PoLR/ignoring functions (duh) and i've gotten a face full of the combination.

According to socionics my brother is my so called conflictor? and i would probably say it's very accurate. I know it's self-typed and you're right we can make mistakes! just like how i mistakenly thought my brother was my "activator" simply because we had those *good non-conflict moments- fun times*. But i didn't know until one day he told me that he was an ISTp in myers briggs, and i was really skeptical. And it all came to me that he was definitely SLI, my main problem was that i didn't have enough experience with SLE's to type him properly- Or i was just being stupid.

Hmm I still think about socionics a lot, always at the back of my head...i've come to realize that if i don't pay attention enough to people's type i can get myself into some really bad situations.

---

Um, as to your "yep is true alright" -- I already determined for myself that there is no absolute truth and also where the limitations of the model are. So for me this point would never come and that's fine.

I will say, the PoLR concept is what helped me the most too :) I'm not a specific type, sure, but I do seem weakest in a certain function so I call that my PoLR.

I would be careful with that conflictor idea. I'm typed as ILE by most people here, including VI, and my mother is a clear ESI, that is ILE's conflictor, and we hardly ever conflict. so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan

Have you tested any of these conclusions? Settle on a type first then ask if it could change. You said that type could change. How often? Frankly? Not important. Start from now. If this moment was all you had in life what type would you be? If you can't choose one type then yes this theory probably won't be of much use to you.

Have you taken any other test before? MBTI?

The second conclusion is highly dependent on the first.

---

IMO, there is way too many contradictions observable in reality for those two statements to be true "as is". I've listed a few thoughts of mine that make me think this way. it doesn't mean the whole thing is useless, it just means it's not absolute. I didn't say type can change, this is more relative than that :) I said emphasis may change, and even that only slowly. and yepp, second conclusion is dependent on the first one.

I'm ENTP in all the MBTI tests I've ever managed to locate online (like 20-30 tests!). I will not identify with a type, because I will not fit into any type stereotype. I do know which four functions are valued by me though, but even that's meaningless as the so-called unvalued ones can also be valued at times.

edit: ok, not "meaningless", just not absolute is what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

it's a model yes. but I see it as not a good enough model to totally rely on in these applications. sure, the model itself isn't bad at all, and it could help in certain things, but I disagree with some conclusions that *seem* to be drawn from it by its designers/users:

1. types exist and you are one specific type
2. interactions can be well defined (such as duality)

I would not rely on these ideas. the theory itself could still have some practical use, if the predictions it makes work out more often than random.

---

I believe your two points are true, only because I've seen it in my life. But I don't think it should be taken too seriously, because it is vague, and it can't be tested or anything like that. But you are a bit new at it to make definitive conclusions about it one way or the other, IMO. And I still think you don't really understand the theory that well, but it is vague and it takes a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan

Settle on a type first (...) Start from now. If this moment was all you had in life what type would you be? If you can't choose one type (...)

---

btw, do not misunderstand me - if I needed to pick a type in terms of the rules of the theory, yes I can pick one.

I will not identify with the stereotypes for it though... so in that way I cannot choose a type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker

I believe your two points are true, only because I've seen it in my life. But I don't think it should be taken too seriously, because it is vague, and it can't be tested or anything like that. But you are a bit new at it to make definitive conclusions about it one way or the other, IMO. And I still think you don't really understand the theory that well, but it is vague and it takes a while.

---

I'm new to the site, but I've been dealing with the theory since last year on and off. It's not vague at all, it's a theoretical model of reality that still needs improvement and I'm sure there is no disagreement on that or is there?

Most of the intertype relationships in my life do seem to play out as predicted by Socionics, assuming I've typed everyone correctly. There are some exceptions I've noticed, and Socionics type is obviously not the be-all-end-all of relationships.

I think the thing I like most is the explanation of the dual-seeking function, because it helped me to appreciate just how lucky I am to have grown up with the guidance of a healthy dual parent. I feel like a pretty well-rounded person because of the advice my SLE father has given me over the years. I recognize my desire for Se and seek it out to get a boost whenever I'm feeling stuck.

Well I guess I mean the understanding of new people of it is vague, and a year "on and off" makes you new at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

ok, not "meaningless", just not absolute is what I mean.

---

You're trying explaining this in terms of laws, that is, the influence of your past life experiences on modeling/creating your "personality". In other words, in accumulated changes in the quantity reaching a threshold after which additional accumulation results in a dramatic change in quality. That is not going to work at all, for you're actually implying a change in quality resulting in a change of quality all the time which literally means a chemical intervention where you get a new kind of organism completely different from the original one.

Even among people who have been here a long time, we disagree about specifics and disagree about how to type and specific people's types. I think there's a level of vagueness to the whole thing in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PistolShrimp

Most of the intertype relationships in my life do seem to play out as predicted by Socionics, assuming I've typed everyone correctly. There are some exceptions I've noticed, and Socionics type is obviously not the be-all-end-all of relationships.

I think the thing I like most is the explanation of the dual-seeking function, because it helped me to appreciate just how lucky I am to have grown up with the guidance of a healthy dual parent. I feel like a pretty well-rounded person because of the advice my SLE father has given me over the years. I recognize my desire for Se and seek it out to get a boost whenever I'm feeling stuck.

---

er, what does "desire for Se" mean for you? =P

(I was told off here before by other people not to use such vague expressions and I'm curious anyway)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker

Well I guess I mean the understanding of new people of it is vague, and a year "on and off" makes you new at it.

---

fine, ok =P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker

Even among people who have been here a long time, we disagree about specifics and disagree about how to type and specific people's types. I think there's a level of vagueness to the whole thing in general.

---

ya, that's the thing I'm talking about

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurd

You're trying explaining this in terms of laws, that is, the influence of your past life experiences on modeling/creating your "personality". In other words, in accumulated changes in the quantity reaching a threshold after which additional accumulation results in a dramatic change in quality. That is not going to work at all, for you're actually implying a change in quality resulting in a change of quality all the time which literally means a chemical intervention where you get a new kind of organism completely different from the original one.

---

that is actually an interesting philosophical question for me, when does quantity change into quality? =)

please understand I'm not saying I changed types or anything. I only talked about different quantities ("different emphasis").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

that is actually an interesting philosophical question for me, when does quantity change into quality? =)

---

You keep adding a single soldier to each side in a battle, and the accumulated, uniform changes are going to result in dramatic qualitative changes in what occurs on the battlefield. You can even reverse the outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurd

You keep adding a single soldier to each side in a battle, and the accumulated, uniform changes are going to result in dramatic qualitative changes in what occurs on the battlefield. You can even reverse the outcome.

