Socionics For Dummies

[Bertrand]

words are only one form of information, "this is not a pipe"--what do you think is going on there?

there is a picture of events that people can share that, at present, words capable of capturing have not yet been developed--that is what they are "talking about".. they are in the process of trying to develop the words themselves in order to bring the picture to an even broader group.. in essence communicate an experience to the collective, otherwise the collective tends to simply oppress those people on the assumption there's nothing there because there are not words for it yet. everything that has rational formulation was once just a wordless idea in someone's head

[Aramas]

words are only one form of information, "this is not a pipe"--what do you think is going on there?

there is a picture of events that people can share that, at present, words capable of capturing have not yet been developed--that is what they are "talking about".. they are in the process of trying to develop the words themselves in order to bring the picture to an even broader group.. in essence communicate an experience to the collective, otherwise the collective tends to simply oppress those people on the assumption there's nothing there because there are not words for it yet. everything that has rational formulation was once just a wordless idea in someone's head

Yeah the purpose of words is as cues to get people to start looking in the right direction. We've become such an abstract society though that we've started looking at words as things in themselves and mistaking them for reality. Happens a lot due to an unbalanced education system and other reasons. The left brain has started ignoring the right. This is why the arts get trashed as being useless. They pay attention to vital direct experience and the left brain if it had its way would ignore that. Magic works on the same principles. Analysis kills observation and holism.

The students end up passing the test but know nothing, the theory is perfect but isn't connected to reality at all, etc.

The biggest issue comes when they think they are actually observing when really they are still using the left brain. "This is that" is the left brain formula that shows when someone isn't observing. Eventually, naming things is necessary, but most people are backwards and try to start naming what they haven't even seen yet lol.

Once people stop seeing descriptions and theory in Socionics as what Socionics is, and when they start seeing it as a gateway to observing Socionics, that's when they begin actually learning it. The theory and descriptions are imperfect and only encompass a small set of ideal examples. People aren't wrong just because they disagree with what's been written about Socionics.

The way to break people out of it is the old Indian formula: "neti, neti." It's not this and not that either. Progressive negation forces people to look and observe.

I'm not saying that the left brain is wrong. It's just premature in many cases and especially in our current society.

The only real way to do Socionics is comparing observations. Eventually, people will see it. Some of them, at least. Lol.

[Olimpia]

The key is being able to distinguish what is related to information metabolism, and what is related to other things, like general biology, upbringing/culture, etc.

You are contradicting yourself when you say that behavior and qualities cannot be attributed to personality type, but then that there are certain "reliable cues".

So which cues are acceptable and which aren't? It seems like this is based on personal bias. Whether something is attributable to a type or not, in terms of behavior, seems to entirely depend on your perception of said type's profile. That is the main issue with Typology, combined with the (mis)typing problem.

[Bertrand]

behavior and qualities can be a manifestation of type, the problem is people infer the type based on the behavioral description and that's backwards. by this I mean they have their little laundry list of stereotypes and they go down the list and see how many fit a person and then say that is their type. that whole process relies on attributing the behavior as a category (not a genuinely specific instance) to type, this is what can't be done--because it relies on context. if you divorce the context from the situation you aren't really working with a specific instance of behavior, you're working with a general non specific label and then "lining it up" with whatever type one has formed by being essentially an aggregate of a laundry list of behaviors. this fundamentally never reaches the person. nor does it really ever reach the psyche, its a bunch of behaviors in reference to a bunch of behavioral descriptions-- its totally "flat." if you take that person's behavior in its context and then compared it not to a list of behaviors but try to conceptualize it as being a consequence of a process, of which you have a clear and distinct idea, and can describe for others, you can say this behavior could be a product of x type. then what you do is repeat that exact process over and over with all sorts of behavior and other "cues" (likewise situated within their actual context and not as a mere label) and eventually a picture begins to emerge as type x begins to "make sense" way more than type y... there is no contradiction to this, you just think in fundamentally different ways, so to you "attribution of behavior and qualities" means something entirely different to you than aramas. it really is a left v right brain thing, its about having a deep continuous picture of things vs a set of signs clumped together

technically both sides lay claim to "inference of type based on behavior" but what that means is almost completely different...

