The myth of typology

[mikemex]

People, I've been reading many, many posts and feel the urge to say something: please, don't turn typology into a religion. As much as it helps people to understand each other, you cannot let it drive your life.

I have a gay friend whose life seems to revolve around being a gay. His political views are based on if the politician likes gays or not. He wakes up, eat, piss and so on thinking that he is a gay. It has become an obsession and obsessions are bad.

Relationships between people can be explained with much simpler and common words. You like people because:

* They share or at least support/respect your position about the things you care (life goals/style, tastes and such).
* They express sympathy for you.
* They care sincerely about your well being and are willing to help if asked for.

But the history doesn't end there. In order to have a meaningful relationship with someone, it is important that you share some of your 'essence' with them. By essence I mean:

* Spent time togheter (shared experiences, past).
* Secrets.

If you find someone who fullfills the criteria above, you don't need care about the type. Typology will be useful only as a guide on how to "clean up" the relationship.

One important thing to say is that you shoud NEVER use typology as an excuse for relationship problems. Any two persons can get along togheter if they are:

* Mentally healthy.
* Emotionally mature.
* Well educated.

So keep the above in mind. It is likely that, if you experience problems with someone, you or your partner lacks at least one of the above.

The key to have successful relationships is simple: INVEST ON THEM; don't expect things for free. Always think about what you will give, not what you will get. Loving people is the best way to get love in return.

[science as magic]

this seems to be less of a problem here than on any other typology forum i have encountered. if anything this forum has lost almost all respect for typology which is for the best.

[Austy]

Well said mike!

[aestrivex]

i agree with a lot of this post, but i dont agree with the following:

Any two persons can get along togheter if they are:

* Mentally healthy.
* Emotionally mature.
* Well educated.

So keep the above in mind. It is likely that, if you experience problems with someone, you or your partner lacks at least one of the above.

[FDG]

The key to have successful relationships is simple: INVEST ON THEM; don't expect things for free.

Bullshit. Doesn't work. Either both parties feel like they're being themselves, or the relationship is going to make both parties worse off. If you have to consciously "invest" on it, recipe for ruin.

[meatburger]

i agree with a lot of this post, but i dont agree with the following:

Any two persons can get along togheter if they are:

* Mentally healthy.
* Emotionally mature.
* Well educated.

So keep the above in mind. It is likely that, if you experience problems with someone, you or your partner lacks at least one of the above.

Lol. I agree with exactly what Niffweed said. This post is good and has a valuable message thanks Mike. I also disagree that any two people can get on together though. I live with my conflictor father. We can live in relative peace but its like Skating on thin ice.

I do put a lot of trust in socionics. My current view is i will be friends with whatever person i like not to worry about intertype relationships etc as with friends they are much much different. When it comes to relationships though, im trying to stick to a least "quite" compatible relations because i do believe they will fall apart if you are not compatible.

[Expat]

Bullshit. Doesn't work. Either both parties feel like they're being themselves, or the relationship is going to make both parties worse off. If you have to consciously "invest" on it, recipe for ruin.

True.

[FDG]

If you find someone who fullfills the criteria above, you don't need care about the type. return.

Circular argument. It is very likely that if you find somebody that fulfills those criteria, then he/she is of a compatible type.

I have a gay friend whose life seems to revolve around being a gay. His political views are based on if the politician likes gays or not. He wakes up, eat, piss and so on thinking that he is a gay. It has become an obsession and obsessions are bad.

Lol@You. Don't you see that the perispective you're denigrating here is assumed by you too? Please. You contradicted yourself 2 times yet, I'm sure if I take a deeper glance there is more to this, but I'll stop.

[Slacker]

First of all, no, any two people can not necessarily have a good relationship if they meet your three requirements. The number of friends I've had who have met those requirements and have gotten divorced from miserable marriages with people who also met those requirements makes me pretty sure of that.

And I've seen people invest so much time and effort into bad relationships it's made me cringe for them.

Obviously Socionics isn't the end-all be all. And it certainly isn't a religion, it's just a theory about how/why people might get along with each other.

Also, people don't have to be well educated to get along. Nor do both partners need to have the same level of education.

Really, what bugs me about your post is how you have this air of authority like everyone else is stupid and people who disagree with you are obviously wrong. No need to consider other possibilities.

I'd like to know what makes you an authority on relationships to the level where you can tell everyone here why they've had problems in theirs.

[snegledmaca]

Really, what bugs me about your post is how you have this air of authority like everyone else is stupid and people who disagree with you are obviously wrong. No need to consider other possibilities.

I'd like to know what makes you an authority on relationships to the level where you can tell everyone here why they've had problems in theirs.