---

I know this, but why or how it changes so suddenly is the question. it's nice to talk about this issue, even though totally off topic here =P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

I know this, but why or how it changes so suddenly is the question. it's nice to talk about this issue, even though totally off topic here =P

---

Everything I said is based on historical facts. While some soldiers are more skilled in large cavalry maneuvers, some are skilled in other, for example. So, if a better soldier, better than his brethren is added to one side, then a a reversal of outcome is not surprising at all. That's how a change in quantity results in change of quality.

What did you think of the link I gave you yesterday? It's unfortunate that the unvalued functions weren't included. I hope you didn't take a wrong impression from that. It's the only thing that bothers me about those descriptions. I would have preferred to know how every function mainfest in each type, even the unvalued ones. It's such a pity because I think the descriptions are really great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurd

Everything I said is based on historical facts. While some soldiers are more skilled in large cavalry maneuvers, some are skilled in other, for example. So, if a better soldier, better than his brethren is added to one side, then a a reversal of outcome is not surprising at all. That's how a change in quantity results in change of quality.

---

oh obviously I meant it on a more general level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan

What did you think of the link I gave you yesterday? It's unfortunate that the unvalued functions weren't included. I hope you didn't take a wrong impression from that. It's the only thing that bothers me about those descriptions. I would have preferred to know how every function mainfest in each type, even the unvalued ones. It's such a pity because I think the descriptions are really great.

---

sorry, could you remind me what link exactly? I read through many... but I guess you mean the one that described valued functions in a pretty cool way, much more detailed than wikisocion (that's the site where I got most of my socionics understanding).

it didn't change my evaluation of which functions are valued for me, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

sorry, could you remind me what link exactly? I read through many... but I guess you mean the one that described valued functions in a pretty cool way, much more detailed than wikisocion (that's the site where I got most of my socionics understanding).

it didn't change my evaluation of which functions are valued for me, though.

---

Yep, that one. You should chech hkkmr's thread when you got time.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...sites?p=848192

This site especially has lots of different descriptions, from different authors. And lots of other silly stuff. Run it on google translate, it's in russian.

http://socionic.ru/index.php/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

oh obviously I meant it on a more general level.

---

You call it subjective but still use objective methods to get what you came for - you take tests. That's pretty funny, but the joke is on you. Anyhow, back to off-topic - another example of quantity changing quality, again, an objective one are colours of the rainbow. After shortening the wavelength of light, you produce a quantitative change which means colour of light changes from red to orange, through yellow, green, blue, indigo ending in violet. That's a change in quality. I'm sure you view colour as being subjective and based on human perceptions, same as with this theory you stated before in this very thread.

As a matter of fact wave length of light is objective, that is, can be measured objectively taking x-rays. Due to the (quantity) wave length, x-rays can penetrate the body. Not all light can do this. The change in what the light itself can actually do, is determined by the length (measurement of a quantity) of the wave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurd

You call it subjective but still use objective methods to get what you came for - you take tests. That's pretty funny, but the joke is on you. Anyhow, back to off-topic - another example of quantity changing quality, again, an objective one are colours of the rainbow. After shortening the wavelength of light, you produce a quantitative change which means colour of light changes from red to orange, through yellow, green, blue, indigo ending in violet. That's a change in quality. I'm sure you view colour as being subjective and based on human perceptions, same as with this theory you stated before in this very thread.

As a matter of fact wave length of light is objective, that is, can be measured objectively taking x-rays. Due to the (quantity) wave length, x-rays can penetrate the body. Not all light can do this. The change in what the light itself can actually do, is determined by the length (measurement of a quantity) of the wave.

---

well I view a lot of things as based on human perceptions, but I accept the scientific methodology as being the most objective we can get, especially if it's combined with a reductionist viewpoint. In psychology, the latter requirement is not as simple to comply with as in other sciences, and that has consequences in my view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan

Yep, that one. You should chech hkkmr's thread when you got time.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...sites?p=848192

This site especially has lots of different descriptions, from different authors. And lots of other silly stuff. Run it on google translate, it's in russian.

http://socionic.ru/index.php/

---

uhm, thanks :) but why are you recommending all this? do you think I'm unsure about my typing?

ps: I don't really have patience to sort through google translated shite :P

Nope. I thought you would want to read more on the subject.

What are you valued functions btw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

well I view a lot of things as based on human perceptions, but I accept the scientific methodology as being the most objective we can get, especially if it's combined with a reductionist viewpoint. In psychology, the latter requirement is not as simple to comply with as in other sciences, and that has consequences in my view.

---

Call it how you want. Scientific, esoteric, magical and so on. As long it works and gets the job done, I don't have a problem with it. I'm mostly interested in things that allow me to learn, measure, or look for tangible information and utility.

As for your type, you're going to argue this ad infinitum. Have fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan

Nope. I thought you would want to read more on the subject.

What are you valued functions btw?

---

I do want to read more, but I don't have that much time for it everyday, so it will take a bit longer than that :) thanks though.

as for functions. Ti > Te, Fe > Fi, Se > Si. but I'm not really up to debating this, I'd view that as a waste of time, unless there is a goal with it. (I sure had a goal with it previously, but no longer.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurd

Call it how you want. Scientific, esoteric, magical and so on. As long it works and gets the job done, I don't have a problem with it. I'm mostly interested in things that allow me to learn, measure, or look for tangible information and utility.

As for your type, you're going to argue this ad infinitum. Have fun.

---

Na, I got bored with it :P

No prob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

Um, as to your "yep is true alright" -- I already determined for myself that there is no absolute truth and also where the limitations of the model are. So for me this point would never come and that's fine.

I will say, the PoLR concept is what helped me the most too :) I'm not a specific type, sure, but I do seem weakest in a certain function so I call that my PoLR.

I would be careful with that conflictor idea. I'm typed as ILE by most people here, including VI, and my mother is a clear ESI, that is ILE's conflictor, and we hardly ever conflict. so...

---

Haha i know conflictor relations when i see one. With my experience of conflictor men and women, they do share similar dynamic with me. Some conflictors are more easier to deal with though, not in the sense that we have actual conflict. Just differing opinions that's all- however with my brother....eh we just don't have that sort of patience for each other and he likes being a jerk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

I'm not going to argue with you about VI. even a theory that's not totally correct can be sometimes applied in a constructive way, I guess. :)

but none of what you said is objective measurement.

