Betas: ideas for Socionics documentary PLZ

[JuJu]

Dear betas,

This summer I am producing a Socionics documentary.

I want the documentary to serve as an easy-to-understand introduction to Classical Socionics, so that more people can start to learn about this system, and thus improve their lives. (This is what happened with me--and I am sure it can benefit others.)

Please keep snarky comments out of this thread.

I am writing b/c I have already talked with a few of you, and I know some of you have great ideas as to how to present Socionics material.

* What infor do you think should be included in the documentary??
* Can you think of any interesting ways to present it visually??

THANK YOU for helping, if you do

[sigma]

* What infor do you think should be included in the documentary??
* Can you think of any interesting ways to present it visually??

THANK YOU for helping, if you do

Intertype collaboration should get some "air time".
Efficiency of personal development when approached in a socionics context.
Potential of improved social change when the groups are organized paying attention to the socionics type of the people in them.

As for the visual, I can only dream of having a MindMap produced, a cool one, with nice graphics. Here is a site that exemplifies what I consider TOP quality:
IQ Matrix | Accelerating Your Learning Potential

I can also recommend the following site for inspiration:
Presentation Zen
and the following 2 books:
Amazon.com: Presentation Zen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delivery (Voices That Matter): Garr Reynolds: Books
Amazon.com: slidelogy: The Art and Science of Creating Great Presentations: Nancy Duarte: Books

Also, be mindful of a global context. Be prepared to have the documentary translated.
Create a site, let people talk about the documentary.

[JuJu]

Thank you for those ideas sigma!!

I am going to check out those sites right now

* Anyone have any ideas as to how to illustrate inter-type relations?
* How do you think is the best way to find out your Socionics type?

[Creepy-male]

* Anyone have any ideas as to how to illustrate inter-type relations?

I like a cooking analogy here...

"Think of the various information aspects as being a variety of dishes. Which elements you have in which functions determines how deliciously you can cook any one of those dishes, and also which dishes you yourself find delicious or disgusting.

For example, you might make a mean fish curry, which you pretty much eat for dinner every chance you get. The next person along might think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but for the life of them, can't cook it for themselves. Then, you might find someone who is seriously offended by you trying to feed them fish curry for whatever reason."

[JuJu]

I like a cooking analogy here...

"Think of the various information aspects as being a variety of dishes. Which elements you have in which functions determines how deliciously you can cook any one of those dishes, and also which dishes you yourself find delicious or disgusting.

For example, you might make a mean fish curry, which you pretty much eat for dinner every chance you get. The next person along might think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but for the life of them, can't cook it for themselves. Then, you might find someone who is seriously offended by you trying to feed them fish curry for whatever reason."

LOL!!! This is really good dude!! You mind if I use this?? I will source you.

[Creepy-male]

Ha! Thanks.

I've only used it on XSEs though. I suppose it's universal enough for any type to be able to follow, though.

[sigma]

* How do you think is the best way to find out your Socionics type?

Progressively complex information about the types.

Simple descriptions... suplimented by more advanced descriptions.

The 4 dichotomies, even if not liked by some socionists as being "not very socionics"... are rather good at pinpointing some types.

[JuJu]

The 4 dichotomies work for MBTI.

For Socionics, the 4 dichotomies made an absolute horror show out of this forum for years, lol, so i'm apprehensive about suggesting them. (See: DeAnte's threads.)

i think the best way of getting your Socionics type is A) take years to learn by yourself... B) ask someone who has mastered it to teach you about your own and other peoples' types, so you can use the system

[sigma]

For Socionics, the 4 dichotomies made an absolute horror show out of this forum for years, lol, so i'm apprehensive about suggesting them. (See: DeAnte's threads.)

I've seen my share of criticism but... in the absence of something better... they should do.