He's just trying to help. No need to condemn him for it (Unless he start's asserting his views).

[Slacker]

I woke up grumpy today. That just rubbed me the wrong way. It's like listening to Dr. Phil or something.

[mikemex]

Typology works, and works very well in my experience. You'll have difficulty dealing with your conflictor and be at ease with your dual. But the concept here is the degree of difficulty: not that it is impossible.

The myth is not about if it works; the myth is that you can use it to drive your life. I've observed that, the more people learns about it, the more they box people in. And that is plain wrong because typology itself teaches us that it's only a matter of preference in the modes, not a lack of them.

History shows us that irresponsible people will always find an easy way to justify their wrong behaviour based on labels. For a while, christianty defined who was friend and who was foe. The color of the skin also used to be a reason to chain someone.

Think that it is over? No way. How many of you have become friends with a homeless person? I used to belive, like most people, that homeless were vicious, easy-life-loving types. However, I've talked to a lot of them and have realized that I was plain wrong. They are, most of the time, much better than the average person.

Quick tale. There is a "homeless" around where I live. He told me that he used to be a teacher and, after his girlfriend broke him, he fell into a depression. The depression was so strong that he almost lost his desire for living, but somehow decided not to commit suicide. So he is essentially depleted, and nobody cares to get him back on track. The funny thing is that he isn't homeless: he has an aparment and lives pretty close to me.

I doubt that most of you know what it is to suffer from hunger. I've bought food for homeless several times and you would not imagine how thankful they can be. Do you think that, if they were my conflictors, would change their minds about me? No way. They tale above was given to me simply because I gave him some water.

In neccessity times arrogance dissapears and modesty is taught. And once you learn to approach others with modesty, you will be able to relate to all people.

I know first hand because my dad (INTp) has been friends with an ESFj for 40 years. Do they get along pacefully? No way. But that "shared essence" keeps the bonds strong.

[FDG]

I used to belive, like most people, that homeless were vicious, easy-life-loving types.

Oh yeah, so you're projecting your moral crusade against yourself onto us. Case closed.

No, I've never thought that, sorry.

Looool I'm reading the rest of your post, and it's composed only of a moral tirade. Maybe masturbate more?

[Slava]

I think a bestter way to handle typology is to convert the models to feelings. for example, use words like... trust, respect, love, admiration, control.... desire for, respect for, consideration of, and then tie it into causations, ie. he cant give respect because he doesn;t get respect, thus he doesnt put it into his conscious, things like this, even uncosncious functions can be described in this manner. english is full of socionics terms if you know how to discriminate them. I know it can be difficult and embaracing using those terms instead of squares, circles, L's and triangles, but come on now, lol its not like we dont know, be big boys and girls and share your feelings without using symbols. i know im a damn hippocrit, but im willing to push myself into the water with all of you logical bastards (draws angry sad face with with red crayon on mommy's bedroom wall because she won't fund my hooker addiction, if things don't change im pooping on the bed)

[mikemex]

Hey FDG.

Come on man, see your "response time" to my posts... you seem to spend more time in front of the PC than in front of real people. You seem to be a nice example of an armchair expert.

Take what you want from my posts. This is a forum and that is only my opinion, not a truth that everyone must follow. I just wanted people to realize that they may misunderstand what is the purpose of typology and it bounds, turning it into an obsession and a wrong way to justify their incorrect behaviours.

Byt the way, I admit it: I am not a native english speaker and I think that I am confusing friendship with relationship. I'm not talking about love relationships, but relationships of any kind.

[Slava]

You mean raping superegos is bad? But the profile..... Oh shit.... jk sorry bad F

[FDG]

Hey FDG.

Come on man, see your "response time" to my posts... you seem to spend more time in front of the PC than in front of real people. You seem to be a nice example of an armchair expert.

Yeah, I'm in a lazy mood, and therefore I stay at home. I don't need to justify this to my tight-assed superego, like you my dear. I also masturbate all day long, you forgot.

Nice example of cheap debate tactic called "get a life". Seems like you don't even know the basis. Do you really think you have any effect on me?

[Slava]

Hey FDG.

Come on man, see your "response time" to my posts... you seem to spend more time in front of the PC than in front of real people. You seem to be a nice example of an armchair expert.

Yeah, I'm in a lazy mood, and therefore I stay at home. I don't need to justify this to my tight-assed superego, like you my dear. I also masturbate all day long, you forgot.

Nice example of cheap debate tactic called "get a life". Seems like you don't even know the basis. Do you really think you have any effect on me?

