New Book on Socionics Available

[Socionics Institute]

We apologize before the respected community. We are of a Russian decent, and we happened to speak Socionics long before we spoke English. We never published anything in Russian. This book is an experiment, so we appreciate your comments. We've been studying socionics for 14 years now. We used to teach Socionics in Vladivostok, Russia. It is far away from Kiev and Moscow, so we are not well known there. The approach that we offer is not set in stone. We are open for discussion, as long as it's done in an intelligent manner. We don't think it's fare to call people charlatans just because the cover of their book looks like Dianetics.

Thank you for noticing our book.

[olduser]

in the united states book covers mean a lot more. Thanks for trashing my culture.

[Socionics Institute]

in the united states book covers mean a lot more. Thanks for trashing my culture.

Just read inside the cover. You shouldn't feel as trashed.

[Jarno]

I'll be buying the book within 2 weeks.
Then write a short review of it in this topic.

Some people are probably a bit tense about it (me included), because it's the first book introduction in the west and the first impression is important.

[machintruc]

We apologize before the respected community. We are of a Russian decent, and we happened to speak Socionics long before we spoke English. We never published anything in Russian. This book is an experiment, so we appreciate your comments. We've been studying socionics for 14 years now. We used to teach Socionics in Vladivostok, Russia. It is far away from Kiev and Moscow, so we are not well known there. The approach that we offer is not set in stone. We are open for discussion, as long as it's done in an intelligent manner. We don't think it's fare to call people charlatans just because the cover of their book looks like Dianetics.

Thank you for noticing our book.

Actually, there are lots of bogus socionic groups in Russia.

You should read this : http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/0...nics-cult.html

You can be sure I'll NEVER be buying that book.

For the same reason, Catholic Church forbids reading some translations of the Bible, because those translations are bogus and may endanger the Faith.

You should read on the several schools of socionics : Classical socionics, Systemic socionics, Humanitarian socionics, etc. You'll see there are multiple versions of socionics. Compare those with each other.

[tcaudilllg]

For the same reason, Catholic Church forbids reading some translations of the Bible, because those translations are bogus and may endanger the Faith.

Ohhhh GNo$i5 ph33r.

But that's not the point of this thread.

[machintruc]

We apologize before the respected community. We are of a Russian decent, and we happened to speak Socionics long before we spoke English. We never published anything in Russian. This book is an experiment, so we appreciate your comments. We've been studying socionics for 14 years now. We used to teach Socionics in Vladivostok, Russia. It is far away from Kiev and Moscow, so we are not well known there. The approach that we offer is not set in stone. We are open for discussion, as long as it's done in an intelligent manner. We don't think it's fare to call people charlatans just because the cover of their book looks like Dianetics.

Thank you for noticing our book.

Actually, there are lots of bogus socionic groups in Russia.

You should read this : http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/0...nics-cult.html

You can be sure I'll NEVER be buying that book.

For the same reason, Catholic Church forbids reading some translations of the Bible, because those translations are bogus and may endanger the Faith.

You should read on the several schools of socionics : Classical socionics, Systemic socionics, Humanitarian socionics, etc. You'll see there are multiple versions of socionics. Compare those with each other.

EDITED
As socionics, most cognitive systems tend to do that by themselves : escaping the Truth. Why ? for different reasons (from the most serious to the least) :

1. Worship of Satan. Creating bogus models only to worship Satan.
2. Any irascible desires, such as inducing people in error, creating bogus models coldly, for either anger relief or pure fun.
3. Any concupiscent desires, materialistic or such. Creating bogus models for money or popularity.
4. Weakness and ignorance, believing it's easier to simplify models but losing truthfulness of them.
5. Creating unintentionally bogusness on models, on a good faith.

[Exodus]

1. Worship of Satan. Creating bogus models only to worship Satan.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

[Socionics Institute]

1. Worship of Satan. Creating bogus models only to worship Satan.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

I would agree that Socionics' reflection in some peoples minds transforms into a monster. Pleople get obsessed, they start typing toys, cartoon characters, countries, dogs, etc.

