Thank you for responding.Originally Posted by Singu
I hear you calling Socionics an irrational belief system. I’m just pointing out that a cult comprises more than a belief system, but I understand most people will use the term cult more loosely than I would.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Well unfortunately the problem is, it's the "Socionists" that are claiming that they can see something that others can't see, and that they're right but it can't be explained.
So the whole thing basically reverts back to "I'm right because I'm right".
that's actually your position if you think about it
Well no, because I can actually explain my position, which I just did, among other things: That my issue with these "Socionists" is that they think that they're right, but they can't explain on exactly why they're right. All they're saying is that their own observations are correct and it shouldn't be questioned. Which is why it creates endless debates that can't even convince amongst themselves.
So the problem with subjectivity isn't just that it's not "science" or whatever. The problem is that subjectivity is inherently self-referential and tautological. What you can say subjectively can be completely and totally true. But it also won't be telling us much about it. You can say, "I do this because this is how I feel" or "I do this because I'm angry", which is true, but it also doesn't tell us anything relevant.
Basically, what it said was "I do this because I do this".
yeah the fact you do the same thing but find it exceptional and, moreover, convincing, is proof of the psychological principles underlying jung and socionics
Well you see, I said nothing of the sorts, and it has nothing to do with me personally. Someone else could say the exact same thing that I have just said, and it wouldn't make a single difference either way.
While the same thing couldn't be said for Socionics arguments, since a Socionist making an argument must be personal, because the whole thing is by definition subjective.
The Socionics argument of "I have observed it, therefore it must be correct" cannot be wrong because subjectivity by definition cannot be wrong. It's circular and tautological, so it's just another way of saying "I'm right because my observations are correct" which is another way of saying "I'm right because I'm right".
Last edited by Singu; 10-05-2018 at 10:09 AM.
I think the assumption is that every competing notion in socionics is as good as every other notion in socionics, and anyone who claims to be better is engaging in "cult-like" behavior. its like, all that does is assume that better/worse is purely a matter of opinion and that in point of fact there is no such thing. if that's your take on socionics its fine, but it deprives socioncis of all its validity at the root. it simply becomes something people talk about but that has no real meaning or consequence to any of it. its like why even bother at that point. its just a form of anarchy where every group competes with every other group, and that's been the state of socionics for however long now.. the bottom line is preferring that state keeps it from developing further. try to still progress by calling any manifestation of it the beginning of a cult is clearly an attempt to keep things "light" and within alpha quadra, but its just one more baseless opinion on the matter, by its own admission about the truth value of any claims relating to socionics
not everything is a cult just because you've been duped before. erasing the distinction between better/worse in an attempt to avoid repeating the same mistake is simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater. sure you lose all conviction, by definition, but at the same time you achieve nothing except becoming a nullity with respect to any possible position of importance. the only position left is radical skepticism which is like, okay, but its so incredibly played out, everyone already knows scams abound. the trick is not to re-iterate that so much as being able to discern between them. this is precisely the problem socionics has because theres no discernment, and discernment is discouraged as being "cult-like" and thus progress becomes impossible thus we never break out of the vicious cycle of meaningless discourse between competing theories. this sort of stalemate is perhaps to the advantage of some people, but its by no means a fair assessment of G or anyone else really. it just locks things in an endless state of confusion and then justifies staying in it, on principle... this is a principled position for a person who can't be trusted to make informed decisions or evaluate information, but its not exactly a useful stance for others. its more like a cry of the confused for others to be more "scientific" and so forth. putting forth petty demands on the environment etc. if people want to go full scientismist with respect to socionics they should just check back in a hundred years, where they will be at the appropriate place on the curve--i.e.: about a century behind
@golden where does that list come from?
That one is by Rick Ross. I didn’t link to it though I should have, because I’m not certain I want to promote Rick Ross per se, but I think the list is okay as it gets at the fact there are power dynamics involved in cults.
