what do you disagree with in Socionics?

[Kim]

many times i feel like enfps are acting infjisht

Could you elaborate?

[MysticSonic]

I would object to the definition of functions, and even the concept that the functions exist at all; I believe they would be better replaced by neurological illustrations of how the mind processes a certain piece of data. Sadly, the means to accomplish such a task has yet to develop, so I'll stick to the socio-psychological theory that makes the most sense to me at the moment: Socionics.

[Cone]

Oh, you meant "in the intertype relations and personal profiles." In that case, I really can't say anything. I think that the relations and profiles are on a whole very accurate, and any noticed deviations, if not concrete, should be thought of as a deficiency in your own thinking, not Socionics'. Mostly because the relations and profiles are descriptive and don't try to theorize anything. And I think the relations and profiles leave alot of things out, rather than being just plain wrong.

[MysticSonic]

"Mostly because the relations and profiles are descriptive and don't try to theorize anything."

The relationship descriptions are the results of theories developed by the axiomatic system of thought that are the basis of the Socionic theory; their appearance you are perceiving is merely an illusory one.

[Cone]

Then I give up on Socionics. Is there anything, anything empirical in Socionics at all?

[Waddlesworth]

I think that this is a very important point to make. Socionics is just a means at generalizing things.

For example, I am ENTp, I have always been ENTp as far back as I can remember, but I am also a charmer, am easily flustered by alot of new information and sometimes am very insecure about what I don't know. When I begin to gain an interest in something, however, my confidence gains and I begin to look at it all as my own creative project. You should see me in math class, or taking a biology test.

In alot of ways creativity, the creative act, the idea, it is just a manifestation of work and obsession through the eyes of the first function.

But the logic still dominates, it just accumulates in a way that may be less so than some other ENTp's. Perhaps.

There is an "unshaking" foundation, the strongest function, but then there are the creative functions as well, which aren't as strong, but one seems to manifest as dominant over time. Perhaps Long term and short term memory can take a part in this.

I really think that our resources are just too scanty, Augusta is dead, and with time some of the more true to theory interpretations have vanished over time.

But there are alot of things about socionics which can make a person go "well, I don't know" but its probably more an end summary of things. What were you when you left this world? were you a creator of new perceptions, judgements? did you serve the school of ethics or logos.

The brain is just too complicated to say all types are created equally, but we can classify the information quite easily. If you write a novel it can belong to one of the many schools of thought, but something, a general idea, will key the reader in on your type.

[MysticSonic]

"Then I give up on Socionics. Is there anything, anything empirical in Socionics at all?"

No.

You mean you've been investigating Socionics for this long and you've just figured that out? Perhaps now you understand my hesitancy to buy into the theory completely.

[discojoe]

Then I give up on Socionics. Is there anything, anything empirical in Socionics at all?

Why is that important? I always thought of Socionics as a loose template for freeflowing ideas. I enjoy coming to the forum and reading everyone's thoughts, conjecture, theories, and opinions. I don't take it too seriously, and am not bothered by its weaknesses. I enjoy things that aren't set in stone, but are malleable and fun to toy with.

[Rocky]

"Then I give up on Socionics. Is there anything, anything empirical in Socionics at all?"

No.

You mean you've been investigating Socionics for this long and you've just figured that out? Perhaps now you understand my hesitancy to buy into the theory completely.

She came back to C.G.Jung's typology and tried to apply it to the families she had previously studied…

Augusta was surprised by the fact that none of the above mentioned personality typologies considered the problem of intertype relationships. She tried to consider families known to her from the viewpoint of different typologies. However, all of them showed no regularities – except the Jung's typology.

The first regularity was named quasi-identity.

Jung did not distinguish clearly rational types from irrational. For him, Thinking Extroverted type with secondary Intuition (ENT rational) was “almost the same” as Intuitive Extroverted with secondary Thinking (ENT irrational). Jung's adherents (M.L. von Franz, J. Hillman etc.), as a rule, ignored the rationality/irrationality criterion. The first test of Jung's types (the Gray – Wheelwright test, 1938) included only three of the four criteria.

However, Augusta's researches showed something different - it was a VERY IMPORTANT criterion. It worked like a “switch” that sometimes changed positive into negative.