I am sure it's not the fault of Socionics. Human mind is capable of bearing monsters.

[Exodus]

1. Worship of Satan. Creating bogus models only to worship Satan.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

I would agree that Socionics' reflection in some peoples minds transforms into a monster. Pleople get obsessed, they start typing toys, cartoon characters, countries, dogs, etc.

I am sure it's not the fault of Socionics. Human mind is capable of bearing monsters.

Perhaps obsessive, but hardly satanic. And it's no worse than scamming people with a belief system (be it socionics or religion).

[FDG]

1. Worship of Satan. Creating bogus models only to worship Satan.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

I also think that worshipping Satan is a very wholesome activity, and therefore I deem the example to be absolutely misleading.

[olduser]

yeah it definitely depends on who you worship with.

[Logos]

Wow, I should have read this thread earlier. I missed an argument about my collegiate archrival Samuel Huntington and machintruc being a religiously single-minded...again. But I should thank him, I suppose. Today I learned that the only Christians in the world are Roman Catholics. Ach so...

[leckysupport]

1. Worship of Satan. Creating bogus models only to worship Satan.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

I would agree that Socionics' reflection in some peoples minds transforms into a monster. Pleople get obsessed, they start typing toys, cartoon characters, countries, dogs, etc.

I am sure it's not the fault of Socionics. Human mind is capable of bearing monsters.

I think typing toys, cartoon characters, countries etc. is pretty harmless. The problems come in when people try to justify their own character flaws, personality problems and poorly thought-out ideologies with socionics. That's when things can get messy.

[machintruc]

edited.

[machintruc]

Wow, I should have read this thread earlier. I missed an argument about my collegiate archrival Samuel Huntington and machintruc being a religiously single-minded...again. But I should thank him, I suppose. Today I learned that the only Christians in the world are Roman Catholics. Ach so...

Basically it's evident that it's true, isn't it ?

You are Christian as long as you take the contents of the Credo as true, and only Roman Catholics do that.

[tcaudilllg]

Getting this thread back on topic... (Machintruc is as bad as Phaedrus)

I think this book is a great start. It's a start, but at least something is happening. Who are the Russians to assume they "own" socionics? It was a Ukrainian idea, after all.

[machintruc]

Getting this thread back on topic... (Machintruc is as bad as Phaedrus)

I think this book is a great start. It's a start, but at least something is happening. Who are the Russians to assume they "own" socionics? It was a Ukrainian idea, after all.

Nobody owns nothing, because everything belongs to God. If socionics is true, socionics belongs to God, not to Russians.

In Russia, there's a lot of marginal socionists which pretend that they have a 100%-accurate method to explain everything. You should read that article on Rick's blog.

[tcaudilllg]

I already have.

[machintruc]

I already have.

therefore, you understand what's going on, don't you ?

[tcaudilllg]

What that it's a cult?

You know, I hate to say this but if machintruc could perhaps transit his belief in socionics into something that evangelicals would admire... then it would be good for socionics as a whole.

He seems to believe socionics is another proof of the Newtonian world-machine.

[machintruc]

What that it's a cult?

You know, I hate to say this but if machintruc could perhaps transit his belief in socionics into something that evangelicals would admire... then it would be good for socionics as a whole.

He seems to believe socionics is another proof of the Newtonian world-machine.

I don't believe in socionics itself, I believe in Truth.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Well, duh. How can you ever believe in something by itself - you always need a form of Truth to believe in anything, otherwise you wouldn't believe in the object.

[machintruc]

Well, duh. How can you ever believe in something by itself - you always need a form of Truth to believe in anything, otherwise you wouldn't believe in the object.

God and the Truth are basically the same thing.

[Exodus]

Well, duh. How can you ever believe in something by itself - you always need a form of Truth to believe in anything, otherwise you wouldn't believe in the object.

God and the Truth are basically the same thing.

