Socionics is Unattractive

[Creepy-Snaps]

Although understanding intertype relations can be cool if played off a certain way, by and large it's misunderstood and misinterpreted by people who don't know you that well. You may be seen as a freak who analyzes people and compatibility.

Things go over people's heads. The longer you study socionics, the less you realize how other people don't understand.

Obsession with duality is unhealthy. Simply understanding socionics and duality won't make you closer to actually meeting a dual. You still must live in the real world.

Resorting to socionics to understand the relationships of everyone in your life isn't going to magically make them all better. It may help yes, but be wary of how much time you spend thinking about socionics versus how much time you spend actually living.

Discuss.

[Simon Ssmall]

I thinkyour frustrations come from the fact you are
Mistyped and didnt meet your dual who would never look at you like a freak as they are all loving and great listeners, the INFjs

[Creepy-Snaps]

I thinkyour frustrations come from the fact you are
Mistyped and didnt meet your dual who would never look at you like a freak as they are all loving and great listeners, the INFjs

Interesting.

Of course I have personal motivations in writing this, but I believe my general statements still apply to the vast majority of people here on this site, from observation of the past several months.

[Airman]

You're right , this socionics thing is overvalued, in fact 'duality' relations may not be the best, many other factors come into play. Quadra is also not the best at many times for friends and acquaintances. Even though you may be mistyped as SLE. As I think you VI LSI more than SLE.

Enneagram is much more practical and attractive imo.

[crazedrat]

I dont think this is any reason to say he mistyped himself. He seems ESTp. I complain ESTps / ESFps are whores all the time. I'd expect the Ses to complain the Ni types are lazy asses.

[Korpsy Knievel]

It's incontrovertible that adopting a conceptualized approach to life can increases one's susceptibility to doubt, misguidance, dogmatism, and cognitive dissonance as one attempts to integrate questionable theory with solid fact. I find that socionics holds some pragmatic value but shouldn't be treated as holy writ. Others will disagree, sometimes vehemently. Here's why: an idea entertained by multiple parties will necessarily be understood in a pluralistic way. Even if one faithfully parrots the received wisdom of a revered master there is still an epistemic and phenomenological divergence in their individual ideations.

To further complicate matters, since socionics is rationalist and not clinically validated it's presently possible to only reach consensus of faith on its articles, not proof*. Given all this uncertainty and airy-fairy-ness, people unfamiliar or uncomfortable with schematizing human cognition are unlikely to have much patience for sitting through a lecture on what and who and why they are by some loon rambling on about dual-seeking and aristocracy and quadra values. Try discussing the psychology of sport fandom with people huddled before the boobtube to watch their local team. They'll quickly tire of your probing and strange jargon and conceptualizing and they'll say, "What you're saying is kinda interesting but I'm trying to watch the fucking game here." Also, try cramming human thought into neat little boxes after you've read a tiny bit about actual neuroscience. You will quickly find that the socionic model has far more to do with a mathematician's view of cognition than it does the workings of a real brain.

So I agree there's potential for socionics to be off-putting or misleading. But while it isn't perfect and entirely valuable, neither is it devoid of use, even as a hobby or adjunct to "real" psychology.

Regarding MtDew's type: On the grounds that you're consistent in being a didactic prig I find LSE quite apt for you, particularly since your admonitions rarely deviate from observations so trite as to merit no mention. You read like a self-help pamphlet written for salesmen.

* A wikipedia entry on socionics that touts its scientific validity by citing a socionics organization's socionics magazine is insufficient proof of proper peer review or falsifiability. Of the half dozen psychologists with whom I've discussed typology, only the Ukrainian had even heard of socionics and all of them dismissed MBTI and the like as parlor games or statistical astrology. MMPI and MCMI (if indicated) are their ipsative psychometric instruments of choice.

