The impact of socionics

[mimisor]

I've noticed typology theories, such as MBTI and Socionics, are very popular in US. I'd like to ask you all a few questions. What are the consequences of it, I mean if all people would be acquainted with this theory. What would happen then? How would the world change?

Where I come from, is not even heard of it (socionics that is). Of course on a academic level, but it's not widespread across the average population. Is in US or elsewhere more present in everyday life? And also is it true they are using the tests by the employers to select their staff and it is a criterion to hire or reject job candidates?

[Raver]

I've noticed typology theories, such as MBTI and Socionics, are very popular in US. I'd like to ask you all a few questions. What are the consequences of it, I mean if all people would be acquainted with this theory. What would happen then? How would the world change?

Where I come from, is not even heard of it (socionics that is). Of course on a academic level, but it's not widespread across the average population. Is in US or elsewhere more present in everyday life? And also is it true they are using the tests by the employers to select their staff and it is a criterion to hire or reject job candidates?

That is very interesting and actually makes me think if in the future were going to have our jobs pre-selected as a result of our personality type. It could be interesting because you do what you love, though the negative side to it is that it would limit people's freedom's substantially.

[mimisor]

Yes, but the question was if it's happening NOW, at the present moment, are there employers that do that? Or it isn't yet spread such practice?

[Expat]

Some European employers do use such tests, usually MBTI or similar, as part of the selection process. That is one of the reasons I got into it.

[Slacker]

My husband's company does personality tests (not sure of what specific test) before they hire and the results are used when they decide which candidate they want. I've heard of enough other companies doing the same thing that it can't be uncommon.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Soooo unethical. I guess known skill is not just good enough.

[ILENTp]

edit

[Creepy-pokeball]

It has. I wish I knew the name of the company, but there is one American company that specifically rejects the idea of genetic or personality testing, which I thought was great. Just think of insurance liability differences! Eeeeeeek.

[tcaudilllg]

In any drastic change to human organization, the xxxx Providenciary will play a lead role. I know from experience that whenever a type tries to advance a cause by their lonesome in a community (that is, without really thinking the consequences through--and no type ever can at every level), then their quasi-identical of the same subtype will rise up in opposition. I recently had this happen in a forum that focuses on RPG design. Every time I tried to propose a new idea, one INTP in particular (there were others, too; but it's a long story) ended up doing his best to discredit its validity as a waste of time and simply the wrong direction. I disagreed with him, but he resorted to personal attacks, (alongside several others; it's the culture of the forum apparently) and so I ended up in a perpetual tussle of trying to effect changes in thought that I thought would be beneficial for everyone, and laboring to defend myself against the comparatively conservative atmosphere there. One member of this very forum came to my defense on several fronts... and that caused a total ruckus. I'm sure I had allies, but they remained rather silent....

Two individuals in particular seemed to me the greatest threats to my agenda there. (the agenda itself isn't really related to type or socionics) One was an individual who prided himself on attacking me in very uncomfortable psychological ways. He did this by amassing huge amounts of facts... and something inherently unconscious. Suffice to say, he seemed more threatening than he was. It was difficult to put my finger on it though until I realized he was an ISTx. True to form, he always ended up looking better than me in any disagreement we had. (that was my perception, at least)

The other didn't speak up until I began sharing my thoughts about an impending crisis in the personal computer industry. This was the problem of lithographic technology reaching its limit in the next 14 years, according to Intel. Without this technology, smaller processors will not be possible. (there is also the issue of lightspeed c limiting processor speeds to 100ghz, but still....) I made a pretty big deal about it, especially because of the failure of chip cycles rates to appreciably improve in the past two years. (which seemed to me the advent of the crisis) This got the attention of one member who usually posted only sparingly. He admonished me for doubting the triumph of humanity over all odds. (of course I wasn't doubting humanity; I was doubting its methods!) The way he did it made me think myself small and insignificant, even evil in a way. I don't think anyone had ever made me feel that way before. Usually such attempts just arouse anger and defiance, but not this time. The way he so effectively made me doubt myself, leaves me no doubt that he had attacked me in a deeply unconscious way.

