General Principles of the Dominant Functions

[Mattie]

All of those examples feel so stereotyped to the point of unrealism. I could imagine valuers identifying 100% with the description; valuing is more than just "people" or "morals", valuing is more than just "efficiency", blah blah blah etc. It feels like nobody can write a book about socionics with describing the IEs in a manner like this, and it annoys the shit out of me ughhhhh

This is basically how I feel. The counter-argument is always "Well, people just just intuitively understand that these are stereotypes and not apply them so literally," but when every source DOES do this and we see forum members (even the people who feel like they 'know better') apply Socionics in this manner, there obviously isn't a clear mention of this mentality and practice. Which is why I said in my initial critique, if this was the only book a person picked up in America (since there are no other advanced books available in official English translation; and on that note, there were a sizable amount of translation mistakes throughout the book, so I'm not even sure how much credibility to give it) they would be applying Socionics incorrectly or just disregard Socionics because of how unrealistic it is (as portrayed in this book).

how is it more official? there is no such thing as official socionics, you take whatever you accept that you can apply to your environment and forget the rest. it only shows what a smart observer knows which is that you have no way of evaluating what you read and your criticisms are random.

I completely agree, and this makes it difficult for me to discuss Socionics here. Does the point become "Do you have a strong reasoning for why you approach Socionics the way you do?" (which is what I'm starting to think) or "Everyone has an individualized manner of doing Socionics and there is no point of reaching a consensus until testing is done"?

[ilikesex]

I completely agree, and this makes it difficult for me to discuss Socionics here. Does the point become "Do you have a strong reasoning for why you approach Socionics the way you do?" (which is what I'm starting to think) or "Everyone has an individualized manner of doing Socionics and there is no point of reaching a consensus until testing is done"?

what i said was specifically for melody man.

[717495]

Yeah of course an type can relate in a light to the description, or any type can relate to any of the other descriptions, more or less. But to say each don't represent their type quite well seems just wrong and amateurish, like you think you know the theory any better created from your personal knowledge, one much too divergent, nonpictorial, and sketchy/partial at that. Most established Socionicists wouldn't agree with the assessment that these types of descriptions, specifically these here, are deceptive, and there is plenty more to be criticized about your unorthodox ideas I'm sure. I see no evidence of such sizable amount of translation mistakes either, aside from a few helpful changes.

Like I've said elsewhere to you guys, you can believe what you want to believe, change the theory to your liking, but in the process you're going to divide from what's already here and what has been discussed and established for a while, of that process the same conclusions via the OP being reached over and over again. There is no theoretical progression guaranteed just by dismissing the basics, and I personally don't see how its helping you with figuring out your duals and other Socionics related relationships by straying away from the norms of Socionics in general but to each his own.

[Mattie]

Yeah of course an type can relate in a light to the description, or any type can relate to any of the other descriptions, more or less. But to say each don't represent their type quite well seems just wrong and amateurish, like you think you know the theory any better created from your personal knowledge, one much too divergent, nonpictorial, and sketchy/partial at that. Most established Socionicists wouldn't agree with the assessment that these types of descriptions, specifically these here, are deceptive, and there is plenty more to be criticized about your unorthodox ideas I'm sure. I see no evidence of such sizable amount of translation mistakes either, aside from a few helpful changes.

Like I've said elsewhere to you guys, you can believe what you want to believe, change the theory to your liking, but in the process you're going to divide from what's already here and what has been discussed and established for a while, of that process the same conclusions via the OP being reached over and over again. There is no theoretical progression guaranteed just by dismissing the basics, and I personally don't see how its helping you with figuring out your duals and other Socionics related relationships by straying away from the norms of Socionics in general but to each his own.

I doubt you have much room to say this, as it is obvious you can't apply Socionics well enough with these descriptions seeing that you're a different type every week. Socionics contains all of its divergences, there are a whole bunch of noncanonical theories people accept here only on the premise that some big name came up with it, but just because some authority said it's the right way doesn't make it so, especially when they can't prove it. There is room for different takes because of how abstract it is, and listening to an authority is just one (weak, in my opinion) way to go about Socionics.

[717495]

Okay. I personally don't see it as "weak," its obviously the right way to go about it, to read the material itself and agree with why Socionics manifests how its been described many times over and over again. Obviously you can go further back in typology and change all the variables out to suit whatever abstractions you want, however I think you are probably overestimating how able you are to apply those, and idealizing your ability to think objectively by not allowing yourself any physical root. I have still been applying Socionics ordinarily, and still change my type upon learning about new sources, listening to people and keeping an open and adaptive mind. There has been some interpretation trouble on my behalf from various sources, but that's not going to keep me from sniffing out such BS as "these basics are nothing but wrong stereotypes, my ideas are better." I've been here for years too, didn't just come into this typology yesterday, and you have to be able to apply what's been given in an intelligent manner. If you fail at doing so then you try again, else change your interpretation around, to in due course fit around some other idea, but not Socionics. Even fitting well around your personal ideology, it is still of no use to others like myself who want an objective tuition. There's a lot more to it than just these descriptions, nonetheless these are essentially some of the most important, most objectifiable and most provable sources of Socionics, and all the other ideas one is to bear from it stand as designated possibilities and connections / correlations.

[Mattie]

Okay. I personally don't see it as "weak," its obviously the right way to go about it, to read the material itself and agree with why Socionics manifests how its been described many times over and over again. Obviously you can go further back in typology and change all the variables out to suit whatever abstractions you want, however I think you are probably overestimating how able you are to apply those, and idealizing your ability to think objectively by not allowing yourself any physical root. I have still been applying Socionics ordinarily, and still change my type upon learning about new sources, listening to people and keeping an open and adaptive mind. There has been some interpretation trouble on my behalf from various sources, but that's not going to keep me from sniffing out such BS as "these basics are nothing but wrong stereotypes, my ideas are better." I've been here for years too, didn't just come into this typology yesterday, and you have to be able to apply what's been given in an intelligent manner. If you fail at doing so then you try again, else change your interpretation around, to in due course fit around some other idea, but not Socionics. Even fitting well around your personal ideology, it is still of no use to others like myself who want an objective tuition. There's a lot more to it than just these descriptions, nonetheless these are essentially some of the most important, most objectifiable and most provable sources of Socionics, and all the other ideas one is to bear from it stand as designated possibilities and connections / correlations.

The fact that you're steadfast in thinking your approach is objectively better than mine, while I'm observing that all of our understandings have been subjectively constructed, says it all. The part that is weak about your argument is that you think just because there is an authority on Socionics means everything they've said is correct and applicable, and that fallacious thinking. Socionics isn't based on anything that has been proven, meaning that the authority could be very wrong, and anyone else could be closer to the truth. Since there is no or little motion for this sort of provability, anyone can take any sort of take on Socionics and still be "right." And just by observing your time here, I can't say you have a lot of weight behind thinking that your way is at all better than any other persons' way.

[717495]

Socionics isn't based on anything that has been proven,

You mean this literally, or by some standard? Because what is written in Filatova's book is not only Socionics, but it is literally proven. Maybe not by some Einsteinian equation that you might someday discover, but in reality where most of us live, yes.