---

if by objective you mean something already published in a journal then no; but based on facts, my opinions do not factor into my VI method.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

er, what does "desire for Se" mean for you? =P

(I was told off here before by other people not to use such vague expressions and I'm curious anyway)

---

Se to me is like a splash of cold water in the face; it kind of wakes me up. I spend so much time ruminating and doubting that I can get stuck and need a push to get me to act. I really like it when people help get me going toward a goal and draw my attention toward the outside world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BreeZ

Haha i know conflictor relations when i see one. With my experience of conflictor men and women, they do share similar dynamic with me. Some conflictors are more easier to deal with though, not in the sense that we have actual conflict. Just differing opinions that's all- however with my brother....eh we just don't have that sort of patience for each other and he likes being a jerk.

---

yes we do have some differing opinions with my mother, but we get along great, no patience needed. as for your brother, if you thought the same way before typing him, okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

so.. let me explain my viewpoint first.

---

socionics exists and works pretty accurately and nicely. But you will never understand it or observe it when you use this forum to gain knowledge. This forum only confuses you.

Types are real, why do you think that Jung, MBTI and Socionics discovered that there are 16 distinguishable types among people. But they didn't discover them through a forum, but by observing. oh and...use the 4 dichotomies as a starting point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

socionics exists and works pretty accurately and nicely. But you will never understand it or observe it when you use this forum to gain knowledge. This forum only confuses you.

Types are real, why do you think that Jung, MBTI and Socionics discovered that there are 16 distinguishable types among people. But they didn't discover them through a forum, but by observing. oh and...use the 4 dichotomies as a starting point.

---

if it works so accurately, then why am I typed ILE by people through VI and other means, yet not care to seek physical comfort, thus SEI doesn't work out as my dual? explain this contradiction.

also, why do you fall into the assumption that I first met socionics stuff on this forum? for your information, I didn't.

another thing; certain function definitions differ a lot between jung, mbti, socionics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

so.. let me explain my viewpoint first. I've been thinking and come to the conclusion that types obviously don't exist as clear-cut or as idealized in theory, not just because this stuff is not objectively measurable with currently known tools that are considered to be objective in a scientific way, but also because I tend to think that the functions are rather like cognitive skills, and "usage" of a function (usage = you are currently looking at the world from one kind of viewpoint) is partially situational. Sure, we probably have some tendency that's partially inborn to prefer certain functions more, but I guess you also change slowly over time, depending on your experiences and your responses to those experiences, and thus can slowly change emphasis on preferences. And depending on what you learned to do in a certain kind of situation, your response in a specific situation may entirely differ from what your "type" would usually do. You can also develop techniques to respond to certain situations in a better way that would otherwise require your weaker skills. Thus, a normal well balanced person doesn't and shouldn't really fit under one clear-cut type at all. And then at this point the whole concept of types and duality and all that ceases to have much point. Two such people who also match on values outside the ones socionics attempts to explain, should work out together, regardless of their "type". This of course doesn't mean problems can't come up, but if they aren't too big, they can be solved.

So, my question is, why do some people here tend to take some of this theory seriously? Or maybe my impression is incorrect and nobody here actually tries to govern any part of their life based on just a theory, though when I see questions in the forum like "how to recognize my dual" etc. etc., I can't tell how serious that stuff is. I mean, it would rather limit one's viewpoint to look for a "dual" based on a theory.

I guess I just don't see the usefulness of this theory at this point and I'm asking how it helped other people in an objective way.

---

I think you make a very good point. That what we define as actions that relate to a certain element are things that anyone could learn to do if they wanted. For example if someone really needed to scream at people for their job from some reason and in general be a huge dick and shove people around (a very cliched view of Se) I think that Se PoLRs could learn those skills.

So we come to premise #1: Actions can be learned

Your second premise and your conclusion is where I start to disagree with you

Premise #2: Actions dictate IM elements and function strength.

Conclusion: Socionics isn't worthwhile because it describes things that are not person specific.



I find the connection between someone being able to be emotionally expressive and being ethical as tenuous. I also think that just because someone can reason from a premise to a conclusion and that actually requires Ti to be completely wrong and doesn't necessarily even reveal what functions that person values let alone what functions are in their ego block.

Logic 101 is a class that anyone can take and sure maybe your valued functions dictate how interested you are in the subject or how well you'll do but it's still a class, anyone can learn the things they teach in it. Personally I loved logic because I loved my professor, he was amazing, maybe my valued elements made me uninterested in the course but my interest in him pulled me back in, who knows.

So to use my basic logic 101 skills this is how I would explain my stance on your reasoning and also explain why I think socionics is worthwhile.

So here's your reasoning first.

P1: Actions can be learned
P2: Anyone can learn any action
C1: Anyone can be any type

P1: Anyone can be any type
P2: Socionics doesn't actually classify the distinctions between people
C2: Socionics is worthless

My reasoning against your argument goes like this.

P1: Actions can be learned
P2: Anyone can learn any action
C1: Actions can't be tied to type

My perspective on the value of socionics is this

P1: IM elements dictate preference for action (NOT ABILITY!)
P2: Preference for action is discernible in spite of contradictory actions
C1: Socionic type is discernible

P1: Socionic type is discernible
P2: Two people who have preferences that coincide or are similar will react in a way predetermined by socionics (there are other factors that I'm ignoring here, culture, ethnicity, location, ect.)
C2: Socionics is valuable.


P.S. I still might be logically incorrect in my reasoning but it took me a good 25 minutes to type and re-type and edit those last three logical arguments *chuckles* Specifically I think my "Socionics is valauable & socionics is worthless" conclusions actually require another premise that states the value of socionics in some way but *shrug*.


EDIT: And for all the people who think I have strong Ti because of my ability to reason logically. I'll have you know that 1) I didn't do it right just now and 2) when I was in logic class it took me at least 3 hours to get 20 problems done, I got better over time but *chuckles* My weekends we're so shot in general, still worth it though I really enjoy the lessons I learned despite how fucking difficult it was to learn them.

I take it all back, I'm not insecure at all. About anything. Why would I be? That's a stupid thought. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

k.

Go away now.

Socionics is not something that is immediately practicable. Different techniques, mechanisms and assessment tools are required before the theory of Socionics can be applied in a standardized setting(you might not want this, heh). It is a explanatory study rather than applicable at the moment and once it's an applicable study it will need some ethical oversight. When you're using socionics today, it's based on self-assessment, test assessment, self-determination of what to do or taking advice from someone else about it. However, lack of instruments/mechanism and etc doesn't make it useless as explaining itself is useful.

Socionics can inform you why a seemingly good relationship failed or why a bad relationship might continue on for long past its freshness date, it can explain why romantic love lasts between a couple for 50 years with nary a day apart from each other and how even a few minutes between other people on their first meeting can devolve into bickering conflict.

There is a huge benefit to understanding others and oneself as one can act in a way that would either be beneficial and attractive to others, as well as determine if someone would be beneficial/attractive to oneself. This sort of assessment unfortunately is not standardized or mechanized, so most of us have to dip the wick(pardon moi madams and gents) so to speak before everything can be determined.