For example, she observed several families where one of spouses was an intuitive-logical extrovert (ENT irrational), and the second – sensory-ethical introvert (ISF irrational). The relationship within this couple was quite harmonious and good. However, it was opposite in the pair with ALL THE FOUR criteria different: e.g. intuitive-logical extrovert (ENT irrational), and ethical-sensory introvert (ISF rational). Compatibility between partners in this couple was very bad, they often fell into conflicts. In general, the situation in the first pair could be described as “mutual support”, “distribution of tasks according to the partners' strong functions”, while the second pair could be described as "embarrassment", "frustration" and "disappointment".

Augusta used the term “quasi-identity” to describe the types with difference in the criterion rationality/irrationality. At first glance, quasi-identical types seemed similar in many ways. But at close distance, the difference became obvious. The quasi-identical types practiced usually same kinds of activities, but seemed to evaluate them from different viewpoints. However, in quasi-identical pairs such difference very rarely resulted in conflicts – more often it resulted in lack of understanding or indifference to each other.

So, at least this is where we got the relationship theories from (relax Cone ), and we got the functions from Jung. So, even if you don't accept the "functions" as functions, *mystic* then you can at least accept that they are qualities in behaviour that seem to be consistant.

[Darklord]

I disagree with the physical appearances. The mimicry, expressions, body language etc. may be based on type, but not the body type.

Gawd, typing errors! Agh!

[Slava]

What bothers me about Socionics is that ... once you pop, you can't stop. Now.... everywhere I go I see frickin squares, triangles, circles and shaded L's on peoples heads!!! Every conversation I have includes socionics!!! Make it stop!!!!!!!! ...

me: Hey pete whats up?
pete: Stop trying to be nice, I know your relational ethics are weak! What is it you want?
me: I'm just excersizing my role and POLR. So how is your superego relation doing.
pete: not bad. but hey listen !.. I was just intuiting that we might have time to go running today.
me: I don't feel like running really, my external intuition is making me lazy today. My lack of valitional sensorics is a real problem sometimes.

But honsetly, I don't mind this new evolutionary level of perfect communication . It's just tooo efficient by todays standards.

[XcaliburGirl]

What bothers me about Socionics is that ... once you pop, you can't stop. Now.... everywhere I go I see frickin squares, triangles, circles and shaded L's on peoples heads!!! Every conversation I have includes socionics!!! Make it stop!!!!!!!! ...

me: Hey pete whats up?
pete: Stop trying to be nice, I know your relational ethics are weak! What is it you want?
me: I'm just excersizing my role and POLR. So how is your superego relation doing.
pete: not bad. but hey listen !.. I was just intuiting that we might have time to go running today.
me: I don't feel like running really, my external intuition is making me lazy today. My lack of valitional sensorics is a real problem sometimes.

But honsetly, I don't mind this new evolutionary level of perfect communication . It's just tooo efficient by todays standards.

[Cone]

Mostly because the relations and profiles are descriptive and don't try to theorize anything.

didn't you notice the progression in the socionics.com profiles? it usually went:

1 physical description
2 description of primary
-description of either role or polr as subsection
3 description of secondary
- description of either role or polr (whichever wasn't convered in the subsection of 2)

Yes, but I thought the theory came from the observations, you know, inductive reasoning. That would still be a generalization, though, but at least one that worked most of the time.

[universal]

What bothers me about Socionics is that ... once you pop, you can't stop. Now.... everywhere I go I see frickin squares, triangles, circles and shaded L's on peoples heads!!! Every conversation I have includes socionics!!! Make it stop!!!!!!!! ...

me: Hey pete whats up?
pete: Stop trying to be nice, I know your relational ethics are weak! What is it you want?
me: I'm just excersizing my role and POLR. So how is your superego relation doing.
pete: not bad. but hey listen !.. I was just intuiting that we might have time to go running today.
me: I don't feel like running really, my external intuition is making me lazy today. My lack of valitional sensorics is a real problem sometimes.

But honsetly, I don't mind this new evolutionary level of perfect communication . It's just tooo efficient by todays standards.

Yes, when the romance or attraction is fading, read some logical socionics to her!! She cannot resist.

I think what's good about socionics is that it allows you to see a framework for any character in a 'healthy' way, you can fall less 'prey' to random events or established oppionons. I'm pretty new to socionics, liked what I saw so far.

I wonder if I already was my current type when I was still sperm or that my type is something that developed due to my environment working on the brain structures themselves, i.e. the brains always logically grows into a type when event X or Y happens, or a geneticall code makes it 'destiny'.[/i] In the event of starting as a 'clean' type, then is the growing into a type only the adding onto layers of unconscious learning, based on each previous experience of a brain and it's capabilities?