usefulness of socionics

[ambivalent existence]

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.

[Beautiful sky]

check out my link to my business website, that is why I take Socionics seriously

It is measurable with tools, you just have to know what to look for and how to apply it.

You don't see the "usefulness" of this theory LOL. Ok. Let's see. You can date 1000 people one date at a time to find a match or you can pick the one(s) out without dating them ALL and from those one(s) you can make a decision on which one fits you better (aesthetically).

Oh yes, you can try to figure out what someone really wants from you or know that they are applying pressure, will, on you just by looking at them and say "no, I've had enough, bye" in an instant.

You'll know the sensitive ones from the more gruff ones and the less sensitive and maybe you can be more yourself around one and adjust to being more "reserved" around the other.

[ambivalent existence]

check out my link to my business website, that is why I take Socionics seriously

It is measurable with tools, you just have to know what to look for and how to apply it.

exactly what tools do you use to measure then?

[Beautiful sky]

exactly what tools do you use to measure then?

I use Visual Identification and when I'm not a 100% certain as pictures can be bad sometimes, I apply Jung's Model and look for type related patterns, watch for logical interrelations between what the person says, does, interacts with certain kinds; how they take other's will, how they respond to the display of certain functions; how they respond to my primary functions' information output (as my primary function is my type).

An example:

TeSi type, being Te first, judge the effectiveness, quality, of things that are being performed...they will voice out their opinions on things that work by saying such things as "that works." When they let their suppressed Fi come to the surface, they begin speaking about their hurt emotions surrounding what things past relations did to them that hurt their feelings; they become more empathetic as they have to concentrate less on Te and allow their Fi to "shine through" from their subconscious...that makes them a less driven more balanced person.

[ambivalent existence]

I use Visual Identification and when I'm not a 100% certain as pictures can be bad sometimes, I apply Jung's Model and look for type related patterns, watch for logical interrelations between what the person says, does, interacts with certain kinds; how they take other's will, how they respond to the display of certain functions; how they respond to my primary functions' information output (as my primary function is my type).

An example:

TeSi type, being Te first, judge the effectiveness, quality, of things that are being performed...they will voice out their opinions on things that work by saying such things as "that works." When they let their suppressed Fi come to the surface, they begin speaking about their hurt emotions surrounding what things past relations did to them that hurt their feelings; they become more empathetic as they have to concentrate less on Te and allow their Fi to "shine through" from their subconscious...that makes them a less driven more balanced person.

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.

[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.

[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.

[ashlesha]

i want to reply to this but i'm super tired and i don't know how coherent i'll be.

i don't know how seriously everybody takes it on the whole but even when you don't take it seriously - you see you type this person X and that person Y and it goes according to socionics plan and it becomes "real" to you. look, its working! even when you don't think of it as something to be taken seriously. and so there's sort of a mix of not taking it seriously and taking it seriously that happens. and i think thats what people mean when they talk about it as a virus or whatever. how do you not take something too seriously when you see it everywhere?

something that i think is a big part of this is that for example if you see a happy couple you're probably more likely to type them as duals than as conflictors. so then its confirmed to you. look, theyre duals. and theyre so happy. socionics works! but its all backwards and forwards at the same time.

you create what you see and you see what you create. dun dun dunnnn.

lol i have no idea how much sense this makes. basically its all bullshit but it fucks wif yer head mann.

[ambivalent existence]

i want to reply to this but i'm super tired and i don't know how coherent i'll be.

i don't know how seriously everybody takes it on the whole but even when you don't take it seriously - you see you type this person X and that person Y and it goes according to socionics plan and it becomes "real" to you. look, its working! even when you don't think of it as something to be taken seriously. and so there's sort of a mix of not taking it seriously and taking it seriously that happens. and i think thats what people mean when they talk about it as a virus or whatever. how do you not take something too seriously when you see it everywhere?

something that i think is a big part of this is that for example if you see a happy couple you're probably more likely to type them as duals than as conflictors. so then its confirmed to you. look, theyre duals. and theyre so happy. socionics works! but its all backwards and forwards at the same time.

you create what you see and you see what you create. dun dun dunnnn.

lol i have no idea how much sense this makes. basically its all bullshit but it fucks wif yer head mann.

