Results 1 to 40 of 40

Thread: Why Socionics Blows

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,645
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Why Socionics Blows

    • People actually think they can explain everything into types as a way to explain their failed relationships and justify blowing someone off before giving them a fair chance
    • Everything is a perspective, so the more you think about socionics, the more it consumes your mind. But it's always wrong and you spend more time trying to make it fit reality rather than let reality fit you. There are no real benefits.
    • Other aspects of psychology don't matter at all in socionics land. Personality disorders, psychiatric illnesses, and simple things like giving someone the benefit of the doubt or finding ways to appreciate kinds of people that conflict with your supposed type are a no-no because there's a relationship chart and it can't be wrong or that would make this all pointless.
    • In socionics simple things like trust, humor, patience, benevolence, and good-will towards others have nothing to do with your relationships with other people, but only type has anything to do with your relationships with other people (unless one actually believes this to be some kind of major distinction, which makes me want to fart)
    • There is no such thing as simple bad luck or simple misunderstandings. If something can't be explained by socionics Jungian functions, it's because you're too stupid to understand it.
    • Everyone has strong opinions about how to understand and apply socionics and can't really agree on anything. :redflag:
    • The functional elements are way too general to accurately diagnose causal relationships between types, let alone diagnose the types themselves that would cause such phenomenon.
    • For this to be useful, your type shouldn't change, except because everything is so general, it can and does, because you're not a robot and you have free will.


    #kicks dirt in your eyes#

    what else did i forget?

  2. #2
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    not bad at all.

    one addition: if you can't find a way to fit your personality into one of the types then either there is something wrong with you or other people need to be corrected about the theory so that you can be included. or you're just too stupid to get it.

  3. #3
    Fuck-up NewBorn STAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    TIM
    me>> Augusta whore
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    All fine and dandy.


    Just that i dont think the fault is at socionics. Its just the misaplication of a developing theory to hide out all the insecurities and other denial shit. Aka typical human behavior. You should be angry and the stupidity and bring some constructive ways how to fight it overall. So far all fine and dandy. But if you will just rigidly tell others how they are wrong and not even try to be somewhat flexible to them you will just block all the change because of your own dick so to say

  4. #4
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,645
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NewBorn STAR View Post
    Just that i dont think the fault is at socionics.
    innocence never does

  5. #5
    Fuck-up NewBorn STAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    TIM
    me>> Augusta whore
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magna View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NewBorn STAR View Post
    Just that i dont think the fault is at socionics.
    innocence never does
    You seem to me like another ego narsistic on the board only contributing to the misery of socionics.

    If this is microcosmos of a society in the world (theyr level isnt that much higher, just here clowns like you can better express themselves.) I would suppose you were a rapist banker on the macrocosmic level.


    And yeah crispy you are wrong

  6. #6
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why socionics really blows:
    It attracts failures who are too impatient to really dig deep and study something. Megaphoning socionics' non-existence is just a display of your ignorance on the subject, not some revelation you had after being so confused you gave up. Stop being an intellectual pussy and start reading shit. Any accusations of the common socionics user as seeing their insecurities in types and other sorts of bullshit is just a projection of how you would have used the theory if you tried.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  7. #7
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    nah ur wrong

  8. #8
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    k
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  9. #9
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics doesn't blow, just 3 of the 4 quadras do.

  10. #10
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    mysticsonic had some good points. but i dont understand the idea that regardless of how its interpreted or applied theres nothing wrong with it as a theory when its something thats interpreted and applied differently by every single person and doesnt really "exist." i mean theres probably nothing wrong with the theory of (insert religious belief here) but that doesnt mean its actually true or that the behavior its inspired in people over the years has no relevance. so saying theres nothing wrong with the theory itself looks like preaching the faith to me.