I think there are many individuals with these powers over everyone save each other. Jesus may have been talking about these people when he spoke of Satan; my friend Gavin once gave me a perspective on the lives of these people, who "question where they end and where the world begins" and make this questioning a dominant part of their personality. He said he would be "very cautious" around such a person. I believe these people to be Providenciaries.

I've been looking through characters in literature to determine their types, very rigidly contrasting the characters and their speaking styles with each other. There are some who seem to be punished for not responding to other people's warnings for the community; almost as though they get deluded with the responsibility to save the world. Not many, but some.

It would seem to me that a person who is capable of assaulting another's unconscious so easily is equally vulnerable to attack from those they might assault. Naturally, both sides would try to stay on good terms with each other when they could, mutually believing in one another's potential, to avoid wounding each other's psyches accidentally. The two sides would effectively support one another in the human endevor, without threatening each other. (the human endevor of course being, promulgation of the species)

Considering that there are limited resources available for large missions of many people to work towards this single, mutual goal of survival for themselves and their progeny, it seems to me likely that these Providential personalities take themselves very seriously. If you were to determine that things are going to be disasterous for everyone the way there are going, then the providentiary who had felt tasked with the mission you are questioning would clearly feel slighted and even hurt. It is only natural that they would respond with a psychological affront of their own.

I think it doubtful that socionics or any other personality system will become accepted dogma in our society for hiring purposes until it is made clear in terms a providentiary can understand that humanity will benefit from it more than previous practices have managed. This is why I think it's important not to use a vauge system limited to only 16 types for something as precise as human resources management. The powers that be will accept nothing less.

[Creepy-]

As long as people continue to stereotype a type's abilities, this is a dodgy, dodgy practice. "Feelers can't Think" etc. etc. Aside from that, it's unethical.

[Cone]

Ah, the old "it's unethical" argument. Ethics only matter until you actually have power.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Creepy-]

Ah, the old "it's unethical" argument. Ethics only matter until you actually have power.

If ever I come into power I will let you know :wink:

[discojoe]

I love Socionics; it makes my head hurt. And to me, pain is pleasure.

[mimisor]

I love Socionics; it makes my head hurt. And to me, pain is pleasure.

oh really, and who said you were the world (or the center of the world)?

[Expat]

As long as people continue to stereotype a type's abilities, this is a dodgy, dodgy practice. "Feelers can't Think" etc. etc. Aside from that, it's unethical.

I fully agree with you, which is why it doesn't bother me in the least to manipulate the test to give the results I - or, in fact, they - want.

But you think that's dodgy and unethical -- in some European countries, companies demand your photograph as part of your job application. And they do reject applications with base on how you look like, without even meeting you.

I'm not talking about modelling agencies or the like - I'm talking about technical positions in major companies. As the R&D director remarked once, "if the CV mentions the word [technical word related to the field] and the person looks good, we give it a second look."

So in this context, the use of personality tests is not surprising. And if socionics becomes mainstream, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that companies would start using it to hire people and to build teams - "no, don't hire him, he's ESTj and his boss is ISFp, it wouldn't work etc".

Which is why I hope socionics never becomes mainstream.

[indigoroom]

some people are already making a business out of it.

The largest enterprises, banks, and firms in Russia, Ukraine,
and other countries are among our clients.

The International Institute of Socionics developed the computer programs allowing, on the basis of the data received at interview, to simulate a situation in collective and to predict results of rearrangements, reorganization, filling of vacancies. The programs allow to determine a so-called integrated type of collective as single unit, its "character", features of its interaction with a management, effectiveness ratio of interaction for all collective, for any of its division and for each member of collective.

http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/esoctech.html#top

jeez why not? i mean ... are you people going to hire an INFp programmer or ENTj wine taster and decorator? they might have the education and the motivation but when they actually start to work it all shows =) i've seen it a couple of times.

