answer to my question, singu2.Originally Posted by Karatos
answer to my question, singu2.
In my view, pain is a necessary part of life and something to be overcome. If you're not overcoming pain, then you're not growing. Hence, why I'm here, despite disagreeing with central premises users tend to work with. I don't tend to get along well who disagree with me about the value of pain because they tend to stay within their comfort zones.
> Socionics causes pain
> Pain is a necessary part of life
> Socionics is ... life
But you are basing your disagreement with socionics in pain and discomfort. Your two stances are mutually excluding and contradicting each other. I agree with the fun part tho.
Last edited by Faith; 12-29-2018 at 11:24 PM.
Singu just because people are running circles around you that doesn’t make everything circular
The type exists objectively as other human's traits.
Problems are from the lack of knowledge, from mistakes, from inappropriate usage of the knowledge.
Socionics models haven't been quantified in objective terms, so you have no scientific way of saying they exist objectively. Can you point to anything that reliably represents a type in the real world? No, you can't, because Socionists haven't based their models on neuroscientific research that identifies root causes for cognition and behavior. They lack theories to clearly illustrate why Socionics is supposed to work.
Through correlations and thorough introspection, we can only guess Socionics models serve as approximations for real traits.
I think it's stupid that you think problems stem from lack of knowledge on one hand, but then claim that available theories such as those from Gulenko and Reinin are bullshit. All the while, most of the core information about Socionics is untranslated. So, according to your program, American users are effectively left with the option of treating you as an authority. It's similar to what cults do in that they tout some kind of hidden knowledge while keeping it just out of reach just to string members along and keep them influenced.
the common case for being negative to Socionics are wrong types
Absolutely. The common case I have witnessed of resistance towards Intertype Relations are people at stages in their life who are still trying to salvage failing and detrimental relations while telling themselves they can be with whomever they like. One of my closest mates has been on the rebound from a breakup he took ages to get over, with a type that was flat out shitty for him (Extinguishment Relations). I had long tried to counsel him on the nature of their issues, their types, and what to look out for in the future, but, being on the rebound, he ardently rejected IR (he's familiar with Socionics) and stubbornly told himself he could make it work with any woman he wanted.
IR tries to free people of this entropy, this wasted energy and potential, by aligning with complimentary natures, but people insist on wasting their time and energy overexerting themselves for sub-par relations. In our "you can be whatever You want" culture, the relativistic nonsense of "all options are valid" has yet to be stamped out by the truth of discernment, and so people waste their time and potential pursuing both goals and people that are not conducive to their nature. I have seen many assert that excluding or filtering Your relations through IR is essentially unfair, which is flat out not true, and even if that were the case, so fucking what!?. IR is clear on the fact that most types can operate perfectly fine as acquaintances, but the closer You wish to be with a person, the more reconciliatory, mutually beneficial, and generally conducive to longevity Your relations will be with certain alignments - even in the absence of a formal theory this is axiomatically, unequivocally true; no one person is equally compatible with all types of people, to even suggest that would be delusional at best. You can be 'friends' with anyone, but the extent to which relations are strained or confluent is what IR maps out.
Someone who is not mistyped and is using IR to their benefit will be rewarded with far more strength; the closer to the mark (their Quadra) they get, the more the undistilled and essential self emerges and mutually strengthens with their partner.
"We live in an age in which there is no heroic death."
Model A: ESI-Se-
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 1w2, 2w1, 6w7
Instinctual Variant: Sx/So
This should be carved in stone.
That's only because you are looking for something to be true, therefore you'll find "evidence" "confirming" it everywhere. Much like you'll find "evidence" for Santa Claus being real everywhere, if you believe that Santa Claus is real.
See this:
"You don't seek to prove scientific hypotheses right, you only prove them wrong."
When you're with someone so compatible with you that they meet your needs fully, you realize that Socionics theory is at best a path, but not the destination. Because when you're with someone who has mutual understanding with you, your manufactured self-concept dies in the mutual acceptance, and only the real "you" remains. That said, to reference what you said in another thread - I understand exactly what it's like to be willing to die for someone like that. But I'm sure that won't stop people in this thread from invalidating me.
You bring up good points in that ignoring IR completely can be hazardous like attempting a relation in an opposing quadra. However, neighboring quadra relationships hold some promise if other factors are positive, but those other factors must be highly compatible.
Within quadra is ideal as other factors hold less clout and duality is the peak. However, choosing a dual that is not compatible with other factors can be just as dangerous as choosing a conflictor that is fine with other factors. Even if you are typed correctly, it is still something to be aware of.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
The common case of inappropriate usage is the underesteemating of nontypes factors. Socionics does not take into account anything forming human's behavior and important for relations.