its the difference of "doing x" and "doing x while simultaneously keeping in mind yzabc&d are all also going on in the background"


I see this same divergence in thinking in law where lawyers and judges lose sight of the fact people and the whole world is on the other side of the words and just end up analyzing the logical relationship of the descriptions of events.. its essentially dehumanizing

[Singu]

You guys can't even figure out what's "type related" or "IM related". You can figure out what's NOT type-related, as in "NTR", such as biological explanations, neurological explanations, psychological explanations, etc. That's because they already know what makes something related to biology or neurology, by actually having the explanations for what makes something biological or neurological.

You can't do that with Socionics or Typology, because there's no explanation for what makes something Ti or Fi or a type or just about anything.

All a "type" is saying, is that "I have observed this quality X in a person, which should not change and continue forever". If it does change, then the whole concept of a "type" becomes meaningless.

This is the difference between explanations vs. observations. With explanations, you know what's "related" to what. With Socionics, you can't ever know what's "type related" or not. It's an impossibility to do so.

[Olimpia]

A lot of Type 5 philosophers, theorists etc concern themselves with the concept of knowledge vs power.

It is one of the easy signs of spotting a Type 5 (philosophy).

That "power-seeking" fits particularly well into a ILI's seeking.

[Aramas]

The key is being able to distinguish what is related to information metabolism, and what is related to other things, like general biology, upbringing/culture, etc.

You are contradicting yourself when you say that behavior and qualities cannot be attributed to personality type, but then that there are certain "reliable cues".

So which cues are acceptable and which aren't? It seems like this is based on personal bias. Whether something is attributable to a type or not, in terms of behavior, seems to entirely depend on your perception of said type's profile. That is the main issue with Typology, combined with the (mis)typing problem.

The difference is between macro behavior and micro behavior. When most people refer to behaviors, they talk about extremely crude abstract general behaviors rather than specific micro behaviors and attributes that don't have names but which can be pointed to informally. I wasn't contradicting myself. Come on, Olimpia. I'm not THAT stupid.

I'll give you one as an example. Te doms sometimes have these funny asymmetric smiles where in the top lip, half the lip comes down partly over the teeth when the other half remains high. People generalize though and they say "well, this person isn't Te dom and they do that." No, lol. It's extremely specific and you have to see it to know what it is.

03ae37ecbfb4c3f06dd44ef52d774201.jpg

Micro-cues like that in language and appearance are the key to typing accurately.

[Bertrand]

A lot of Type 5 philosophers, theorists etc concern themselves with the concept of knowledge vs power.

It is one of the easy signs of spotting a Type 5 (philosophy).

That "power-seeking" fits particularly well into a ILI's seeking.

I kind of think knowledge v power is a false dichotomy, because knowledge is a subset of power to some degree. Gulenko says betas are more interested in the underlying power dynamics and gammas are more interested in economics, in that sense you could say gamma proceeds more from knowledge to power whereas beta thinks power is what influence "knowledge." however as a concession to the fact neither has won out they both admit to some degree it flows both ways, thus you can't really use whatever one person may say or do on occasion to identify them as this or that, since the truly powerful and knowledgeable will actually swing both ways from time to time. only people removed from both I think would be comfortable just sort of declaring one to be superior outright without nuance, clearly one or the other is lacking if that's really all there is to their position

matt damon with the cig looks super cool

[Singu]

I'll give you one as an example. Te doms sometimes have these funny asymmetric smiles where in the top lip, half the lip comes down partly over the teeth when the other half remains high. People generalize though and they say "well, this person isn't Te dom and they do that." No, lol. It's extremely specific and you have to see it to know what it is.

03ae37ecbfb4c3f06dd44ef52d774201.jpg

Micro-cues like that in language and appearance are the key to typing accurately.

How do you know that that specific smile is a Te thing? How do you know that they're not actually Ti types or whatever?