  11. #11
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    but you CANT gather people together and categorize them in concretely manifested ways. isnt that what we try to do here when we type people? if it was concretely manifested there would be agreement. even among people who have similar methods and similar typings, theyre still seeing different things on the path to get there because the stuff that socionics describes can only be seen subjectively. you can completely agree with someone about what Ej temperament looks like conceptually and still disagree about whether or not a subject is Ej temperament. you can completely agree with someone about how Ej temperament manifests in an observable and tangible fashion, on paper, and still disagree about whether or not a subject is Ej temperament.

    the semantics might be a hopeful thing as far as this is concerned. but one of my beefs with socionics (a major one) is that i reject the idea that it would be impossible to encounter someone who for example uses a large amount of vocabular associated with Si and with Ni. BUT the thing with socionics is that most practitioners would deal with such a person by citing a strong role function or a harmonizing DCNH subtype or even (god damnit) some flaw on behalf of the subject, like insincerity. when its all conceptual and subjective, you can bullshit your way throught anything.

    which is fine and dandy - pfft, i guess - if youre using socionics in a way that is useful to you and not causing harm (like how mysticsonic described). but honestly i think most people do not.

  12. #12
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    it feels like dealing with smudged eyeliner thanks for asking sweetheart

  13. #13
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    AB-IEI-Ni
    Posts
    13,815
    Mentioned
    597 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not sure that you understand the functions well enough and what the socionists were really trying to say before you made such a harsh judgement. I suppose you can still think that socionics sucks, but do you really understand it? I don't care whether or not you like socionics or dislike socionics, but at least UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY you know? Otherwise it's like you are hating something when you don't even know about it. I just think that's kinda ignorant on an Archie Bunker level.

  14. #14
    Cat King Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    IIEE so/sp 4w5
    Posts
    735
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magna View Post
    • People actually think they can explain everything into types as a way to explain their failed relationships and justify blowing someone off before giving them a fair chance
    Inexperienced people will try to use Socionics to explain why their relationships failed. Those people need to learn better.

    People with real-life first or second-hand experience of relationships will tell you some are worth writing off, and some are worth paying more attention to than you naturally would. I paid no attention to the crazy sage nerds in my school until the final year of high school, and only then did I find out what I was missing out on.

    I also finally have an explanation for why it is I consistently feel uncomfortable or out of place in some groups or with some people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magna View Post
    • Everything is a perspective, so the more you think about socionics, the more it consumes your mind. But it's always wrong and you spend more time trying to make it fit reality rather than let reality fit you. There are no real benefits.
    Not according to experience it isn't. This is your ignorance or misunderstanding.

    Granted, it's not 100% true 100% of the time, but it's not 100% wrong 100% of the time either (like a flat earth theory). Pick and choose what works and what has practical and useful results.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magna View Post
    • Other aspects of psychology don't matter at all in socionics land. Personality disorders, psychiatric illnesses, and simple things like giving someone the benefit of the doubt or finding ways to appreciate kinds of people that conflict with your supposed type are a no-no because there's a relationship chart and it can't be wrong or that would make this all pointless.
    First point is plain wrong. Socionics, even since its conception, has very explicitly applied only to mentally healthy individuals.

    And again, with experience you collect support for the intertypes. Supervision works as intended, Extinguishment works as intended, Mirror works as intended, Activity works as intended, Business works as intended, Duality is fairly obviously Aushra's fantasy, and works only partially as intended, Semi-dual works as intended. I can't think of any more off the top of my head.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magna View Post
    • In socionics simple things like trust, humor, patience, benevolence, and good-will towards others have nothing to do with your relationships with other people, but only type has anything to do with your relationships with other people (unless one actually believes this to be some kind of major distinction, which makes me want to fart)
    But Socionics doesn't forbid these influences. Or if it does you can ignore that particular restriction as a bunk claim because nothing of importance in the theory hinges on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magna View Post
    • There is no such thing as simple bad luck or simple misunderstandings. If something can't be explained by socionics Jungian functions, it's because you're too stupid to understand it.
    Since when?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magna View Post
    • Everyone has strong opinions about how to understand and apply socionics and can't really agree on anything. :redflag:
    I concede this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magna View Post
    • The functional elements are way too general to accurately diagnose causal relationships between types, let alone diagnose the types themselves that would cause such phenomenon.
    I also concede this point, but some people find the elements quite useful as more than ways of organising why certain intertypes do what they do after you know a type and know the relationship.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magna View Post
    • For this to be useful, your type shouldn't change, except because everything is so general, it can and does, because you're not a robot and you have free will.


    Non-sequitur.
    Know I'm mistyped?


    Why I am now.
    Why I was , once.

    DISCLAIMER
    The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.

  15. #15
    Le roi internet Bluenoir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Zeta Reticuli
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    389
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Okey let's go through this point by point.