[Expat]

jeez why not? i mean ... are you people going to hire an INFp programmer or ENTj wine taster and decorator? they might have the education and the motivation but when they actually start to work it all shows =) i've seen it a couple of times.

I prefer to first evaluate their skills in programming or wine tasting, and then perhaps think about their type.

Especially since it should be very obvious to everyone here that typing someone is very tricky, and certainly not best achieved via simple tests.

So what if the "INFp progammer" wasn't an INFp in the first place?

Moreover, I'm pretty sure my sister-in-law is ISFp, and she's a competent programmer. Not nearly as good as my ENTp brother, but should her type be a reason not to hire her?

I really hope this sort of totalitarian thinking does not get very far. HR departments are full of shit enough as it is.

[flower]

Testing personality for jobs certainly does happen today.

Most of the large companies I have applied to for jobs, have used a personality test of some sort. It may not exactly be socionics or mbti, but the questions used are attempting to get at the same thing, T vs F etc or testing for Ti, Te etc, so in essence the result of the testing is the same - picking people for interviews or jobs according to someone's personality that supposedly should do well in that position.

If the tests and psycological theories behind them are very well understood, developed and complete, then I don't think this is unethical, it is doing the employer and employee a favour, but currently I dont think any psycological test are anywhere near developed enough to use in this way, there are too many things that havent been factored in, to discriminate on a large scale like this.

However, money has a loud voice in a capitalist world, so companies (especially large) can do pertty much whatever they want regardless of whether the general population agree or not.

[tempus]

I don't really see how testing personality for a job is unethical. It's basically the same thing as conducting an interview to determine personality expect it's more measured.

[Creepy-]

As long as people continue to stereotype a type's abilities, this is a dodgy, dodgy practice. "Feelers can't Think" etc. etc. Aside from that, it's unethical.

I fully agree with you, which is why it doesn't bother me in the least to manipulate the test to give the results I - or, in fact, they - want.

But you think that's dodgy and unethical -- in some European countries, companies demand your photograph as part of your job application. And they do reject applications with base on how you look like, without even meeting you.

It's dodgy because of the stereotypes. I'm confused, I thought you meant you agreed with me on that point (because you don't agree about the other point)?

Unethical, well... lots of things are unethical. I think the photo thing is also unethical unless your effectiveness in the job is directly affected by looks. But I suppose I'm too idealistic, thinking that these things should be based on qualifications/etc.

[Expat]

It's dodgy because of the stereotypes. I'm confused, I thought you meant you agreed with me on that point (because you don't agree about the other point)?

Unethical, well... lots of things are unethical. I think the photo thing is also unethical unless your effectiveness in the job is directly affected by looks. But I suppose I'm too idealistic, thinking that these things should be based on qualifications/etc.

Which point do you think I didn't agree with you on?

I think that using personality tests in that way is dodgy and unethical, and using photos even more so.

I don't think you're too idealistic regarding on how those things should be.

[Creepy-]

It was the "but" before "you think it's dodgy and unethical". Must have misinterpreted.

[Expat]

Or maybe I should revise my posts better, since that "but" makes no sense --

[Rick]

So in this context, the use of personality tests is not surprising. And if socionics becomes mainstream, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that companies would start using it to hire people and to build teams - "no, don't hire him, he's ESTj and his boss is ISFp, it wouldn't work etc".

Which is why I hope socionics never becomes mainstream.

Agreed. Even more importantly, I hope it is never implemented by force. That would be hideous. I could see that happening in some place like Russia.

However, I don't think it will become mainstream in that way, because of its integral type - (I can hear the laughter). It's likely there will be crackpots doing all sorts of weird and dodgy stuff with it, but they will never be accepted by the socionics community at large, which is more like a body of philosophers. As long as socionics is not bastardized or implemented by force, things should be okay.

[tcaudilllg]

As long as people continue to stereotype a type's abilities, this is a dodgy, dodgy practice. "Feelers can't Think" etc. etc. Aside from that, it's unethical.