Duals do not get good relations from the start, without efforts. Duals may to have problems from types differences and nontypes factors. Duality is good for soul friendship, but not anything.
There are limits for the usage of any knowledge.
While I agree with the thought that the whole "we can be anything, making it work with anyone we'd like to" can be harmful, I am worried when Socionics or any type of personality theory becomes a holy scripture.
You say if someone is typed right and understands Socionics will be rewarded - yeah, maybe, but there will be certain dangers as well (trying to accomodate their own observances to fit Socionics descriptions and dynamics etc.). Therefore I could only see Socionics or any other theories as a sometimes useful tool or a path - but sooner or later I think we usually have to leave our paths to find new viewpoints and evolve. Either that, or change the framework and theory so it would have space for growth - to evolve with us.
What you described as beneficial in your post (understanding that sometimes things just won't work out, no matter how hard to try) is a very general issue we struggle with as humans. What is different is the frame - what theory or mindset or system you use to examine this problem. Socionics is one, and there are many others. Stagnation is death, but keeping what's valuable while looking at it from another perspective or let time and experience add something more to it is even harder, I admit, being keepers and rebel at the same time.
Then again, I've always struggled with staying on one path, so this can say something about my own struggles as well I guess.
This is so true! I agree with all you said here, and I am referring now especially to your statement I bolded above, which I have seen a lot, too. And I have just not known what to say in the face of such a untrue sentiment, so boldly expressed. It has made me search for the truth behind that false statement, and I think I came across something in my wondering, from a memory of something i once read. I will do my best to explain that now.
Besides the bold truth of intertype relations (which these folks are denying), there is another relationship truth, that of the hierarchy of the four types relationships/marriages. One can reach the highest relationship type more easily in a dual relationship, but I think with all four relationship types can include any intertype relationship, because it has more to do with common goals and values, and psychological health, than it does type.
That alternative, parallel relationship truth refers to a hierarchy of 4 types of marriages, from the worst, dubbed "Deadly" to best, dubbed "Exceptional", in a book by Gregory Popcak called "The Exceptional Seven Percent", a book describing the characteristics particularly of the best marriages, a book I once read, that really stuck in my mind because I saw it's truth.
The Four relationship types are in this order: Deadly, Shipwrecked, Conventional, Exceptional. When you read the descriptions of the types (linked below) I am sure you will see the truth of them, as you can think of marriages or committed relationships in your life that fit into those categories. They are not one like another! I see myself as in an "Exceptional" marriage now with my Dual husband, whereas before I was in a "Shipwrecked" (2nd from bottom) marriage with my Narcissist, Benefactor previous husband.
A SEE I am related to reports being very happy in her Supervision relationship. My husband expresses gladness that, finally, this one is not a "scumbag" like all the others! He is not; he is a good guy, for sure! But when the relationship was established and these two put lives together, living as a family, parenting each other's kids from previous relationships, I was concerned for this liaison, because she is Supervisee! The psychologically worst position for her to be in! But she, as classic SEE does, chose him, in that classic SEE "I choose" way, and she chose him wholeheartedly. And he is a really is a decent guy, and he does provide stability.
So she is one who makes that statement you made, that I bolded above, Luminous, and I just see how she is wrong, or at least, how can she be right, since Supervisee is Socionically so wrong for her. But now I see in what way it is right for her. At the time I shut up when I saw my concerns were ignored, I knew she could not see what I see, and that I need to butt out. But that did not keep me from seeking truth in my own mind, to understand better, for myself.
And what I recently came to understand is this: she is seeking a lower hierarchy in relationship, and that psychological compatibility that I am referring to in Duality is just not in the crosshair for her, so my point is moot. To explain what I mean by hierarchy, Popcak says that any marriage/relationship can become exceptional, (except maybe "Deadly", which in most cases should just end), but must move through each stage to get to the next. So she has already experienced plenty of Deadly relationships, the next in line is "Shipwrecked", and then "Conventional" (before Exceptional, which is not in her crosshairs at this time). "Conventional" is a an amazingly great relationship for them both, since both have had, apparently, only "Deadly" relationships!
The problem remains that while the Supervisor finds the Supervisee a bit annoying, the Supervisee is in the the far less fortunate position of being in the most psychologically damaging relationship position possible for her! But two things mitigate this for our dear relation: 1) Her mother and her only sibling, both, are also her Supervisors, so, this particular relationship challenge is one she is used to, and 2) She is prescribed and uses medical marijuana, and that probably helps her get over the humps in her life.