Socionics provides a explanatory model for many things, but there is no substitute for dipping the wick, skin on skin contact and face to face interaction. All of which will develop far more fundamental social skills which are necessary for any application of socionic understanding within a personal context.

Anyways, I'm not going to tell you whether or not socionics is true/false since that's generally a philosophical conundrum that's not answerable by me. However, in my opinion; it is a better measurement vs MBTI and a more accurate one. Be very careful trying to use socionics to tackle a problem set greater than its very specifically targets, as results will vary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einstein

Gravity is not responsible for people falling in love.

---

Socionics is not responsible for you falling on your face, but it might explain why you remember that boho art chick you didn't get the number to and is still thinking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWC3

I think you make a very good point. That what we define as actions that relate to a certain element are things that anyone could learn to do if they wanted. For example if someone really needed to scream at people for their job from some reason and in general be a huge dick and shove people around (a very cliched view of Se) I think that Se PoLRs could learn those skills.

---

I liked your concise style.. so I'll try to cut it short myself too:

Typing is based on observations of actions and thinking style and yes these can be learned, but the main issue is more like, preferences are not measured in an objective way, thus type is not easily discernible if it even exists. Note this doesn't mean it absolutely can't be discerned, but it's hard without properly defined tools. (Fwiw, I've yet to see a really good socionics test either.) If this can't be done well, that limits the use of the theory in practice.

(Btw, I didn't say actions dictate function strength, that's mixing up of cause and effect.)

And if we add into this mix that preferences could be relative, that is, emphasis on preferences can change between two people of same "type" (btw, I like the subtype ideas), then this means that clear-cut type doesn't even exist, and predictions made based on this assumption will be even further limited.

The whole point here is, I don't know how well the predictions that are being made actually work out, and that's what determines practical use of a theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

Anyways, I'm not going to tell you whether or not socionics is true/false since that's generally a philosophical conundrum that's not answerable by me. However, in my opinion; it is a better measurement vs MBTI and a more accurate one. Be very careful trying to use socionics to tackle a problem set greater than its very specifically targets, as results will vary.

Socionics is not responsible for you falling on your face, but it might explain why you remember that boho art chick you didn't get the number to and is still thinking about.

---

Explaining past or current events, um that could be done with any false theory... I'm more interested in making actual predictions because that's what actually proves whether a model is any good.

Where's the better measurement tool (as compared to MBTI tests)? Did you refer to VI?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

I liked your concise style.. so I'll try to cut it short myself too:

Typing is based on observations of actions and thinking style and yes these can be learned, but the main issue is more like, preferences are not measured in an objective way, thus type is not easily discernible if it even exists. Note this doesn't mean it absolutely can't be discerned, but it's hard without properly defined tools. (Fwiw, I've yet to see a really good socionics test either.) If this can't be done well, that limits the use of the theory in practice.

(Btw, I didn't say actions dictate function strength, that's mixing up of cause and effect.)

And if we add into this mix that preferences could be relative, that is, emphasis on preferences can change between two people of same "type" (btw, I like the subtype ideas), then this means that clear-cut type doesn't even exist, and predictions made based on this assumption will be even further limited.

The whole point here is, I don't know how well the predictions that are being made actually work out, and that's what determines practical use of a theory.

---

Ah, your right I did mix up cause and effect I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. But to easily explain how I think about it maybe a chart will help. I agree there is no such thing as a solidly defined type or that there are 16 solidly defined types and that everyone fits into them, rather it's a relative measure and people can have preferences that seem more one type than another and over time I just sorta begin to see a dominant preference and just label that as that person's type. So instead of thinking in one dimension were every type represents a single point, I think using multiple dimensions is better were every type can exist anywhere on a certain line or sphere and the sphere/line has a 'sweet spot' where it is super easy to see what type a person is and as they move around on that line or in that sphere it becomes harder to define what type that person is but that doesn't mean they are not a type or that they are multiple types or that their preferences have changed to be indicative of another type.

Well I can't make a chart so maybe I'll be able to use words like a human. (Do not relate the below thoughts to the above thoughts, it will confuse you)

Picture a sphere, on this sphere's surface there are 16 small circles. Inside of the sphere exists some random dude whose type we want to figure out. He does decide where he falls inside that sphere moving three dimension-ally, his movement towards one type or another is based on my perception of his actions and from there what I think his preferences are, but they are still his actions so he has some control over how I perceive him. The only person who then is un-type-able is the person who exists exactly in the center of the sphere because he is equidistant from the inner surface of the sphere and equidistant from every type as they exist only on the surface of the sphere. So instead of saying "This person is type XXXx" when I type some one I'm more saying I think his actions are pointing at this location on the sphere's surface and moving away from this location on the sphere's surface. Where locations equate to types or quadras.

To put it simply it's best to conceptualize behavior in general as existing in three dimensions and the individual's behavior is only perceived in two (though it exists in three).

Or to put it even more simply. It's relative.

You kinda just have to figure out what socionics means to you and use it as an individual. There isn't a good macro use for socionics like we can't objectively type all these random people as SLE and say that all SLEs are good at this certain task, but you can certainly use socionics to categorize the behavior that you see in the world and then make assumptions based on your own personal observations.

The problem is that there is no really good way to communicate observations to another person without them observing and discussing at the same time. So if you come on this forum and a bunch of people agree with you; YAY! you and those people are observing the same phenomena and classifying them in the same way, and everyone else is either looking at something else or putting it someplace else or both.


In short, as an individual socionics can be useful and you can make decisions on it because it's simply your own observations, but more than that is really not too possible.

And then you get people who don't or can't make observations and classify them and those are the people who are hardcore into the theory and try to relate it to reality but fail pretty objectively (everyone thinks they are doing it wrong) these are people like Maritsa, it's not her fault she can't connect the theory to reality, I'm sure if she could she would be classifying things in a way that is much less of a joke. These also can be your very dogmatic individuals (Maritsa when she first came to this forum). People who actually believe the theory exists and for lack of a better word that it's tangible and doesn't need to connect to reality at all.

But even that is relative, I'm describing differing views and essentially comparing Maritsa's understanding to my own, but she could easily be doing it right (objectively) and I could be doing it wrong (objectively) , it's all just my perception which is very subjective.


And while it is my own perspective (and am aware of this) I still think that socionics should only be used or viewed subjectively by the individual.

EDIT: Or rather that's not the only way it should be used, but it's the only useful way to use it.

Hmm. I just noticed you both write a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

Explaining past or current events, um that could be done with any false theory... I'm more interested in making actual predictions because that's what actually proves whether a model is any good.

