How do you use socionics in real life situations?

[Wavebury]

Ok, considering the fact that typing people is very hard for me, i have a hard time trying to determine someone's type in real life situations. Plus if I like a girl, I dont try and analyze her too much because it seems to choke out whatever emotion i may have had to begin with. These two factors make it hard for me to use socionics in relationships.

Now if I really knew VI very well I could probably speed type people very well due to my which makes it easy to see abstract patterns in my head, meaning i could probably speed type people without analyzing them too much and thus ignoring the emotional aspect of the relationship. But maybe this is not true, maybe Im assuming too much.

So what I want to ask is this: Do you and if yes, how do you use socionics in your life?

[indigoroom]

Plus if I like a girl, I dont try and analyze her too much because it seems to choke out whatever emotion i may have had to begin with. These two factors make it hard for me to use socionics in relationships.

Same here. More or less socionics has damaged in some way my social skills in exchange of deeper understanding. Many, many times I've found myself just listening and analysing situations and people instead of interacting with them and pushing the conversations deeper. I've found that If I take a break from this forum and socionics for about a week everything is back to normal but my overall interest in people and communication surely has dropped. Some kind of deactivation because of the understanding (or the imaginary understanding) Sometimes I wish I can forget about socionics but I guess I'll have to live with it.

Now if I really knew VI very well I could probably speed type people very well due to my

I've never studied V.I and people's types come in about a seconds in my head especially If I've had a previous relationship with represantive of this type. I memorize their faces, movements and the overall picture.. and the feel that I get from thm. Then I just walk on the streets trying to analyse everyone I see (remember Terminator 2? )

I've managed to gather full beta quadra company, I know where to spend more energy when making new acquaintancies.. and that's it. Aa, I'm trying to hit some nasty people's PoLR instead of just ignoring them like I was doing before socionics.. then I'm starting to feel bad (oh god I'm sick of these built in ethical codexes) but enough about me.

So.. I'm using it primary as a time saver. I don't know how to influence people using socionics.. and I don't want to. I've tried some tricks but I've seen no results. It's better to stick with my developed social skills and follow them.

[Waddlesworth]

Socionics is something I constantly am using. It is an ability to categorize situations between people, and the ability to predict outcomes based upon it.

I find visual identification to be helpful, but it is alway intuitive and does not follow a system- this is probably a strong accepting Ne ability. Sorta a rapid categorization of information, so rapid that it's availability for use is instantaneous. With experience this ability becomes better and better, and often I don't realize I have changed as a person since it is so automatic.

But I am still inexperienced, and am more in the information gathering stage- this means i have to take time to type most people, and therefore am more likely to follow a process of "are they more E or I? are they more S or N? etc...

But each time I definitively type a person they are stored in some schema up there, and will aid in my typing of others. the more specific and refined the schema becomes with time, the more likely I am to make an accurate, instantaneous typing of someone. It is all a matter of frequency.

When I enter a class, for example, and I feel in need of a girlfriend, I will look for cues in people. I won't go for eye shadow, or large breasts, but will look for girls that would, based on intertype relations, give me the most satisfying relationship possible.

If I want a fun relationship- activity
If I want an intellectually creative relationship-Mirror
If I want someone I can really relate to-Identical
If I want someone to make me feel complete- Dual
etc...

I assume it is different for everyone, but nomatter what it still takes time to improve- time and practice.

But if you have alot of faith in the system you can know how to get the best out of any relationship. You learn to accept peoples' weaknesses, and therefore, in return, they respect yours. You learn not to keep away from certain people, which happens with ignorance, but rather to communicate and understand differences, therefore learning from those you might normally waste energy doubting or hating.

I base my faith upon experience- this system works. The more that I understand the depth and the internal processes that make the system what it is the more faith I gain.

[indigoroom]

But if you have alot of faith in the system you can know how to get the best out of any relationship. You learn to accept peoples' weaknesses, and therefore, in return, they respect yours. You learn not to keep away from certain people, which happens with ignorance, but rather to communicate and understand differences, therefore learning from those you might normally waste energy doubting or hating.

INFP hippie like BS: YEAH MAAAN! That's how socionics will change the world and everyone will be happy and good to each other.

[discourse]

When I enter a class, for example, and I feel in need of a girlfriend, I will look for cues in people. I won't go for eye shadow, or large breasts, but will look for girls that would, based on intertype relations, give me the most satisfying relationship possible.

I'm doing the same. When I need a company I will concider what type would be the best for those different things I need. And for a romantic relationship I would like to have my dual, having right now this feeling that I so would wish to find out how does it feel like.

[Wavebury]

Ok thanks everyone for their responses so far.

Ive never experienced duality in romantic relationships, atleast not as far as Im aware because I dont like to analyze girls I like.

[discourse]

You are welcomed! I really like you Intuitive-logical Introverts.

You don't analize a gril when you are with your dual or with any other person from your own quadra. Specially with your dual, you will feel so nice that Socionics is the last thing to remember. But all the duals I know at the moment can't be my lovers.

[stefana]

//

[Wavebury]

You are welcomed! I really like you Intuitive-logical Introverts.

Well thank you. You seem like a good hearted person, Kaido.

You don't analize a gril when you are with your dual or with any other person from your own quadra. Specially with your dual, you will feel so nice that Socionics is the last thing to remember.

sounds good :wink:

But all the duals I know at the moment can't be my lovers.

Thats sucks. It seems theres always so many factors in the real world affecting relationships that it makes it hard to get with someone just becuase they are your dual.

[discourse]

Thats sucks. It seems theres always so many factors in the real world affecting relationships that it makes it hard to get with someone just becuase they are your dual.

Usually the factor is Sensory-logical extrovert boy that Sensory-ethical introvert has. I have seen a lot of my duals ending up in Activity Relations. I would not mind unless I wouldn't know how bad choice this is. SLE is too commanding and leading ,carless for SEI, so I just feel so sorry for my dual.
I have even said to one Sensory-ethical introvet that I hope they never get married and have kids in a reason that she doesn't know how much she really decerves someone better. Unfortunately she is too much in love to understand how she is ending up in a disaster.

[Wavebury]

Thats my point: people dont get into relations because of type, they get into relations because of looks, personality, commodity, etc.

So how can you use socionics in real life? Obviousy its easy to use it when your already in a relationship with someone, but not before, unless VI works for real and you know how to use it.

[Hugo]

I've been saying the same thing.

[Creepy-]

Psh, I often use Socionics to manipulate people that I know well. :wink:

But I don't go overboard either. It's mainly towards my supervisor.

Hah! Provoking arguments now for attention are we :wink:

[Angel von Himmel]

That was me, I hate dial-up on guest access ...

[Creepy-]

Alright, so I really wonder whether or not socionics is actually useful... I mean, I think it is really interesting and fun to play around with, but I feel like it would be nice to use this information to make myself happier or better relationships between myself and others. A lot of it is like "don't insult their weak points." Wow... I never saw that coming, you know? Really all socionics has done is help me discover that, yeah, there's a reason I'm emotionally inept, it's because I'm logically adept... So in conclusion, I'd like to know how to apply socionics(I know, application is not something I usually worry about...). PS I'm an ENTp

[idiotmanattacks]

Alright so since posting this I decided to register. So here I am!

[Joy]

she says she's tired and yet keeps posting

my answer is yes, socionics is useful, particularly for those with weak who want a little help analyzing various relations they have with people, or for understanding where some went wrong

[idiotmanattacks]

Yeah, well, that's pretty much why i've been looking at it for a while... but I was you know... interacting... and I realized that I have all this cool theory information that definitely applies... and I see where I go wrong.. but when next time comes around, i'm still fumbling around with emotions trying to find out what the hell is going... Like, how does one actually use this information to their advantage, rather than it's nifty accuracy?

[snowyc]

In short, it is useful.

It's a bit like the Matrix: reloaded where the oracle says something like, "you've already made the choice; now you must understand it". It's a bit like relationships, any can work as long you as understand it! (with the help of Socionics of course!)

Where the MBTI was good as a quick-and-dirty tool for employers to Type people that a corporation may need...

Socionics kind of re-does what the MBTI couldn't do by explaining the wondeful world of intertype relations objectively and reasonably.

i.e. i don't trust MBTI based relationship matching!

