I no longer believe in socionics

[Suz]

The way I see it, socionic phenomena will happen whether you believe in it or not. Knowing socionics just helps you recognize them and be aware of them. Despite that though, I'm sure I still miss socionic-based events, which is fine of course. I feel socionics is best used as an observational tool rather than something you can use to manipulate situations.

However, case in point, socionics has come in handy for me in dealing with an Se-POLR, Fe-DS coworker who was spreading false vicious rumors about me at work. When, in the heat of the moment, I was going to respond to her in an Se-ish way (i guess recruiting my role function), threatening to sue her for slander, I decided against that course of action (and i'm really glad i did). I ended up deciding to sit down with her and talk through everything, bring everything out into the open and debunk the lies she was telling. It worked really well, but I did make her cry towards the end of the discussion (once the fact that she was lying was made obvious), at which point i remembered she has Fe-DS, and I gave her a hug (which worked like a charm). Now we are back to being "friends", though I will NEVER trust her again (I actually never did trust her, even from the outset, but now i trust her even less). I have to say, knowledge of socionics was, in part, what guided me in resolving this challenging situation in a relatively benign way.

[leckysupport]

If I were horribly lacking in self-awareness and oblivious to my own mentations, maybe.

…

I assume most people (myself included) are capable of considering and reality-testing ideas, while simultaneously maintaining an attitude of healthy skepticism towards said ideas.

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2011/1...influence.html
Rick wrote a blog post detailing how one would separate themselves from socionics, in it he effectively says acting like an IEE is the way to overcome socionics. Socionics had been so embedded in his mind that he couldn’t separate a general solution from a socionics one and what’s more pathetic is that couldn’t even tell the difference.

FTR Rick has been involved with socionics for about a decade.

Socionics breeds delusion and dishonesty especially with seasoned socionists who have "overcome" socionics.

Lol, you're being way too literal and pedantic about what I said there.

I consider your response to be too literal and pedantic.

Even with typology in general it is still logos before observation.

[FDG]

What the fuck is being discussed here. If someone has friends that get along with him/her well and has good life, then he isn't "excessively obsessed" with socionics. That is the ultimate reality check. No need for further philosophical inquiries.

[leckysupport]

Yeah, right back at you.

Good for Rick. One case example of one socionist totally speaks volumes about every single person ever interested in socionics! Hurrr.

He's a great example of how people fool themselves into believing they have self-control when it comes to socionics. It should act as a warning to others to check their own beliefs no matter how certain they are.

Lol. I guess even scientifically validated typology instruments like Big Five fail by your standard.

Big Five has an extremely limited scope in terms of everyday personal applicability it barely counts for anything. I haven't used Big Five, I would suppose that you need to make your own assumptions to tie the findings of Big Five together to form something useful.

But generally I doubt Big Five is all you use and I know socionics is mixed up in your 'observations'.

So my point is still valid.

[Suz]

Oh one other thing i'd like to mention for the OP in regards to his dualities not working out like he hoped... ime duality is actually not the easiest relation to start up. First of all, you have to be interacting closely to really recognize any chemistry to begin with. Duals arent usually ones that are gonna blow you away with their awesomeness just by being present somewhere. Duals are so "normal" to you, you might not even give them a second thought in a crowd or with just peripheral interactions (people tend to have an initial attraction to "exotic", not "normal"). So, actually initial attractions are probably strongest with conflictors, superego, semiduals, supervisors/ees (among others maybe).

Also, the more undualized a dual is, the harder it is to start up a successful relationship with them. However, even if things dont work out with a dual, even if you dont realize it, duals do at the very least tend to INFLUENCE each other to grow and improve. So, the more duals you've had the opportunity to interact with, the more "dualized" you become (i.e. the more you've learned and grown from their influence) and the more likely the next duality you come across might turn into a successful meeting of the minds. My point in mentioning this is that duality tends to be a beneficial interaction, even if things dont turn out the way you wanted.

And of course, not to mention the NTR factors that can heavily influence the success of a relationship... like lifestyle, religious and/or cultural values, educational level, etc etc etc. All of that can cause a no-go in any relation, even duality. Duality does not trump all.

The downside to having socionic awareness is that you might recognize a dual using socionic clues, without having had a close enough interaction with them such that they recognize you as their dual too (subconsciously of course). The challenge then becomes finding a way to have that close interaction, which may or may not pan out. Duals can and do unfortunately sometimes pass up duality for other relations (sometimes bad ones like supervision or even conflict). Lots of people get married to their supervisors or conflictors, or what have you, and lots of people do end up having marriages of mutual misunderstanding that end up in divorce. That can be very frustrating, especially since you can't just tell them that a relationship with this person or that person wont work out. It's something each person needs to experience for themselves.

[Absurd]

Alright, like Minde pointed out, I don't know what belief has got to do with socionics at least in my case. Dumbo OP fell for the oldest trick in the book what I'm going to, hmm, rend and tear apart shortly.

But to the point. Leckysupport you blab about Logos so I think you're some kind of a wise guy, read, intellectual. Brace yourself. Put on armour and grab a shield.

Ready? Okay.

Logos is knowledge/wisdom, it is a thought, it is something inner, it is infused into humanity and at the same time isn't something uniquely human, but in fact a principle and that's exactly how it starts. Logos exists just because it chooses to exist, out of necessity, one can say.

Seems to me you refuse to use it out of fear it can turn into something monstrously diabolical, alright. I don't know though what is the reason you still self-type yourself or actually type others, me for example. Same goes for any one who does the same, you're not special.

You tell us Rick's brain has been infested with socionics and he is now a brain eating zombie. I think time is ripe for Nico1e to have babies with him.

Excuse me, got carried away, I'm back on track again.

So, we have Logos and we have to have something that enables it to manifest in a particular form. It's religion, it is faith, words. Words are symbolic and help you to label and name this thought you have and voila! Lo and behold! Best LSE in world emerges! Heh, yes that's right, the problem you speak of happens when people try to impart this knowledge - to others who simply believe them on faith, that is believe.

Now, dumbo OP where is my money?

Oh ye, almost forgot. I think you both want to join my chapel on here.

AVE SOCIONIKA!!!

[Snore]

I'd say believe in people but even they cause you to lose faith in anything.

[Suz]

I'd say believe in people but even they cause you to lose faith in anything.

very true!!

[Absurd]

Ave?

[Lobo]

Socionics is just a theory guys... It's harmless. The problem isn't with Socionics, it's with you (in general) treating it as the "truth" and then feeling disappointed due to how you filled the gaps in your life without knowing it, or finding it hard to always treat it as just a theory (as it should be imo). Because Socionics describes something that I find very real happening in human interactions, there's an element to it that has a great influence in my head when it comes to interpersonal relationships. Knowing how to apply the theory without it influencing your rationale in a way that is unhealthy is just as important as the what the theory says, imo. I believe this is why people choose not to "believe" in it or ban themselves from this forum due to Socionics.

[Radio]

If you think you can completely you're a fool.

well, there is overlap, but insinuating type or duality ensures or promises you any sort of relationship is rubbish, there are a lot more factors involved. being one type isn't magically going to make you accessible to all of your duals and expecting to do so is naive to say the least.

but I am not going to pretend like type isn't there or there isn't a pattern in what sort of stimuli I respond to more readily than others, or that this pattern and response existed way before I learned about socionics.

[woofwoofl]

and at "believe"

Quadras and their constituent dichotomies are particularly solid; if Socionics is so bad, then why not fix it?

[Absurd]

and at "believe"

Quadras and their constituent dichotomies are particularly solid; if Socionics is so bad, then why not fix it?

Poor socionics. I'm going to fix it right. Fix it good.

[Slacker]

I don't think Socionics is about "belief" or "disbelief" personally. It's more like learning a language. Once you know the language, you can't help recognizing it when it's spoken around you anymore, but that doesn't mean it's the end-all-be-all of your interactions with everyone. If that's your expectation, then yes I wouldn't believe that.

[Absurd]

[Absurd]

Okay, bullshit aside.

I do not defend socionics from imaginary foes nor fight imaginary foes who come and hurt precious socionics.

Let that be clear.

Things, both groups have to realise they're knee deep in shit. It's a classic crusader on a crusade example and it works both ways. One group defending holy land 16types.info from hordes of zombies, I mean infidels, and the other trying to spread its influence over it.

[krieger]

i am stronger than socionics.

[leckysupport]

Alright, like Minde pointed out, I don't know what belief has got to do with socionics at least in my case.

For general clarification:

I didn’t mean in the sense of dogmatic belief in doctrine but a kind of trust/submission or pre-scientific revolution Western religious Christian belief. The same notion of belief that is used for most religions today i.e Muslims submit then practice and then believe dogmatically.

So in terms of socionics people trust socionics to a small degree and then type a few friends, then they see how it feels and when they have tested out some of theories for themselves and felt the different elements and relationships they then go on to believe socionics dogmatically.

Minde also says there is no doctrine to believe in, but I would say there is no official dogma. The implied dogma is about reaching social/relationship harmony by socially maneuvering within the context of socionics.

Logos is knowledge/wisdom, it is a thought, it is something inner, it is infused into humanity and at the same time isn't something uniquely human, but in fact a principle and that's exactly how it starts. Logos exists just because it chooses to exist, out of necessity, one can say.

Seems to me you refuse to use it out of fear it can turn into something monstrously diabolical, alright. I don't know though what is the reason you still self-type yourself or actually type others, me for example. Same goes for any one who does the same, you're not special.

Yep, skepticism (more pyrrhonian) and everything.

well, there is overlap, but insinuating type or duality ensures or promises you any sort of relationship is rubbish, there are a lot more factors involved. being one type isn't magically going to make you accessible to all of your duals and expecting to do so is naive to say the least.

Would you marry your conflictor? Probably not, why take chances with something as important as marriage? Even if there are other influences to relationships why not get rid of the one influence you know of for certain?

Reasoning surrounding the technical nature of socionics becomes meaningless when certain decisions have to be made.

Feelings warp thought and action.

but I am not going to pretend like type isn't there or there isn't a pattern in what sort of stimuli I respond to more readily than others, or that this pattern and response existed way before I learned about socionics.

FTR socionics existing or not existing isn’t really my point.

General message:

Socionics works for you? It works for people with vastly different typings and typing philosophies? It works for people with vastly different conceptions of elements, functions and models? How do you know socionics works for you? You don’t.

[ashlesha]

Socionics works for you? It works for people with vastly different typings and typing philosophies? It works for people with vastly different conceptions of elements, functions and models? How do you know socionics works for you? You don’t.

a-fucking-men.

[FDG]

This thread is absolutely stupid. If you have a brain, you'd see that inter-type relationships roughly align with socionics even in people that don't know shit about socionics. When such a thing does not happen, people usually become neurotic. All I see instead is lots of blah blah and philosophical bullshit, instead of constructive discussion.

[xerx]

The criticism that personal socionics observations have an element of confirmation bias is important imo.

[leckysupport]

This thread is absolutely stupid. If you have a brain, you'd see that inter-type relationships roughly align with socionics even in people that don't know shit about socionics. When such a thing does not happen, people usually become neurotic. All I see instead is lots of blah blah and philosophical bullshit, instead of constructive discussion.

FTR socionics existing or not existing isn’t really my point, I'm just pointing out flaws.

[ashlesha]

This thread is absolutely stupid. If you have a brain, you'd see that inter-type relationships roughly align with socionics even in people that don't know shit about socionics. When such a thing does not happen, people usually become neurotic. All I see instead is lots of blah blah and philosophical bullshit, instead of constructive discussion.

Of course it works. all you have to do is make it work. and if you cant, well, socionics doesn't explain everything.

[FDG]

Of course it works. all you have to do is make it work. and if you cant, well, socionics doesn't explain everything.

no, it works even with people that don't know anything about it

[Radio]

gtfo kassie

Would you marry your conflictor? Probably not, why take chances with something as important as marriage? Even if there are other influences to relationships why not get rid of the one influence you know of for certain?

