Socionics Causes Pain

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Telling someone they have typed themselves incorrectly is more important than living harmoniously. After all, if people have incorrect types, what is the use of Socionics?

[VenusRose]

Telling someone they have typed themselves incorrectly is more important than living harmoniously. After all, if people have incorrect types, what is the use of Socionics?

I don't directly and confidently -assert- that someone has an incorrect type. I don't think I have ever been confident doing that.

I do however, get bothered if anyone aggressively tries to 'right' things, preach a certain way as the only right way - and it doesn't make any sense. And it might even hurt people, or scare them away.

I don't like that kind of behavior.

As for types, people can type themselves whatever they like, but based on their typing patterns (such as, for example, typing as X one day and then suddenly the conflictor of X the next day...I tend to be skeptical of that) and how much they make sense to me, personally, I may unconsciously note those things. So of course, there will always be some subjectivity with this.

I personally like finding those I feel like are on the same 'wavelength' if you will, as I am. Whatever type they are. So I am happy as long as I have someone who understands me, even if there is a lot of 'subjectivity' when it comes to socionics, otherwise.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I don't directly and confidently -assert- that someone has an incorrect type. I don't think I have ever been confident doing that.

I do however, get bothered if anyone aggressively tries to 'right' things, preach a certain way as the only right way - and it doesn't make any sense. And it might even hurt people, or scare them away.

I don't like that kind of behavior.

As for types, people can type themselves whatever they like, but based on their typing patterns (such as, for example, typing as X one day and then suddenly the conflictor of X the next day...I tend to be skeptical of that) and how much they make sense to me, personally, I may unconsciously note those things. So of course, there will always be some subjectivity with this.

I personally like finding those I feel like are on the same 'wavelength' if you will, as I am. Whatever type they are. So I am happy as long as I have someone who understands me, even if there is a lot of 'subjectivity' when it comes to socionics, otherwise.

I agree.

[Eliza Thomason]

Telling someone they have typed themselves incorrectly is more important than living harmoniously. After all, if people have incorrect types, what is the use of Socionics?

Indeed and Amen! That is exactly why you should understand that you are an ILI, not EII, Subteigh!

And since you are an ILI, I can feel safe (once again) asserting my correction of your self-type, because you are not going to suffer hurt feelings over my opinion. Because if you were prone to that, I would not write this post. That's because I believe living harmoniously is more important than stating the truth, at least on non-vital truth matters. (Socionics I do not consider to be a vital truth, but simply a truth). So if I thought my expressing my opinion might emotionally upset you, I would withhold from expressing it. But armed with my IEE-brand of understanding and intuition of sensitivities, I will venture forth, unafraid.

I know you are here not just for the Socionics, Subteigh, but for the society as well, but, you could be getting so much more out of Socionics for yourself if you were typed yourself correctly.

A core reason for your self-mistyping, I believe, has to do with your personal identification/emotional anchor in the word "Humanist" (or "Humanitarian"), which is often used to describe EII. But what you identify with in the word humanitarian and what Socionics means in using the word to describe EII are two very different things. With EII, it is a reference to their exquisite personal sensitivity and feelings, particularly manifested in their personal, private relationships. They are an "acutely sensitive, empathetic, listening, feeling friend" kind of humanist, while instead, ILE is an "abstract problem-solver for a better human society" kind of humanist. The EII is sensitive in every interaction to the feelings of his/her interlocutor, and can adjust his/her communication (and desire to state truths) towards maintaining the inner harmony of that person. That is quite opposite of what you just said:

Telling someone they have typed themselves incorrectly is more important than living harmoniously....

In contrast, an EII here once privately explained to me, concerning a mistyped person here, that she agreed with me as being mistyped, "Oh, that person had a serious personal problem last year, and if they want to think they are an XXX type when in fact they are an XXI type, I think that is good if it helps them feel better."

That is a true EII response, and it's polar opposite of what you said here. The two opposing responses to mistyping represent the very different priorities of an ILI and an EII. Namely, objective truth vs. exquisite sensitivity to the inner harmony of another human being.

There are so many things, besides that, that tell that you are ILI. I have never met you, heard you, seen you (even though you may have posted pics here; I didn't see them), yet, having read so much of what you wrote here I feel I have a solid grasp of who your are, and of how you speak (not audibly), and how you will respond to a thing. (I sometimes feel that not seeing/hearing and only reading the words of a person aides me in having a very clear picture of the person). And reading you, in that way, I hear your "voice". And it's not an EII voice! It's ILI.