Do not worry logical one, he doth not know that you hath mastered the art of chakra ballance. His attacks are of no use.

[discourse]

Good point in that article. People should have enough gourage to face the problems, as complex and hard as they are. Instead of blameing typology for their problems. A la I hate her because she is my conflictor and so it is natural for us to not to get along. Typology plays it's role, but in conflicts, there are people: you, your friends, your girl and so on, not types. You are living this life, it is your existence.The typology of socionics indeed is a model to explain abstractly why conflicts, neutral relationships, close relationships might happen, but misunderstandings, love, neutral relationships- they all happen between me and you and her and him. You can learn to get along. That is why it is usefull to know socionics. You meat a girl who is your conflicor, so with help of this typology, you know that it is hard to get a long. You also know what kind of personality she has. So you can use your knowldge to find the right distance and to get along with her. For me that is the point of socionics.

[aestrivex]

FDG- ESTp (he and ashton always seemed Se to me)

mikemex- INFj

[science as magic]

I think that the amount of energy it takes to sustain a personality, let alone a relationship, is impossible to maintain over the long term and that the costs will outweigh the benefits once your individual personal will expands beyond a certain point. I know this sounds odd, how can you have a personal will and no personality? Think of the wolf that when caught in a vice gnaws its legs off.

[Slava]

I think that the amount of energy it takes to sustain a personality, let alone a relationship, is impossible to maintain over the long term and that the costs will outweigh the benefits once your individual personal will expands beyond a certain point. I know this sounds odd, how can you have a personal will and no personality? Think of the wolf that when caught in a vice gnaws its legs off.

Life is so damn hard... so many options and each option is both good and bad depending who you ask, arggg... but then again what is the primary goal in life? we all die in the end anyways... so sustaining life although important should only be a subset of the main goal.... what is it!!?? argggg i ned to know lol.

[Rocky]

People, I've been reading many, many posts and feel the urge to say something: please, don't turn typology into a religion. As much as it helps people to understand each other, you cannot let it drive your life.

LOL, you're a riot.

Mr. Advice Man, I have some advice for you... why don't you leave? And I don't mean that in a mean way, I mean that in the most caring way possible. As you said, thinking about this stuff too much is unhealthy.

And this whole thread is borderline ridiculous. It's the equivilant of walking into an opium den, then preaching to everyone there how bad opium is and how they should stop, while at the same time smoking up a pipe yourself.

HYPOCRITE.

I have a gay friend whose life seems to revolve around being a gay. His political views are based on if the politician likes gays or not. He wakes up, eat, piss and so on thinking that he is a gay. It has become an obsession and obsessions are bad.

So what? Leave the guy alone. Who are you to determine what people choose as their identity? Did you know that there are cancer patients who find out later on that they, in fact, do not have cancer, and aren't going to die? And did you know that when they find out they don't have cancer, they go into depression? Why? No, they didn't want to die. But they idealized the view of being a poor cancer victim, with everyone feeling sorry for them, that when they find out it was all a "lie" it's like a part of them is missing.

YOU do not know what's good for everyone.

Relationships between people can be explained with much simpler and common words. You like people because:

* They share or at least support/respect your position about the things you care (life goals/style, tastes and such).
* They express sympathy for you.
* They care sincerely about your well being and are willing to help if asked for.

But the history doesn't end there. In order to have a meaningful relationship with someone, it is important that you share some of your 'essence' with them. By essence I mean:

* Spent time togheter (shared experiences, past).
* Secrets.

If you find someone who fullfills the criteria above, you don't need care about the type. Typology will be useful only as a guide on how to "clean up" the relationship.

One important thing to say is that you shoud NEVER use typology as an excuse for relationship problems. Any two persons can get along togheter if they are:

* Mentally healthy.
* Emotionally mature.
* Well educated.

So keep the above in mind. It is likely that, if you experience problems with someone, you or your partner lacks at least one of the above.

The key to have successful relationships is simple: INVEST ON THEM; don't expect things for free. Always think about what you will give, not what you will get. Loving people is the best way to get love in return.

*hurls*

I can't touch the rest of your post. Talk about being a hypocrite number two. Here you go and call someone else a "couch expert" on relations, when in fact you are just churning out the most pop-culture, idealized, relationship advice crap that exist today.

I don't know much about you or why you're here, all I know is that you suck at giving advice.

[Expat]

Think that it is over? No way. How many of you have become friends with a homeless person? I used to belive, like most people, that homeless were vicious, easy-life-loving types. However, I've talked to a lot of them and have realized that I was plain wrong. They are, most of the time, much better than the average person.

You had such silly views. You needed to learn better. That is not necessarily the case of others here. Do not project your own narrow-mindedness on others.