---

The explanation of Socionics is pretty clear, it's not telling you some magic is making stuff happen, but there are differences in how the brain, body as an metabolism processes information and these differences has an effect on the quality of relationship between people.

Imo, types are predictions from the model, not the other way around in socionics. Types are also observed empirically by other studies, such as Jung and MBTI. So in a sense the conclusions of Jung/MBTI can be derived from socionic's model. Althrough the model of socionics would not be compatible with the J/P terminology of MBTI. There are however no such incompatibilities with Jung's observations.

Go make some predictions then and test them. Experiment and what not. Come to your own conclusions. I'm not here to tell you if socionics is true or not, nothing can tell you that. If you think it's false, might as well discard it now. Good luck with that. :biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

Where's the better measurement tool (as compared to MBTI tests)? Did you refer to VI?

---

When I say measurement I mean measurement and not measurement tool. So it doesn't really matter how you come to socionics typing, if the socionic typing is accurate and the MBTI is accurate then the socionic typing imo is better than the MBTI typing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

The explanation of Socionics is pretty clear, it's not telling you some magic is making stuff happen, but there are differences in how the brain, body as an metabolism processes information and these differences has an effect on the quality of relationship between people.

Imo, types are predictions from the model, not the other way around in socionics. Types are also observed empirically by other studies, such as Jung and MBTI. So in a sense the conclusions of Jung/MBTI can be derived from socionic's model. Althrough the model of socionics would not be compatible with the J/P terminology of MBTI. There are however no such incompatibilities with Jung's observations.

Go make some predictions then and test them. Experiment and what not. Come to your own conclusions. I'm not here to tell you if socionics is true or not, nothing can tell you that. If you think it's false, might as well discard it now. Good luck with that. :biggrin:



When I say measurement I mean measurement and not measurement tool. So it doesn't really matter how you come to socionics typing, if the socionic typing is accurate and the MBTI is accurate then the socionic typing imo is better than the MBTI typing.

---

Essentially I'm saying this but he says it shorter and betterer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurd

Hmm. I just noticed you both write a lot.

---

Y?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWC3

Y?

---

Amazing powers of observation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurd

Amazing powers of observation.

---

Oh... You didn't get my joke? It was just a letter with punctuation and was really short. *sniffles and trudges away*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWC3

Oh... You didn't get my joke? It was just a letter with punctuation and was really short. *sniffles and trudges away*

---

Ehh, I'm terrible at humour, so no surprise there. No worries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurd

Ehh, I'm terrible at humour, so no surprise there. No worries.

---

*chuckles*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWC3

*chuckles*

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjvcs0QGjCA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjvcs0QGjCA

---

Awesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlaA0_z4Rgg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWC3

EDIT: Or rather that's not the only way it should be used, but it's the only useful way to use it.

---

I make such charts all the time in my mind. :) It didn't confuse me.

Now if types are this relative, and due to that there is only a theoretical concept of type, simply because no one is totally equal on each preference, that heavily affects the precision of predictions that can be made by the theory.

The fact you are not even sure if maybe maritsa is the one who is right is telling a lot. So, sure, it can be used subjectively, but I'd put objective reality first. Anyway, maybe not that much, because I'm still sticking around here lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

The explanation of Socionics is pretty clear, it's not telling you some magic is making stuff happen, but there are differences in how the brain, body as an metabolism processes information and these differences has an effect on the quality of relationship between people.

Imo, types are predictions from the model, not the other way around in socionics. Types are also observed empirically by other studies, such as Jung and MBTI. So in a sense the conclusions of Jung/MBTI can be derived from socionic's model. Althrough the model of socionics would not be compatible with the J/P terminology of MBTI. There are however no such incompatibilities with Jung's observations.

Go make some predictions then and test them. Experiment and what not. Come to your own conclusions. I'm not here to tell you if socionics is true or not, nothing can tell you that. If you think it's false, might as well discard it now. Good luck with that. :biggrin:



When I say measurement I mean measurement and not measurement tool. So it doesn't really matter how you come to socionics typing, if the socionic typing is accurate and the MBTI is accurate then the socionic typing imo is better than the MBTI typing.

---

I agree with your first sentence... and you know, I'm still interested in that playing around you mentioned to me earlier on the chat :)

If types are predictions from the model (btw I see your point of view and it's cool), then some parts of the ILE prediction fail for me. :P

I've done some predictions and some worked some didn't. I mentioned already that I saw contradictions.

I'm not saying it's all false. Maybe it all could be improved further in a direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

I agree with your first sentence... and you know, I'm still interested in that playing around you mentioned to me earlier on the chat :)

If types are predictions from the model (btw I see your point of view and it's cool), then some parts of the ILE prediction fail for me. :P

I've done some predictions and some worked some didn't. I mentioned already that I saw contradictions.

I'm not saying it's all false. Maybe it all could be improved further in a direction.

---

It predicts that there are people that think like ILE's, the descriptions are observations of how people who seem to think like ILE's act. So it's normative to the model but I wouldn't say any failure in these descriptions contradicts the model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(philosophy)

For some reference on what I mean. I think often in this study, people take the descriptions and see them as problems of the model, when the descriptions are normative propositions and may not contain any true/false value(depending on one's interpretation of norm/normative of course).

The problems of the model are just there is insufficient evidence for either general acceptance or rejection, I would like to reformulate socionics based on falsifiable propositions(this would be a imo important step to turning this into a science). Even if I can get it mostly there, it would be a big step.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

I make such charts all the time in my mind. :) It didn't confuse me.

Now if types are this relative, and due to that there is only a theoretical concept of type, simply because no one is totally equal on each preference, that heavily affects the precision of predictions that can be made by the theory.

The fact you are not even sure if maybe maritsa is the one who is right is telling a lot. So, sure, it can be used subjectively, but I'd put objective reality first. Anyway, maybe not that much, because I'm still sticking around here lol.

---

I'm sorry I kind of got on a subjectivity tangent. There is some objective classification to socionics just not as much as most people like to think, enough to come to similar conclusions with other people who think about it in the same way though. And even sometime with people who don't think about it the same way.

Like since Niff essentially taught me socionics I basically am programed to think that all the ashtonians are not quite right about socionics but you'd be surprised how often I reach a conclusion that is very similar to theirs and with similar reasoning.

Side Note: Ashtonions hate the shit out of Niff cause they think he is a tottal idiot, Niff thinks about the same of the Ashtonions.

Also,

I was just being diplomatic. I didn't want to hurt maritsa's feelings by calling her stupid, but yeah... She's dumb and doin' it so very wrong.