I fully agree with you, which is why it doesn't bother me in the least to manipulate the test to give the results I - or, in fact, they - want.

But you think that's dodgy and unethical -- in some European countries, companies demand your photograph as part of your job application. And they do reject applications with base on how you look like, without even meeting you.

I'm not talking about modelling agencies or the like - I'm talking about technical positions in major companies. As the R&D director remarked once, "if the CV mentions the word [technical word related to the field] and the person looks good, we give it a second look."

So in this context, the use of personality tests is not surprising. And if socionics becomes mainstream, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that companies would start using it to hire people and to build teams - "no, don't hire him, he's ESTj and his boss is ISFp, it wouldn't work etc".

Which is why I hope socionics never becomes mainstream.

So make the boss an xSxx.

Using the letters is bad. Using the ratios between the letters is OK. Expecting an Einstein out of either an INTJ or an INTP will not get you far.

Personally, it seems to me the job should be in proportion to the person's skills. The ESTJ does a better job of supervising, the ENTJ does the organization, etc. ...It helps if people have similar values when they work together though, and tend to see each other's views easily. People who instinctively feel suspicious of each other don't get anything done.

I think crosstyped people should be employed as lines of coherence between different specialities. That way they can translate what people of opposing function pairings are doing for each other. Considering this is how interorganizational/field-based work is happening and has always happened, (Einstein bridging the perceiver's mathematics to the judge's experiment, for example) I don't think it would do much harm to make it a part of our organizational culture, as well.

[FDG]

As long as people continue to stereotype a type's abilities, this is a dodgy, dodgy practice. "Feelers can't Think" etc. etc. Aside from that, it's unethical.

I fully agree with you, which is why it doesn't bother me in the least to manipulate the test to give the results I - or, in fact, they - want.

But you think that's dodgy and unethical -- in some European countries, companies demand your photograph as part of your job application. And they do reject applications with base on how you look like, without even meeting you.

I'm not talking about modelling agencies or the like - I'm talking about technical positions in major companies. As the R&D director remarked once, "if the CV mentions the word [technical word related to the field] and the person looks good, we give it a second look."

So in this context, the use of personality tests is not surprising. And if socionics becomes mainstream, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that companies would start using it to hire people and to build teams - "no, don't hire him, he's ESTj and his boss is ISFp, it wouldn't work etc".

Which is why I hope socionics never becomes mainstream.

So make the boss an xSxx.

Using the letters is bad. Using the ratios between the letters is OK. Expecting an Einstein out of either an INTJ or an INTP will not get you far.

Personally, it seems to me the job should be in proportion to the person's skills. The ESTJ does a better job of supervising, the ENTJ does the organization, etc. ...It helps if people have similar values when they work together though, and tend to see each other's views easily. People who instinctively feel suspicious of each other don't get anything done.

I think crosstyped people should be employed as lines of coherence between different specialities. That way they can translate what people of opposing function pairings are doing for each other. Considering this is how interorganizational/field-based work is happening and has always happened, (Einstein bridging the perceiver's mathematics to the judge's experiment, for example) I don't think it would do much harm to make it a part of our organizational culture, as well.

Lol where did Einstein actually like experiments? He despised experimental science.

[Rick]

I think crosstyped people should be employed as lines of coherence between different specialities. That way they can translate what people of opposing function pairings are doing for each other. Considering this is how interorganizational/field-based work is happening and has always happened, (Einstein bridging the perceiver's mathematics to the judge's experiment, for example) I don't think it would do much harm to make it a part of our organizational culture, as well.

Does anyone honestly believe that if you were to live together (at home) with Einstein, you would find that he had no preference for rationality/irrationality, but was some sort of "harmonious mixture" of the two???

[tcaudilllg]

I think crosstyped people should be employed as lines of coherence between different specialities. That way they can translate what people of opposing function pairings are doing for each other. Considering this is how interorganizational/field-based work is happening and has always happened, (Einstein bridging the perceiver's mathematics to the judge's experiment, for example) I don't think it would do much harm to make it a part of our organizational culture, as well.

