Socionics For Dummies

[Singu]

I think that whenever there's a criticism of Socionics, there is always a conscious or unconscious attempt by someone to underplay it or soften the blow, by saying "It's not so bad", "Sure it has its flaws, but there is some good as well", "Just don't think about it too much", etc. Of course, this kind of phenomenon is not necessarily limited to Socionics, but you often see it in other similar dubious practices. There is sort of this automatic reaction to attempt to justify it. But in the end, it's just a way to side-step the issue and prolong its inevitable decline.

Ironically, that's what makes it even more cult-like.

My guess is that these people don't necessarily want to "defend" these things like they normally do, but they're "speaking for" the people that might get seriously mad from the criticisms of any theories or persons or countries or whatever. So they want to soften the blow.

[Bertrand]

I think that whenever there's a criticism of Socionics, there is always a conscious or unconscious attempt by someone to underplay it or soften the blow, by saying "It's not so bad", "Sure it has its flaws, but there is some good as well", "Just don't think about it too much", etc. Of course, this kind of phenomenon is not necessarily limited to Socionics, but you often see it in other similar dubious practices. There is sort of this automatic reaction to attempt to justify it. But in the end, it's just a way to side-step the issue and prolong its inevitable decline.

Ironically, that's what makes it even more cult-like.

My guess is that these people don't necessarily want to "defend" these things like they normally do, but they're "speaking for" the people that might get seriously mad from the criticisms of any theories or persons or countries or whatever. So they want to soften the blow.

your assumption is its baseless to begin with, but really those sorts of rejoinders are usually because they see something you don't... you can't just assume your knowledge and insight are godlike and everyone else is wrong. the first step is actually listening to people rather than dismissing any resistance as some kind of instinctual kickback and at the same time totally without merit... its like just think about that for a second. all of life is a prolongation of its inevitable decline, you mummy. in some sense you're not even, technically speaking, wrong, you've just totally destroyed the proper significance of the interaction, because at the root you've eliminated the possibility of traction on the issue by pre-defining it. in essence you could destroy any idea with that sort of tactic, but it just makes you totally useless not "objective" in any meaningful sense, except in the sense that on a long enough timeline there's a heat death of the universe. its like, that is not insight--its a special kind of stupidity to bring that to every interaction

[golden]

I think that whenever there's a criticism of Socionics, there is always a conscious or unconscious attempt by someone to underplay it or soften the blow, by saying "It's not so bad", "Sure it has its flaws, but there is some good as well", "Just don't think about it too much", etc. Of course, this kind of phenomenon is not necessarily limited to Socionics, but you often see it in other similar dubious practices. There is sort of this automatic reaction to attempt to justify it. But in the end, it's just a way to side-step the issue and prolong its inevitable decline.

Ironically, that's what makes it even more cult-like.

My guess is that these people don't necessarily want to "defend" these things like they normally do, but they're "speaking for" the people that might get seriously mad from the criticisms of any theories or persons or countries or whatever. So they want to soften the blow.

I have criticized Socionics myself, and still do, particularly insofar as personality traits show normal distribution, making it clear that the dichotomies mean drawing a black line in gray areas. Meaning, for example, if I’m very mildly extroverted and you’re very mildly introverted, there’s not much difference between us, but we will get sorted into the I or E box, and so on for all the other traits.

But you missed one of my main points, which is that I was actually in a cult and have learned a great deal about them as well. I don’t appreciate you throwing the word cult around for emotional effect without having done the work to learn what distinguishes a cult from any other set of beliefs or social group.

Moreover, it’s very poor logic and inflammatory to say what people “always” do. It’s as if you’re unable to speak directly to me and instead find it easier to trash my statements with a generalization.

[Exodus]

I have criticized Socionics myself, and still do, particularly insofar as personality traits show normal distribution, making it clear that the dichotomies mean drawing a black line in gray areas. Meaning, for example, if I’m very mildly extroverted and you’re very mildly introverted, there’s not much difference between us, but we will get sorted into the I or E box, and so on for all the other traits.

But you missed one of my main points, which is that I was actually in a cult and have learned a great deal about them as well. I don’t appreciate you throwing the word cult around for emotional effect without having done the work to learn what distinguishes a cult from any other set of beliefs or social group.

Moreover, it’s very poor logic and inflammatory to say what people “always” do. It’s as if you’re unable to speak directly to me and instead find it easier to trash my statements with a generalization.

I admire your patience, but don't waste your time - Singu has been ranting about the evils of socionics for over a year and is going to continue doing it at every opportunity he gets until he gets sick of it. He can't be reasoned with.

[golden]

I admire your patience, but don't waste your time - Singu has been ranting about the evils of socionics for over a year and is going to continue doing it at every opportunity he gets until he gets sick of it. He can't be reasoned with.

Okay. If he can’t stop himself from coming here to rail against it, that might be his best proof that indeed, Socionics is destructive.

[Singu]

Lol, I never claimed that Socionics was dangerous. However, it is pretty stupid and will lead to self-delusions and derangements. And excessive relativism, subjectivism, self-justifications and rationalizations. It will also likely increase misunderstanding rather than reduce it.

I have criticized Socionics myself, and still do, particularly insofar as personality traits show normal distribution, making it clear that the dichotomies mean drawing a black line in gray areas. Meaning, for example, if I’m very mildly extroverted and you’re very mildly introverted, there’s not much difference between us, but we will get sorted into the I or E box, and so on for all the other traits.

But you missed one of my main points, which is that I was actually in a cult and have learned a great deal about them as well. I don’t appreciate you throwing the word cult around for emotional effect without having done the work to learn what distinguishes a cult from any other set of beliefs or social group.

Moreover, it’s very poor logic and inflammatory to say what people “always” do. It’s as if you’re unable to speak directly to me and instead find it easier to trash my statements with a generalization.

Well sure, you probably hit the nail in the head about cults, and I wouldn't disagree with what you're saying. But it's just that there isn't really anything new that I didn't know about, so I didn't really care much to comment on it.

Well anyway, calling Socionics both a cult and not-a-cult, is just a distraction that distracts away from the genuine philosophical problems that Socionics faces, which I have clearly stated or can clearly state in a rational manner. My main interest isn't to find whether Socionics is a cult or not, but whether Socionics actually works as it claims it does, or not.

But if they can't give a rational answer to my claims, but instead react with various irrationality, then I have no choice but to call it a cult or cult-like.

[golden]

Lol, I never claimed that Socionics was dangerous. However, it is pretty stupid and will lead to self-delusions and derangements. And excessive relativism, subjectivism, self-justifications and rationalizations. It will also likely increase misunderstanding rather than reduce it.



Well sure, you probably hit the nail in the head about cults, and I wouldn't disagree with what you're saying. But it's just that there isn't really anything new that I didn't know about, so I didn't really care much to comment on it.

Well anyway, calling Socionics both a cult and not-a-cult, is just a distraction that distracts away from the genuine philosophical problems that Socionics faces, which I have clearly stated or can clearly state in a rational manner. My main interest isn't to find whether Socionics is a cult or not, but whether Socionics actually works as it claims it does, or not.

But if they can't give a rational answer to my claims, but instead react with various irrationality, then I have no choice but to call it a cult or cult-like.

Thank you for responding.

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.