[Here is a very short and concise article summarizing Popcak's progression of the 4 types of relationships: http://catholicmom.com/2013/10/10/is...ked-or-deadly/ ]
____________________
Meanwhile, Sociotype knowledge helped me respond appropriately to her recently. We decided for a Christmas gift on a generous restaurant gift certificate, plus tip money, so they could enjoy a family outing for five at a nice restaurant, because she does value family time, but there seems to be alarmingly (to me) little of it with their work (we and many others participate a lot in the childcare for this family), so I wanted to support an easy way for some family together time. We gave it with that intention, but upon receipt (boyfriend not present) she said, "I might save this for two times out for just us, because when we don't have the kids all we do is sit around together at home" My feeling-response was that this was against the whole intention of why we gave it, but I am glad (because peaceful relations is important to me) I responded with, "It's your present, you decide." Later, on reflection, I realized that while a weekend night at home with no kids and no work is a great evening for an "I", a SEE's style is more to celebrate their relationship in a memorable meal out together. And since in a Supervision relationship the Supervisee has less say (even for a strong SEE!), its a good thing to provide support her to manifest her desire.
Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 01-06-2019 at 08:45 PM.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
I wouldn't agree with your statement that the common case for being negative to socionics is wrong types. lol It is an obscure theory and most people irl have never heard of it and would not use it to pick friends or lovers. Maybe some people just don't take it as serious as others. The more attached to it you are the more positive or negative your perception of it will be. I am neutral on it these days as are most people I know who have moved on from it and are more focused on their lives and relationships than on the theory of them. There will come a time when you have to go out into the world and experience it instead of theorizing about how relationships work.
If it works for people great but life will still throw them curve balls. Hopefully they have more than a bit of socionics knowledge to deal with them when it does. Otherwise you will see them back here retyping themselves and/or everyone they have ever known during an existential crisis.
Socionics is a concept. It is your perception and use of it is that gives you pain or pleasure. Same with any other system including astrology, tarot, etc...
“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
You underesteemate Te approach in your view. I'll explain my point.
Wrong types are often/common as average typing matches are <20%. The mistakes lead to that theory does not work as is expected. This leads to negative relation to the typology.
For example, someone mistypes himself and reads about interests which are at his type, about people which are best for him, - but in reality the type is different, so real interests are other and people with which he'd felt good are other too. There are a lot of people who mistype themselves for years and hence get bad results using the theory. On forums it's probably a half of all - and they can't accept Socionics as should get regular bad results with it. These 50% mb called as a common case.
> I am neutral on it these days as are most people I know who have moved on from it and are more focused on their lives and relationships than on the theory of them.
Jung's types are important factor for abbilities, interests, close friendship relations. While the most people can't even notice this clearly with often mistypings. While to get lesser mistypings needs to develop typing skills what needs efforts which most people never do.
Also texts of types theory describe abstract cases when everything other is equal, while besides types affect different factors on people and relations. So you may meet F type with very high IQ and excellent education among top-ranked physicists, but anyway it's very minority of F types among them. The worse you'll type - the lesser clearly you'll not notice the types factor there.
> Hopefully they have more than a bit of socionics knowledge to deal with them when it does. Otherwise you will see them back here retyping themselves and/or everyone they have ever known during an existential crisis.
The main reason for own retyping is bad typing skills, as the types theory is clear enough to distinguish between types factors and other factors. While when it's not clear is explained above and bad typing skills are easily noticable at people on forums and even among those who try to study others.
>50% of typing mistakes is just common case, according to average matches - it's a lot to make a mess in the results of the usage of the theory. This matches are proved in the known experiments. But are not obscurity theorizing about this situation. It's objective.
While when it's a noob who uses bs theory alike Reinin's traits and instead of reading normal typology books read only bs in some English translated articles with gulenko's subtypes and Augustinavichiute's much doubtful fantasies etc - the mistypings should be some higher. To compare the experience and make conclusions you need to use the comparable cases, at least. And do not forget to take into account that even best typers do a lot of mistakes objectively what is seen in their objective typing matches.
> Socionics is a concept.
In case of many mistypings making hard to see it's a real practice. This makes the main difference in perceptions. The 2nd is inappropriate usage, when people forget about other factors and ignore that descriptions of types and IR are made for abstract cases.
As for Tarot - the situation is similar. There are those who get more correct results and hence value guessings higher as working practical method. The same is with any correct knowledge, - it needs to have it and skills to use it - so then to value and use it.