Does anyone honestly believe that if you were to live together (at home) with Einstein, you would find that he had no preference for rationality/irrationality, but was some sort of "harmonious mixture" of the two???

Yes. I do.

Read his work. http://www.bartleby.com/173

[Rick]

How are you able to infer from his book on relativity that Einstein displayed no preference for rationality/irrationality in his day-to-day activities?

[tcaudilllg]

How are you able to infer from his book on relativity that Einstein displayed no preference for rationality/irrationality in his day-to-day activities?

Because he wrote it. He wouldn't write something that would conflict with his personality.

Don't look at it as rationality/irrationality. Look at it as judgement and perception. The book is littered with chastisements against premature judgement and false premises. "Ought we to smile at the man and explain he is mistaken? I think not if we are to remain consistent."

[Rick]

Just because someone on the intellectual level has risen to a higher level of understanding that harmonizes the dichotomies of lower levels doesn't mean that on the physical and psychological levels he has somehow lost his innate psychic preference for one or the other.

I suspect that your vision of crosstypes has to do with the intellectual gift to see things from a very broad viewpoint that seems to encompasse all views of a lower order. However, in doing so, I believe you are overemphasizing the role of intellectual realization in defining the individual. Life is just as much or more about eating, housekeeping, making and keeping friends, and reproducing as it is about developing smart thoughts.

By the way, another person with this very broad, all-encompassing sort of viewpoint is George Soros. You might find him a crosstyped individual as well.

[Rocky]

He thinks that people who are crossed between judging and perceiving are constantly fighting between using the rational and irrational funcitons. When they are in their perceiving mode, they get anxious, believing that they should be judging something. When they are in judgement, they try and perceive the other possibilities and tangents again. Sort of like feeling uncomfortable if you spend too much time in either one.

I don't think that's so far off.

[Rick]

He thinks that people who are crossed between judging and perceiving are constantly fighting between using the rational and irrational funcitons. When they are in their perceiving mode, they get anxious, believing that they should be judging something. When they are in judgement, they try and perceive the other possibilities and tangents again. Sort of like feeling uncomfortable if you spend too much time in either one.

Oh... hm... I had the impression that this idea of crosstypes was a sort of 'super-human' state that transcends type. I don't buy that, but then I am a rather materialistic thinker.

[tcaudilllg]

He thinks that people who are crossed between judging and perceiving are constantly fighting between using the rational and irrational funcitons. When they are in their perceiving mode, they get anxious, believing that they should be judging something. When they are in judgement, they try and perceive the other possibilities and tangents again. Sort of like feeling uncomfortable if you spend too much time in either one.

Oh... hm... I had the impression that this idea of crosstypes was a sort of 'super-human' state that transcends type. I don't buy that, but then I am a rather materialistic thinker.

Not at all. The penalties of crosstype to unconscious functions can be extreme. For example, Einstein's F never developed. The obsession with finding a middle ground at all times could be said to have completely subjugated his ability to relate to people on a "feeler's" level. In basic typed thinkers this ability matures at mid-life crisis. (as you may have heard...?) But in a genius/archetypally appraising mind the fifth function takes on the role of the eighth. (because the eighth doesn't exist) This is why so few people understood him.

There are great intellectuals in history who have been understood far better.

[Rick]

They say Einstein may have had a mild form of autism. Maybe he indeed was distant from all others on an emotional level. I'd have to read some memoirs to make that judgment.

Not at all. The penalties of crosstype to unconscious functions can be extreme. For example, Einstein's F never developed. The obsession with finding a middle ground at all times could be said to have completely subjugated his ability to relate to people on a "feeler's" level.