Feelings warp thought and action.

hey no projection allowed.

1. most people don't process their instincts/emotions rationally, and don't choose who they should fall in love with and who they shouldn't, this is what socionics hints at, that you instinctively fall in love/need people who share the same valued elements as you do. however, if it so happens that you fall in love with your conflictor and are rationally inclined to leave them because some theoretical model told you it wouldn't work, you're doing it wrong.

if your relationship works, it works, regardless of what anyone or anything tells you.

socionics identifies pointers and mechanisms that exist regardless of the theory itself. it is not inductive and anyone thick enough to take on it inductively probably deserves to get burned.

2. don't take people for granted, every sane person can think and decide whether socionics is as toxic as yourself and some other people make it out to be. it's not a disease, it's a collection of ideas, nothing more. ideas grow, evolve, expand, help bring perspective and make perception more pronounced. there is nothing intrinsically bad about it, not even how you apply it. it's harmless. to be frank, if anyone has a problem with socionics, they need to reevaluate their priorities and their standing.

Socionics works for you? It works for people with vastly different typings and typing philosophies? It works for people with vastly different conceptions of elements, functions and models? How do you know socionics works for you? You don’t.

see above

[FDG]

FTR socionics existing or not existing isn’t really my point, I'm just pointing out flaws.

Then you're boring and useless.

[ashlesha]

no, it works even with people that don't know anything about it

Who is typing them then? You, correct?

[leckysupport]

Then you're boring and useless.

You don't have any arguments, so you're pretty much the same right now.

[Absurd]

I didn’t mean in the sense of dogmatic belief in doctrine but a kind of trust/submission or pre-scientific revolution Western religious Christian belief. The same notion of belief that is used for most religions today i.e Muslims submit then practice and then believe dogmatically.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not at all dogmatic if anything, for fucks sake, my introductory post on here must reek of submission and trust into something godlike, that is socionics. Open your eyes before you put me in the same basket.

Anyway, do I look like a Christian or Moslem to you?

So in terms of socionics people trust socionics to a small degree and then type a few friends, then they see how it feels and when they have tested out some of theories for themselves and felt the different elements and relationships they then go on to believe socionics dogmatically.

Alright, I confess, I typed a guy while pissed drunk and it was very accurate typing. In case you haven't noticed yet, I'm a socionics Guru. Yes. Roll over Maritsa. Like I said, you tryiing to pin something on me, better come up with a good argument. And no, nothing personal coming from my side and I hope it is the same way on your side.

No, I don't disagree at all, I know people do that, but I don't think I'm one of them nor want to be, not going to be dragged in it as well. So, what I'm going to do is, I'm going to pretend I am in fact somebody you're talking about and have a laugh or two.

Sounds like a bargain.

Minde also says there is no doctrine to believe in, but I would say there is no official dogma. The implied dogma is about reaching social/relationship harmony by socially maneuvering within the context of socionics.

Well, I'm going have to trust you on that. First time I hear it actually. Of course there is no official dogma. Haha, the moment it is going to be, I think I'm going to have a damn good time with it.

Yep, skepticism (more pyrrhonian) and everything.

Yep, yep, yep and yep

[Absurd]

Ehh, I can't edit my posts so I'm posting another one, I think socionics is clogging up my Internet. No seriously, I can't. All I wanted to say is, I hope you're going to put up a good fight leckysupport.

Ave.

[717495]

Ehh, I can't edit my posts so I'm posting another one, I think socionics is clogging up my Internet.

[tcaudilllg]

Nah man other people's opinions are a big part of it, too. Not much you can do to change a world that isn't willing to do the work to change itself.

[Absurd]

Okay, this i becoming feunny actually

[leckysupport]

gtfo kassie



hey no projection allowed.