[crazedrat]

It's incontrovertible that adopting a conceptualized approach to life can increases one's susceptibility to doubt, misguidance, dogmatism, and cognitive dissonance as one attempts to integrate questionable theory with solid fact. I find that socionics holds some pragmatic value but shouldn't be treated as holy writ. Others will disagree, sometimes vehemently. Here's why: an idea entertained by multiple parties will necessarily be understood in a pluralistic way. Even if one faithfully parrots the received wisdom of a revered master there is still an epistemic and phenomenological divergence in their individual ideations.

To further complicate matters, since socionics is rationalist and not clinically validated it's presently possible to only reach consensus of faith on its articles, not proof*. Given all this uncertainty and airy-fairy-ness, people unfamiliar or uncomfortable with schematizing human cognition are unlikely to have much patience for sitting through a lecture on what and who and why they are by some loon rambling on about dual-seeking and aristocracy and quadra values. Try discussing the psychology of sport fandom with people huddled before the boobtube to watch their local team. They'll quickly tire of your probing and strange jargon and conceptualizing and they'll say, "What you're saying is kinda interesting but I'm trying to watch the fucking game here." Also, try cramming human thought into neat little boxes after you've read a tiny bit about actual neuroscience. You will quickly find that the socionic model has far more to do with a mathematician's view of cognition than it does the workings of a real brain.

So I agree there's potential for socionics to be off-putting or misleading. But while it isn't perfect and entirely valuable, neither is it devoid of use, even as a hobby or adjunct to "real" psychology.

Regarding MtDew's type: On the grounds that you're consistent in being a didactic prig I find LSE quite apt for you, particularly since your admonitions rarely deviate from observations so trite as to merit no mention. You read like a self-help pamphlet written for salesmen.

* A wikipedia entry on socionics that touts its scientific validity by citing a socionics organization's socionics magazine is insufficient proof of proper peer review or falsifiability. Of the half dozen psychologists with whom I've discussed typology, only the Ukrainian had even heard of socionics and all of them dismissed MBTI and the like as parlor games or statistical astrology. MMPI and MCMI (if indicated) are their ipsative psychometric instruments of choice.

wow, try harder

[Creepy-female]

You read like a self-help pamphlet written for salesmen.

I would shit my pants if Mountain Dew showed up on my doorstep selling the Dirt Devil SD20000

[mu4]

It's incontrovertible that adopting a conceptualized approach to life can increases one's susceptibility to doubt, misguidance, dogmatism, and cognitive dissonance as one attempts to integrate questionable theory with solid fact. I find that socionics holds some pragmatic value but shouldn't be treated as holy writ. Others will disagree, sometimes vehemently. Here's why: an idea entertained by multiple parties will necessarily be understood in a pluralistic way. Even if one faithfully parrots the received wisdom of a revered master there is still an epistemic and phenomenological divergence in their individual ideations.

To further complicate matters, since socionics is rationalist and not clinically validated it's presently possible to only reach consensus of faith on its articles, not proof*. Given all this uncertainty and airy-fairy-ness, people unfamiliar or uncomfortable with schematizing human cognition are unlikely to have much patience for sitting through a lecture on what and who and why they are by some loon rambling on about dual-seeking and aristocracy and quadra values. Try discussing the psychology of sport fandom with people huddled before the boobtube to watch their local team. They'll quickly tire of your probing and strange jargon and conceptualizing and they'll say, "What you're saying is kinda interesting but I'm trying to watch the fucking game here." Also, try cramming human thought into neat little boxes after you've read a tiny bit about actual neuroscience. You will quickly find that the socionic model has far more to do with a mathematician's view of cognition than it does the workings of a real brain.

So I agree there's potential for socionics to be off-putting or misleading. But while it isn't perfect and entirely valuable, neither is it devoid of use, even as a hobby or adjunct to "real" psychology.

Regarding MtDew's type: On the grounds that you're consistent in being a didactic prig I find LSE quite apt for you, particularly since your admonitions rarely deviate from observations so trite as to merit no mention. You read like a self-help pamphlet written for salesmen.

