The Problem with Socionics

[Megan]

I am not sure to what extent if any, socionics can decide what people are good at.

No one claimed this.

That is not true. If it was not explicitly said then certainly it was said implicitly. I think you should re-read some of what Kristiina wrote.

Of course, reality is always more complex than a model, that's why models are created, in order to simplify reality.

Perhaps the socionics model has simplified reality too much. I have no particular issue with models, I believe they can be useful. However, I think it is erroneous to use the model to make a generalization about actual reality. I have seen this done here time after time.

Models try to explain, by no means they try to limit anything

.

Perhaps they do not try to limit anything as you put it. However, I think you will find that it does have a restricting effect. For example, according to the model, ESFjs all process information in the same way. No variations. The model and some of the people who use it also do not take into account other factors that might be important in determining the individual as someone before said.

he/she displayed patterns of behaviour which led you to think about him/her as ISFj.

FDG, I was not here suggesting that different types of people do not exist. What is mainly at issue is the variations that exists in individual types and to what extent.

[Uh? Nobody forces nothing. It seems like you're just trying to find a reason to attack socionics, basing yourself on off-base assumptions.

Of course nobody is forcing anything. Where was that said or implied? What I am saying is that in the hands of a gullible person/family member/parent who believes in socionics, this belief might potentially negatively influence a persons path and career choice.

Let's suppose you're not satisfied with your career, and you do not know what to do. Why not considering tools like socionics in order to find opportunities that might - underlined, MIGHT - suit you, and that you like?
It seems like you're supposing that socionics force you into a role, which is totally untrue, since it's just a model.

I am glad that unlike some people here, you can clearly see that it is just a model which may or may not be representative of reality.
I would not turn to a largely untested theory like socionics to help me make important life decisions. Sorry, I just cannot even stretch my imagination to even look at that possibility.

Uh? What? Of course if they are statistically like socionics says there will be significant variations. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Will you stop using "Uh?" so frequently and just get to your point. Anyway, I can see how you might have missed my point, it was not particularly well made. I think what I basically want to find out is how does flower know to what extent variations exists in the types. She seemed to have implied that most other people excluding her acknowledged variants would be as socionics has described and I want to know how can that be known.

That's a matter of personal experience, of course everyone should believe/have the opinions etc. he/she prefers/thinks are right etc

This seems obvious and self evident. The opposite of this position was not being proposed. I am merely interested in how the opinion and belief was arrived at and what support exists for it. This is actually genuine interest by the way.

Well, nowhere is stated in official socionics that ENTjs are smart (dynamic? I guess that all of them are, since is energy-expensive by definition), that ESTps are assholes, and that ESFps doesn't like reading and/or academia.

We will leave the unofficial descriptions of ESFps and ESTps aside as it is true that these types have a certain reputation unofficially which is perhaps not the same as the official socionics one. However, you seem to be saying that all ENTjs are dynamic as socionics officially says. I do not know if that is true. How to you know that somewhere out there, an ENTj doesn't exist without dynamism? What if there exists an ENTj without dynamism would that mean that is no longer the dominant function? How would you explain the presence of as a dominant function yet a lack of dynamism in the actual individual?

I am still struck by how many people are so impressed by a theory like socionics that seem to limit and confine people and their abilities and give them no hope for improvement upon their weaknesses and relationships.

!!! That's the opposite of what is true!!!

I disagree. Explain how you imagine that the opposite of that is true.

Again, that's the diametrical opposite of the aim of socionics. If an ENFp mother has an ISTj child she will have the tools in order to understand his child better. It seems so obvious

.
Perhaps now that we all have socionics as a tool we can get together with our so called conflictor if they are really hot .

Anyway, what I understand from various socionics sites is that some relationships are psychologically incompatible. Nowhere is it stated that model-A can be used as an effective tool for overcoming the barriers that exists in the relation of conflict. You have taken upon yourself to assume that the model can be used in this way when socionists have not said this and little is known about how in reality, knowledge of the model will be effective in overcoming these so called natural incompatibilities.