    People actually think they can explain everything into types as a way to explain their failed relationships and justify blowing someone off before giving them a fair chance
    That's true, but I don't see how that kind of misapplication has any bearing on the actual content of socionics itself. You can twist just about anything into easy self serving answers.

    Everything is a perspective, so the more you think about socionics, the more it consumes your mind. But it's always wrong and you spend more time trying to make it fit reality rather than let reality fit you. There are no real benefits.
    Again, what has that got to do with socioncs? Confirmation bias among it's practitioners has more to do with the fallacious nature of human beings rather than the merits of the theory in its self.

    Other aspects of psychology don't matter at all in socionics land. Personality disorders, psychiatric illnesses, and simple things like giving someone the benefit of the doubt or finding ways to appreciate kinds of people that conflict with your supposed type are a no-no because there's a relationship chart and it can't be wrong or that would make this all pointless
    I don't know what you are talking about, no one with a brain is claiming that socionics is the key to understanding human psychology. It's just a conceptual framework dealing with information metabolism and how it can play in human interactions.

    In socionics simple things like trust, humor, patience, benevolence, and good-will towards others have nothing to do with your relationships with other people, but only type has anything to do with your relationships with other people (unless one actually believes this to be some kind of major distinction, which makes me want to fart)
    No, socionics is about the supposed interaction of information values between people. It has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

    There is no such thing as simple bad luck or simple misunderstandings. If something can't be explained by socionics Jungian functions, it's because you're too stupid to understand it.
    Just beacuse you can take socionics into absurdity, does not mean socionics itself is bunk.

    Everyone has strong opinions about how to understand and apply socionics and can't really agree on anything. :redflag
    True, that is why you should take what you read with a grain of salt.

    The functional elements are way too general to accurately diagnose causal relationships between types, let alone diagnose the types themselves that would cause such phenomenon
    I more or less agree with this, I'm am not at all claiming socioncs to be perfect or even remotely scientific.

    For this to be useful, your type shouldn't change, except because everything is so general, it can and does, because you're not a robot and you have free will.
    Type, if it exists does not change. The type people think they are can.
    The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.

    Chapter 14, Verse 9.
    The Bhagavad Gita

  16. #16
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yea, most of these points are founded in methodological flaws in the attempts to understand and apply the theory of Socionics, rather than having to do with the theory itself. Socionics is however impractically vague, with the concepts being far too general to be of much practical application. Socionics still finds uses, however, if taken with the general mindset that it is a theory about how people think, and how these different types of thinking relate them to others. When you simply take into account that general idea, Socionics can present some interesting ideas that can further your empathy with other people. Socionics is not an excuse, it is not a means to write-off social or personal failures with others as being theoretically inevitable, it is simply a means to understanding what might have contributed to the failure in the first place. Regardless of how others might be applying it, the mature and healthy way to apply Socionics is to take the understanding you gain from it, and attempt to work at a solution to the problems in light of your new understanding. And, at all times, it is imperative to take Socionic considerations _lightly_.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  17. #17
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,615
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics blows on internet forums, works like a charm in real life (most of the time).
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  18. #18
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    How dare you speak of real life as though its some proven reality.

  19. #19
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    AB-IEI-Ni
    Posts
    13,815
    Mentioned
    597 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Kudos to whoever mentioned Information Metabolism. Yes, it's about information metabolism. It's not about what people say or how they say it , it's more like what you subjectively interpret them as saying. This all creates a flow of energy exchange and describes the specific energy two people are socially exchanging. (Let's start with two people first to understand this, and then later you can apply it to groups as well)

    PS: Maybe you feel that's not direct enough or something but that's what it is.

    Fi isn't about romantic love. Because every healthy person wants love and connection. Fi is a functional metabolism organic processes in your brain that, depending on many variables and factors, simply reacts to certain physical stimuli in different ways that your body is processing "emotionally" and "Psychologically." The different subjective neurotic psychoanalizations we all make about Fi are both true and untrue. But all FI REALLY IS AT ITS INNATE CORE IS : 'Internal Statics of Fields.'

    Well your mind can break 'Internal Statics of Fields' down to a lot of different shit. Just how like you can see a red apple as being blue in your head. Objectively you don't actually change the color of the apple, just your perception. So you can make Fi mean a whole bunch of shit that you want it to mean. You can even think you are being clever and think that Fi means 'resonance' (Sorry Ashton, I like picking on you no hard feelings bro =p)

    But it really doesn't even mean any of that no matter how interesting you're making it sound. It just means a function that is 'Internal Statics of Fields.' Even if it's your polr it still exists genetically in your brain. Just like people with erectile dysfunction still have penises. (Penii? =p) A function is a REAL material thing, composed up of their own different unique cells, that exist in a matrix-web in the human brain which translates to what is more popularly known in pop-psychology as 'the human psyche.'


    Perhaps it's not quite as vague as we think. And can this all still be bullshit? Maybe. But at least understand it really well before you make that conclusion. It's interesting to me when I can put socionics in its proper perspective and not use it to 'attack others' that I don't like.
    Last edited by Shazaam; 07-20-2011 at 09:29 AM.

  20. #20
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magna View Post

    only type has anything to do with your relationships with other people (unless one actually believes this to be some kind of major distinction, which makes me want to fart)
    I hear this often, but I think it's a misunderstanding.

    Socionics only talks about interaction patterns.

    Ofcourse personality disorders etc play a large role in relationships.

    Socionics just focusses on 1 factor of a relationship, the information exchange, nothing more. Though it's an important factor. Probably the second most important one. Most important one being a healthy psyche.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,577
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    okay, people seem to like point by point

    Quote Originally Posted by Magna View Post
    • People actually think they can explain everything into types as a way to explain their failed relationships and justify blowing someone off before giving them a fair chance


    • Everything is a perspective, so the more you think about socionics, the more it consumes your mind. But it's always wrong and you spend more time trying to make it fit reality rather than let reality fit you. There are no real benefits.
    • Other aspects of psychology don't matter at all in socionics land. Personality disorders, psychiatric illnesses, and simple things like giving someone the benefit of the doubt or finding ways to appreciate kinds of people that conflict with your supposed type are a no-no because there's a relationship chart and it can't be wrong or that would make this all pointless.
    • In socionics simple things like trust, humor, patience, benevolence, and good-will towards others have nothing to do with your relationships with other people, but only type has anything to do with your relationships with other people (unless one actually believes this to be some kind of major distinction, which makes me want to fart)


    • There is no such thing as simple bad luck or simple misunderstandings. If something can't be explained by socionics Jungian functions, it's because you're too stupid to understand it.
    stupid straw man arguments that assume everyone who applies socionics is necessarily biased and unhinged. not even worth considering.


    • Everyone has strong opinions about how to understand and apply socionics and can't really agree on anything. :redflag:
    absolutely. you can make a strong case the subjectivity itself diminishes the usefulness of a language and perhaps just for this very reason we should pick a less descriptive one.


    • The functional elements are way too general to accurately diagnose causal relationships between types, let alone diagnose the types themselves that would cause such phenomenon.
    either this is a straw man argument and you have failed to consider the extent of the influence of quadra values, or you have considered them and i just disagree with your interpretation. i cannot tell.


    • For this to be useful, your type shouldn't change, except because everything is so general, it can and does, because you're not a robot and you have free will.
    your criticism violates a widely accepted model assumption for no apparent reason other than that you make idiotic assumptions about the implications of the predictions the model does make. to be sure, we can speak about the usefulness of type change, or of my preference of operationalizing type change -- conceptualizing socionics as a language at the level of IM elements and dismisssing static predictions -- but to base your criticisms of socionics on this view demonstrates how pathetically clueless you are.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,968
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magna View Post
    [LIST][*] People actually think they can explain everything into types as a way...
    Every criticism you've leveled here is basically true. However, the caveat is that not everyone applies Socionics in the way you're suggesting. People notice regularities in behavior; they find that Socionics formalizes some of what they've already observed. They find it interesting and have every reason to explore, discuss, and even try to apply it to life situations, and to other endeavors (textual analysis, writing stories, cognitive science...).

    You may think that Socionics is so messy that it can't be applied, and surely one must be careful. But the flip side is that people apply their opinions about people's personalities all the time, but they just don't call it Socionics. The fact that Socionics adds a bunch of theory and ideas to that may be good or bad, depending on how someone uses it.

    And yes, most likely not everyone is talking about the same thing...There are clearly different versions of Socionics, just as people's perceptions of this stuff are different without the language of Socionics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •