the evils of

[redskye]

forgive me, it is difficult to put my thoughts into words.


when we assign people types (including ourselves), we bring expectations regarding their (our) behavior. this limits potential deviations from the patterns which may or may not really be there.

these expectations arrive in natural interaction w/o socionics, eg "fred is so sociable, josh is a recluse, she is really emotional, etc." behavioral patterns are noticed and labels are provided. it is somewhat natural. the odd thing is how in socionics the descriptions become laws. {maybe it is our western inclination to provide laws for everything} your behavior is "because of x x and x" and "because you are xxxx", while there is really no evidence that such laws exist.

when describing persons in type language we reinforce behavioral patterns by our dispositions, words, interactions and unconsciously limit potential growth.

if type is nothing but a description of patterns of behavior, why accept it as your identity? as anyones? can we participate in other patterns of behavior? i don't see why not.

we ought to be careful in stereotyping and limiting ourselves.

[Expat]

these expectations arrive in natural interaction w/o socionics, eg "fred is so sociable, josh is a recluse, she is really emotional, etc." behavioral patterns are noticed and labels are provided. it is somewhat natural. the odd thing is how in socionics the descriptions become laws. {maybe it is our western inclination to provide laws for everything} your behavior is "because of x x and x" and "because you are xxxx", while there is really no evidence that such laws exist.

It's not about laws, it's about observable patterns of people interacting with each other. There is evidence that such patterns are real, but it may take some practice to observe them since they are not easily measurable (although those charts by Smilingeyes go some way toward that).

when describing persons in type language we reinforce behavioral patterns by our dispositions, words, interactions and unconsciously limit potential growth.

if type is nothing but a description of patterns of behavior, why accept it as your identity? as anyones? can we participate in other patterns of behavior? i don't see why not.

we ought to be careful in stereotyping and limiting ourselves.

It's not a question of limiting what you can do or how to behave, but explaining why different people find it more natural to act or think in different patterns and how those differences affect their spontaneous relationships.

[Expat]

these expectations arrive in natural interaction w/o socionics, eg "fred is so sociable, josh is a recluse, she is really emotional, etc." behavioral patterns are noticed and labels are provided. it is somewhat natural. the odd thing is how in socionics the descriptions become laws..

Something else, regarding the above.

Socionics provides an explanation as to how people tend to process information and react in different ways, without being judgemental in principle.

In the "natural interaction w/o socionics", as you put it, it's the opposite. Such expectations do tend to be more judgemental - so the ISTp who's socially awkward is seen as "odd" by others with more , and leading to precisely the kind of law you seem to be afraid of, but in the different direction, like "he could be more emotionally expressive if he'd just try it, I can do it, so why can't he, so he's an asshole who's not interested in people".

[FDG]

forgive me, it is difficult to put my thoughts into words.


when we assign people types (including ourselves), we bring expectations regarding their (our) behavior.

This premise if false. Socionics tries to deconstruct the "expectations" that we form about other people, since WE, if we do not know psychology, naturally expect that other people behave in the way we behave.

[schrödinger's cat]

What redskye is talking about here

when we assign people types (including ourselves), we bring expectations regarding their (our) behavior.

could be simply how people in general sometimes misapply socionics.

[pesto]

What redskye is talking about here

when we assign people types (including ourselves), we bring expectations regarding their (our) behavior.

could be simply how people in general sometimes misapply socionics.

Yeah, it's the old model vs reallity confuision that is a pitfall in all(?) science. Models are good for giving you an idea of how reallity will behave, but you should always be aware that they can and will differ.

[redskye]

This premise if false. Socionics tries to deconstruct the "expectations" that we form about other people, since WE, if we do not know psychology, naturally expect that other people behave in the way we behave.

this is perhaps how socionics was started (?) but it is not how it is practiced.

It's not a question of limiting what you can do or how to behave,

but this is precisely what happens, the limiting of what you and i can do or how we can behave

when we presume the nature of something we limit it to that set of assumptions. we cannot progress beyond them because we do not know that beyond is real.

[Expat]

but this is precisely what happens, the limiting of what you and i can do or how we can behave

when we presume the nature of something we limit it to that set of assumptions. we cannot progress beyond them because we do not know that beyond is real.

Who's "we"? Speak for yourself.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.