This whole conversation is frustrating to me because you make a few huge assumptions that you take as absolute fact, and then based on those dismiss everything else without considering that you might be wrong about the first two assumptions you make and take as absolute fact.

Assumption 1: You are ILE. Did you say this is based on VI, and therefore must be true? I hope I misunderstood that and I think I very well might have.

Assumption 2: If you are ILE, or even if you aren't, you assume you understand, recognize, and correctly identify SEIs. Or any other types, for that matter.

Based on those two assumptions and your feeling that you don't get along with those people you assume are SEIs, you assume Socionics can't predict relationships.

Other possibilities include:

You are not ILE
You are mistaking SEIs with another type and have mistyped those people (including a parent, right?) you assume are SEIs.

This way of thinking, that you have to be right about a couple of things you could be wrong about, and that based on those couple of things you dismiss something you don't know a whole lot about, makes no sense to me.

It's very useful. When I have an argument with somebody, I know they are my conflictor. The next day when we make up and have make up sex, I know they are my dual. You see, life is built around socionics; without it human interaction would be impossible.

Thank you, socionics, for you have solved all problems that exist within human interaction. My life is complete now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

It predicts that there are people that think like ILE's, the descriptions are observations of how people who seem to think like ILE's act. So it's normative to the model but I wouldn't say any failure in these descriptions contradicts the model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(philosophy)

For some reference on what I mean. I think often in this study, people take the descriptions and see them as problems of the model, when the descriptions are normative propositions and may not contain any true/false value(depending on one's interpretation of norm/normative of course).

The problems of the model are just there is insufficient evidence for either general acceptance or rejection, I would like to reformulate socionics based on falsifiable propositions(this would be a imo important step to turning this into a science). Even if I can get it mostly there, it would be a big step.

---

the contradictions are more to do with the subjectiveness.

your last few sentences is why I said I'm interested in your work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerorobyn

It's very useful. When I have an argument with somebody, I know they are my conflictor. The next day when we make up and have make up sex, I know they are my dual. You see, life is built around socionics; without it human interaction would be impossible.

Thank you, socionics, for you have solved all problems that exist within human interaction. My life is complete now.

---

LOL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWC3

I'm sorry I kind of got on a subjectivity tangent. There is some objective classification to socionics just not as much as most people like to think, enough to come to similar conclusions with other people who think about it in the same way though. And even sometime with people who don't think about it the same way.

Like since Niff essentially taught me socionics I basically am programed to think that all the ashtonians are not quite right about socionics but you'd be surprised how often I reach a conclusion that is very similar to theirs and with similar reasoning.

Side Note: Ashtonions hate the shit out of Niff cause they think he is a tottal idiot, Niff thinks about the same of the Ashtonions.

Also,

I was just being diplomatic. I didn't want to hurt maritsa's feelings by calling her stupid, but yeah... She's dumb and doin' it so very wrong.

---

I guess we are on the same page in a few things. =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker

This whole conversation is frustrating to me because you make a few huge assumptions that you take as absolute fact, and then based on those dismiss everything else without considering that you might be wrong about the first two assumptions you make and take as absolute fact.

Assumption 1: You are ILE. Did you say this is based on VI, and therefore must be true? I hope I misunderstood that and I think I very well might have.

Assumption 2: If you are ILE, or even if you aren't, you assume you understand, recognize, and correctly identify SEIs. Or any other types, for that matter.

Based on those two assumptions and your feeling that you don't get along with those people you assume are SEIs, you assume Socionics can't predict relationships.

Other possibilities include:

You are not ILE
You are mistaking SEIs with another type and have mistyped those people (including a parent, right?) you assume are SEIs.

This way of thinking, that you have to be right about a couple of things you could be wrong about, and that based on those couple of things you dismiss something you don't know a whole lot about, makes no sense to me.

---

I don't take anything as absolute facts.

I did not say I'm ILE, it's just what most people typed me as. VI and other means.

I did not try to identify any SEI, but the SEI descriptions weren't really the things I'd imagine for my dual.

My parents are not SEIs btw.

My issue is none of the above. I explained about it more in other posts.

Btw, it's way too easy to "argue" that the other party doesn't know "enough" about a topic that's not even objective enough, which is my complaint.

People often don't expect they'd be attracted to their dual. I wouldn't make any assumptions based on that either.

You could be ILE. You might not be. I'd just keep your mind very open at this point, and just keep reading and talking to people here.

I don't think Socionics predicts relationships perfectly, but I think it does generally. Like if you're never getting along with duals, or always getting along with conflictors, someone is probably mistyped, but people might very well get along with some conflictors or not get along with some duals.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...atar308_26.gif

i like how you visualize types on a graph JWC3. i pictured that the points would be the IM elements instead along with a 3d representation of a scatter plot (if that makes any sense) . Almost like a messed up universe where in one part of the universe (point) there would be more dark matter/energy - hence more concentration of galaxies/visible matter to that area- indicating the strength/usage the particular IM element. Or if that didn't work, a spiky sphere would be the closest thing to what i imagine. Everything i just wrote could be completely nonsense but i don't know how else to translate what i visualize in words lol.

It was funny reading seeing the logic 101 in your post, a week ago i saw the same thing in my astronomy textbook.

Which was a greater waste of time: this thread, or my response to it?

*ponders*

It's like a group of people inherited a huge house, and instead of sharing its many spacious rooms they instead decided to fuss and pine over who gets a small closet in the utility room.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BreeZ

i like how you visualize types on a graph JWC3. i pictured that the points would be the IM elements instead along with a 3d representation of a scatter plot (if that makes any sense) . Almost like a messed up universe where in one part of the universe (point) there would be more dark matter/energy - hence more concentration of galaxies/visible matter to that area- indicating the strength/usage the particular IM element. Or if that didn't work, a spiky sphere would be the closest thing to what i imagine. Everything i just wrote could be completely nonsense but i don't know how else to translate what i visualize in words lol.

It was funny reading seeing the logic 101 in your post, a week ago i saw the same thing in my astronomy textbook.

---

*chuckles* Thanks =D Your astronomy book had logic in it?

Also, for me at least It's fairly difficult to translate my thoughts into pictures because I don't think in pictures so when I try to write things like that post I kinda have to try to make it up as I go along and then go back and edit it until it makes sense with the concepts and ideas that I'm already thinking about and it ends up being very verbose because it takes so many words to paint the picture correctly. I do know of people who do think in pictures though, one of my roommates/best friends is one and he's pretty awesome, actually it might explain why he is the best physical comedy actor I know.

Ya it was kind of surprising, the sub-section was called "Logic and Science". It tells moi that there are 2 types of logical arguments - deductive and inductive.