I get what you mean, don't worry

here's my take on this: none of the things that you described is based on objective measurement so it's rather pointless to rely on it too much.

here's some examples for the above description where it wanders away from being objective is: 1) the idea of clear-cut types is based on a concept that is not proven as existing in reality 2) you do the typings based on your own subjective thinking ("this person seems to be that type") 3) you operate with assumptions taken from theory not yet verified via your own thorough observation (such as "happy couple? oh they must be duals, not conflictors").

btw I did not want to criticize you personally in any way. this was a generic impersonal analysis of the description you gave

[Radio]

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'm not sure if socionics has helped me in any way. typology* in general has slowly (and unconsciously) propagated a tendency in me towards holding preconceived notions about people, a habit i now consciously try to repress, leading to a certain (deluded) arrogance that you understand people better than others but that's obviously bullshit considering how every person has their own unique habits, quirks, interests, beliefs, likes and dislikes, sense of humour, and while there might be some correlation and overlap of these with types, it's much less jarring to approach people as individuals and understand them for what they are, in my opinion.

in retrospect i can see some interesting parallels with socionics relationships and my own type, but i dislike the idea of holding prejudice towards your opposing quadra or w/e. in a sense though, it has made me aware of my limitations and weaknesses, and that i think is the only positive thing coming out of my personal discovery of socionics, because i constantly work on improving these and if there seems to be conflict with people who roughly correlate with socionics conflictors or superego relationships, it gives me incentive to work on eliminating these differences and to work towards becoming a more well-rounded individual.

i've learned a lot more about myself reading about cognitive biases and defense mechanisms, and complexes, or at least i think i do, and that has a lot more to offer in my opinion than socionics ever could.

* typology meaning enneagram, mbti, socionics, jcf, et al, not jung.

[ambivalent existence]

i'm not sure if socionics has helped me in any way. typology* in general has slowly (and unconsciously) propagated a tendency in me towards holding preconceived notions about people, a habit i now consciously try to repress, leading to a certain (deluded) arrogance that you understand people better than others but that's obviously bullshit considering how every person has their own unique habits, quirks, interests, beliefs, likes and dislikes, sense of humour, and while there might be some correlation and overlap of these with types, it's much less jarring to approach people as individuals and understand them for what they are, in my opinion.

in retrospect i can see some interesting parallels with socionics relationships and my own type, but i dislike the idea of holding prejudice towards your opposing quadra or w/e. in a sense though, it has made me aware of my limitations and weaknesses, and that i think is the only positive thing coming out of my personal discovery of socionics, because i constantly work on improving these and if there seems to be conflict with people who roughly correlate with socionics conflictors or superego relationships, it gives me incentive to work on eliminating these differences and to work towards becoming a more well-rounded individual.

i've learned a lot more about myself reading about cognitive biases and defense mechanisms, and complexes, or at least i think i do, and that has a lot more to offer in my opinion than socionics ever could.

* typology meaning enneagram, mbti, socionics, jcf, et al, not jung.

thanks for your opinion. I do agree that stereotypes are bad (which is really what my post was about in short!) and also agree that this assumption in the theory that everyone has weaknesses is useful. and yeah, using more than just one theory is more useful as well.

[Ryan]

It is a model by design that could be applied in many ways. There isn't a divine purpose to it. Some have used these tests to create dating sites, others used it to recruit employees. Then there is the fact that socionics includes many concepts that are used in our daily lives, so I think of it as another way to study these concepts further for my own amusement. It all depends on what do you want to achieve.

[ambivalent existence]

It is a model by design that could be applied in many ways. There isn't a divine purpose to it. Some have used these tests to create dating sites, others used it to recruit employees. Then there is the fact that socionics includes many concepts that are used in our daily lives, so I think of it as another way to study these concepts further for my own amusement. It all depends on what do you want to achieve.

it's a model yes. but I see it as not a good enough model to totally rely on in these applications. sure, the model itself isn't bad at all, and it could help in certain things, but I disagree with some conclusions that *seem* to be drawn from it by its designers/users:

1. types exist and you are one specific type
2. interactions can be well defined (such as duality)

I would not rely on these ideas. the theory itself could still have some practical use, if the predictions it makes work out more often than random.

[BreeZ]

For me socionics is best kept to myself, it's not something that i'll be very open about because it's the experience that counts when using socionics. I've always been very cautious not to let socionics be the basis of my life, maybe until i have enough experience then I'll be confident enough to say "Yep it's true alright". Typology in general has helped me learn about myself but most of all has helped me drop a lot of hurt coming from other people- simply because they were just being themselves. But of course there are many other things that can hurt you other than someone hitting your PoLR/ignoring functions and i've gotten a face full of the combination.

[Ryan]

Have you tested any of these conclusions? Settle on a type first then ask if it could change. You said that type could change. How often? Frankly? Not important. Start from now. If this moment was all you had in life what type would you be? If you can't choose one type then yes this theory probably won't be of much use to you.