[alex]

I think typing people is the primary obstacle

[snowyc]

Typology is both a blessing and a curse i would say to any INTj. The only 'cure' for it being a curse is to stop "typing people in your head" as you get older and through habit you'll appreciate people more at face value.

Whomever i meet these days, i know there's an uncontrollable subconscious ability to figure out their likely type although consciously i say to myself, "accept them at face value" so as to not get distracted by theoretical social models.

[Gilly]

I ALWAYS try to type people that I meet. I usually make an attempt after about 5 minutes of talking to them, then after a few hours of talking, hanging out, etc., I usually have them pegged pretty well.

[Brother Bones]

It's usful in a couple of big ways.

First, personally, it was nice to find out that there's really nothing "wrong" with me, other than my personality type. It was really refreshing to find out that there are reasons that I people treat me like a lepper.

Second, it's been a help with my relationship with my wife (she's ESTJ). It doesn't stop us from fighting, or from being hurt by each other's "thoughtlessness", but it does help to lessen the blow and to resolve things more quickly.

For instance, last night we were in the car and my wife said something that I took as an invitation to open up to her. In my typical way, I tried doing so with 4 small words inserted into a phrase as part of a sentence. In her typical fashion, she missed the import and seriousness of that tidbit I tried to share with her and she flippantly moved on to other matters.

For a couple nano-seconds I was scorned and hurt and probably would have spent the rest of the car ride ignoring her and being mad and she would have wondered silently what she did to torque me off and.....

As it was, I recently found all this wonderful material, and tried applying it to the current situation. I realized that even though I couldn't possibly open up to her in a way that she WOULD find meaningful, what she had done was in no way personal or intended to blow off my heartfelt try to be a human being. She was just being her, and I was being me.

I got over it, we made it home without bickering and life was good:-)

[Creepy-]

I find Socionics useful because it gives an insight into how to act around people and stay on their good side (i.e. leave the PoLR well alone, praise the hidden agenda, don't get too offended if they "attack" you, etc. etc.). I don't always understand why people react to me the way that they do, and I don't much like making mistakes! Socionics seems to help take out some of the guess-work.

[mike_INTJ]

Alright, so I really wonder whether or not socionics is actually useful... I mean, I think it is really interesting and fun to play around with, but I feel like it would be nice to use this information to make myself happier or better relationships between myself and others. A lot of it is like "don't insult their weak points." Wow... I never saw that coming, you know? Really all socionics has done is help me discover that, yeah, there's a reason I'm emotionally inept, it's because I'm logically adept... So in conclusion, I'd like to know how to apply socionics(I know, application is not something I usually worry about...). PS I'm an ENTp

the most useful thing about it is - you can find out that you aren't the only freak in the world. it's not your upbringing (totally). it's not what you ate. it's your personality and other people like you have a simaler one. so you know your not alone. this does help a bit. and sometimes like talking to a shrink, sometimes you can learn about yourself, things you havn't noticed before or couldn't grasp it.

[JuJu]

Partly copied from the end of the thread, "typing wrongly:"


I'm being absolutely genuine with you when I write that you can put Socionics into practice nearly constantly.

As silly as it might sound to some here, I've found it's true: if one takes the time to learn how to VI correctly, (clarified below--I think part of the unwillingness to go with this is with the connotations of the terminology,) and type accurately by dominant functions, Socionics becomes a practical tool... Which one can use in nearly every interaction to one's benefit.

I want to make this known to people here who are down on Socionics--thinking it's all subjective and pie-in-the-sky... It's not.

People around here laugh at the notion of VI--and as it has been propagated thus far in the English-speaking community, i.e. Ganin's "XXXx have big chins" and all of that horseshit is just that: horseshit.

What I've found is that VI it has nothing to do with the size of one's chin, or the particularities of one's physiognomy. (Everyone looks different, of course--different genes, etc.) VI based on this is based on a poor foundation.

It's not this, but by evaluating how someone presents themselves that one learns how to VI accurately. (By accurately I mean 85%-95%... No one, not even the best at this, are perfect... As Ritella rightly wrote, "everyone has good and bad typings.")

Simply put, by looking at someone and maybe speaking a few sentences with them to find out their interests, i.e. evaluating how they present themselves, one can VI them. (Thus, VI in this instance means "quickly type;" not "type by the way his chin looks" or any of that garbage.) I can put them into the right quadra with very high accuracy.