Deductive: Premise: 1) All planets orbit the Sun in ellipses with the Sun at one focus 2) Earth is a planet. Conclusion: Earth orbits sun as ellipse with sun at one focus
Inductive: Premise:1) Birds fly up into the air but eventually come back down 2) Rocks thrown in air comes back down 3) Ball thrown in air comes back down. Conclusion: What goes up must come down

I was very captivated by this section, even though i was suppose to cram for exam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker

People often don't expect they'd be attracted to their dual. I wouldn't make any assumptions based on that either.

You could be ILE. You might not be. I'd just keep your mind very open at this point, and just keep reading and talking to people here.

I don't think Socionics predicts relationships perfectly, but I think it does generally. Like if you're never getting along with duals, or always getting along with conflictors, someone is probably mistyped, but people might very well get along with some conflictors or not get along with some duals.

---

yes, I know that one might have a hard time noticing their dual. I'm keeping my attitude open yeah :)

I agree, it's good to not expect anything absolute from the theory when applying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

Which was a greater waste of time: this thread, or my response to it?

*ponders*

It's like a group of people inherited a huge house, and instead of sharing its many spacious rooms they instead decided to fuss and pine over who gets a small closet in the utility room.

---

as long as you enjoyed it, it wasn't a total waste of time..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWC3

*chuckles* Thanks =D Your astronomy book had logic in it?

Also, for me at least It's fairly difficult to translate my thoughts into pictures because I don't think in pictures so when I try to write things like that post I kinda have to try to make it up as I go along and then go back and edit it until it makes sense with the concepts and ideas that I'm already thinking about and it ends up being very verbose because it takes so many words to paint the picture correctly. I do know of people who do think in pictures though, one of my roommates/best friends is one and he's pretty awesome, actually it might explain why he is the best physical comedy actor I know.

---

I also don't think in pictures but then sometimes visualizing some logic suddenly helps a lot. so I like it when others try to describe stuff in this way :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

Which was a greater waste of time: this thread, or my response to it?

*ponders*

It's like a group of people inherited a huge house, and instead of sharing its many spacious rooms they instead decided to fuss and pine over who gets a small closet in the utility room.

---

You should ask why he/she even considered something to be a waste of time; what a judgement call, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BreeZ

Ya it was kind of surprising, the sub-section was called "Logic and Science". It tells moi that there are 2 types of logical arguments - deductive and inductive.

Deductive: Premise: 1) All planets orbit the Sun in ellipses with the Sun at one focus 2) Earth is a planet. Conclusion: Earth orbits sun as ellipse with sun at one focus
Inductive: Premise:1) Birds fly up into the air but eventually come back down 2) Rocks thrown in air comes back down 3) Ball thrown in air comes back down. Conclusion: What goes up must come down

I was very captivated by this section, even though i was suppose to cram for exam

---

OH yeah dude, that stuff is so amazing! You should really try to get into a logic 101 class, it's so much fun! I mean I know a lot of people who would say I'm an idiot for saying this but I don't care, logic is fucking cool. You should look up logical fallacies, those were some of my favorite bits. Fuck it I'll do it. It's this link.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

if it works so accurately, then why am I typed ILE by people through VI and other means, yet not care to seek physical comfort, thus SEI doesn't work out as my dual? explain this contradiction.

also, why do you fall into the assumption that I first met socionics stuff on this forum? for your information, I didn't.

another thing; certain function definitions differ a lot between jung, mbti, socionics.

---

mbti functions don't count. they use another formula to convert from dichotomies to functions. the wrong formula. so you get crazy shit that doesn't make sense. Socionics is most accurate.

You can't feel your functions, the dual seeking function is called like this because 'it lights up', so to say, when you are with your dual at close psychological distance.

For the rest it's impossible to notice this function as being part of you. people who say they can, are talking out of their ass. The first 2 functions (ego block) and the 4 dichotomies can be observed in others and somewhat yourself. The other functions are hard or impossible to observe, but you can deduct them by looking how your relationships go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

mbti functions don't count. they use another formula to convert from dichotomies to functions. the wrong formula. so you get crazy shit that doesn't make sense. Socionics is most accurate.

You can't feel your functions, the dual seeking function is called like this because 'it lights up', so to say, when you are with your dual at close psychological distance.

For the rest it's impossible to notice this function as being part of you. people who say they can, are talking out of their ass. The first 2 functions (ego block) and the 4 dichotomies can be observed in others and somewhat yourself. The other functions are hard or impossible to observe, but you can deduct them by looking how your relationships go.

---

thanks, this does make some sense.

just one thing; what 4 dichotomies are you referring to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWC3

OH yeah dude, that stuff is so amazing! You should really try to get into a logic 101 class, it's so much fun! I mean I know a lot of people who would say I'm an idiot for saying this but I don't care, logic is fucking cool. You should look up logical fallacies, those were some of my favorite bits. Fuck it I'll do it. It's this link.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

---

Why thankyou! I will definitely take a look at this in the future and abuse it mwuhaha!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BreeZ

Why thankyou! I will definitely take a look at this in the future and abuse it mwuhaha!

---

*chuckles* There was like a week where I just walked about being that asshole who points out the holes in everyone's reasoning. It was rather fun, but my best friend got rather sick of me saying every argument he makes is Ad Hominem. (In my defense I was an asshole to him, but I was right.)

A word of warning though, being able to point out these holes doesn't mean they go away, actually pointing them out often leads people to make more and worse logical fallacies or to cling to the ones they are making even more, so watch that.

@JWC3
There used to be a site that went into not only how the fallacies were fallacies, but also gave ways of moving past the fallacy. Such as if someone brings in a red herring, say something like "what does [insert their red herring] have to do with [current point/argument]?" or if they do a strawman, saying something like "i wasn't arguing [insert strawman], I was arguing [point]." (These were poor examples from my poor memory of the details.)

Unfortunately, the link is on an older pc which i cant access now :(

Also, regarding the astrology and logic thing, I used to have a book titled "Thinking Critically About New Age Ideas". It actually helped me get a grasp of some of the common errors involved in New Age writings, while not being anti-new age ideas. I found its presentation better than the extreme skeptic presentations, because it wasn't completely against new age ideas...it just helped encourage the reader to put more thought into what they read from new age writings.

And finally, regarding the fun of learning about logic, I really enjoyed learning about symbolic logic. Unfortunately, i didnt get past sentential logic due to getting distracted by other interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

@JWC3
There used to be a site that went into not only how the fallacies were fallacies, but also gave ways of moving past the fallacy. Such as if someone brings in a red herring, say something like "what does [insert their red herring] have to do with [current point/argument]?" or if they do a strawman, saying something like "i wasn't arguing [insert strawman], I was arguing [point]." (These were poor examples from my poor memory of the details.)