@Singu
You made a thread once where we discussed science, dna, personality etc.. Any idea what it is titled? I have something to add but if you would rather it not be bumped I will post elsewhere.
“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
As a variation of this thread theme, there is now a poll called Ambiguous Profiling to register your related pain woes.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...uous-Profiling
~* astralsilky
Each essence is a separate glass,
Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
A thousand colors, but the Light is One.
Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet
Post types & fully individuated before 2012 ...
when the typing went wrong...
you guys are just saying that because youre sei
Some puzzles are probably best left unsolved:
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
Sure socioncs can cause pain. But I still believe it's a wonderful tool. You should just be careful when using it, and that should be made clearer.
Personally I discovered it at a moment in my life when I was surrounded by deltas and it was starting to severely damage my self esteem. Not only did socionics help me to understand that nothing was actually wrong with me but it also helped me to understand why I wasn't getting along with the people around me and gave me tips on how to manage those relationships.
But yes, there are some dangers that need to be addressed.
I remember when I first read the IEI description. I knew right the way that it was my type. Still, something was off... I didn't relate to the parts about being so inactive and fragile and needing help to achieve things. Maybe it's just the way that it was put but still, idk.
The problems began when I started believing that maybe I should try to fit the descriptions more. Like "maybe I am just pretending not to be fragile? Maybe I should be looking for a knight in shining armor as well? Cause apparently that's all I'm good at."
That fucked me up for a while.
I subconsciously considered that socionics provided me with an ideal that I should try to reach. I snapped out of it fairly quickly but still I feel like the theory can cause some kind of weird mini personality disorders because of the way it is presented.
The Socionics literature tells us " Hey, this is what you are!" when really it should say "Hey, there goes an insight on how your brain works. Use it to better your understanding of who you are. It will help you to optimize the efforts that you put into achieving your goals, and it may even help you to set goals for yourself that ought to be more fulfilling."
But the latter sentence is too complex and too boring. It's less marketable.
I remember a type description that said something like "When Zukhov walks into the room everybody starts working". Like really? So you're gonna have the next SLE walk into the office tomorrow convinced that he has that kind of power? What's going to happen when he realizes that he doesn't? Will he feel like he doesn't live up to the name?
These descriptions were written with the intent to sell weren't they? They are so romanticized that they turn reality into a novel in which every type of the socion is a one dimensional character.
Also I feel like every type description should be preceded by a statement such as "This was not written by God. The author of this article is him/herself a part of the socion and thus is necessarily biased."
It's important because at first we base a lot of our knowledge on these descriptions. It's only later that we are able to accurately conceptualize each sociotype thanks to our own experience.
There are really only subjective reasons for justifying Socionics.
"Well Socionics works in my experience, and it confirms with personal my observations, so it must be true"
"Well Socionics has personally helped me with things, so it must be true"
(funny how they never refer to the very subject that they're referring to, as in other people. They all only refer to themselves).
But there never is any objective reason.
How come there never is any objective reasons, like "Well it must be true, because if it were it in any other way, then nothing would make any sense, and nothing would work".
If you could explain something in any other ways just as well, then it probably isn't true.
Ne polr
Congrats, you just denied that there could only be one reality.
Do you think all people interpret reality in the same way? Do you think you interpret the reality as it is?
No, I'm saying that only one interpretation of reality could be correct. Or at least, approximately correct.
If you think that reality or the interpretation of it is only a matter of psychology, then that's relativism.
Nope
Clearly youve never heard of the saying "there are multiple ways to rome"
Every "pain" in this thread should be read and sang in Adam Gontier's voice:
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
i unironically love this song
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
I'm in a on-again, off-again relationship with Socionics, which causes pain.
i've always been a kind of dreamy/melancholic person who appreciates an impetus, so identifying as IEI has worked for me, i'd even say in a lot of ways i'm a walking stereotype but more or less, it's made me realize there's a lot more people like me than i'd ever want to admit
Oh well the trick here is not to take it as ready and something that has tangible utility.
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'd prefer it be ready and have tangible utility.
But one way or another, users here just use it as a vice and focus on "Socionics implications" rather than the content of what you have to say, which is retarded because "Socionics implications" just rest on inductive reasoning based on nothing.
What do you want to say about the content?
Do you think 7.7 billion people can correctly fit into 16 categories without divergent explanations?
Don't you think people have an essence that doesn't change?
Do you think 7.7 billion has to correctly fit in categories if people want to focus about its implications?
Don't you think that observations of implications can change the content or the interpretations of the content?
What do you think would happen in the world if people only focused on tangible or proven/provable things?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