* A wikipedia entry on socionics that touts its scientific validity by citing a socionics organization's socionics magazine is insufficient proof of proper peer review or falsifiability. Of the half dozen psychologists with whom I've discussed typology, only the Ukrainian had even heard of socionics and all of them dismissed MBTI and the like as parlor games or statistical astrology. MMPI and MCMI (if indicated) are their ipsative psychometric instruments of choice.

I think this is fairly generic skepticism that I see constantly, talking about socionics as typology is people's biggest mistake.

Socionics is information processing, and cognitive psychology, not typology. Typology is just a logical consequence of the model. Socionics also doesn't predict behavior but information compatibility, it predicts the compatibility of mental states. This is actually something that is entirely well accepted now vs the past where psychology was behaviorism and empiricism. Especially now that mental states can be analyzed with new instruments, cognitive psychology is where the action is.

What Socionics does is provides a model of information interaction analogous to thermodynamics.

You also think that rationalist ways of thought as being bad, the truth is that without them, most of science wouldn't exist.

[FDG]

You read like a self-help pamphlet written for salesmen.

Seconded.

[Simon Ssmall]

Interesting.

Of course I have personal motivations in writing this, but I believe my general statements still apply to the vast majority of people here on this site, from observation of the past several months.

No, I talk about socionics all the time and never did I have problems with it. I just try to explain Model A in detail so it would not look like other typologies but as a science. Because Socionics is science and based on facts and observations. I have conducted tests with people and will probable make a paper about it and I dont think it is crazy or anything. You probably just do not know how to talk to people, the INFj being gentle and all loving would help you a great deal with this.

[Nowisthetime]

I thinkyour frustrations come from the fact you are
Mistyped and didnt meet your dual who would never look at you like a freak as they are all loving and great listeners, the INFjs

MD as LSE? that could be possible. I watched his videos again and actually, yeah... could be.

[crazedrat]

The Fe in him is obvious

[Slacker]

Although understanding intertype relations can be cool if played off a certain way, by and large it's misunderstood and misinterpreted by people who don't know you that well. You may be seen as a freak who analyzes people and compatibility.

Things go over people's heads. The longer you study socionics, the less you realize how other people don't understand.

Obsession with duality is unhealthy. Simply understanding socionics and duality won't make you closer to actually meeting a dual. You still must live in the real world.

Resorting to socionics to understand the relationships of everyone in your life isn't going to magically make them all better. It may help yes, but be wary of how much time you spend thinking about socionics versus how much time you spend actually living.

Discuss.

1. I would never talk to people other than my husband IRL about Socionics because they'd think I was crazy.

2. Obsession with anything is unhealthy. I don't know if understanding socionics would make you more likely to meet a dual unless people are better at typing people than they seem to be.

3. Understanding relationships because of duality can make some better. Maybe not close relationships, but some relationships I have with people have been helped because I no longer take some things personally I used to take personally, and I no longer think people of wildly different types have something wrong with them.

[Creepy-]

The point is merely to know, for me, not to improve. I need to know why things are the way they are.

[Simon Ssmall]

The point is merely to know, for me, not to improve. I need to know why things are the way they are.

Ti seeking. You need someone to explain you how something works in a way you would understand.

[Jinxi]

Ti seeking. You need someone to explain you how something works in a way you would understand.

That guy and EyeSeeCold think they're ILIs when they're LIIs. Ha. Ha. Fail.

[Simon Ssmall]

That guy and EyeSeeCold think they're ILIs when they're LIIs. Ha. Ha. Fail.

I agree EyeSeeCold is LII but he is too stubborn to accept. Why you say nil is LII?

[Jinxi]

I agree EyeSeeCold is LII but he is too stubborn to accept. Why you say nil is LII?

The guy is EyeSeeCold's bitch at the INTP forum.