[idolatrie]

maybe think of some way to represent each of the functions? not using technical descriptions, but rather just in laymans terms and ideally with some sort of visual representation/analogy. then, after that, explain about valuing functions, and being strong in them, and vice versa. I think keeping it really simple and clear would be key in making it accessible.

[Creepy-male]

not using technical descriptions, but rather just in laymans terms and ideally with some sort of visual representation/analogy.

Imagine you're a scientist, working in a lab. You've got some fiddly little thing that you're manipulating with gloves and studying. Then, after a long day of fiddling and studying, you wander home, collapse in a comfy chair, pick up a novel, and totally immerse yourself in it.

What we've just described is extraversion and introversion, in the socionics senses of the word: objects versus integrated experiences.

Next, let's look at rational versus irrational.

Do you know those people who are always running around saying how things 'should' be? Maybe you're one of them! Now, what about those laid back types? The ones who just take things as is?

This is the distinction Socionics makes between rational and irrational elements: what something "is" versus what something "ought to be".

With me so far? Let's take a look at one of the less obvious distinctions: internal and external.

We're going to take an apple, here. Let's call him Bob, since we'll be using him again later.

What can you say about Bob? He's red. He could serve as an improvised projectile. He looks juicy. He grew on a tree.

That he's red and juicy is certainly an observable characteristic. That's what Socionics calls "external": it's a tangible, physical property.

But, you didn't see him growing on a tree! Nor is he *actually* in flight towards some innocent bystander's head. These are "internal" properties: things that are not directly observable. (Though, of course, you can reason out that he grew on a tree, or that he has enough mass to serve as a meaningful projectile. [distinction between reasoning and observation here])

Another example, perhaps more clear. Simple arithmetic is "external": if you have an apple in one hand, and Bob in the other, you have two apples (1 + 1 = 2). Ethical considerations are largely internal: how else could cannibalism be considered so wrong in the west, yet a natural part of living for others?

Etc. Sorry for cutting off, but that's about a lifetime's worth of Ne for me x_x

Am I on the right track? I'm not sure how clear this all is.

[idolatrie]

Etc. Sorry for cutting off, but that's about a lifetime's worth of Ne for me x_x

Am I on the right track? I'm not sure how clear this all is.

...you just dumped a whole lot of Ne on a Ne-polr. Thanks.

And yeah, that was kinda what I meant. I thought even simplier, and starting with descriptions rather than analogies, because everyone takes different things out of analogies. (I know the same can be said of descriptions, but for me, I always prefer starting with the 'rule' and then the example.)

I'd also start with the functions rather than dichotemies. I think the dichotemies are somewhat misleading in socionics because the various combinations give a different flavour to each, whereas in my opinion, the functions (especially blocked together) are more uniquely identifiable.

[unefille]

'Common Misconceptions' definitely needs to be featured.

Like for Fe -- how it just seems to be referred to as this High Octane Emotional Expression -- when that's only one manifestation of Fe and just because a Fe-leading type is comfortable going there (exploiting the full extent of emotional ranges), it doesn't mean that they 'live there'. What people think of when they think of each type and why these are wrong. Dress people up as nerds/scientists/cheerleaders etc.

Or do 'play-acting', where a particular scenario is played out and then sort of 'freeze-frame' it: with a question like 'What Intertype relation was that?' and sort of using little diagrams to walk people through the functions in action.

Just thoughts.

[07490]

Also everyone and their mother has taken an MBTI test at some point, and MBTI and socionics definitions are more radically different than their names would make you think.

Laughing out loud...

[JuJu]

This is great!!!

I am serious: THANK YOU all...

PLZ keep these coming, Gul, idolatrie, unefille, octopuslove, Numbers, sigma... You guys are really great, you know? And really helping a ton (!!)

[sigma]

PLZ keep these coming

Human beings are wired to listen to stories. Everything becomes more interesting if it starts with "Once upon a time".
Also, stories are heavy-duty when it comes to delivering truth. Most of the great teachers were first rate storytellers.