I mean so really, this whole thing is just an arbitrary sense of self-righteousness. "I'm right because I'm right".

It's just kind of amazing how you actually hit the nail in the head about the errors of typology, yet you gloss over this fact anyway, as if nothing had happened.

[Aramas]

How do you know that that specific smile is a Te thing? How do you know that they're not actually Ti types or whatever?

I mean so really, this whole thing is just an arbitrary sense of self-righteousness. "I'm right because I'm right".

It's just kind of amazing how you actually hit the nail in the head about the errors of typology, yet you gloss over this fact anyway, as if nothing had happened.

It's not something I can explain in a forum post lol. There's a lot of back knowledge.

[Metamorph]

*Socionics Be For Dummies


...Wait, you weren't trying to sound like a stereotypical black person?

[Aramas]

I kind of think knowledge v power is a false dichotomy, because knowledge is a subset of power to some degree. Gulenko says betas are more interested in the underlying power dynamics and gammas are more interested in economics, in that sense you could say gamma proceeds more from knowledge to power whereas beta thinks power is what influence "knowledge." however as a concession to the fact neither has won out they both admit to some degree it flows both ways, thus you can't really use whatever one person may say or do on occasion to identify them as this or that, since the truly powerful and knowledgeable will actually swing both ways from time to time. only people removed from both I think would be comfortable just sort of declaring one to be superior outright without nuance, clearly one or the other is lacking if that's really all there is to their position

matt damon with the cig looks super cool

Matt Damon from Good Will Hunting was smoking.

[Olimpia]

The difference is between macro behavior and micro behavior. When most people refer to behaviors, they talk about extremely crude abstract general behaviors rather than specific micro behaviors and attributes that don't have names but which can be pointed to informally. I wasn't contradicting myself. Come on, Olimpia. I'm not THAT stupid.

I'll give you one as an example. Te doms sometimes have these funny asymmetric smiles where in the top lip, half the lip comes down partly over the teeth when the other half remains high. People generalize though and they say "well, this person isn't Te dom and they do that." No, lol. It's extremely specific and you have to see it to know what it is.

03ae37ecbfb4c3f06dd44ef52d774201.jpg

Micro-cues like that in language and appearance are the key to typing accurately.

Micro-cues are way more difficult to type correctly than macro-cues. Personality types are broad – there are 16 of them, and the entire population is supposed to fit into "just" 16 types. It makes more sense to have generalized assumptions then, but sure, if they are incorrect, they will be misleading... but that applies to any cue that is out there.

You picked up an overly specific cue that could easily be debunked, if someone tried hard enough. What you perceive as a micro-cue is highly subjective there. At least it is possible to agree upon macro-cues, with micro-cues it becomes more and more subjective.

So you think Matt Damon is a Te lead because of the way he curls his upper lip? That's highly debatable and seems largely unrelated to functions.

[timber]

I agree Te has a kind of facial swagger sometimes especially when they are in the moment and happee-ish.

[Aramas]

Micro-cues are way more difficult to type correctly than macro-cues. Personality types are broad – there are 16 of them, and the entire population is supposed to fit into "just" 16 types. It makes more sense to have generalized assumptions then, but sure, if they are incorrect, they will be misleading... but that applies to any cue that is out there.

You picked up an overly specific cue that could easily be debunked, if someone tried hard enough. What you perceive as a micro-cue is highly subjective there. At least it is possible to agree upon macro-cues, with micro-cues it becomes more and more subjective.

So you think Matt Damon is a Te lead because of the way he curls his upper lip? That's highly debatable and seems largely unrelated to functions.

See? This is exactly the kind of response I was expecting lol. People have no idea this stuff works like this.

Also, nothing in Socionics is debunkable because the entirety of Socionics is non-falsifiable. I just put this stuff out here because I know some people will pick up on it. It's those people I'm writing for.

I know you don't believe me, but I've seen this stuff work ten thousand times. It's the tiny things that matter the most, exactly the stuff people are most prone to ignoring. Once you really see the patterns I'm talking about, you will shit a brick shitting machine.

