Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
A lot of things can centre around reasons for not being good at things, negativity, something i've been looking at is ways an understanding of socionics can impove weak points someone sees in themselves, and group interaction.
A good distinction between the Enneagram and socionics is that while socionics gives a reason for why we do what we do, the Enneagram shows us how we can improve upon ourselves. What I think it lacks is the specific, detailed nature of socionics, but it actually offers what socionics doesn't appear to offer; improvement. In my eyes, socionics basically proclaims that we do y for x reason, and because we like z, we should move towards it, and because we don't like a, we should avoid it. It shows that we're inept in certain ways, and we can't change this, no matter how hard we try (hence the notion of an individual 'concentrating' too much on their PoLR e.g. an LIE who makes a conscious effort to dress exceedingly well, and who goes overboard in some way). The Enneagram shows that we're damaged as opposed to naturally inept, and it is based around the idea of one's being able to repair the damage and transcend any problems we might encounter. And this is why I prefer socionics. I just don't think one can possibly perfect oneself to the level that the Enneagram thinks we can. I think socionics, far from allowing us to be selfish and lazy and not work on our flaws, actually shows reality as it is; that humans are crap and always will be crap at certain things, and, likewise, other humans will also be shit at the things you're good at. That's why there's a theory of intertype relations; people compliment each other.