I no longer believe in socionics

[Creepy-male]

I think it's the other way around, since "believe" surrounds any scientific theory where there's controversy e.g. string theory - it's more that if something has some degree of ambiguity and "belief" can be involved, then the issue tends to become politicised, rather than political issues leading to the use of "believe", which seems to be what you're suggesting.

I disagree I think its exactly politics that injects the concept of belief/non-belief, of course theories have ambiguity -- but the concept of a theory is more along the lines of "evidence suggests this is a true assertion until proven different", that's what distinguishes a science from a faith. People will use theories because they are useful but in science its with a sort of skepticism, because in any given application you may encounter the exception that breaks the rule.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis.../lawtheory.htm

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.

That's the difference between theory and belief, a theory isn't something people hold with conviction, its just an assertion which happens to remain disproven and thus is considered the most useful practical body of knowledge available until potentially overthrown by conflicting evidence.

[Radio]

If you cannot separate type from personality, relation, behavior, habits, quirks, common goals, dreams, motivations, interests, humour, background, and other myriad of factors that contribute in forming human relations, ur doing it wrong.

[leckysupport]

If you cannot separate type from personality, relation, behavior, habits, quirks, common goals, dreams, motivations, interests, humour, background, and other myriad of factors that contribute in forming human relations, ur doing it wrong.

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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[leckysupport]

I've never really understood how some people feel as though Socionics overtakes their brain.

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

I might notice a person's type in passing, in the same sense that I'd notice their hair or eye color. Knowing typology indeed helps me clarify some things about people and better perceive where they're coming from—up to a point. Beyond that, it's all individual differences, and it's easy for me to get lost in understanding a person to a point that type fades well into the background as a distant afterthought.

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

Another example of the intellectual inelegance of 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!!!

[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]

The truth is people don't know exactly why "socionics works for them" and their inability to address the issue just shows a lack of intellectual honesty. If people would grow balls and say 'they don't know' they would look a little less pathetic.

[Eye of the Potato]

I can see both sides of this argument. Well I am an IEE after all. Or am I?

I think I have been guilty of trying to squash the reason for someones behaviour into the mold of Socionics, I catch myself doing this, and then, I start doubting if Socionics is real.

One example of this is that two of my best friends are ENTj and ISFp. They've known each other since they were 12. They still hang around together. They lived around the corner from each each other and when one moved house last year, the other followed. They now live right across the road from each other. They are conflictors, so I was baffled as to why they wanted to spend so much time together. I thought Socionics must be wrong. Or else they are wrong. Or I must have typed them wrong. Something wasn't adding up.

Over the past number of months however, I have noticed that their conversations bore me to fucking death. It's all "I bought a lovely top in town on wednesday" this and "I must pay my rent" that. It's like neither of them can express who they really are. So they fall back on safe and BORING topics of conversation, like how the cost of turnips has gone up and what a nice tea towel the other one has. Often, myself and the ISFp would call around to see the ENTj, we'd leave and go back over to the ISFp's house and there is a marked difference in the quality of conversations we have. She starts getting excited about some new plant she bought, and we talk about politics and discoveries we have made that we want to share with each other. It makes me think, maybe there is something to this Socionics business after all.

I suppose the point I am trying to make, is that, on the surface things look one way, but when you take a closer look, the theory holds true. That's what it keeps doing for me anyway. I know there is a danger of fitting facts to suit the theory, but when I stop doing that and look at it critically, it still holds true.

[Absurd]

She starts getting excited about some new plant she bought.

My response to her would be "put it in the freezer."

[717495]

My response to her would be "put it in the freezer."

[ashlesha]

Yeah woof, thats the point. most of the people here are fucking delusional

you talk about the people in your life and how you interact with them based on black squares and white triangles and you're accusing lecky of wearing a tinfoil hat. hahahahaha thats funny.

[Absurd]

Yeah woof, thats the point. most of the people here are fucking delusional

you talk about the people in your life and how you interact with them based on black squares and white triangles and you're accusing lecky of wearing a tinfoil hat. hahahahaha thats funny.

Oh come on Kassie, last time I heard you self-typed ESI. Don't bite your mirror, what will all those wankers in IRC think?

[ashlesha]

Oh come on Kassie, last time I heard you self-typed ESI. Don't bite your mirror, what will all those wankers in IRC think?

afaik most people still think we are duals, don't worry.

[Absurd]

afaik most people still think we are duals, don't worry.

I've been waiting for this. A bit predictable but okay.

Who are most people and how can you still talk about duality, that is, do socionics speak even though you officially don't?

[ashlesha]

i can because its thursday. think about it.

[Absurd]

i can because its thursday. think about it.

Ahh yes, that's what I thought. You think about it more often than I do. As for your response to woofwoofl. Most people are delusional when it comes to personality theories, that's right.

Having said that, can you tell me what do you self-type now and what do you type me as just for the sake of clarity so that congregation on here can here it very clearly.

[woofwoofl]

The truth is people don't know exactly why "socionics works for them" and their inability to address the issue just shows a lack of intellectual honesty. If people would grow balls and say 'they don't know' they would look a little less pathetic.

In short, people in my quadra go about things in a generally more digestible way to me, and I expect this to hold true for just about everyone. The rabbit hole of "why?" can be plunged into almost infinitely with nothing of use breaking the fall, and to all of that, I ask: why?

Yeah woof, thats the point. most of the people here are fucking delusional

you talk about the people in your life and how you interact with them based on black squares and white triangles and you're accusing lecky of wearing a tinfoil hat. hahahahaha thats funny.