It's all really empirical though. You have to memorize and remember buttloads of snapshots of body language, voice, language, etc. Once you really see this stuff, it's like a cat transcendence moment.

Argument for or against a certain approach in Socionics is pointless. You either see it or you don't and no amount of reasoning proves anything. That's why I just post my observations and let people be like, "Raaah! You're wrong!"

[Aramas]

I agree Te has a kind of facial swagger sometimes especially when they are in the moment and happee-ish.

Haha I love the facial swagger esp. in LIEs. For some reason LSEs come off as unacceptably arrogant at times but the LIE can come off cocky as hell and I'm like, "Gee that's hot." I've learned that I'm instinctively responding to certain specific facial expressions. The way LSE guys do cocky is different and pisses me off. They just seem sly lol. It's not really the internal attitude I'm responding to but the expressions themselves. Expressions and type have to correlate since they are the only real gateway we have into people's minds other than static appearance and language.

Studying Socionics kinda gives you the ability to imitate different types, btw. If you can imagine yourself as a certain type well enough, you start drawing duals of that type. It's a bit uncanny how that works. Works best for types that are instinctively good actors, though, I think. Even then, though, the act is still too superficial to work effectively for closer interactions ime. You always inevitably act as yourself. That's why I'm against typing movie actors and movie characters separately. On rare occasion, an author can write about a different type or set of types, but not often.

[Sol]

I agree Te has a kind of facial swagger

Fe types have emotions as more expressed, heretics

[Bertrand]

I think Sol is right, at best you're seeing the role function. I think Matt Damon is just a beta who plays a lot of idealized Te types in movies. sort of how like in the movie star version is more attractive, its not just physically, the same person in real life, presuming they're a Te person is kind of stale and boring but you tell the story through a Fe type and suddenly all these things come out. even if the underlying character is fictional too, it goes to how fictional characters aren't "real" especially in movies because you have Fe types portraying Te types and the result is a kind of superhuman figure. its easy to get lost in this world and people start to get the wrong idea of quadra because they live in an artificial Hollywood sort of pseudo socion. this is why shit like celebritytypes is such a plague on typology

[timber]

Fe types have emotions as more expressed, heretics

Right I forgot Te types, non-Fe types, don't make facial expressions. They have flat unexpressive faces. Stone faces, because only Fe types make facial expressions. Fuck, how could I be so stupid.

[timber]

@ Bertrand, I thought we weren't talking to each other?


Matt Damon is whatever type he is... he plays LSE characters just fine, example Mark Whatney from the Martian (I read the book a couple years before movie and ofc its much better and more accurate). Thanks to silke for bringin it up here.

[timber]

Te types are not stale and boring lol, I guess you are using your Dad as template.

[timber]

ESFj and ESTj

[Aramas]

Right I forgot Te types, non-Fe types, don't make facial expressions. They have flat unexpressive faces. Stone faces, because only Fe types make facial expressions. Fuck, how could I be so stupid.

Lmao! Love it!

[Aramas]

I think Sol is right, at best you're seeing the role function. I think Matt Damon is just a beta who plays a lot of idealized Te types in movies. sort of how like in the movie star version is more attractive, its not just physically, the same person in real life, presuming they're a Te person is kind of stale and boring but you tell the story through a Fe type and suddenly all these things come out. even if the underlying character is fictional too, it goes to how fictional characters aren't "real" especially in movies because you have Fe types portraying Te types and the result is a kind of superhuman figure. its easy to get lost in this world and people start to get the wrong idea of quadra because they live in an artificial Hollywood sort of pseudo socion. this is why shit like celebritytypes is such a plague on typology

I used to think that. I was wrong though lol. Fe role is pretty expressive especially when paired with Enneagram sx.

