Is this the reason why it can not be known to a broader audience? People said this about writing and reading before it was teached in school. Is the only way for Socionics to be known by all functions of society for it to be learned in school?
Are people too dumb for Socionics?
Is this the reason why it can not be known to a broader audience? People said this about writing and reading before it was teached in school. Is the only way for Socionics to be known by all functions of society for it to be learned in school?
its mainly unknown because it has little scientific grounds/empirical evidence. Also its kind of ''advanced'' psychology, something you dont really learn in highschool. I mean, im pretty sure people dont get tought psychology as a class at all at high school, so it kind of ends there.
MBTI has little scientific grounds/empirical evidence and it's popular.
Yeah its popular but not taught at university (at least not where I studied psychology). Thats more what I meant. I agree with you tho, it is reasonably popular. As for why Socionics doesnt compare to mbti popularity wise is simply because MBTI is brought to you by western psychologists, while socionics belongs more to the eastern spheres of psychology, therefore it is automatically less accessibleOriginally Posted by Velvet
Highly doubt if it could ever be mainstream since it is pretty obscure and probably way less appealing to the masses than MBTI (which can make you feel special with fewer negatives), and things like Love Languages or matchmaking type systems, especially now that brain scans and dna research is being done that will lead to new insights on personality and cognition. Insights that have the potential to make real changes to your dna that can turn you into a superhuman. Of course this is years off. I will probably be dead.
No need to lament it. Neuroscience, Behavioral Genetics and Evolutionary Psychology will provide more insight that is and will be taught in schools. The thing that makes socionics less appealing is that it is limited in what help it can offer, to most, when it comes to their relationships. People who have happy healthy relationships will not be inclined to take it too serious or will assume they have good intertypes with people they like and get along with. Most people don't want to to entertain the idea that some people are not supposed to be good for them due to their way of processing information, when other ideas teach that you can learn to communicate and be understood by anyone if you put some effort into it. They want methods to make them more compatible. Telling most people "you are doomed because they are not your dual" is not going to go over well. I am not even exaggerating on the doom thing. It is implied in many hardcore believers posts, even if not directly said. Socionics is viewed sort of cultish by those outside of it. I have even been asked, "is this another cult?" by people who know I get interested in obscure personality and spiritual concepts.
I find it hard to imagine a scenario in the US where we introduce an obscure Russian theory in our schools. People are already too paranoid about Russia and their involvement in our elections. Imagine their response to the idea of teaching a Russian theory of intertype relationships to their children. Maybe other countries would be more open.
ps. I think your heading poses the wrong question.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Not dumb. It doesn't take a genius to understand the model. It's pretty straightforward before you add the different interpretations and theories created by everyone and their great aunt. Just not willing to put forth the mental energy because it takes a little time and effort. Most people just don't prioritize this kind of thing.
It's not that others are dumb, but that I am wise.
MBTI glazes over weaknesses but Socionics is heavily biased
There's little apparent desire to "understand how people work" (hence all the "you're [x type] cuz I hate you" rhetoric)
I don't think many people use the system how it's meant to be used so I wouldn't consider it a tool for self-improvement either
It seems that Socionics attracts those who are least equipped to handle it
So if the byproduct of introducing Socionics to the education system looked anything like this, then I'd discourage its implementation
They're not dumb, they just have their own knowledge, experiences, and insights into humanity at large, and Socionics barely scrapes the surface. It's but a tiny subset of an incomprehensible whole, but some may mistake it for the whole, and that's why it should be kept as a pastime for the time being.
Last edited by wasp; 08-25-2017 at 11:14 PM.
Nopes. Socionics is just too complicated to comprehend. That's all.
Because it's easier to understand
People will rather choose the one which is easier rather than the one who's complicated.
But socionics is more accurate and make sense than mbti for me.
Mbti is so simple and full of fucking stereotype
Yeah, I've found a problem in finding a source of which I trust. This site is a good placeholder, but I have found that the descriptions and people's accounts of themselves conflict. That is inevitable though, as I have a very limited understanding of people in a practical sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
The learning curve for learning Socionics is too steep for most people to bother.
SP/SX
5w4
People are just not interested in studying such a complex theory when they can get the "same result" (the 4 letters) with MBTI, by far an easier and more popular tool. I think it's not about being dumb/intelligent, it depends on how much you care about it. Most people are happy with those simple 4 letters, just a few want to know more about their personality and discover that Socionics is actually a more accurate (and fascinating) instrument. I'd like it to be a subject at school. I'm sure that with time, all of my classmates would appreciate it.
@idontgiveaf: Exactly. Unfortunately, Socionics has its own stereotypes too.