I was driving down the road a few days ago; upon getting within fifty feet of a bracket shaped metal beam supporting a predominantly red octagon, I stopped the automobile for a while. Hmm...

Anyways, the variances between typings of people here aren't that wide; aestrivex's list based on the typing spreadsheet shows that clearly, and if the variances themselves were delved into further, the average distance between them would be small and somewhat predictable; Look-a-Like and Quasi-Identical typing splits (surprise, surprise) take up a huge bulk of them...

[leckysupport]

In short, people in my quadra go about things in a generally more digestible way to me, and I expect this to hold true for just about everyone.

People with vastly different typings and conceptions of the model would say the same thing. I'm questioning the perception of what works, not the reality of what actually works.

I was driving down the road a few days ago; upon getting within fifty feet of a bracket shaped metal beam supporting a predominantly red octagon, I stopped the automobile for a while. Hmm...

Socionists are the eccentrics here, don't pretend the world is upside down.

Anyways, the variances between typings of people here aren't that wide; aestrivex's list based on the typing spreadsheet shows that clearly, and if the variances themselves were delved into further, the average distance between them would be small and somewhat predictable; Look-a-Like and Quasi-Identical typing splits (surprise, surprise) take up a huge bulk of them...

There are still a lot of differences (concordance 70% and below) and forum member typings are more likely to be group orientated. Predictable differences are still differences.

[Absurd]

People with vastly different typings and conceptions of the model would say the same thing. I'm questioning the perception of what works, not the reality of what actually works.

That's actually correct. Noticed the same thing. People say they do not get along with person A of from quadra B or person C from quadra D, citing numerous examples from their life. As long they're not just imaginary, that is, pulled out of one's arse like the bullshit on here I read at times.

forum member typings are more likely to be group orientated. Predictable differences are still differences.

Of course they are group orientated, it's the biggest influence on here. Be it IRC, Stickam, this forum or any other sister forum. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're with Rick on this. Alright. Funny thing is it took him 10 yrs to figure it out.

You've got yourself a monkey hailing from quadra, say, Beta. Aristocratic quadra via Model A, Reinin and so on, allegedly. That is in theory. Thing is this monkey starts to act Democratic after being exposed to a environment full of Democratic bananas. It stuffs those bananas in itself, again, not in a sexual way so bare with me. This is where theory meets practice, you have to test it and test it again to actually gain anything useful out of it.

So you have an Aristocratic monkey who isn't Aristocratic at all. Best part is, Democratic bananas aren't Democratic. They start to act as group inhaling members who they see as their own, and exhaling those who they don't. Quite Aristocratic, eh?

I've heard monkeys on here say things like "oh I don't like SLE, feel uneasy around them both in real world and on here" and many more stories like that but after some time these monkeys act as one big group forgetting what they have said in the past, totally omitting the fact that they're talking, I don't know what the heck they're talking about, don't ask me

Did you like my ending?

EDIT: I noticed it with Joy being tossed around the quadras on here. I don't know her at all, point is certain members were eager to point out her past self-typings as a means to ostracise her. Okay. It's a cruel world, but I don't think few on here realise they're doing exactly the same and it is alright. Nothing happened.

[ashlesha]

I was driving down the road a few days ago; upon getting within fifty feet of a bracket shaped metal beam supporting a predominantly red octagon, I stopped the automobile for a while. Hmm...

there are laws telling you to stop when you see a red octagon but at the end of the day its absolutely nothing but a red octagon and the choice is really yours with whatever consequences you're willing to bear for it. you can choose to see a black square or you can choose to see something that actually is what it is at the end of the day.

[Absurd]

there are laws telling you to stop when you see a red octagon but at the end of the day its absolutely nothing but a red octagon and the choice is really yours with whatever consequences you're willing to bear for it. you can choose to see a black square or you can choose to see something that actually is what it is at the end of the day.

Woofwoofl actually stopped before what he thought was a white triangle and black square thinking he's going to chat with his dual and have sex with it after. Imagination gone wild.

"Hemoglobin - You really never know with those SEEs." - Sums it all up.

Anyway, a road sign is a road sign to me.

Who's the best LSE in world?

[Creepy-male]

I know exactly what a scientific theory is, but that's irrelevant to anything we're talking about. Basically my point is that since scientific theories exist which use the word "believe", but aren't politicised, and most likely never will be, I don't think politicisation is what causes the use of the word "believe".

The word "believe" in common usage often has very little to do with the concept of a "belief", in terms of faith i.e. the 5th definition here. In scientific articles and seminars, "believe" is kind of the default word choice when something makes sense according to the current understanding but you can't be bothered to verify it with additional experiments, e.g. "We believe this anomalous result is due to uncontrolled temperature fluctuations." It's kind of a weaker synonym for "this is most likely due to". But since it's harder to say "most likely due to" when your theory isn't too sound, the word "believe" pops up more with less substantiated theories, regardless of politics/faith etc. Less substantiated theories are also easier to politicise e.g. you don't see too much politicisation of the Young Earth theory since there's overwhelming evidence otherwise, but evolution is still politicised.

In other words, politicisation and the use of the word "believe" aren't directly linked causally, they're both correlated to how substantiated a scientific theory is.

Sorry for derailment.

This is stupid, I'm not wasting my time debating you -- I think its strange to use the word belief, that's my outlook and I shouldn't have to debate people on it, your just being retarded and nitpicky because of our run in with the other topic -- you'll deny it, but I'm no fool.