Okay, this is quite interesting. I think you may be onto something about this obsession. I read yesterday a bunch of Einstein quotes and some other stuff about him. He clearly displayed a tendency to want to find some overarching principles or middle ground. As I mentioned, George Soros seems to be very similar in this regard (have studied his book "Soros on Soros"). Both of these men are positive, good-natured and distant, as if they're above all arguments (and hence, above many other emotions). Both I personally consider to be ILE's, but that's another story.

Can you elaborate how "The obsession with finding a middle ground at all times could be said to have completely subjugated his ability to relate to people on a "feeler's" level"? Why do you think this is true?

[tcaudilllg]

Can you elaborate how "The obsession with finding a middle ground at all times could be said to have completely subjugated his ability to relate to people on a "feeler's" level"? Why do you think this is true?

Let's consider the psychology of a crosstyped individual. (as attested to by gilligan87 and explained by Rocky) The crosstyped individual tries to strike a balance in between two functions of a pair, rather than deferring to one over the other on a consistent basis. (as "basic"/canon Socionics types do) This is their conscious experience. However, this experience means naturally that the functions cancel each other out, as explained by Jung in "Psychological Types". The experience holds in the external world, however, because a type that prefers one function or another infers the existence of a function in a personality even if it does not exist. (as is clearly the case for canceled out/null functions)

If the one of the four pairs does not exist, then the function ordering "model A" system breaks completely unless effort is made to re-ascribe the ordering between the existing pairs. One of each of the four dimensions is expected by a four dimensioned personality. Which means, the existing dimensions are burdened with fulfilling the non-existant dimensions if the relations are to take place. Accordingly, we must reorder the system for those functions that do not exist to be simulated by the existing pairs. Because the earlier functions are assumed to be subordinate to the later functions on the number line, it is necessary to assume that the responsibilities of the existing functions are charged with the responsibilities of their immediate successor dimensions.

Taking Einstein as an example, the responsibilites of his null 7th and 8th functions are given to his 5th and 6th. Therefore in his INTx personality, the 5th function of feeling is ascribed the duty that would otherwise be ascribed to either judgement or perception, depending on which of the pair was the 8th. According to model A, this is the function of concrete art. The 6th function is awarded the responsibilities of the 7th, which are personal knowledge. Therefore his feeling was accorded with the responsibilities of concrete art and suggestivity, and his thinking accorded with personal knowledge and estimation. The rest of his functions fully existed and performed normally. (although looking to the 6th and 5th functions for the work done by the 7th and 8th)

There is one example in particular that illustrates Einstein's use of feeling as a concrete art function. On the day he became famous (it literally happened overnight; he had been respected before his theory was proven but by no means famous), he told reporters that he had realized the fundamental principle behind the relativity theory when he "saw a man fall of of a roof". The INTx mind is witness to so many archetypal possibilities that it falls to them not to conceive of them, but to explain them in a way that people can accept.

[Gilly]

He thinks that people who are crossed between judging and perceiving are constantly fighting between using the rational and irrational funcitons. When they are in their perceiving mode, they get anxious, believing that they should be judging something. When they are in judgement, they try and perceive the other possibilities and tangents again. Sort of like feeling uncomfortable if you spend too much time in either one.

I don't think that's so far off.

So by this estimate, I should be confident in my learning and idea-generating capabilities, but completely untrusting of myself when it comes to making any sort of judgement, so I use whatever inklings of judgement I get from my intuitive guesses about something to make decisions in the end. This manifests itself in my holding some social norms in high importance because I see them as necessary for my own survival, having such low confidence in my judgement. I use my strong intuition to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of people, and use this knowledge to mobilize them to protect the norms that I see fit, and to change the ones that ultimately hinder me. As far as the use of logical systems goes, I attempt to preserve whichever one my intuition adheres to, i.e., whichever one I see as having the optimal potential for my involvement on a global level.

That sound about right?

[Rocky]

That would make you a perceiver.

[Gilly]

No, because I'm (supposedly) not only confused about whether or not I prefer T or F, but I'm crossed to the point of not having a preference for either judgement or perception. As such, my lack of any kind of judgement is overcompensated for by my intuition.