KEEP IT LIGHT AND KEEP IT MOVING
I just don't think the majority are interested in deep, self-reflected, analyses of themselves. If it isn't a sound bite or a meme, it is passed over. This is the realm of the introvert.
Wild speculation if socionics is ready for school environment. I think it might take a semester in traditional settings if someone wants to teach it to everyone. I highly doubt that people are ready to think about it on their own. Age? When they are about to graduate from the system. You should do exercises and similar stuff.
Anyways many will drop out from the ride (interest). Periodic table of elements is probably the most similar system they learn in school. No one remembers it.
Sure week or two is enough to understand internal logic if you do it yourself.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I tried introducing socionics to an IEE (I believe) acquaintance of mine. They told me that every time they try to get into it, they're overwhelmed by the complexity and give up.
Honestly, it isn't that complex, and can be potentially useful. I do this kind of thinking anyways, so it doesn't change much for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
They're not dumb, they just don't care. Socionics is not that complex, it's just more thorough and advanced in comparison to MBTI and significantly less superficial.
A lot of people who don't understand MBTI use it like an astrology system because it's become an internet meme and those taking the test have little to no understanding of its actual purpose. A lot of young people will be like, I'm "x" type and according to the descriptions "x" types are like this, that's why I'm such a special little snowflake. There's no appreciation for the functions or the fact that MBTI is based on actual trial and error and not just a random collection of attributes associated to you because you were born in the month of July or something.
It can't be taught in school in its current form and I wouldn't want that, either. In a different form that's not even really Socionics anymore, sure, in college/university.
In particular types with strong Ni and Ti.
In my experience you do need to be intelligent to master socionics in terms of deeply understanding the theory, diagnosing types correctly, and coming to your own interpretation of it. However, it's possible for many people to come to a general conceptual understanding and get decently good at typing, if they put their minds to it.
Are people too dumb for Socionics, or is Socionics too dumb for the people
By itself, the entire body of mathematics is as dumb as a rock. But as a tool, it is pretty good.
Personally, I think that most of Socionics is extremely understandable. If it seems difficult, you are probably not learning it from an Identical.
You are trying to get them to drink from a fire hose. Instead of overwhelming them with the entire structure, just show them a description of themselves, their dual, and why they get might along. If you have a common friend whose type you know, mention that person later, along with their type and how the two of them are predicted to get along.
If you have pictures of an SLI of the opposite sex from the IEE, show them to the IEE and ask if they find that person attractive. Then show them a picture of an LII or any Beta and ask the same question. Lol.
You've got to draw them in with small wins.
I'd say that you need at least an IQ of 110-115 to be able to understand basic Socionics well enough.
If you want to be able to delve deeply into the theory and still understand it, then an IQ of 120+ is probably necessary.
Most people are below an IQ of 110, so I'd say that most people might actually be "too dumb" for Socionics.
To understand basic MBTI without the functions or any of that extra stuff, you could get away with just having an IQ of around 100, give or take.
I do think this is part of the reason why more people know about MBTI, besides the fact that it emerged in an English-speaking, dominant country like the U.S, and because it has been standardized, and used in various ways already. The advantage of (basic) MBTI is that it is simpler and more well-known.
You might be able to teach Socionics to people with an IQ of below 115 if you deconstruct it to some extent and removed a lot of the nuances, so that it is palatable for the masses. Otherwise, it won't ever become popular.
P.S: Yes, I do think that the (active) people on this forum have an above average (110+) IQ.
P.P.S: You may want to criticize the IQ as an inaccurate measurement of intelligence; I am just using it here to illustrate different levels of intelligence.
Probably the latter, because its built up of false dichotomies. I like alot of Jungs work and agree with it, I have even thought of things out of the blue, then told it to someone who told me that's what Jung also said, etc. He was sx/sp like me so naturally we would somewhat think along the same lines. But his types are off and do not work, imo. I liked parts of it but socionics came and ruined it completely, so now it's basically useless
Foresight, Aylen, by your leading Ni. These times will come after 2060 year in some of form.
You've gotten from Russian guys: TV, helicopter, incandescent lamp (and singnificant part of LED lamps technology), part of Pentium CPU and other computer technology, some military aicraft technology, Stanislavskiy acting methods, some mathematical and chemistry researches, ...
Later you'll get humanitarian technology to make people's life better and them healthier. Duality is the reality and what we do now is the try to proof this by objective methods.
You'll destroy out state (for some time), but we'll do what is needed anyway as people will live - the ethnical and cultural mix of all significant civilizations of the past, by our genes we feel the humanity's soul better than any other nation. We'll stop technological madness of "west" which rises against the essence of people, thus against the humanity itself. We'll return you understanding of importance of unconditional love to others. Duality is one of instruments for this, - it helps people to feel such love to others.