[Bertrand]

this is exactly why enneagram is stupid

[Aramas]

this is exactly why enneagram is stupid

It's not lol. Watch Harry Potter and pay attention to Molly Weasley. That's more what you see from Fe dominant types. She is ESE, not EIE, but close enough to what we're talking about. If you want EIE, Anthony Hopkins is the best example I can remember off the top of my head, and he isn't exactly the most expressive guy. People confuse Fe with making facial expressions so much lol.

Fe is internal dynamics. If anything, they should be able to make the internal dynamics of others change without necessarily being the most physically expressive people--possibly more characteristic of external dynamic expression.

The girl who plays Sookie Stackhouse as well as the guy who plays the old gay vampire in True Blood: those are other examples of EIE. They don't necessarily make the most zany facial expressions but they are nonetheless highly expressive in an Fe way.

Anyone can move the muscles in their faces and smile, etc. That doesn't make it the same thing as Fe. Even ILIs smile lol.

[Singu]

It's not something I can explain in a forum post lol. There's a lot of back knowledge.

So your answer is, "I can't explain" which means, "Trust me, I know (I'm right)", which is "I"m right because I'm right".

Cir-cu-lar-i-ty.

Well you see, observations are the lowest form of explanation. When you are asked, "How does that work?", you don't say, "Well I have observed that it works" (not to mention that observations don't play the slightest of roles in most explanations). I mean sure, you might very well have a grand theory of how that something works inside of your head, but unless you can explain it, then it won't mean anything. Others won't be convinced by it, other than to take it upon faith that you're right.

[timber]

So your answer is, "I can't explain" which means, "Trust me, I know (I'm right)", which is "I"m right because I'm right".

Cir-cu-lar-i-ty.

Well you see, observations are the lowest form of explanation. When you are asked, "How does that work?", you don't say, "Well I have observed that it works" (not to mention that observations don't play the slightest of roles in most explanations). I mean sure, you might very well have a grand theory of how that something works inside of your head, but unless you can explain it, then it won't mean anything. Others won't be convinced by it, other than to take it upon faith that you're right.

Where is the problem here?

[Exodus]

Micro-cues are way more difficult to type correctly than macro-cues. Personality types are broad – there are 16 of them, and the entire population is supposed to fit into "just" 16 types. It makes more sense to have generalized assumptions then, but sure, if they are incorrect, they will be misleading... but that applies to any cue that is out there.

You picked up an overly specific cue that could easily be debunked, if someone tried hard enough. What you perceive as a micro-cue is highly subjective there. At least it is possible to agree upon macro-cues, with micro-cues it becomes more and more subjective.

So you think Matt Damon is a Te lead because of the way he curls his upper lip? That's highly debatable and seems largely unrelated to functions.

This. The types are broad by definition, to connect them with specific concrete traits you have to make observations and categorize people using the abstract definitions first.

Also, nothing in Socionics is debunkable because the entirety of Socionics is non-falsifiable. I just put this stuff out here because I know some people will pick up on it. It's those people I'm writing for.

...

Argument for or against a certain approach in Socionics is pointless. You either see it or you don't and no amount of reasoning proves anything. That's why I just post my observations and let people be like, "Raaah! You're wrong!"

Ah yes, going from absolute proclamations to backpedaling with "everything is relative and subjective". So oddly familiar...

[Aramas]

This. The types are broad by definition, to connect them with specific concrete traits you have to make observations and categorize people using the abstract definitions first.



Ah yes, going from absolute proclamations to backpedaling with "everything is relative and subjective". So oddly familiar...

I didn't say any of it was relative or subjective. Don't put words in my mouth. Lol. I said Socionics can't be proven so arguing about it is pointless.

[Bertrand]

I think I get what you're saying which is you can distinguish between an actor simply imitating a "micro-cue" and the real deal, and this is a capacity that some people have to more or less degree, i.e.: another way to say your VI or "intuitive impression" is calibrated to be able to reliably do this.. however from my point of view, this is not something that can be done, and even if it could be, the underlying type could be proven by better methods, and so it should not be relied on because of how freely it can be abused or devolve into randoms simply arguing their VI. in principle "the smirk" could be real Te or not, but its a shitty method. I think Damon looks cool but its like that doesn't make him Te, it makes him at best an example of an actor expressing what you associate with the Te function externally. those are the real facts, if you left it at that I don't think it would be objectionable

[golden]

Right I forgot Te types, non-Fe types, don't make facial expressions. They have flat unexpressive faces. Stone faces, because only Fe types make facial expressions. Fuck, how could I be so stupid.