[eSDe]

Socionics is Unattractive - yes, but only if you can't explain it to the others.

.F.u.c.k. .i.t. - look at other side:

Socionics is effective - because you can use it as persuasion model of communcation and it works.. great

[VILEvenezuelan]

While I don't plan to stop using it anytime soon, there is definite merit in the question.

"Mind Reading" behavior, as its often called in therapeutic circles, can create absurd amounts of anxiety. Knowing things through socionics that you otherwise wouldn't can get you used to holding all the cards, developing patterns of control that are hard to break.

The key seems to be balance- as with everything obviously. I wonder if since I use socionics as a surrogate for my PoLR, it can be more unhealthy for me to obsess about than others?

Hmmmm...

Also, explaining socionics to people is fun maybe the first million times, but then you realize after all that effort explaining (more often arguing over)the basics, most people are done with the subject and you get no substantive conversation as a social reward!

Just make sure socionics is your tool, not the other way around.

[redbaron]

Although understanding intertype relations can be cool if played off a certain way, by and large it's misunderstood and misinterpreted by people who don't know you that well. You may be seen as a freak who analyzes people and compatibility.

Things go over people's heads. The longer you study socionics, the less you realize how other people don't understand.

Obsession with duality is unhealthy. Simply understanding socionics and duality won't make you closer to actually meeting a dual. You still must live in the real world.

Resorting to socionics to understand the relationships of everyone in your life isn't going to magically make them all better. It may help yes, but be wary of how much time you spend thinking about socionics versus how much time you spend actually living.

Discuss.

I do not discuss socionics with anyone who's not on this forum. lol

It can be hard to meet a dual. This is true. But whereas before knowing socionics I would NEVER have thought I'd get along with an SLE, now I can recognize them and try to strike up a friendship, knowing that the benefits will be worth the trouble. That's worth something.

Understanding relationships and people (whether through socionics or enneagram) doesn't automatically make your relationships better but, like Slackermom said, it might help you to realize that other people aren't crazy.

Oh, I have also been stuck in that position of "knowing" things because of socionics, which can be awkward. For example, you can guess how someone else's relationship is going if you know the two types, especially when you have other small bits of information and time for observation. Suddenly you can see & understand things that no one else can. It's... weird.

[Beautiful sky]

You may be seen as a freak who analyzes people and compatibility.

Analyzing them??? LOL

Only if you mistyped yourself as an Se when you're really an analyzing Ti

anyway

IDK and IDGAD....I talk about anything with anyone I want and if they don't find me interesting or attractive or any of those ridiculously contrived social norms that I'm supposed to abide by than they can LEAVE my company and go somewhere where they will find more interest. I usually don't because I'm an Fi and do good/nice things to keep people around, but every once in a while the ILE comes out of me wickedly so. I like talking with people, on one on one basis most especially because I can't handle/dodge many questions from several angles at once, since it requires a better set of Sensory Perception that the one I currently have. But, yeah, I'm an Ne ego type, I do what I want, pretty much. I don't usually speak about Socionics with complete strangers unless my LIE friend has introduced me to them as a "Brilliant Sociologist", which I appreciate immensely; that makes me feel important and comfortable and people look at you differently when you're those things.

[Simon Ssmall]

Analyzing them??? LOL

Only if you mistyped yourself as an Se when you're really an analyzing Ti

anyway

IDK and IDGAD....I talk about anything with anyone I want and if they don't find me interesting or attractive or any of those ridiculously contrived social norms that I'm supposed to abide by than they can LEAVE my company and go somewhere where they will find more interest. I usually don't because I'm an Fi and do good/nice things to keep people around, but every once in a while the ILE comes out of me wickedly so. I like talking with people, on one on one basis most especially because I can't handle/dodge many questions from several angles at once, since it requires a better set of Sensory Perception that the one I currently have. But, yeah, I'm an Ne ego type, I do what I want, pretty much. I don't usually speak about Socionics with complete strangers unless my LIE friend has introduced me to them as a "Brilliant Sociologist", which I appreciate immensely; that makes me feel important and comfortable and people look at you differently when you're those things.

Very healthy approach. I also do what I want and am a Ne ego.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Very healthy approach. I also do what I want and am a Ne ego.

I wanted to do something once.

[Simon Ssmall]

I wanted to do something once.

Constructivist types. As emotivists want to experience something new all the time. You are of constructivist people.

[Absurd]

Constructivist types. As emotivists want to experience something new all the time. You are of constructivist people.

Don't mock Brilliant Sociologist and Guru of Socionics Ssmall.

[pianosinger]

Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that it is probably wiser for me to not talk too much about Socionics with other people, or to tell them what types I think they are, unless I know they'll take it as a compliment. Like, I'm not telling my mom and dad that I think I am their Supervisor and Benefactor respectively.

I was already talking to my SIL a lot about personality a while back and she seemed quite interested. I gave her and her husband some type decriptions to read, but I have never followed up with them, because now I am convinced that they are Conflictors, and I really just don't think it would be good for them to believe that they are psychologically incompatible (even though they seem to get along relatively well most of the time regardless, though they do have their conflicts; they have already been married for eight years). If they ever come to me asking questions, I suppose I will answer them as tactuflly as possible, but otherwise I am just not even going to bring up Socionics anymore.

I can understand why MBTI is more popular.

[Exodus]

Although understanding intertype relations can be cool if played off a certain way, by and large it's misunderstood and misinterpreted by people who don't know you that well. You may be seen as a freak who analyzes people and compatibility.

Do you feel like you're a freak for being interested in socionics?

I usually discuss socionics only with people I know very well. It can lead to awkward situations with lots of people. "What's our relationship?" "Uh, it's called Conflict." "Oh..."

[Creepy-Snaps]

Do you feel like you're a freak for being interested in socionics?

No, like others have mentioned, I usually don't bring it up, or play it off in an helpful way, so that people are interested. And avoid nerdy terminology.

I made the thread because I think many people here take socionics from a hobby to an obsession. My opinion has changed slightly though; now, it seems like most people treat it as a hobby, and casually. Which is good. I still think socionics should not be taken as a hardcore science, or invested a lot of time into, since I think there's a plateau point to how useful it can be. Trying to master an inexact science will leave you with lots of wasted time and unhappiness.

Regardless, thank you everyone for the responses. I've read them all. And excellent post by k0rpsey on the 1st page, I loved it.

[Codie]

Obsession with duality is unhealthy.

I agree, but It's better thinking of someone as a dual than a "twin flame." lol.. thats a little more dangerous.

[ashlesha]

I agree, but It's better thinking of someone as a dual than a "twin flame." lol.. thats a little more dangerous.

weird, why? its less forced and actually based on real feelings of chemistry. and it doesn't pretend to have something of objective substance backing it up.

i don't mean to debate about it i'm just very curious why you would see it that way.

[Codie]

weird, why?

Well, for one, if you believe someone is your one-and only-missing peice of your soul.. you might put them on a pedestal and cause yourself alot of limerent heartache.

actually based on real feelings of chemistry.

The concept of duals might help to explain those feelings, I guess?

[InkStrider]

weird, why? its less forced and actually based on real feelings of chemistry. and it doesn't pretend to have something of objective substance backing it up.

i don't mean to debate about it i'm just very curious why you would see it that way.

Socionics duality claim 1/16th of humanity. Twinflames claim 1 set of souls out of billions. See the danger?

Yeah, placing one's penis into a flame is not a grand idea.

Agreed.

[Creepy-pokeball]

I agree, but It's better thinking of someone as a dual than a "twin flame." lol.. thats a little more dangerous.

Yeah, placing one's penis into a flame is not a grand idea.