<travis_d> socionics is unhealthy for most people anyways
<vague> Yeah, I think most people become too self obsessed.
<travis_d> what good does learning about your what your roles are "supposed to" be do? it sets limitations and expectations, neither of which is healthy... people should just "be"
<vague> Some people do look at it that way. Others just look at it as a way of giving words to what is already naturally occurring.
<vague> anyway, I have to go get ready. later folks.
|<-- vague has left irc.sorcery.net (Quit: vague)
<travis_d> I agree and disagree with her point
<travis_d> I don't think anyone is EXACTLY like they're type description... "should" they be?
<travis_d> if it helps them to accept themself, yes
<travis_d> if it messes up their life because they're looking to be a perfect "type" in an imperfect world... then perhaps not
<meryt> well, I think Socionics is harmless and potentially a positive thing if you realise that there is a gap between theory and reality, and that Socionics will always fall short
<travis_d> or reality will always fall short
<meryt> and that they also realise the Socionics should serve reality, not the other way around
<meryt> no, Socionics will always fall short
<meryt> that is where rmcnew has it wrong
<travis_d> it falls short only because the world is imperfect
<meryt> but at least he realise that they will not perfectly match
<travis_d> and it does not account for that
<meryt> it seems that a lot of people don't get that far
<meryt> but without Socionics, they would find some other theory to be a slave to
<meryt> so there is nothing really wrong with Socionics in that respect, just with their attitude