Socionics is not about "be only with people of good IR", it's about - how to love people near you. Your dual, your unconditional love to and psychic symbiosis with him returns to your consciousness the weak functions - the lesser consciousness part of your personality, you'll become more human than was befor, more reasonable one, more collective one. You'll like the process and result, and will understand that it depends on your abbility of unconditional love. In that advanced psychic state it will become easier to love others besides your duals.
This will have religious components as the technics of psychic symbiosis will be taken there, also the ethical part of the process is close to the current monotheistic religions.
The anti-Russian hysteria what you see today is the try to prevent this transformation. They understand the meaning of Russia on esoteric and historical level. We block and discourage anti-humanistic reforms what are going now by "people at world power" with perverted sociopathic souls, which see individual power as the main value - you know them as satanists. They are just cancer which humanity needs to heal on itself to advance to communism-like times. Where humanism gradually will make people equal, will remove internal war between them, will allow them to use their best.
P.S. You are the only from this forum, I missed for. As you are my conflictor this seems funny.
Last edited by Sol; 08-30-2017 at 02:31 PM.
Yes. I'm dumb. I'm very sorry
What level of IQ is needed to decide to not use any of the false connections assumed by certain unrealistic nuances of the models? (Those are best seen as just patterns, weak-ish heuristics at best, causal connections not actually being provided by the model...)
Anyway, rhetorical question aside (you don't need much of an IQ at all to decide you aren't interested in this theory lol), what in the theory do you see as complex enough requiring a 110 IQ? I'm curious if you got specifics on this.
My guess it is less a function of the level of IQ and more a function of psychological motivations for getting deep into the theory.
Will you marry me @SolYes, Sol is back
No, you're not.
Y'all don't understand the big conspiracy theory around socionics... guess why MBTI is the top dog, Putin desperately tries to cover up his methods by making the Americans follow this Mikey-Bricks 4 dichotomy whatever thing trend. It's a distraction program.
Socionics has to be hidden from the general public. Guess why those articles are so damn hard to translate, why we have no consensus, why there are so many contrasting approaches, and people still sound like they were indoctrinated by Mikey and Bricks even after they think they're proficient in Socionics! And! You see, V.I. in all its unscientific glory was introduced to smooth over how Augusta launched her brainwashing Model A-pocalypse! Do you even get what Putin is planning?!
Come on, open your eyes... the two "S" in socionics symbolize "Satan" and "Sin", the two "I"s allude to "WladImIr", "N" stands for "Never Trust Gulenko"... And "Aušra Augustinavičiūtė" is a code, that's obvious! That's what everyone is being dumb about! Not seeing what's REALLY going on! My my, you can't teach government propaganda at school, you monstersAll of us are risking our lives learning this theory already. Or maybe... Putin already recruited us for his Armageddon army. Shit.
Yes. People is too dumb for socionics, this forum is a demo of that. Lol
But thats not the reason why ppl don't know about it, it's simply that MBTI is the american system and is more standardized (and its in english) and has been presented to a lot of ppl in the US, while most sources of socionics still in russian and its less standardized in theory and methods of typing.
Last edited by Hope; 08-29-2017 at 09:13 PM.
Oh socionics is russian... Thats probably why the youtube videos are mostly Russian and the names are Russian
First Lithuanian later most known socionits are Russians and maybe Ukrainians.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Welcome back sol.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
There are people too dumb to understand socionics theory, but there are also people smart enough to realize it's a dumb theory. V.I.ers are too stupid to realize how dumb they are.
Well, people can make their models ad nauseam.
Regarding typologies:
it has to be simple, it has to have something usable in it and has to be somewhat accurate.
It won't trump over measurable data ie. typologies are crude.
Someday there might be neuroscience based pimping based crudely on similar patterns but it could be quantitative. Socionics has to reduce itself as speculative qualitative model at this point in time. It is true that even in hard sciences they try to build models that tends to contradict measured results. That means good enough, roughly but not perfect and there are other factors.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Yeah, good points. But I don't think this stuff about Socionics (the valid seeming bits) has to be entirely qualitative. Of course with neuroscience tools it would be better
Actually there are scientific studies showing how people can see big 5 traits from faces, being correct above chance.
It's easy when you typing people by looking at pictures, right?By itself, the entire body of mathematics is as dumb as a rock. But as a tool, it is pretty good.
Personally, I think that most of Socionics is extremely understandable. If it seems difficult, you are probably not learning it from an Identical.
That is not the same thing and not what I was referring to. Traits are empirical. Cognitive functions are not.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