Your logic seems to be: "I was ignorant --> most other people are ignorant".

Now why should that necessarily be true?

[mikemex]

Everyone can get along pacefully. If you don't belive me, visit a graveyard.

HYPOCRITE.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......................... I'm going to split apart. You caught me. When I wrote the post in the morning was pretty bored. My girlfriend just told me that I was talking too much about typology, and that it was bad to narrow my vision too much. So I decided to play the other side of the coin and see... it has escalated to insane dimensions...

Sorry guys. It's just that I recalled Edison's test to hire someone. He took the guy to a restaurant and observed him when he received the soup. If he put salt or pepper on the soup before tasting it, then he will not hire him.

And why I recalled that? Because there is an increasing number of people who despises types... TYPES FOR GOD SAKE. They don't even speak about people that they know... they speak about of people they don't. And men, that isn't right.

As for the rest of the post, just save that concept: don't allow you to be the loose part of any relationship. Don't hide behind typology. The rest were random toughts. Crap or not, you choose.

P.S. Don't make me to call you a bunch of wannabe psychologists. I want peace.

[Expat]

P.S. Don't make me to call you a bunch of wannabe psychologists. I want peace.

Wasn't your opening post in this thread a typical product of a "wannabe psychologist"? Only of the "pop-culture" kind as Rocky mentioned -- "any two healthy people can get along if they are willing to invest in the relationship"? It's even painful to read.

[FDG]

Everyone can get along pacefully. If you don't belive me, visit a graveyard.

HYPOCRITE.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......................... I'm going to split apart.

Because you wouldn't be able to.

You caught me. When I wrote the post in the morning was pretty bored.

In the morning, already bored? Oh, nevermind, it's mine the days that are wasted!

My girlfriend

Boyfriend. In fact, the homo guy you were speaking about before it's you, and this is just the final proof of it.

just told me that I was talking too much about typology, and that it was bad to narrow my vision too much. So I decided to play the other side of the coin

Oh oh oh the other side of the coin? I though you were used to passivité.

and see... it has escalated to insane dimensions...

Yeah, it's GIGANTIC AND BLACK, isn't it?

Sorry guys. It's just that I recalled Edison's test to hire someone. He took the guy to a restaurant and observed him when he received the soup. If he put salt or pepper on the soup before tasting it, then he will not hire him.

Good luck hiring people this way.

And why I recalled that? Because there is an increasing number of people who despises types

There's also an increasing number of people who dispise you.

men, that isn't right

You want all the men for you, right? Eck. Greedy!

As for the rest of the post, just save that concept: don't allow you to be the loose part of any relationship

Yeah, it gets loose if you let too many of them into you. Don't allow this guys!

[mikemex]

Please... don't tell me that I hit you where it hurts the most... I would... well, feel bad and so on, you know, being an INFj... so they say, well, I could not stand such things... and I could feel like remorse or something... and will later feel the need to apologize... but, well, you don't need it right? Because I didn't catch you being emotionally needy... wanting aproval... did I?

Know how I became self confident? It was smashing people like you. Over time I learned that, the more they try to appear strong in the outside, the weaker and miserable they are inside. I'm pretty sure that you are a poor coward. If I had you near to me, I would teach you how a real comedian ends the show.

Control yourself FDG. If you are trying to piss me off, you lose your time. Unlike you, I do have a life outside and I don't need to proove anything in here.

Your choice. Make use of that T.

[FDG]

Please... don't tell me that I hit you where it hurts the most... I would... well, feel bad and so on, you know, being an INFj... so they say, well, I could not stand such things... and I could feel like remorse or something... and will later feel the need to apologize... but, well, you don't need it right? Because I didn't catch you being emotionally needy... wanting aproval... did I?

Why do you keep trying to use the tools you're unconfindent in? I can spot right away insults that are meant to "Hit weak points" that are actually not weak at all. Please, you're pathethic: give your ass a shake and go on in life..

Know how I became self confident?

You never did.

It was smashing people like you.

If you need to smash people to feel confident, then you're a little twit.

Over time I learned that, the more they try to appear strong in the outside, the weaker and miserable they are inside.

Don't you realize that's exactly what you're doing, alas? You're trying to look like you can debate but unfortunately, it's not in your genes.

I'm pretty sure that you are a poor coward. If I had you near to me, I would teach you how a real comedian ends the show.

But truth is you haven't me near you, so this is just another wasted line.

Control yourself FDG.

I don't have to obey any internal supergo that tell me what to do: I live freely. Therefore, I can allow myslef not to look in control.