1. most people don't process their instincts/emotions rationally, and don't choose who they should fall in love with and who they shouldn't, this is what socionics hints at, that you instinctively fall in love/need people who share the same valued elements as you do. however, if it so happens that you fall in love with your conflictor and are rationally inclined to leave them because some theoretical model told you it wouldn't work, you're doing it wrong.

You're missing the point, trying to have control over socionics is similar to trying to have control over your conciousness.

if your relationship works, it works, regardless of what anyone or anything tells you.

I agree with you here, but I would call this destroying the idea of intertype relationships and it is probably one of steps towards getting rid of socionics completely.

[Beautiful sky]

And those explanations act as predictions of whether or not a job or a profession will be right for you, your boyfriend will make a good husband or if you will remain friends with your best friend etc. Socionics gives answers to important life questions and with a sense of scientism, giving you the impression that decisions are being made correctly. A soon as you accept socionics to be true you immediately start to put it into practice, the more desperate and hopeless your life is the more you rely on socionics.

Yes, yes, and yes. Totally agree. I'm a life example of the great and wonders of Socionics (especially my relationship).

[glam]

A soon as you accept socionics to be true you immediately start to put it into practice, the more desperate and hopeless your life is the more you rely on socionics.

If socionics took over your brain I doubt you'd realise it.

Socionics observation is not pure observation; you look for evidence to confirm socionic differences rather than observing with pure empiricism.

If you think you can completely you're a fool.

…Socionics breeds delusion and dishonesty especially with seasoned socionists who have "overcome" socionics.

How do you know socionics works for you? You don’t.

uhhh, you're making a ton of assumptions about how others think about and use socionics. it's funny because with all your talk of "pure empiricism", i bet you can't actually prove any of these claims.

[Absurd]

uhhh, you're making a ton of assumptions about how others think about and use socionics. it's funny because with all your talk of "pure empiricism", i bet you can't actually prove any of these claims.

Lecky is like a vulgar version of empiricism - a positivist. Blegh!

Anyhow, I think you're no challenge whatsoever, Leckysupport.

I mean, show some teeth and claws, I'm dying here.

Okay, you're not coming to Absurd. Absurd is going to come to you.

Tell me, why do you still self-type, then Leckysupport? Are you a masochist?

Okay. Everybody gets along with the set of 16 types, no matter what type he is and shit like that. Okay. Why is that in real world, I'm having afew problems here and there with a few people? Is it because I am a cunt or those people are cunts?

[Radio]

You're missing the point, trying to have control over socionics is similar to trying to have control over your conciousness.

I agree with you here, but I would call this destroying the idea of intertype relationships and it is probably one of steps towards getting rid of socionics completely.

*groan* there is no control, there is no socionics the unruly parasite; there are people, they interact and they gravitate towards or repel one another, due to many different factors, one of which is valued elements that socionics talks about.

it is just a collection of ideas and perspectives, and provides a standardized vocabulary for a phenomenon that exists regardless of your or mine intervention.

---

Re: destroying intertype relationships.

inter-type relationships only tell you a small part of social exchanges and relationships, as they would exist in a vacuum. but people don't exist in a vacuum, there is a much larger context to every interaction and there are many reasons why I would get along favorably with my super-ego or conflictor. this does not destroy the validity of intertype relationships, because those are valid in their own right. to use a fancy diagram:



but anyway, I take as a basic assumption that socionics is real, so from my perspective, you woudn't fall in love with your conflictor beyond limerence. if you have, then I would think one of you is mistyped. (el oh el)

I'm talking myself in circles, so I guess best of luck with trying to purge the world of the curse of socionics, I'm sure you'll save many lives.

[woofwoofl]

Socionics works for you? It works for people with vastly different typings and typing philosophies? It works for people with vastly different conceptions of elements, functions and models? How do you know socionics works for you? You don’t.

[leckysupport]

uhhh, you're making a ton of assumptions about how others think about and use socionics. it's funny because with all your talk of "pure empiricism", i bet you can't actually prove any of these claims.

I never claimed to be about pure empiricism, in fact I consider the way philosophy of science treats epistemology to be shallow. All arguments are based around philosophy and psychology.