Here's how:

By typing many people--practicing almost everyday--I now have a huge database of type archetypes from which to draw when I meet/type a new person... For example, let's take celebrities b/c they enable everyone to discern what I'm talking about, (if one looks into it.)

Lou Reed, Michael Jordan, Dr. Phil, and Steve Wilkos.

They all look very different (although three are bald lol) ... They all present themselves differently, emphasizing different skills... They all, however, present themselves in typically ISTj ways. They are all reminiscent of other ISTjs I have met, or otherwise typed.

Thus it's likely, when I see a new ISTj, he reminds me of one of these people... After speaking with him for less than a minute, I will know his type, subtype, and how to communicate with him best...

Also, during conversation, I am more myself the entire time, if that makes any sense, whereas before I would sometimes people-please... B/c I know that my duals and members of my quadra will take what I say well.

I have made a bunch of new friends this year by doing this... It's really, really awesome, and I wish it for everyone here.


Making Socionics practical has to do with building this database of correct typings.

Simply put, many people here have either not been doing it right, or (those who have been doing it right) have been too meek in promoting their understanding... Leaving others here to wallow in their own half-assed Socionic off-shoot theories. (I wallowed in my own for awhile.)

This skill w/ typing makes it easy--and very practical--to start good relationships, and also avoid bad ones.

All this is by way of saying--and I am writing it just so that others can learn, because Socionics has been very helpful to me (best year of my life so far)--if one takes the time to learn how to type people via VI and dominant functions... Socionics can help improve lives in a very practical way.

[Jarno]

Hey Juju, nice thread.

I agree with everything but would like to add some minor comments.

VI is noticing a similar face. What you call 'how people present themselves' includes behaviour, so you might not want to call it VI.

It is however a very effective way to spot types. Since same types expose same behaviour.

What you said on building a large database is exactly what's useful. It is called the method of typing by comparison. Although I would prefer a database of friends/colleagues instead of celebrities, (because they aren't natural / spontanous and/or acting in movies)

[Sirena]

Juju, now I just need to learn how to do this accurately!

[Lobo]

Hi Juju,

Actually, I wasn't really downing Socionics, and when I mentioned "subjective" it was towards the articles I tend to find about the types. Also, I believe that VI is legitimate. But I still have not seen articles demonstrating the practicality outside of finding good personal relationships (which is what I meant by "matchmaking"). For example, I'm looking for something along these lines:

Suppose we are trying to decide which type is suitable for a certain position/rank in a team, where he/she will need to make a decision on his/her own based on the information provided. Now we are stepping outside regular type descriptions and focusing on informational processing. Let's consider, for instance, the reason why EII would not be very suitable for military leadership (non combat) position in general. Basically, as leading function will not consider and naturally think of solutions that go outside their value system, without previous exposure to these at some point. However, due to their introverted nature, they would be more suitable in a position of military strategy, rather than actually directing the military actions to take. But, this would be true with Ijs in general, in terms of favoring plans and well-thought of actions, instead of quick ones. In terms of the kind of thinking they could provide, EII could focus on other aspects of warfare, such as moral, and they might do well in this regard.

What I wrote above might not be 100% true in general, but it's just a basic example of what I mean.

[JuJu]

Hey Juju, nice thread.

I agree with everything but would like to add some minor comments.

VI is noticing a similar face. What you call 'how people present themselves' includes behaviour, so you might not want to call it VI.

It is however a very effective way to spot types. Since same types expose same behaviour.

What you said on building a large database is exactly what's useful. It is called the method of typing by comparison. Although I would prefer a database of friends/colleagues instead of celebrities, (because they aren't natural / spontanous and/or acting in movies)

First, thank you Second, you are absolutely right... Instead of VI, your terminology is what I will use from now on... Typing by comparison b/c you are right--what I'm writing about isn't strict VI per se.

I agree with you about friends and colleagues vs. celebrities as well... To be honest, they compose most of my type archetypes--I'm using celebrities in these examples so other people can look up the videos if need be... (Do you think this is counter-productive? Maybe I should try a new tack..?)

Thanks for you post, Jarno

Juju, now I just need to learn how to do this accurately!

<3 Sirena

[JuJu]

Hi Juju,

Actually, I wasn't really downing Socionics, and when I mentioned "subjective" it was towards the articles I tend to find about the types. Also, I believe that VI is legitimate. But I still have not seen articles demonstrating the practicality outside of finding good personal relationships (which is what I meant by "matchmaking"). For example, I'm looking for something along these lines:

Suppose we are trying to decide which type is suitable for a certain position/rank in a team, where he/she will need to make a decision on his/her own based on the information provided. Now we are stepping outside regular type descriptions and focusing on informational processing. Let's consider, for instance, the reason why EII would not be very suitable for military leadership (non combat) position in general. Basically, as leading function will not consider and naturally think of solutions that go outside their value system, without previous exposure to these at some point. However, due to their introverted nature, they would be more suitable in a position of military strategy, rather than actually directing the military actions to take. But, this would be true with Ijs in general, in terms of favoring plans and well-thought of actions, instead of quick ones. In terms of the kind of thinking they could provide, EII could focus on other aspects of warfare, such as moral, and they might do well in this regard.

What I wrote above might not be 100% true in general, but it's just a basic example of what I mean.

This is really interesting, Sereno... I understand what you mean--and intuitively I agree with you--however, thinking about it, would you say we get into dodgy ethical territory when we start to say what is/isn't suitable for certain people based on their Socionics type?

Personally, I wouldn't want someone telling me what I shouldn't be, you know..? (No matter how practical/good that advice might be... My attitude would be, "fuck that I will do it anyway," haha--you know what I mean??)

That said, certainly, there are certain vocations suited to each types' unique skill set... This is an area--I agree 100%--that Socionists should start researching.

This info could help billions of people.

[Jarno]

Suppose we are trying to decide which type is suitable for a certain position/rank in a team, where he/she will need to make a decision on his/her own based on the information provided.

If you want it detailed like that, it isn't possible yet.

But you could predict some global things, like what kind of branche is suited for a certain type.

MBTI is already worldwide in use by personal-managers who want to hire people. Socionics can be applied for the same thing.

[krieger]

IMO to make socionics practically testable, one would have to create an experiment that puts concrete data (numbers, results) to the notion of compatibility between people.

The next thing would be to propose a method of establishing typings that is does not in any way avail itself of subjective asessments. Ideally you'd want a method that, with a little help, a contemporary computer could employ. Again, this would involve feeding the computer concrete data gathered under experimental conditions.

Put the two together, and you have a scientifically testable claim: does the method of establishing typings predict the results of the experiments or does it not.

[Warm Soapy Water]

There's nothing to practice. Socionics just is. It reminds you that no matter what you do or go through, you always are just yourself. You got over your relationship conflicts not via studying socionics, but because you gained a healthier and more realistic perspective of yourself.

It reminds us that people like us for subjective reasons, that if we're clearly not being understood who we are at the core level to just move on. But in day to day operations, it's not about being understood it's about getting a job done. Of course if you have a middle-class profession like psychology you might not understand that as your job is about walking in-between worlds...

[JuJu]

There's nothing to practice. Socionics just is. It reminds you that no matter what you do or go through, you always are just yourself. You got over your relationship conflicts not via studying socionics, but because you gained a healthier and more realistic perspective of yourself.

Do you ever even read the posts you respond to??

What you write here is presumptuous -- why do you think your experience mirrors mine?? (it doesn't.) and why do you think you have insight into my experience? (you don't.)

There's a lot to practice.

[Gilly]

Juju is getting it

Seriously though, not to sound arrogant, but it's good to know that I'm not the only person who actually has a good feeling for this and can see that in a lot of cases there really is something to it and that it really is practicable. However I will say this: over time I think you will probably come to realize that, while maybe 1/3 of people's types become almost immediately obvious to you, some just by sheer facial recognition, and something like 2/3s can be typed easily with limited knowledge of them and some basic interaction, and even beyond that almost everyone can be lumped reliably into one type or another, there really are a lot of people out there who sort of seem to defy the bounds, who don't fit perfectly or practicably into one type, at least as far as can be deduced from the surface; who knows, maybe in their thought processes they clearly favor a type, but from the perspective of visual factors, behavioral traits, apparent values, etc, there are definitely some people who just don't fit well into one type, or at least that "knowing" their type isn't going to tell you anything significant about them, help you interact with them, or really do anything useful whatsoever.

However I will say that the extent to which it can actually be applied, and the way it helps you to think about interacting with people, is both fascinating and potentially incredibly useful.

[Slacker]

I think it's very useful. I don't piss off LSIs very often at all anymore, and if they start looking uncomfortable I know exactly how to handle it. I recognize that there isn't anything wrong with LSIs, but that we're just very different in how we think and view the world. I recognize when my SEI father in law needs rescuing from my LIE mom, and step in and handle it. I help my IEE daughter and her LSI friend try to understand each other and not fight so much. I recognize when to keep keep my mouth shut around my ESI brother. It is pretty easy to put it into practice once you understand how it works and can type people correctly. In fact it's hard to NOT put it into practice. It's like recognizing when someone is carrying too many packages and needs another pair of hands, and then stepping in to help with a few things.

[Gilly]

It is pretty easy to put it into practice once you understand how it works and can type people correctly. In fact it's hard to NOT put it into practice. It's like recognizing when someone is carrying too many packages and needs another pair of hands, and then stepping in to help with a few things.

Yeah, I agree with this. I remember Expat once made a really good analogy in saying that Socionics is kind of like a language, and that once you have a solid grasp on it, like you say, it's hard NOT to notice it and put it into practice. If you are fluent in Spanish, you can't "not translate" when you hear people speaking Spanish; you just hear the words, and you understand their meaning. Same concept.

[Lobo]

This is really interesting, Sereno... I understand what you mean--and intuitively I agree with you--however, thinking about it, would you say we get into dodgy ethical territory when we start to say what is/isn't suitable for certain people based on their Socionics type?

Personally, I wouldn't want someone telling me what I shouldn't be, you know..? (No matter how practical/good that advice might be... My attitude would be, "fuck that I will do it anyway," haha--you know what I mean??)

I know what you mean . However, and I know that my example showed otherwise, the type of description that I was getting at was more of an analytical one rather than a restrictive one (as in telling people what they can or cannot do). Sort of like: "given this situation or group arrangement, what could potentially be XXXx's input?" I might take a stab at this later on if I am able to understand Socionics better. I'm not really that interested in being able to identify types, but trying to understand how types process information, which I think is key to understanding intertype relations better.

If you want it detailed like that, it isn't possible yet.

But you could predict some global things, like what kind of branche is suited for a certain type.

MBTI is already worldwide in use by personal-managers who want to hire people. Socionics can be applied for the same thing.

Hi Jarno,

Yes, it could be used to hire people. Applications in group dynamics is something that I believe could be potentially useful and interesting.

[Singu]

By typing many people--practicing almost everyday--I now have a huge database of type archetypes from which to draw when I meet/type a new person... For example, let's take celebrities b/c they enable everyone to discern what I'm talking about, (if one looks into it.)

Lou Reed, Michael Jordan, Dr. Phil, and Steve Wilkos.

They all look very different (although three are bald lol) ... They all present themselves differently, emphasizing different skills... They all, however, present themselves in typically ISTj ways. They are all reminiscent of other ISTjs I have met, or otherwise typed.

Uh, I actually think that Lou Reed is an IEI. I mean, he wrote songs like "I'll Be Your Mirror" and "Heroin". They sound pretty NiFe to me.

But that's the thing, typing is so largely subjective, there are hardly any "objective criteria" for typing people. Socionics/MBTI/Jung is basically about splitting people into 16 imaginary categories, and comparing these people with other people. You could make a counter-argument against that, but that's basically how I see Socionics. The thing is, Socionics isn't exactly science, it's largely only a hypothetical theory. There are no exact way of "proving" the existence of functions and types and so on. Typing is often only based on subjective data and introspection, which there's no way of proving the existence of those data. A lot of people might mistake Socionics/MBTI/Jung with facts and science, because it seems well-thought out, analyzed, and studied, but actually, it's not, it's hardly a fact. You have to ask yourself, how come there are hardly any objective criteria or guidelines for typing people? How come people can hardly ever agree with the typing of a person? How come, typings, basically seem like "random guesses"?

I'd agree that there's something to Socionics, but I'd say, it's not good enough... lol.