Consider one other aspect of ILI vs. EII: the degree of traditional masculinity and femininity of those types, as described in this article: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-by-E-Filatova Here we find:

EII is markedly feminine, scoring a "negative two" in masculinity and highest score, a "+3" in femininity.
ILI is more androgynous, neither markedly feminine or markedly masculine, and is in fact the only type to score 0 in both masculinity and femininity. This "0" rating is explained here:

ILI - According to our chosen scales, masculinity of type ILI is poorly expressed in contrast to the representatives of opposite gender. Philosopher, critic, and skeptic, the ILI often doesn't worry about his appearance. ILI men often count on attracting women by their intellect and yielding behavior. Among ILI women, not all seek a family life, as internally they are quite independent and often financially self-sufficient. Moreover, they are often set in their opinions and love to show off their logic, which men don't always find appealing. Therefore, their feminine score is set to 0. Here we have another androgynous type. Although, androgyny presupposes that M/F qualities are displayed equally strongly, and in the case of ILIs they are simply not manifested very clearly.

Independent, self-sufficient and certainly: philosopher, critic and skeptic. Those few words that are used to describe ILI, in fact describe you!

Instead, EII is described this way:

"... a feminine type, characterized by depth of feelings, ability to love and to keep faithful, tendency to remove psychological stress and emotionally be supportive of people "

- And that's the end of the brief description of EII! Look at that! That does not describe you, Subteigh!

Think of your posts here. It truly comes down to this: would readers of your posts characterize them as showing us depth of your love and emotional support of of others (EII), or about showing us your logic (ILI)?

Two types, two completely different different programs!

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Indeed and Amen! That is exactly why you should understand that you are an ILI, not EII, Subteigh!

And since you are an ILI, I can feel safe (once again) asserting my correction of your self-type, because you are not going to suffer hurt feelings over my opinion. Because if you were prone to that, I would not write this post. That's because I believe living harmoniously is more important than stating the truth, at least on non-vital truth matters. (Socionics I do not consider to be a vital truth, but simply a truth). So if I thought my expressing my opinion might emotionally upset you, I would withhold from expressing it. But armed with my IEE-brand of understanding and intuition of sensitivities, I will venture forth, unafraid.

I know you are here not just for the Socionics, Subteigh, but for the society as well, but, you could be getting so much more out of Socionics for yourself if you were typed yourself correctly.

A core reason for your self-mistyping, I believe, has to do with your personal identification/emotional anchor in the word "Humanist" (or "Humanitarian"), which is often used to describe EII. But what you identify with in the word humanitarian and what Socionics means in using the word to describe EII are two very different things. With EII, it is a reference to their exquisite personal sensitivity and feelings, particularly manifested in their personal, private relationships. They are an "acutely sensitive, empathetic, listening, feeling friend" kind of humanist, while instead, ILE is an "abstract problem-solver for a better human society" kind of humanist. The EII is sensitive in every interaction to the feelings of his/her interlocutor, and can adjust his/her communication (and desire to state truths) towards maintaining the inner harmony of that person. That is quite opposite of what you just said:



In contrast, an EII here once privately explained to me, concerning a mistyped person here, that she agreed with me as being mistyped, "Oh, that person had a serious personal problem last year, and if they want to think they are an XXX type when in fact they are an XXI type, I think that is good if it helps them feel better."

That is a true EII response, and it's polar opposite of what you said here. The two opposing responses to mistyping represent the very different priorities of an ILI and an EII. Namely, objective truth vs. exquisite sensitivity to the inner harmony of another human being.

There are so many things, besides that, that tell that you are ILI. I have never met you, heard you, seen you (even though you may have posted pics here; I didn't see them), yet, having read so much of what you wrote here I feel I have a solid grasp of who your are, and of how you speak (not audibly), and how you will respond to a thing. (I sometimes feel that not seeing/hearing and only reading the words of a person aides me in having a very clear picture of the person). And reading you, in that way, I hear your "voice". And it's not an EII voice! It's ILI.

Consider one other aspect of ILI vs. EII: the degree of traditional masculinity and femininity of those types, as described in this article: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-by-E-Filatova Here we find:

EII is markedly feminine, scoring a "negative two" in masculinity and highest score, a "+3" in femininity.
ILI is more androgynous, neither markedly feminine or markedly masculine, and is in fact the only type to score 0 in both masculinity and femininity. This "0" rating is explained here:



Independent, self-sufficient and certainly: philosopher, critic and skeptic. Those few words that are used to describe ILI, in fact describe you!

Instead, EII is described this way: - And that's the end of the brief description of EII! Look at that! That does not describe you, Subteigh!

Think of your posts here. It truly comes down to this: would readers of your posts characterize them as showing us depth of your love and emotional support of of others (EII), or about showing us your logic (ILI)?

Two types, two completely different different programs!

My comment wasn’t serious.

[Eliza Thomason]

My comment wasn’t serious.

Because you are not serious about Socionics?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Because you are not serious about Socionics?

The point of my comment is that if people are not concerned with living harmoniously, then they are acting contrary to the spirit in which Socionics was invented.

I believe that generally, people are better at typing themselves than other people, and also, that it is pointless getting into angry arguments about someone else’s type particularly when Socionics is far from objective even when it is not just a matter of subjective interpretation.

I do however think The Truth is the most important thing. But angry arguments about matters of subjective interpretation do not serve The Truth. Getting emotional has no bearing on determining the truthfulness of a claim, unless it is directly relevant to the claim.