If you are trying to piss me off, you lose your time. Unlike you, I do have a life outside and I don't need to proove anything in here.

Again, I'm telling you, you have no clue on how to debate properly. Moreover, you're hitting all the wrong and less sensitive spots. I feel sorry for you.

[Slacker]

I still want to know what your credentials are to be speaking about relationships with such an air of authority.

[tcaudilllg]

And why I recalled that? Because there is an increasing number of people who despises types... TYPES FOR GOD SAKE. They don't even speak about people that they know... they speak about of people they don't. And men, that isn't right.

This is a good point. Type has nothing to do with whether or not we like somebody, only the margin to which we get along with them. I've met people who I liked but didn't get along with. I've met people who I got along with who I didn't like.

[Rocky]

And why I recalled that? Because there is an increasing number of people who despises types... TYPES FOR GOD SAKE. They don't even speak about people that they know... they speak about of people they don't. And men, that isn't right.

This is a good point. Type has nothing to do with whether or not we like somebody, only the margin to which we get along with them. I've met people who I liked but didn't get along with. I've met people who I got along with who I didn't like.

Yes, but you have to remember that things in the real world work differently then they do in Final Fantasy, tcaudilllg.

[Slava]

And why I recalled that? Because there is an increasing number of people who despises types... TYPES FOR GOD SAKE. They don't even speak about people that they know... they speak about of people they don't. And men, that isn't right.

This is a good point. Type has nothing to do with whether or not we like somebody, only the margin to which we get along with them. I've met people who I liked but didn't get along with. I've met people who I got along with who I didn't like.

Yes, but you have to remember that things in the real world work differently then they do in Final Fantasy, tcaudilllg.

Tis all about the distance you choose to keep. but then again even if an ISFj is trying to keep a distance from an ENTp... the ENTp will be offended and will push for closer realtions.... so um.... i guess with older people who have given up the battle it will work out, they can discuss the game once they are out of it... but when ur in the game.... u can only pretend to, until it comes down to having to make global decisions that actually affect you.

[snegledmaca]

You know, I'm kinda wondering how nobody brought this up but mikemex is not talking about socionics at all. He's talking about typology. In his talk regarding typology his base argument is correct, other factors along side of type must be considered whether this be MBTI, Enneagram, astrology and so on. That's why typology is incomplete and imprecise by definition, simply by not factoring in all these other factors.

Socionics is a study of interhuman relationships, it's a branch of science and as such considers all factors

However, socionics NEVER forgets about other factors (irrelevant to psychological types) that also influence relations, such as economic level, age, sex, culture, corporate traditions, occupation etc.

and bases it's conclusions on provable facts and theories.

[Slava]

You know, I'm kinda wondering how nobody brought this up but mikemex is not talking about socionics at all. He's talking about typology. In his talk regarding typology his base argument is correct, other factors along side of type must be considered whether this be MBTI, Enneagram, astrology and so on. That's why typology is incomplete and imprecise by definition, simply by not factoring in all these other factors.

Socionics is a study of interhuman relationships, it's a branch of science and as such considers all factors

However, socionics NEVER forgets about other factors (irrelevant to psychological types) that also influence relations, such as economic level, age, sex, culture, corporate traditions, occupation etc.

and bases it's conclusions on provable facts and theories.

Its a typology too especially if the typing system is not identicle to another, and it isn't.. (ie. INTp socionics is not INTP MBTI)

[snegledmaca]

Its a typology too especially if the typing system is not identicle to another, and it isn't.. (ie. INTp socionics is not INTP MBTI)

Typology is a *part* of socionics.

[Slava]

Its a typology too especially if the typing system is not identicle to another, and it isn't.. (ie. INTp socionics is not INTP MBTI)

Typology is a *part* of socionics.

Yes, just as much as relationships.... basically we are debating... is the bread part of the jelly, or is the jelly part of the bread. why does it matter, its a frickin doughnut.

[snegledmaca]

Its a typology too especially if the typing system is not identicle to another, and it isn't.. (ie. INTp socionics is not INTP MBTI)

Typology is a *part* of socionics.

Yes, just as much as relationships.... basically we are debating... is the bread part of the jelly, or is the jelly part of the bread. why does it matter, its a frickin doughnut.

You are right.

[Slava]

Its a typology too especially if the typing system is not identicle to another, and it isn't.. (ie. INTp socionics is not INTP MBTI)

Typology is a *part* of socionics.

Yes, just as much as relationships.... basically we are debating... is the bread part of the jelly, or is the jelly part of the bread. why does it matter, its a frickin doughnut.

You are right.

Yayz!, we all win, lets go get crunk.