There are many lists out there, but one commonality is that the cult impacts your material life and relationships in an undermining way. For example, Socionics may tacitlly encourage you to go out and “find a dual,” which would be a material impact, but it’s unlikely for Socionics to isolate you from mainstream society as so many cults do.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
OK, thanks for the link and info.
I was just curious because you never know if such information might be of use in the future. I don't really care to comment on whether socionics or this forum are cults because that idea seems kinda silly to me.
I have never heard of this Rick Ross guy and google results give me some overweight rapper. Who is he and why do you not want to promote him?
It’s a different Rick Ross. I remember he had a very active anti-cult website, but I don’t know if it was good or not. I remember hearing something negative about him, but it was so long ago I’m not sure what it was. So I’d want to take more time to investigate the guy before I recommended him generally.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I figured that much.
Nevermind you added this:
Oh, ok. Yeah, that's probably wise.I remember he had a very active anti-cult website, but I don’t know if it was good or not. I remember hearing something negative about him, but it was so long ago I’m not sure what it was. So I’d want to take more time to investigate the guy before I recommended him generally.
Gulenko wants ur moneys.
No, but it’s totally cult-like tho, you guys. Singu said it.
Change your name to Overlord and become our charismatic leader.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Lol, but what about the others who say the same thing? Actually I didn't start this whole "Socionics is a cult" thing, but whatever.
Nice job trying to make it personal, when it isn't. This kind of ad-hominem, irrational personal accusation tactics is exactly what makes it cult-like.
It wasn’t really meant to be an ad-hominem attack. More than anything I wanted to highlight (in a provocative manner, I will admit) how I don’t think your thesis that “Socionics and this forum are cult-like” holds up very well. Many posters before me have provided reasons as to why, so I didn’t find it necessary to expand. I just don’t think this site has enough elements characteristic of “cults”, to be called “cult-like”. The only one I can see is that people here are willing to suspend their rationality to believe in a system of thought that is unscientific and essentially unprovable, so it’s kind of a blind faith. However, nobody is saying that whoever doesn’t believe in this system is “wrong”, or “evil”, which makes this site significantly less cult-like already, don’t you think?
For example, I think that many of your criticisms of Socionics are valid and I respect you if you don’t subscribe to it. Hell, as a person who puts a great deal of importance in science and rationality, I am perfectly willing to admit that Socionics is a weakness of mine, and as a “man of science” I’d probably better drop it.
I just criticize your insistence on calling “cult-like” something that’s just a little, dumb hobby for most of the people here. That’s all.
Bruh if u keep doing this ur outta the cult
Yes, my children.
SHALADALAYA DALA DING DONG
OH GREAT GULENKO. We humbly approach your alter today with an offering. One of our own, @Spermatozoa, shall serve as a sacrificial virgin. Through this oblation, this Eucharist, this sublimation of our collective will, we wish to appease you. With your mercy, we humbly avoid the turbulent waters of neurosis, PoLRs, and the perils of conflictor dynamics. Amen.
Last edited by Desert Financial; 10-06-2018 at 02:21 PM.
Calling Spermatozoa a virgin... I see what you did there.
Ok, enough shitposting for today
Well like I said, I don't really particularly care whether Socionics is cult-like or not, and that's not my main point. However, someone started saying that Socionics is a cult, and it was pretty funny and it stuck. It's probably what a lot of people latently feel about it, but don't overtly express it.
But it's like people have gotten so touchy that we can't even jokingly call it a cult. If people started calling physics or biology a cult, then people would just laugh it off since there's nothing about it that's cult-like.
Ok, then I must admit I didn’t realize that you were joking. Irony can be difficult to pick up on an online forum. Sorry for being a bit of a troll.
When someone says that he hits to nails by the hammer while you hit to fingers only it's just because of his imagination and rationalizing. The same is with Socionics.
This applies to all fields of verbal communication.
Duality does not actually make you "grow" in terms of changing/"improving" your personality.
