usefulness of socionics

[BreeZ]

Um, as to your "yep is true alright" -- I already determined for myself that there is no absolute truth and also where the limitations of the model are. So for me this point would never come and that's fine.

I will say, the PoLR concept is what helped me the most too I'm not a specific type, sure, but I do seem weakest in a certain function so I call that my PoLR.

I would be careful with that conflictor idea. I'm typed as ILE by most people here, including VI, and my mother is a clear ESI, that is ILE's conflictor, and we hardly ever conflict. so...

Haha i know conflictor relations when i see one. With my experience of conflictor men and women, they do share similar dynamic with me. Some conflictors are more easier to deal with though, not in the sense that we have actual conflict. Just differing opinions that's all- however with my brother....eh we just don't have that sort of patience for each other and he likes being a jerk.

[Beautiful sky]

I'm not going to argue with you about VI. even a theory that's not totally correct can be sometimes applied in a constructive way, I guess.

but none of what you said is objective measurement.

if by objective you mean something already published in a journal then no; but based on facts, my opinions do not factor into my VI method.

[PistolShrimp]

er, what does "desire for Se" mean for you? =P

(I was told off here before by other people not to use such vague expressions and I'm curious anyway)

Se to me is like a splash of cold water in the face; it kind of wakes me up. I spend so much time ruminating and doubting that I can get stuck and need a push to get me to act. I really like it when people help get me going toward a goal and draw my attention toward the outside world.

[ambivalent existence]

Haha i know conflictor relations when i see one. With my experience of conflictor men and women, they do share similar dynamic with me. Some conflictors are more easier to deal with though, not in the sense that we have actual conflict. Just differing opinions that's all- however with my brother....eh we just don't have that sort of patience for each other and he likes being a jerk.

yes we do have some differing opinions with my mother, but we get along great, no patience needed. as for your brother, if you thought the same way before typing him, okay.

[Jarno]

so.. let me explain my viewpoint first.

socionics exists and works pretty accurately and nicely. But you will never understand it or observe it when you use this forum to gain knowledge. This forum only confuses you.

Types are real, why do you think that Jung, MBTI and Socionics discovered that there are 16 distinguishable types among people. But they didn't discover them through a forum, but by observing. oh and...use the 4 dichotomies as a starting point.

[ambivalent existence]

socionics exists and works pretty accurately and nicely. But you will never understand it or observe it when you use this forum to gain knowledge. This forum only confuses you.

Types are real, why do you think that Jung, MBTI and Socionics discovered that there are 16 distinguishable types among people. But they didn't discover them through a forum, but by observing. oh and...use the 4 dichotomies as a starting point.

if it works so accurately, then why am I typed ILE by people through VI and other means, yet not care to seek physical comfort, thus SEI doesn't work out as my dual? explain this contradiction.

also, why do you fall into the assumption that I first met socionics stuff on this forum? for your information, I didn't.

another thing; certain function definitions differ a lot between jung, mbti, socionics.

[JWC3]

so.. let me explain my viewpoint first. I've been thinking and come to the conclusion that types obviously don't exist as clear-cut or as idealized in theory, not just because this stuff is not objectively measurable with currently known tools that are considered to be objective in a scientific way, but also because I tend to think that the functions are rather like cognitive skills, and "usage" of a function (usage = you are currently looking at the world from one kind of viewpoint) is partially situational. Sure, we probably have some tendency that's partially inborn to prefer certain functions more, but I guess you also change slowly over time, depending on your experiences and your responses to those experiences, and thus can slowly change emphasis on preferences. And depending on what you learned to do in a certain kind of situation, your response in a specific situation may entirely differ from what your "type" would usually do. You can also develop techniques to respond to certain situations in a better way that would otherwise require your weaker skills. Thus, a normal well balanced person doesn't and shouldn't really fit under one clear-cut type at all. And then at this point the whole concept of types and duality and all that ceases to have much point. Two such people who also match on values outside the ones socionics attempts to explain, should work out together, regardless of their "type". This of course doesn't mean problems can't come up, but if they aren't too big, they can be solved.

So, my question is, why do some people here tend to take some of this theory seriously? Or maybe my impression is incorrect and nobody here actually tries to govern any part of their life based on just a theory, though when I see questions in the forum like "how to recognize my dual" etc. etc., I can't tell how serious that stuff is. I mean, it would rather limit one's viewpoint to look for a "dual" based on a theory.