Have you taken any other test before? MBTI?

The second conclusion is highly dependent on the first.

[Slacker]

it's a model yes. but I see it as not a good enough model to totally rely on in these applications. sure, the model itself isn't bad at all, and it could help in certain things, but I disagree with some conclusions that *seem* to be drawn from it by its designers/users:

1. types exist and you are one specific type
2. interactions can be well defined (such as duality)

I would not rely on these ideas. the theory itself could still have some practical use, if the predictions it makes work out more often than random.

I believe your two points are true, only because I've seen it in my life. But I don't think it should be taken too seriously, because it is vague, and it can't be tested or anything like that. But you are a bit new at it to make definitive conclusions about it one way or the other, IMO. And I still think you don't really understand the theory that well, but it is vague and it takes a while.

[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.

[Jarno]

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.

mbti functions don't count. they use another formula to convert from dichotomies to functions. the wrong formula. so you get crazy shit that doesn't make sense. Socionics is most accurate.

You can't feel your functions, the dual seeking function is called like this because 'it lights up', so to say, when you are with your dual at close psychological distance.

For the rest it's impossible to notice this function as being part of you. people who say they can, are talking out of their ass. The first 2 functions (ego block) and the 4 dichotomies can be observed in others and somewhat yourself. The other functions are hard or impossible to observe, but you can deduct them by looking how your relationships go.

[ambivalent existence]

mbti functions don't count. they use another formula to convert from dichotomies to functions. the wrong formula. so you get crazy shit that doesn't make sense. Socionics is most accurate.

You can't feel your functions, the dual seeking function is called like this because 'it lights up', so to say, when you are with your dual at close psychological distance.

For the rest it's impossible to notice this function as being part of you. people who say they can, are talking out of their ass. The first 2 functions (ego block) and the 4 dichotomies can be observed in others and somewhat yourself. The other functions are hard or impossible to observe, but you can deduct them by looking how your relationships go.

thanks, this does make some sense.

just one thing; what 4 dichotomies are you referring to?

[Jarno]

thanks, this does make some sense.

just one thing; what 4 dichotomies are you referring to?

introtim/extratim, sensing/intuition, logic/ethics, rational/irrational

once you spot somebody using one side of a dichotomie, you'll notice that he's always on that side. It's really basic, most easy to spot, and therefor good for observing, and you automatically get a good example of what that dichotomy is all about, since you can learn it from that person.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[JWC3]

Hmm. I just noticed you both write a lot.

Y?

[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.

[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.

[Beautiful sky]

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,

Runaway Te anyone?

[ambivalent existence]

Runaway Te anyone?

oh heh I recall you typed me as SLI via your VI method. but why did you bring up this topic now? are you trying to verify my typing or something?

by the way, there was more to my post than just the little part you quoted, but yes that part is certainly important too.

[Beautiful sky]

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.

Your reliance on trial-and-error experience to determine your beliefs and interpretation of concepts indicates an orientation toward Te, but the primacy of your Si function is manifested by your reliance on what you "experience" (see, hear, touch, etc.) over what you THINK about those things.

[ambivalent existence]

Your reliance on trial-and-error experience to determine your beliefs and interpretation of concepts indicates an orientation toward Te, but the primacy of your Si function is manifested by your reliance on what you "experience" (see, hear, touch, etc.) over what you THINK about those things.

but of course experience of reality > theory for everyone, or they would be madmen. I mean, I doubt you need to have "leading Si" for that. maybe you mean that some people don't consciously notice it that they shape their theory to their experiences...? also, how does the sense of touch have anything to do with beliefs and concepts lol.

btw, nothing in my post indicates trial-and-error experience (regardless of defining it as "Te" or not). the post I wrote I got from putting together stuff I've seen here and there over time. it was no conscious trial-and-error experimenting, I just let stuff (=experiences) accumulate and then at one point I decided to think about it and I made an explanatory summary of it all then.

(edit: thinking more about this though, yes I can sometimes assume trial-and-error attitude when problem solving. but then that's about problem solving, not theorizing. even then I much prefer to have a proper understanding... most cool is when I already understand something so well that I work out the solution to the problem without random trials in the process; of course still test the correctness of the result if applicable...)

also, it would really hurt Absurd's feelings if you declared me a Si/Te type. please don't insult him by assuming I'm in his quadra, and more than that, almost his identical.

[Enters Laughing]

Humanity cannot be reduced and explained by types.

[pzombieLIT]

Humanity cannot be reduced and explained by types.

says Ballsack?

[Enters Laughing]

says Ballsack?

Says my $1000 an hour psychiatrist.