Beyond Socionics

[Raver]

It's tempting to label people as a certain type because of the empirical connections that support Socionics. We all know the similarities between identicals. However, have you ever felt that you shared similarities with someone that isn't even your type. I believe that there are several dimensions or layers to people in general and personality types are just one of many. If the earth was a person, your personality type would be the crust leaving the inner/outer mantle and the core for other greater aspects. It may not be exactly fit to scale, but there is more than meets the eye. I want to find out these other factors of our personality or human spirit.

Your goals in life and drive can be something indirectly related to your personality type and something more superior. Factor in several other characteristics and you will find out that we are more unique than it was once believed. It has been stated that even interests that one carries and develops in life are inherited and this whole other section could blur the lines even more. Perhaps, the main reason it is difficult to type some people because Socionics attempts to type the whole person, when all it can really do is type a small aspect of it. This leads to characteristics being misplaced. Oversimplification can lead to misperception and so could overcomplication. One must consider the hidden factors unrelated to socionics and think with an open mind if they wish to truly understand themselves and those around them.

[consentingadult]

The typical error people are making, is confusing Personality (Type) with Psychological Type, and the latter is what Jungian Types, Socionics and MBTI are all about, no more, no less. Personality encompasses a lot more than just Psychologial Type

Take a look at it like this:

First, devide "personality" into "hardware" and "software" components.

Lets look at the hardware, the "unchangeble" side of personality, what you're born with. It includes, amongst other things:

• Psychological Type
  IQ-ceiling
  Physical defects (e.g. brain defects because of oxygen-starvation during birth of later in live)
  Physical abilities and disabilities
  Mental abilities and disabilities, probably including psychoses
  etc., etc...

There is also the software side, the programming if you will, that which is acquired from the environment and, to some extent, can be changed later in life:

• education
  macro-cultural values (on a nation-level, or e.g. "western culture, "christian culture")
  micro-cultural values, e.g. social class, family values
  life experience, on both the micro and the macro level
  the expectations for the rest of your life
  Sociol dynamics (which is explained in Socionics, duh!)
  Development of neuroses
  Substance abuse
  etc., etc....

Typically, the "software" is what we might consider the aspects of the super-ego side of behaviour and personality: that what we have acquired from the environment.

You see, the aspects involving your "personality" go far beyond what is explained with Jung's Psychological Types and its derivatives such as Socionics and MBTI. That being said, it looks like Psychological Type is a strong underlying component infuencing all other aspects of personality. All 'n' all, no-one ever claimed Socionics had all the answers to personality. In fact, there are systems that measure other dimensions instead or in addition to the Jungian ones, and those (might or might not) lead to alternative but valid classifications of (aspects of) personality.

Does this make it any clearer?

[consentingadult]

By the way: I myself am getting more and more confused about Jungian Types and starting to wonder if it's not all a load of crap, or to put it more mildly: Psychological Types is what we see when people behave pathological to some extent based on the inclinations of their psychological type. I dunno...

Now does this express ENFp or INFp hidden agenda???? :wink:

[Animal]

By the way: I myself am getting more and more confused about Jungian Types and starting to wonder if it's not all a load of crap, or to put it more mildly: Psychological Types is what we see when people behave pathological to some extent based on the inclinations of their psychological type. I dunno...

Now does this express ENFp or INFp hidden agenda???? :wink:

I actually had been thinking about that a long while back. What separates certain type-related attributes from pathologies? Is there a clear distinction?

I've come to view psychological type as a set of constructs that place people into a convenient categorical architecture. People place themselves among the company of "like" people based on other factors besides type - gender, occupation, politics, education, alma mater, social strata, age, beverage of choice, etc. And, of course, there are other models of behavior/the psyche that might go so far as to place you in the same category as your Socionics conflictor.

[consentingadult]

Is there a clear distinction?

According to a lot of pro's in psychology, there isn't: you can be self-confident, or perhaps have a narcissistic personality structure, perhaps even a full-blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The deviding lines really aren't that clear...

[UDP]

There are no answers in "socionics".

However, it helps me explain and interpret things, and I like it as a tool for such.

[science as magic]

socionics has made us aware of more possible delineations within the individual than we previously had access to. this inevitably leads to "beyond socionics." when people become aware of different forms of reaction that they were not previously congnizant of they "make a choice" within that particular delineation. instead of having the options a or b and c or d only they now have e or f as an additional one and/or an expansion of the old set (a, b or z. etc). this invariably allows for non standard forms of the old delineations to exist such as the FeTi (as opposed to the TiFe) or the NeFe or some such. inevitably though these approximations will be insufficient and as we trend towards verbs/adjectives rather than nouns to describe subjects we will approach more of the total interaction base. eventually we will need to go beyond symbolic representation to get closer to the tib.

[dreamer]

I see socionics as like a loosely drawn map of a whole person, like the first dimension, outer layer, to get an idea. I like to type everyone around me to deeper understand my relationship with them but just because I meet a ESTJ doesn't mean we're automatically soul mates. I care about our economic background (rich people freaks me out), his education (some careers are just boring which leads to questioning the person's ambition), hobbies, habits etc. I will not settle for a normal person. I want to be with a writer. That's got nothing to do with type.

[consentingadult]

I want to be with a writer. That's got nothing to do with type.

I think many people won't agree, especially in MBTI a claim will be made that there is a correlation between writing abilities and being INFP...

[dreamer]

Yes but not all writers are INFP. INFJs write amazingly as well. And ESTPs like Hemingway (I think).