I guess I just don't see the usefulness of this theory at this point and I'm asking how it helped other people in an objective way.

I think you make a very good point. That what we define as actions that relate to a certain element are things that anyone could learn to do if they wanted. For example if someone really needed to scream at people for their job from some reason and in general be a huge dick and shove people around (a very cliched view of Se) I think that Se PoLRs could learn those skills.

So we come to premise #1: Actions can be learned

Your second premise and your conclusion is where I start to disagree with you

Premise #2: Actions dictate IM elements and function strength.

Conclusion: Socionics isn't worthwhile because it describes things that are not person specific.



I find the connection between someone being able to be emotionally expressive and being ethical as tenuous. I also think that just because someone can reason from a premise to a conclusion and that actually requires Ti to be completely wrong and doesn't necessarily even reveal what functions that person values let alone what functions are in their ego block.

Logic 101 is a class that anyone can take and sure maybe your valued functions dictate how interested you are in the subject or how well you'll do but it's still a class, anyone can learn the things they teach in it. Personally I loved logic because I loved my professor, he was amazing, maybe my valued elements made me uninterested in the course but my interest in him pulled me back in, who knows.

So to use my basic logic 101 skills this is how I would explain my stance on your reasoning and also explain why I think socionics is worthwhile.

So here's your reasoning first.

P1: Actions can be learned
P2: Anyone can learn any action
C1: Anyone can be any type

P1: Anyone can be any type
P2: Socionics doesn't actually classify the distinctions between people
C2: Socionics is worthless

My reasoning against your argument goes like this.

P1: Actions can be learned
P2: Anyone can learn any action
C1: Actions can't be tied to type

My perspective on the value of socionics is this

P1: IM elements dictate preference for action (NOT ABILITY!)
P2: Preference for action is discernible in spite of contradictory actions
C1: Socionic type is discernible

P1: Socionic type is discernible
P2: Two people who have preferences that coincide or are similar will react in a way predetermined by socionics (there are other factors that I'm ignoring here, culture, ethnicity, location, ect.)
C2: Socionics is valuable.


P.S. I still might be logically incorrect in my reasoning but it took me a good 25 minutes to type and re-type and edit those last three logical arguments *chuckles* Specifically I think my "Socionics is valauable & socionics is worthless" conclusions actually require another premise that states the value of socionics in some way but *shrug*.


EDIT: And for all the people who think I have strong Ti because of my ability to reason logically. I'll have you know that 1) I didn't do it right just now and 2) when I was in logic class it took me at least 3 hours to get 20 problems done, I got better over time but *chuckles* My weekends we're so shot in general, still worth it though I really enjoy the lessons I learned despite how fucking difficult it was to learn them.

[JWC3]

I take it all back, I'm not insecure at all. About anything. Why would I be? That's a stupid thought. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

k.

Go away now.

[mu4]

Socionics is not something that is immediately practicable. Different techniques, mechanisms and assessment tools are required before the theory of Socionics can be applied in a standardized setting(you might not want this, heh). It is a explanatory study rather than applicable at the moment and once it's an applicable study it will need some ethical oversight. When you're using socionics today, it's based on self-assessment, test assessment, self-determination of what to do or taking advice from someone else about it. However, lack of instruments/mechanism and etc doesn't make it useless as explaining itself is useful.

Socionics can inform you why a seemingly good relationship failed or why a bad relationship might continue on for long past its freshness date, it can explain why romantic love lasts between a couple for 50 years with nary a day apart from each other and how even a few minutes between other people on their first meeting can devolve into bickering conflict.

There is a huge benefit to understanding others and oneself as one can act in a way that would either be beneficial and attractive to others, as well as determine if someone would be beneficial/attractive to oneself. This sort of assessment unfortunately is not standardized or mechanized, so most of us have to dip the wick(pardon moi madams and gents) so to speak before everything can be determined.

Socionics provides a explanatory model for many things, but there is no substitute for dipping the wick, skin on skin contact and face to face interaction. All of which will develop far more fundamental social skills which are necessary for any application of socionic understanding within a personal context.

Anyways, I'm not going to tell you whether or not socionics is true/false since that's generally a philosophical conundrum that's not answerable by me. However, in my opinion; it is a better measurement vs MBTI and a more accurate one. Be very careful trying to use socionics to tackle a problem set greater than its very specifically targets, as results will vary.

Gravity is not responsible for people falling in love.

Socionics is not responsible for you falling on your face, but it might explain why you remember that boho art chick you didn't get the number to and is still thinking about.

[ambivalent existence]

I think you make a very good point. That what we define as actions that relate to a certain element are things that anyone could learn to do if they wanted. For example if someone really needed to scream at people for their job from some reason and in general be a huge dick and shove people around (a very cliched view of Se) I think that Se PoLRs could learn those skills.

I liked your concise style.. so I'll try to cut it short myself too:

Typing is based on observations of actions and thinking style and yes these can be learned, but the main issue is more like, preferences are not measured in an objective way, thus type is not easily discernible if it even exists. Note this doesn't mean it absolutely can't be discerned, but it's hard without properly defined tools. (Fwiw, I've yet to see a really good socionics test either.) If this can't be done well, that limits the use of the theory in practice.

(Btw, I didn't say actions dictate function strength, that's mixing up of cause and effect.)

And if we add into this mix that preferences could be relative, that is, emphasis on preferences can change between two people of same "type" (btw, I like the subtype ideas), then this means that clear-cut type doesn't even exist, and predictions made based on this assumption will be even further limited.

The whole point here is, I don't know how well the predictions that are being made actually work out, and that's what determines practical use of a theory.

[ambivalent existence]

Anyways, I'm not going to tell you whether or not socionics is true/false since that's generally a philosophical conundrum that's not answerable by me. However, in my opinion; it is a better measurement vs MBTI and a more accurate one. Be very careful trying to use socionics to tackle a problem set greater than its very specifically targets, as results will vary.

Socionics is not responsible for you falling on your face, but it might explain why you remember that boho art chick you didn't get the number to and is still thinking about.

Explaining past or current events, um that could be done with any false theory... I'm more interested in making actual predictions because that's what actually proves whether a model is any good.

Where's the better measurement tool (as compared to MBTI tests)? Did you refer to VI?

[JWC3]

I liked your concise style.. so I'll try to cut it short myself too:

Typing is based on observations of actions and thinking style and yes these can be learned, but the main issue is more like, preferences are not measured in an objective way, thus type is not easily discernible if it even exists. Note this doesn't mean it absolutely can't be discerned, but it's hard without properly defined tools. (Fwiw, I've yet to see a really good socionics test either.) If this can't be done well, that limits the use of the theory in practice.

(Btw, I didn't say actions dictate function strength, that's mixing up of cause and effect.)

And if we add into this mix that preferences could be relative, that is, emphasis on preferences can change between two people of same "type" (btw, I like the subtype ideas), then this means that clear-cut type doesn't even exist, and predictions made based on this assumption will be even further limited.

The whole point here is, I don't know how well the predictions that are being made actually work out, and that's what determines practical use of a theory.

Ah, your right I did mix up cause and effect I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. But to easily explain how I think about it maybe a chart will help. I agree there is no such thing as a solidly defined type or that there are 16 solidly defined types and that everyone fits into them, rather it's a relative measure and people can have preferences that seem more one type than another and over time I just sorta begin to see a dominant preference and just label that as that person's type. So instead of thinking in one dimension were every type represents a single point, I think using multiple dimensions is better were every type can exist anywhere on a certain line or sphere and the sphere/line has a 'sweet spot' where it is super easy to see what type a person is and as they move around on that line or in that sphere it becomes harder to define what type that person is but that doesn't mean they are not a type or that they are multiple types or that their preferences have changed to be indicative of another type.

Well I can't make a chart so maybe I'll be able to use words like a human. (Do not relate the below thoughts to the above thoughts, it will confuse you)

Picture a sphere, on this sphere's surface there are 16 small circles. Inside of the sphere exists some random dude whose type we want to figure out. He does decide where he falls inside that sphere moving three dimension-ally, his movement towards one type or another is based on my perception of his actions and from there what I think his preferences are, but they are still his actions so he has some control over how I perceive him. The only person who then is un-type-able is the person who exists exactly in the center of the sphere because he is equidistant from the inner surface of the sphere and equidistant from every type as they exist only on the surface of the sphere. So instead of saying "This person is type XXXx" when I type some one I'm more saying I think his actions are pointing at this location on the sphere's surface and moving away from this location on the sphere's surface. Where locations equate to types or quadras.