But rather you come back to your true self and that is how you might end up becoming more successful or happier in your personal life.
If you want to "grow" in terms of strengthening weak functions, it is best to be with a type that is NOT your dual / not close to it..
Someone like an identical, mirror, ...
It is a misconception that duality/similar ITRs will strengthen your weak functions...
It is rather, that they will take over those areas, so you will spend less time focusing on them, which in turn gives you the freedom to primarily focus on the areas that you are actually good at.
Yeah. If you want to learn something it is better to be closer not to expertes in that region but to similar dumbs. Such your selfesteem in comparision with them will become higher enough to understand you have nothing to study and the life will be easier.
It's common misconception that experts are useful to improve your skills. The wiser approach is the opposite.
I very much disagree (particularly in that you use identical as the alternative). Suppose a Ti-leading type is somewhat antisocial and doesn't interact with people a whole lot. Should he be with another Ti leading type? Do you think the outcome will be to "force himself" to focus on this weak area and bring it into balance? On the contrary, if they're with an Fe leading type then they'll be forced to interact with people more and thus deal with their weak area more - and probably also face criticism from their dual as well. When people are left to their own devices the easiest choice is to avoid self-improvement whenever possible, and this is what most people do. Other people can only "do things for you" to some extent, they can also be helpful for recognizing your shortcomings and helping you find strategies/habits to deal with them on your own.
Most people actually work on their Mobilizing or Role functions when they are left to their own devices and are faced with having to deal with tasks that are not within their strong functions.
Being in an identity or Mirror relationship increases the person's need for improving in weak areas, in order to balance out the relationship. For example, with two Ethicals, one of the individuals will try harder to become "more Logical". (If I remember correctly, this is also mentioned in several Identity descriptions.)
Surely, most people do not work on their 1D functions, they are simply too weak and... one-dimensional
It can be like a blind person trying to see...
It is erroneous to believe that the 1D functions are actually being improved within the person's psyche in Duality. It is true that the Dual (or similar) will expose them to situations and things that are outside their expertise, comfort zone, and so forth. There might be a few insights to be gained from such. But overall, the Suggestive is passively receiving. It is rarely pro-active.
Gulenko himself said that Duality can lead to a certain co-dependency in a relationship, because both people will entirely rely on the other taking care of their weak areas. So then, if they break up or one of them dies, the other person will often feel quite helpless for a while, having forgot how to "shield" or employ their weaker functions. That reinforces my argument that Duality does not really strengthen your weak areas, rather, it protects them, so you are able to fully employ your strengths. But then, when you are without your Dual, it can leave you more vulnerable in situations outside your expertise.
To come back to my previous point: ironically, a relation that is less complementary will force you to create a superficial complementarity, because otherwise, the weak areas will be sorely neglected, which can be problematic if you want to navigate a relationship, a family life, work relations, and so forth. People typically will either try to achieve "duality" within themselves (to which there are a lot of limitations obviously; most times, it results in the person becoming more closer to their Activity partner at best, but more often than not "just" like their Beneficiary), or they will look for/find someone who is the complement to their own psyche, so the Yin/Yang circle can be completed.
If you wanna grow your weak points date your conflictor
How to improve the PoLR:
The PoLR often reacts too early and too strongly and doesnt meet the needs of the situation. The other alternative is total neglect. Try to take a deep breath and let the stimulus from the environment sink in. Resist the temptation of reacting automatically.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Red is Si since "ESI's tend to prefer pastels"
Source
“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
Observation of fingernail polish preferences. Isn't that hard evidence?
UmObservation of fingernail polish preferences. Isn't that hard evidence?
lol
“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 just the samurai but I'd say traditional Japanese culture as a whole is uber-LSI. Modern weeaboo Japan however, not quite as much.LSIs are like samurai.
It's probably more true that each type represents a philosophy, but becoming more well-rounded at other philosophies does not change your type.
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
Reply With Quote