Ah, it all makes sense now.

[machintruc]

Well, duh. How can you ever believe in something by itself - you always need a form of Truth to believe in anything, otherwise you wouldn't believe in the object.

God and the Truth are basically the same thing.

Ah, it all makes sense now.

Do you like the Truth ?

I don't know anybody who doesn't. There's plenty of people who like the Truth, even atheists. Therefore they like God.

[Exodus]

Well, duh. How can you ever believe in something by itself - you always need a form of Truth to believe in anything, otherwise you wouldn't believe in the object.

God and the Truth are basically the same thing.

Ah, it all makes sense now.

Do you like the Truth ?

I don't know anybody who doesn't. There's plenty of people who like the Truth, even atheists. Therefore they like God.

You are obviously using a different definition than they are. If God = Truth, then I like God. If God = supernatural omnipotent being, then I think God is a bunch of hooey. And supernatural omnipotent being does not necessarily equal Truth (assuming "equals" means anything at all ).

[machintruc]

Well, duh. How can you ever believe in something by itself - you always need a form of Truth to believe in anything, otherwise you wouldn't believe in the object.

God and the Truth are basically the same thing.

Ah, it all makes sense now.

Do you like the Truth ?

I don't know anybody who doesn't. There's plenty of people who like the Truth, even atheists. Therefore they like God.

You are obviously using a different definition than they are. If God = Truth, then I like God. If God = supernatural omnipotent being, then I think God is a bunch of hooey. And supernatural omnipotent being does not necessarily equal Truth (assuming "equals" means anything at all ).

God does equal Truth. Nothing is more true than God.

God is omnipotent, and is omniscient. So He's always right, because He is basically the Truth.

Nobody can say "I hate God, I like the Truth." : that's contradictory.

[Slacker]

You can say "I don't believe in god. I like the truth"

[machintruc]

You can say "I don't believe in god. I like the truth"

"I don't believe in X. I like X." means "I like X, but I don't believe in X." means "I like God, but I don't believe in Him."

What does that mean exactly ? Not believing in God and liking Him ? I don't really understand.

[Slacker]

You can say "I don't believe in god. I like the truth"

"I don't believe in X. I like X." means "I like X, but I don't believe in X." means "I like God, but I don't believe in Him."

What does that mean exactly ? Not believing in God and liking Him ? I don't really understand.

You don't understand because you assume god exists. Or you are pretending you don't understand because you think it's fun to bait non-Christians.

"I don't believe in X. I like Y." Try that.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

[machintruc]

You can say "I don't believe in god. I like the truth"

"I don't believe in X. I like X." means "I like X, but I don't believe in X." means "I like God, but I don't believe in Him."

What does that mean exactly ? Not believing in God and liking Him ? I don't really understand.

You don't understand because you assume god exists. Or you are pretending you don't understand because you think it's fun to bait non-Christians.

"I don't believe in X. I like Y." Try that.

Except that God = Truth.

[Slacker]

No, no it doesn't. *sigh*

[machintruc]

I only think that it's the responsibility of each socionist to defend the Truth.

[Logos]

This will now be the official "Oh, Machintruc is Posting" picture.

Basically it's evident that it's true, isn't it ?

No.

You are Christian as long as you take the contents of the Credo as true, and only Roman Catholics do that.

You are Roman Catholic as long as you take the contents of the Credo as true, and only Roman Catholics do that. There were Christians before there were Roman Catholicism and there will be Christians even after Roman Catholicism. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Getting this thread back on topic... (Machintruc is as bad as Phaedrus)

Amen. I am thinking that whatever type Phaedrus is, Machintruc is too.

[Slacker]

ISTj

[Exodus]

ISTj

That occurred to me a while ago...

[KSpin]

Seems whatever type that Phaedrus is, I am too. And I can tell you, I am not ISTj.

[aestrivex]

Seems whatever type that Phaedrus is, I am too. And I can tell you, I am not ISTj.

and you say this why?