To put it simply it's best to conceptualize behavior in general as existing in three dimensions and the individual's behavior is only perceived in two (though it exists in three).

Or to put it even more simply. It's relative.

You kinda just have to figure out what socionics means to you and use it as an individual. There isn't a good macro use for socionics like we can't objectively type all these random people as SLE and say that all SLEs are good at this certain task, but you can certainly use socionics to categorize the behavior that you see in the world and then make assumptions based on your own personal observations.

The problem is that there is no really good way to communicate observations to another person without them observing and discussing at the same time. So if you come on this forum and a bunch of people agree with you; YAY! you and those people are observing the same phenomena and classifying them in the same way, and everyone else is either looking at something else or putting it someplace else or both.


In short, as an individual socionics can be useful and you can make decisions on it because it's simply your own observations, but more than that is really not too possible.

And then you get people who don't or can't make observations and classify them and those are the people who are hardcore into the theory and try to relate it to reality but fail pretty objectively (everyone thinks they are doing it wrong) these are people like Maritsa, it's not her fault she can't connect the theory to reality, I'm sure if she could she would be classifying things in a way that is much less of a joke. These also can be your very dogmatic individuals (Maritsa when she first came to this forum). People who actually believe the theory exists and for lack of a better word that it's tangible and doesn't need to connect to reality at all.

But even that is relative, I'm describing differing views and essentially comparing Maritsa's understanding to my own, but she could easily be doing it right (objectively) and I could be doing it wrong (objectively) , it's all just my perception which is very subjective.


And while it is my own perspective (and am aware of this) I still think that socionics should only be used or viewed subjectively by the individual.

EDIT: Or rather that's not the only way it should be used, but it's the only useful way to use it.

[Absurd]

Hmm. I just noticed you both write a lot.

[mu4]

Explaining past or current events, um that could be done with any false theory... I'm more interested in making actual predictions because that's what actually proves whether a model is any good.

The explanation of Socionics is pretty clear, it's not telling you some magic is making stuff happen, but there are differences in how the brain, body as an metabolism processes information and these differences has an effect on the quality of relationship between people.

Imo, types are predictions from the model, not the other way around in socionics. Types are also observed empirically by other studies, such as Jung and MBTI. So in a sense the conclusions of Jung/MBTI can be derived from socionic's model. Althrough the model of socionics would not be compatible with the J/P terminology of MBTI. There are however no such incompatibilities with Jung's observations.

Go make some predictions then and test them. Experiment and what not. Come to your own conclusions. I'm not here to tell you if socionics is true or not, nothing can tell you that. If you think it's false, might as well discard it now. Good luck with that.

Where's the better measurement tool (as compared to MBTI tests)? Did you refer to VI?

When I say measurement I mean measurement and not measurement tool. So it doesn't really matter how you come to socionics typing, if the socionic typing is accurate and the MBTI is accurate then the socionic typing imo is better than the MBTI typing.

[JWC3]

The explanation of Socionics is pretty clear, it's not telling you some magic is making stuff happen, but there are differences in how the brain, body as an metabolism processes information and these differences has an effect on the quality of relationship between people.

Imo, types are predictions from the model, not the other way around in socionics. Types are also observed empirically by other studies, such as Jung and MBTI. So in a sense the conclusions of Jung/MBTI can be derived from socionic's model. Althrough the model of socionics would not be compatible with the J/P terminology of MBTI. There are however no such incompatibilities with Jung's observations.

Go make some predictions then and test them. Experiment and what not. Come to your own conclusions. I'm not here to tell you if socionics is true or not, nothing can tell you that. If you think it's false, might as well discard it now. Good luck with that.



When I say measurement I mean measurement and not measurement tool. So it doesn't really matter how you come to socionics typing, if the socionic typing is accurate and the MBTI is accurate then the socionic typing imo is better than the MBTI typing.

Essentially I'm saying this but he says it shorter and betterer.

[JWC3]

Hmm. I just noticed you both write a lot.

Y?

[Absurd]

Y?

Amazing powers of observation.

[JWC3]

Amazing powers of observation.

Oh... You didn't get my joke? It was just a letter with punctuation and was really short. *sniffles and trudges away*

[Absurd]

Oh... You didn't get my joke? It was just a letter with punctuation and was really short. *sniffles and trudges away*

Ehh, I'm terrible at humour, so no surprise there. No worries.

[JWC3]

Ehh, I'm terrible at humour, so no surprise there. No worries.

*chuckles*

[Absurd]

*chuckles*

[JWC3]

Awesome

[ambivalent existence]

EDIT: Or rather that's not the only way it should be used, but it's the only useful way to use it.

I make such charts all the time in my mind. It didn't confuse me.

Now if types are this relative, and due to that there is only a theoretical concept of type, simply because no one is totally equal on each preference, that heavily affects the precision of predictions that can be made by the theory.

The fact you are not even sure if maybe maritsa is the one who is right is telling a lot. So, sure, it can be used subjectively, but I'd put objective reality first. Anyway, maybe not that much, because I'm still sticking around here lol.

[ambivalent existence]

The explanation of Socionics is pretty clear, it's not telling you some magic is making stuff happen, but there are differences in how the brain, body as an metabolism processes information and these differences has an effect on the quality of relationship between people.

Imo, types are predictions from the model, not the other way around in socionics. Types are also observed empirically by other studies, such as Jung and MBTI. So in a sense the conclusions of Jung/MBTI can be derived from socionic's model. Althrough the model of socionics would not be compatible with the J/P terminology of MBTI. There are however no such incompatibilities with Jung's observations.

Go make some predictions then and test them. Experiment and what not. Come to your own conclusions. I'm not here to tell you if socionics is true or not, nothing can tell you that. If you think it's false, might as well discard it now. Good luck with that.



When I say measurement I mean measurement and not measurement tool. So it doesn't really matter how you come to socionics typing, if the socionic typing is accurate and the MBTI is accurate then the socionic typing imo is better than the MBTI typing.

I agree with your first sentence... and you know, I'm still interested in that playing around you mentioned to me earlier on the chat

If types are predictions from the model (btw I see your point of view and it's cool), then some parts of the ILE prediction fail for me.

I've done some predictions and some worked some didn't. I mentioned already that I saw contradictions.

I'm not saying it's all false. Maybe it all could be improved further in a direction.

[mu4]

I agree with your first sentence... and you know, I'm still interested in that playing around you mentioned to me earlier on the chat

If types are predictions from the model (btw I see your point of view and it's cool), then some parts of the ILE prediction fail for me.

I've done some predictions and some worked some didn't. I mentioned already that I saw contradictions.

I'm not saying it's all false. Maybe it all could be improved further in a direction.

It predicts that there are people that think like ILE's, the descriptions are observations of how people who seem to think like ILE's act. So it's normative to the model but I wouldn't say any failure in these descriptions contradicts the model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(philosophy)

For some reference on what I mean. I think often in this study, people take the descriptions and see them as problems of the model, when the descriptions are normative propositions and may not contain any true/false value(depending on one's interpretation of norm/normative of course).

The problems of the model are just there is insufficient evidence for either general acceptance or rejection, I would like to reformulate socionics based on falsifiable propositions(this would be a imo important step to turning this into a science). Even if I can get it mostly there, it would be a big step.

[JWC3]

I make such charts all the time in my mind. It didn't confuse me.

Now if types are this relative, and due to that there is only a theoretical concept of type, simply because no one is totally equal on each preference, that heavily affects the precision of predictions that can be made by the theory.

The fact you are not even sure if maybe maritsa is the one who is right is telling a lot. So, sure, it can be used subjectively, but I'd put objective reality first. Anyway, maybe not that much, because I'm still sticking around here lol.

I'm sorry I kind of got on a subjectivity tangent. There is some objective classification to socionics just not as much as most people like to think, enough to come to similar conclusions with other people who think about it in the same way though. And even sometime with people who don't think about it the same way.

Like since Niff essentially taught me socionics I basically am programed to think that all the ashtonians are not quite right about socionics but you'd be surprised how often I reach a conclusion that is very similar to theirs and with similar reasoning.