Unfortunately, the link is on an older pc which i cant access now :(

Also, regarding the astrology and logic thing, I used to have a book titled "Thinking Critically About New Age Ideas". It actually helped me get a grasp of some of the common errors involved in New Age writings, while not being anti-new age ideas. I found its presentation better than the extreme skeptic presentations, because it wasn't completely against new age ideas...it just helped encourage the reader to put more thought into what they read from new age writings.

And finally, regarding the fun of learning about logic, I really enjoyed learning about symbolic logic. Unfortunately, i didnt get past sentential logic due to getting distracted by other interests.

---

That sounds like an awesome website! I'll have to search for it later when I'm done with theater stuff tonight. What's the difference between symbolic logic and sentential logic though? I haven't heard of logic being segmented though the thought doesn't surprise me it's just something I had no idea existed :S

@JWC3
the second half of the book went into predicate logic.
I used an earlier edition of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-...5390383&sr=1-3

I've since learned that modal logic combined w symbolic logic is what I, personally, prefer.
Er...as opposed to other criticl thinking and analyzing books I've read.

Ok i know i've mixed up the 2 before (quite frankly for the first 2 months of the semester), but Astrology and Astronomy are 2 different things :C! Astrology is all superstitous crap, chance stuff- Astronomy is legit and uses simple models to explain our universe. Hohohoho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

thanks, this does make some sense.

just one thing; what 4 dichotomies are you referring to?

---

introtim/extratim, sensing/intuition, logic/ethics, rational/irrational

once you spot somebody using one side of a dichotomie, you'll notice that he's always on that side. It's really basic, most easy to spot, and therefor good for observing, and you automatically get a good example of what that dichotomy is all about, since you can learn it from that person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

introtim/extratim, sensing/intuition, logic/ethics, rational/irrational

once you spot somebody using one side of a dichotomie, you'll notice that he's always on that side. It's really basic, most easy to spot, and therefor good for observing, and you automatically get a good example of what that dichotomy is all about, since you can learn it from that person.

---

I do that, then I notice that they switch sides at times, but yeah more stable-ish than functions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BreeZ

Ok i know i've mixed up the 2 before (quite frankly for the first 2 months of the semester), but Astrology and Astronomy are 2 different things :C! Astrology is all superstitous crap, chance stuff- Astronomy is legit and uses simple models to explain our universe. Hohohoho

---

Roflmao...:doh:
Thanks to your post here, I went back over that part of the conver and realized that i had glossed over the term and was focusing on the seeming surprise over an Astro**** book having a section on logic and science. :8* a kinda dumb mistake from me, considering I'd spent time in my past learning about both...(though at different time frames, and many many moons ago).

Thanks for letting me know my error. :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Roflmao...:doh:
Thanks to your post here, I went back over that part of the conver and realized that i had glossed over the term and was focusing on the seeming surprise over an Astro**** book having a section on logic and science. :8* a kinda dumb mistake from me, considering I'd spent time in my past learning about both...(though at different time frames, and many many moons ago).

Thanks for letting me know my error. :oops:

---

=D, i should pat myself on the back since i've reminded myself way too many times on that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

so.. let me explain my viewpoint first. I've been thinking and come to the conclusion that types obviously don't exist as clear-cut or as idealized in theory, not just because this stuff is not objectively measurable with currently known tools that are considered to be objective in a scientific way,

---

Runaway Te anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

Runaway Te anyone?

---

oh heh I recall you typed me as SLI via your VI method. but why did you bring up this topic now? are you trying to verify my typing or something?

by the way, there was more to my post than just the little part you quoted, but yes that part is certainly important too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

so.. let me explain my viewpoint first. I've been thinking and come to the conclusion that types obviously don't exist as clear-cut or as idealized in theory, not just because this stuff is not objectively measurable with currently known tools that are considered to be objective in a scientific way, but also because I tend to think that the functions are rather like cognitive skills, and "usage" of a function (usage = you are currently looking at the world from one kind of viewpoint) is partially situational. Sure, we probably have some tendency that's partially inborn to prefer certain functions more, but I guess you also change slowly over time, depending on your experiences and your responses to those experiences, and thus can slowly change emphasis on preferences. And depending on what you learned to do in a certain kind of situation, your response in a specific situation may entirely differ from what your "type" would usually do. You can also develop techniques to respond to certain situations in a better way that would otherwise require your weaker skills. Thus, a normal well balanced person doesn't and shouldn't really fit under one clear-cut type at all. And then at this point the whole concept of types and duality and all that ceases to have much point. Two such people who also match on values outside the ones socionics attempts to explain, should work out together, regardless of their "type". This of course doesn't mean problems can't come up, but if they aren't too big, they can be solved.

So, my question is, why do some people here tend to take some of this theory seriously? Or maybe my impression is incorrect and nobody here actually tries to govern any part of their life based on just a theory, though when I see questions in the forum like "how to recognize my dual" etc. etc., I can't tell how serious that stuff is. I mean, it would rather limit one's viewpoint to look for a "dual" based on a theory.

I guess I just don't see the usefulness of this theory at this point and I'm asking how it helped other people in an objective way.

---

Your reliance on trial-and-error experience to determine your beliefs and interpretation of concepts indicates an orientation toward Te, but the primacy of your Si function is manifested by your reliance on what you "experience" (see, hear, touch, etc.) over what you THINK about those things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

Your reliance on trial-and-error experience to determine your beliefs and interpretation of concepts indicates an orientation toward Te, but the primacy of your Si function is manifested by your reliance on what you "experience" (see, hear, touch, etc.) over what you THINK about those things.

---

but of course experience of reality > theory for everyone, or they would be madmen. I mean, I doubt you need to have "leading Si" for that. maybe you mean that some people don't consciously notice it that they shape their theory to their experiences...? also, how does the sense of touch have anything to do with beliefs and concepts lol.

btw, nothing in my post indicates trial-and-error experience (regardless of defining it as "Te" or not). the post I wrote I got from putting together stuff I've seen here and there over time. it was no conscious trial-and-error experimenting, I just let stuff (=experiences) accumulate and then at one point I decided to think about it and I made an explanatory summary of it all then.

(edit: thinking more about this though, yes I can sometimes assume trial-and-error attitude when problem solving. but then that's about problem solving, not theorizing. even then I much prefer to have a proper understanding... most cool is when I already understand something so well that I work out the solution to the problem without random trials in the process; of course still test the correctness of the result if applicable...)

also, it would really hurt Absurd's feelings if you declared me a Si/Te type. please don't insult him by assuming I'm in his quadra, and more than that, almost his identical. :shock: