Uncle Rob's Type (With VI!)

[InkStrider]

I'm drawing upon what I've read from various sites. There really doesn't seem to be any consensus on what the information elements actually do, everyone has a different answer. No one seems to agree on types either.

Socionics is popular due to the predictive power of intertype relations, which is what differentiates it from the usual personality theories. Hence, your relations with people is probably the best judge of what your type really is. However there's a chance that you've mistyped the people around you as well. Who our actual duals are also difficult to identify (I would never thought EIIs are my true complementary types, and it's a type I most commonly overlook if not for socionics.)

As for what the functions really mean, I think we can really only get to know through descriptions from individuals who actually have it in their ego block and who are properly typed, besides our own individual observations and experiences.

At this juncture I'm just about ready to throw socionics out the window.

This may not be such a bad option. If I could erase my own memory of socionics, I probably would.

[Galen]

I'm drawing upon what I've read from various sites. There really doesn't seem to be any consensus on what the information elements actually do, everyone has a different answer. No one seems to agree on types either. At this juncture I'm just about ready to throw socionics out the window.

Ah yes, the "nobody knows wtf it means" dilemma. The problem with most IE and type descriptions is that they describe aspects of personality that aren't relevant to what socionics even attempts to define. You have to approach the subject more qualitatively than most descriptions will let on. So things like "Se is aggression" "Ti is logic" etc. should be thrown out the window, and in their stead be replaced with depictions of various cognitive and understanding styles. Trouble is, there aren't many accounts like that lying around, so you either have to join the discussion about the nature of perception and understanding, or create your own inferences. I would recommend the former, since there seems to be a bit more of legitimate discussion going around recently (in some corners of the site, at least).

As for what the functions really mean, I think we can really only get to know through descriptions from individuals who actually have it in their ego block and who are properly typed, besides our own individual observations and experiences.

This is a really good start. I think on top of that you'd also need people who have high levels of meta-cognitive ability, because there will be someone "correctly" typed as ESFj whose understanding of the IEs amounts to no more than "Fe is smiling, Si is pillows and dandelions," etc.

[Timmy]

I'm drawing upon what I've read from various sites. There really doesn't seem to be any consensus on what the information elements actually do, everyone has a different answer. No one seems to agree on types either. At this juncture I'm just about ready to throw socionics out the window.

Socionics is only valuable to the extent that it helps you better conceptualize/comprehend your social universe or else gives you something interesting to mull over in your spare time. It is entirely possible for two people who interpret socionics in vastly different ways to each gain valid insights by applying their respective interpretations of the theory. Just as there are many ways to correctly solve a math problem or start a business, there are many different ways to arrive at a more or less accurate understanding of a particular social dynamic. Granted, some people have shit for brains and are bound to use socionics mumbo jumbo as a means of leveraging the meaninglessness of their delusions, but that doesn't mean the whole theory is a steaming heap of shit. Mind you, idiots attempt to contort reasonable theories and logical formulations to fit some half baked theory all the time, as evidenced in the following moron's "proof" of god.

"It is an absolute truth that only that which equates ( = ) is true, that each approximation is founded upon a minimum of one untruth, and that, as such, each approximation is, technically, untrue. It is, also, an absolute truth ( = ) that, regardless of it's complexity, there is only one (1) original source of all of life, itself, and, therefore, of all of conscious life, itself, and, therefore, of consciousness, itself, and, given that the original source of all of consciousness, itself, cannot be unconscious and that consciousness, itself, cannot be inferior to itself, the original source of conscious life is, therefore, conscious ...whom most people call GOD. "

Now, does the above example invalidate formal logic as a valuable tool by which to interpret reality? I think not.

In my experience, of those who've given socionics a fair shake, the smartest and dumbest people are usually the one's who find the theory most compelling. Or maybe I'm just an idiot who cannot make objective observations. In fact, that's probably the case. All the same, I invite you to try out the theory for size before throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Absurd]

However there's a chance that you've mistyped the people around you as well.

Haha! I see you found a use for this word 'mistyped' after all. I remember you opposing to the fact greatly in Socionics and You thread, if my memory serves me right. Ye, it was something like this: "why why why, blah blah should we(?) even use the word mistyped."

And I said something like this: "So you could make use of it."

I guess I was wrong as always.

Who our actual duals are also difficult to identify (I would never thought EIIs are my true complementary types, and it's a type I most commonly overlook if not for socionics.)

True types ye? Heh, I remember that from Socionics and You as well.

[krieger]

probably marx' type (INFp), since you like bolshewism and gulags.

[Gilly]

FWIW I can relate a lot to what Rob says about Se-seeking.

[ashlesha]

i dont know his mind but it all sounded very much like what an ili should say in theory.

[Gilly]

probably marx' type (INFp), since you like bolshewism and gulags.

Joke? Marx was ILE as fuck.

[krieger]

no.

[717495]

Kitty

[Absurd]

no.

Seems you've got some company there being LSI. There's no escape labbie.

[InkStrider]

i dont know his mind but it all sounded very much like what an ili should say in theory.

That was what I noticed too.

I really dislike the horrible caricatures people have of Delta STs, who are crude old fools in love with food, comfort, drudgery, and everything boring. It's no wonder that nobody wants to be Delta ST (not saying that Uncle Rob necessarily is one).

[Pa3s]

I really dislike the horrible caricatures people have of Delta STs, who are crude old fools in love with food, comfort, drudgery, and everything boring.

I don't have such a negative opinion of Delta STs at all. And I also don't really consider boringness to be anan overly negative trait.

ESTj = stodgy bureaucrats
ISTp = grease monkeys

My best friend (ISTp) is actually a mechatronic technician aka the modern word for car mechanic. I guess those stereotypes have to come from somewhere.

[InkStrider]

ESTj = stodgy bureaucrats
ISTp = grease monkeys

My best friend (ISTp) is actually a mechatronic technician aka the modern word for car mechanic. I guess those stereotypes have to come from somewhere.

My ISTp friend is super into cars too.

[Sumer1an]

You are an ILI. You do come across like an ISTp in some aspects but as far as the information you've given everything you have said resonates with Ni/Se and Te/Fi not to mention the devalued functions being devalued. Also everything you have said seems to parallel with me. We also come across similarly (apart from the ISTp aspect)

[Nico1e]

It bothers me to hear someone saying that they are considering just dumping all of socionics. I'm one of those hardcore socionics devotees who thinks that this is the most awesome personality typing system ever invented. So I feel like we have to give you some sort of 'exit survey.' Like a 'How did our customer service dissatisfy you' kind of thing.

Socionics would be more obviously useful if it were more commonly known in the USA (and I assume you're in the USA?) and there were actually local groups with people meeting in person. If more people were applying it and using it, then you would have opportunities to actually meet with duals and experience what it's like to interact with people who are very compatible with you. Like if socionics dating websites were widely available here, or groups that meet in person where you know everyone's types. I've wanted to do that kind of thing but I'm too busy worrying about a dozen other projects.

But if you can't experience it, then it really won't look all that useful, and you would be tempted to just forget about it.

People are more easily convinced about socionics if they have experienced a dual relationship in the past, and they can say 'Hey! They really were exactly the type that the theory predicts!' That is how I myself became convinced about socionics. If you've never had a great relationship in the past and noticed that it was a dual, then you'd have to just take socionics on faith for a long time.

[InkStrider]

It bothers me to hear someone saying that they are considering just dumping all of socionics. I'm one of those hardcore socionics devotees who thinks that this is the most awesome personality typing system ever invented. So I feel like we have to give you some sort of 'exit survey.' Like a 'How did our customer service dissatisfy you' kind of thing.

Socionics would be more obviously useful if it were more commonly known in the USA (and I assume you're in the USA?) and there were actually local groups with people meeting in person. If more people were applying it and using it, then you would have opportunities to actually meet with duals and experience what it's like to interact with people who are very compatible with you. Like if socionics dating websites were widely available here, or groups that meet in person where you know everyone's types. I've wanted to do that kind of thing but I'm too busy worrying about a dozen other projects.

But if you can't experience it, then it really won't look all that useful, and you would be tempted to just forget about it.

People are more easily convinced about socionics if they have experienced a dual relationship in the past, and they can say 'Hey! They really were exactly the type that the theory predicts!' That is how I myself became convinced about socionics. If you've never had a great relationship in the past and noticed that it was a dual, then you'd have to just take socionics on faith for a long time.

I differ in your view on the practicality of socionics. Yes, it does seem to have some consistent patterns in real life, which serves as a bait to addict us to the theory. But it also shifts your focus somewhat, that at some point you end up focusing on the people that fit your perception of a dual and what is favourable to you and ignoring other alternatives.

There are some people who don't fit so nicely into a theoretical type and find it difficult to type themselves, which is especially so the more well-rounded they are. The danger is in falling into stereotypes, entertaining and accepting these stereotypes as part of ourselves, unconsciously acting our type rather than what is natural. With socionics as ambiguous as it is, we can easily twist it to fit ourselves into any type.

Having expectations of how a person should act in any relationship makes it less real and genuine. And socionics knowledge provides the tool to do just that, among other things. I mean, it's cool to be able to explain why things worked out the way they did using socionics terms as an afterthought, but certainly not before, which is what socionics dating sites are implicitly planting into people's minds.

It's like what's been posted in the socionics the disease thread. One set of delusions is replaced with another, rendering us unable to "experience" the direct experience in its most simple form. Like how it is to view the world through the eyes of a babe, where every experience is unique in every way; how we ourselves used to be able to do many years ago.

What you've expressed is the ideal. Unfortunately when ideal is converted into application, it tends to become not-so-ideal.

[Erk]

I'm SLI and I would not necessarily enjoy a job cooking either. Sounds to me like you do not know exactly what Si is.