Side Note: Ashtonions hate the shit out of Niff cause they think he is a tottal idiot, Niff thinks about the same of the Ashtonions.

Also,

I was just being diplomatic. I didn't want to hurt maritsa's feelings by calling her stupid, but yeah... She's dumb and doin' it so very wrong.

[Slacker]

This whole conversation is frustrating to me because you make a few huge assumptions that you take as absolute fact, and then based on those dismiss everything else without considering that you might be wrong about the first two assumptions you make and take as absolute fact.

Assumption 1: You are ILE. Did you say this is based on VI, and therefore must be true? I hope I misunderstood that and I think I very well might have.

Assumption 2: If you are ILE, or even if you aren't, you assume you understand, recognize, and correctly identify SEIs. Or any other types, for that matter.

Based on those two assumptions and your feeling that you don't get along with those people you assume are SEIs, you assume Socionics can't predict relationships.

Other possibilities include:

You are not ILE
You are mistaking SEIs with another type and have mistyped those people (including a parent, right?) you assume are SEIs.

This way of thinking, that you have to be right about a couple of things you could be wrong about, and that based on those couple of things you dismiss something you don't know a whole lot about, makes no sense to me.

[Roro]

It's very useful. When I have an argument with somebody, I know they are my conflictor. The next day when we make up and have make up sex, I know they are my dual. You see, life is built around socionics; without it human interaction would be impossible.

Thank you, socionics, for you have solved all problems that exist within human interaction. My life is complete now.

[ambivalent existence]

It predicts that there are people that think like ILE's, the descriptions are observations of how people who seem to think like ILE's act. So it's normative to the model but I wouldn't say any failure in these descriptions contradicts the model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(philosophy)

For some reference on what I mean. I think often in this study, people take the descriptions and see them as problems of the model, when the descriptions are normative propositions and may not contain any true/false value(depending on one's interpretation of norm/normative of course).

The problems of the model are just there is insufficient evidence for either general acceptance or rejection, I would like to reformulate socionics based on falsifiable propositions(this would be a imo important step to turning this into a science). Even if I can get it mostly there, it would be a big step.

the contradictions are more to do with the subjectiveness.

your last few sentences is why I said I'm interested in your work.

[ambivalent existence]

It's very useful. When I have an argument with somebody, I know they are my conflictor. The next day when we make up and have make up sex, I know they are my dual. You see, life is built around socionics; without it human interaction would be impossible.

Thank you, socionics, for you have solved all problems that exist within human interaction. My life is complete now.

LOL!

[ambivalent existence]

I'm sorry I kind of got on a subjectivity tangent. There is some objective classification to socionics just not as much as most people like to think, enough to come to similar conclusions with other people who think about it in the same way though. And even sometime with people who don't think about it the same way.

Like since Niff essentially taught me socionics I basically am programed to think that all the ashtonians are not quite right about socionics but you'd be surprised how often I reach a conclusion that is very similar to theirs and with similar reasoning.

Side Note: Ashtonions hate the shit out of Niff cause they think he is a tottal idiot, Niff thinks about the same of the Ashtonions.

Also,

I was just being diplomatic. I didn't want to hurt maritsa's feelings by calling her stupid, but yeah... She's dumb and doin' it so very wrong.

I guess we are on the same page in a few things. =)

[ambivalent existence]

This whole conversation is frustrating to me because you make a few huge assumptions that you take as absolute fact, and then based on those dismiss everything else without considering that you might be wrong about the first two assumptions you make and take as absolute fact.

Assumption 1: You are ILE. Did you say this is based on VI, and therefore must be true? I hope I misunderstood that and I think I very well might have.

Assumption 2: If you are ILE, or even if you aren't, you assume you understand, recognize, and correctly identify SEIs. Or any other types, for that matter.

Based on those two assumptions and your feeling that you don't get along with those people you assume are SEIs, you assume Socionics can't predict relationships.

Other possibilities include:

You are not ILE
You are mistaking SEIs with another type and have mistyped those people (including a parent, right?) you assume are SEIs.

This way of thinking, that you have to be right about a couple of things you could be wrong about, and that based on those couple of things you dismiss something you don't know a whole lot about, makes no sense to me.

I don't take anything as absolute facts.

I did not say I'm ILE, it's just what most people typed me as. VI and other means.

I did not try to identify any SEI, but the SEI descriptions weren't really the things I'd imagine for my dual.

My parents are not SEIs btw.

My issue is none of the above. I explained about it more in other posts.

Btw, it's way too easy to "argue" that the other party doesn't know "enough" about a topic that's not even objective enough, which is my complaint.

[Slacker]

People often don't expect they'd be attracted to their dual. I wouldn't make any assumptions based on that either.

You could be ILE. You might not be. I'd just keep your mind very open at this point, and just keep reading and talking to people here.

I don't think Socionics predicts relationships perfectly, but I think it does generally. Like if you're never getting along with duals, or always getting along with conflictors, someone is probably mistyped, but people might very well get along with some conflictors or not get along with some duals.

[Park]

[BreeZ]

i like how you visualize types on a graph JWC3. i pictured that the points would be the IM elements instead along with a 3d representation of a scatter plot (if that makes any sense) . Almost like a messed up universe where in one part of the universe (point) there would be more dark matter/energy - hence more concentration of galaxies/visible matter to that area- indicating the strength/usage the particular IM element. Or if that didn't work, a spiky sphere would be the closest thing to what i imagine. Everything i just wrote could be completely nonsense but i don't know how else to translate what i visualize in words lol.

It was funny reading seeing the logic 101 in your post, a week ago i saw the same thing in my astronomy textbook.

[tcaudilllg]

Which was a greater waste of time: this thread, or my response to it?

*ponders*

It's like a group of people inherited a huge house, and instead of sharing its many spacious rooms they instead decided to fuss and pine over who gets a small closet in the utility room.

[JWC3]

i like how you visualize types on a graph JWC3. i pictured that the points would be the IM elements instead along with a 3d representation of a scatter plot (if that makes any sense) . Almost like a messed up universe where in one part of the universe (point) there would be more dark matter/energy - hence more concentration of galaxies/visible matter to that area- indicating the strength/usage the particular IM element. Or if that didn't work, a spiky sphere would be the closest thing to what i imagine. Everything i just wrote could be completely nonsense but i don't know how else to translate what i visualize in words lol.

It was funny reading seeing the logic 101 in your post, a week ago i saw the same thing in my astronomy textbook.

*chuckles* Thanks =D Your astronomy book had logic in it?

Also, for me at least It's fairly difficult to translate my thoughts into pictures because I don't think in pictures so when I try to write things like that post I kinda have to try to make it up as I go along and then go back and edit it until it makes sense with the concepts and ideas that I'm already thinking about and it ends up being very verbose because it takes so many words to paint the picture correctly. I do know of people who do think in pictures though, one of my roommates/best friends is one and he's pretty awesome, actually it might explain why he is the best physical comedy actor I know.

[BreeZ]

Ya it was kind of surprising, the sub-section was called "Logic and Science". It tells moi that there are 2 types of logical arguments - deductive and inductive.

Deductive: Premise: 1) All planets orbit the Sun in ellipses with the Sun at one focus 2) Earth is a planet. Conclusion: Earth orbits sun as ellipse with sun at one focus
Inductive: Premise:1) Birds fly up into the air but eventually come back down 2) Rocks thrown in air comes back down 3) Ball thrown in air comes back down. Conclusion: What goes up must come down

I was very captivated by this section, even though i was suppose to cram for exam

[ambivalent existence]

People often don't expect they'd be attracted to their dual. I wouldn't make any assumptions based on that either.

You could be ILE. You might not be. I'd just keep your mind very open at this point, and just keep reading and talking to people here.

I don't think Socionics predicts relationships perfectly, but I think it does generally. Like if you're never getting along with duals, or always getting along with conflictors, someone is probably mistyped, but people might very well get along with some conflictors or not get along with some duals.

yes, I know that one might have a hard time noticing their dual. I'm keeping my attitude open yeah

I agree, it's good to not expect anything absolute from the theory when applying it.

[ambivalent existence]

Which was a greater waste of time: this thread, or my response to it?

*ponders*

It's like a group of people inherited a huge house, and instead of sharing its many spacious rooms they instead decided to fuss and pine over who gets a small closet in the utility room.

as long as you enjoyed it, it wasn't a total waste of time..