Some Te types come across as pretty flat and wooden, yes. Not all of them, and trained professional actors are probably not the best exemplars. Role Fe is just not the same as Fe ego, it’s more situational and less daring.

Re this thread in general ... We really have come to a weird place in 16t Socionics arguments when behavior is being argued as somehow suspect for typing. If someone has a type, it needs to show up somehow, somewhere, in their communication.

[Bertrand]

the reason behavior is not the end-all be-all of type is because acting in accordance with behaviors associated with a type would make you that type. its essentially one dimensional, where the point has always been two people can act similarly for totally different reasons. if behavior controlled type and type was just a collection of behaviors typing would be unpsychological and entirely empirical. it would be a matter of going down a checklist and seeing where the plurality of your behavior lands you, and then inferring a cognitive process on the basis of that. essentially it would make the cognitive process piece completely meaningless and redundant. what you have are "characters" not a psychological theory. actors could be whatever type they chose, among other weird consequences. that is shallow and not really the point. people do live in that world, but its the world of social appearance and not psychological. this social approach contaminates psychology at every turn as a consequence of typology's popularity, but its just losing track of the real insight and purpose of the theory, which is not just a catalogue of characters, but rather a way to develop real understanding. these same socially oriented people don't really experience misunderstanding because they don't interact on a level where misunderstandings tend to really matter. in other words, they live their lives unscientifically and unpsychologically, so of course the problem of miscommunication is lost on them, but this is a consequence of them not even perceiving the issue typology was really aimed at to begin with. to them its just another meaningless novelty so there is no problem with taking such an approach, because they have no sense of what is lost by doing that. its like if the goal posts are sufficiently lowered there is no problem with making socionics just a mirror on behavior, but its not really socionics at that point. its essentially just another version of the "what [insert franchise here] character are you" test

[Exodus]

I didn't say any of it was relative or subjective. Don't put words in my mouth. Lol. I said Socionics can't be proven so arguing about it is pointless.

"Argument for or against a certain approach in Socionics is pointless. You either see it or you don't and no amount of reasoning proves anything."

What part of that is not subjective?

I agree that certain associations aren't necessarily obvious just looking at the model. But when you're saying that those observations are somehow the bedrock of how you understand socionics and don't make any attempt at a coherent theory or definitions, something has gone wrong.

[Aramas]

"Argument for or against a certain approach in Socionics is pointless. You either see it or you don't and no amount of reasoning proves anything."

What part of that is not subjective?

I agree that certain associations aren't necessarily obvious just looking at the model. But when you're saying that those observations are somehow the bedrock of how you understand socionics and don't make any attempt at a coherent theory or definitions, something has gone wrong.

Dude. Just because you can't prove something doesn't make it subjective. And you're a logical type? Come on.

Also, just because I don't shake my Ti butt for you, something has gone wrong? LMAO.

[Exodus]

Just because you can't prove something doesn't make it subjective.

Yes, yes it does. The opposite of subjective is objective which means things that anyone can see. The existence of a chair is objective - anyone can see it. The thoughts inside your mind are subjective because only you can perceive them. The kind of food you like is subjective because it differs from person to person. Claiming that the people who agree with the weird associations you make somehow "see it" and everyone else doesn't, doesn't make it any less subjective.

[timber]

It gets to the point where you cant say anything is anything around here anymore.

[timber]

Its an evidence based society now aramas, I wouldnt even bother.

[Aramas]

It gets to the point where you cant say anything is anything around here anymore.

Maybe we should all adopt E-Prime.

[Aramas]

Its an evidence based society now aramas, I wouldnt even bother.

Evidence based best practices authority approved etc etc