Socionics Causes Pain

[Desert Financial]

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.

[Sol]

the common case for being negative to Socionics are wrong types

[Memento Mori]

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.

[Adam Strange]

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.

This should be carved in stone.

[Singu]

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.

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."

[Desert Financial]

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.

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.

[Raver]

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.

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.

[Sol]

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.

[Desert Financial]

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.

Oh hey. You're being more reasonable.

[Hope]

Oh hey. You're being more reasonable.

There's hope for the lost souls.

[Desert Financial]

There's hope for the lost souls.

cult
u
l
t

[0i0]

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.

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.

[Memento Mori]

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.

I spent nearly a decade of my short life in two long term relationships with sub-par and poor IR dynamics. I know from extensive and painful experience both the realities of their being more to human relations than the delineations of a theoretical model, as well as the fact that if You love something You must be willing to fight for it. I stubbornly tried to salvage those poor relationships for years, I adapted to them to a nearly compromising degree, I forgave things I should not, and did everything I could to avoid separation. I put in the time and effort, and I hope they continue to grow into ever healthier and more mature women, but there comes a point when one must be honest with oneself. Two people no matter how well intended or caring do not necessarily belong together.

That does not mean that I learned nothing from these experiences, indeed they are in large part why and how I can make the kinds of posts I do to this day, but what I have stated required being asserted clearly and in no uncertain terms, as people all too often grasp at exceptions and NTR factors, wasting years of their lives pursuing things not in accordance with their nature, some even deriding the idea their nature can be accounted for or advised; prudence requires humility, and even the highly intelligent are often not as unique and original as they'd like to flatter themselves. Socionics isn't perfect, that shouldn't even be expected, and like You said, it's only one model, but to discard the consolidation of personal strength and growth that Socionics and IR provides to chase phantoms is a deeply foolish and counterintuitive way of experiencing life lessons. Now, I am of course talking about intimate relationships; friendships are relatively easily managed. That said, I would not change my past, as I would not be the man I am today, but I will steer myself carefully in the future, with newfound resolve and vigilance. Even positive type relations do not account for physical attraction and a variety of NTR dynamics, indeed the two long term relationships I spoke have had positive physical attraction and NTR dynamics, but ultimately, all those who would defy IR shall do so at their own risk.

[Desert Financial]

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.

Right, because when Socionics ITR becomes holy scripture, we wind up doing the former - trying to make it work with anyone we'd like to, disregarding NTR factors. Furthermore, doing so disregards the central elements of Socionics in that Socionics defines "cognitive values", rather than NTR compatibility factors such as cultural values, beliefs, philosophies, life-goals, logistical constraints, etc. These factors should not be confused or conflated.

[sbbds]

Right, because when Socionics ITR becomes holy scripture, we wind up doing the former - trying to make it work with anyone we'd like to, disregarding NTR factors. Furthermore, doing so disregards the central elements of Socionics in that Socionics defines "cognitive values", rather than NTR compatibility factors such as cultural values, beliefs, philosophies, life-goals, logistical constraints, etc. These factors should not be confused or conflated.

Frankly I don’t think this is possible.

I think Socionics can only add more constraints through negative self-fulfilling prophecies, not take away limitations on relationships that have issues*. But even that (adding constraints) is just a light overlay.

Anyway, it’s easier to destroy than to build (negativism vs positivism)(please don’t let the double negative of “add constraints” confuse you). I.e. It’s exponentially easier to decide not to engage with someone than it is to ignore large problems and fabricate good relations. Even the former is hard to do in many cases (an example: unless your divorce was already imminent, it would still be very hard to get one upon learning about Socionics and how you and your spouse have imperfect ITR if you guys had kids). Knowledge of Socionics can’t ever have that big of an impact on life, because life’s constraints get in the way, case in point.

@Singu this also answers your question on the effect Socionics knowledge might have on people. Just my opinion however, but through experience.

*Except in the case of TWO Socionics users who are both at Godmode level, or a Godmode Socionics user with a person who has very advanced interpersonal skills, these people who would normally have bad ITR can improve their ITR

OR in the case of people who are very unaware about personal relations, such as in the case of people who have never felt positive “dual”, “activity” etc ITR play out and believe that the natural mild conflict or unease that can result from people being surface opposites is bad.

[Desert Financial]

Frankly I don’t think this is possible.

I think Socionics can only add more constraints through negative self-fulfilling prophecies, not take away limitations on relationships that have issues*. But even that (adding constraints) is just a light overlay.

This is the way I interpret Socionics. Because I look at a variety of factors, Socionics basically limits the pool of possibilities.

I'm pointing out the implications involved when a person sees Socionics as the Absolute Truth, as a fundamentalist exclusively refers to the Bible for every answer under the sun. Yes, I do see that occurring in that some users here even go so far as to throw out the DSM-5 in favor of explaining everything Socionically. I think it's clear what the logical consequence of this is - throwing out the DSM-5 broadens the pool in an unrealistic way. It makes no sense to say that I would have mutual understanding with every dual I come across, even if they suffer from BPD or something.

[Desert Financial]

Frankly I don’t think this is possible.

I think Socionics can only add more constraints through negative self-fulfilling prophecies, not take away limitations on relationships that have issues*. But even that (adding constraints) is just a light overlay.

Anyway, it’s easier to destroy than to build (negativism vs positivism)(please don’t let the double negative of “add constraints” confuse you). I.e. It’s exponentially easier to decide not to engage with someone than it is to ignore large problems and fabricate good relations. Even the former is hard to do in many cases (an example: unless your divorce was already imminent, it would still be very hard to get one upon learning about Socionics and how you and your spouse have imperfect ITR if you guys had kids). Knowledge of Socionics can’t ever have that big of an impact on life, because life’s constraints get in the way, case in point.

@Singu this also answers your question on the effect Socionics knowledge might have on people. Just my opinion however, but through experience.

*Except in the case of TWO Socionics users who are both at Godmode level, or a Godmode Socionics user with a person who has very advanced interpersonal skills, these people who would normally have bad ITR can improve their ITR

OR in the case of people who are very unaware about personal relations, such as in the case of people who have never felt positive “dual”, “activity” etc ITR play out and believe that the natural mild conflict or unease that can result from people being surface opposites is bad.

negativism ^

[Eliza Thomason]

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.

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.

[Aylen]

the common case for being negative to Socionics are wrong types

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...

[Sol]

I wouldn't agree with your statement that the common case for being negative to socionics is wrong types. lol

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.

[Ave]

Wrong types are often/common as average typing matches are <20%.

What is the source of this data?

[Sol]

What is the source of this data?

All known experiments with real matches, - when types were said when typers did not know the opinions of others beforehand. The quantity of typed ones should be ~10 of higher, and of typers alike. Not 2-3 or statistical mistak would be too high.

I saw such experiments on socioforum by questionnaires, photos, mine with 16 bloggers in 2015 and earlier.
There was a wide known CRT-99 made in 1999 by IRL interview. The article which followed to it had wrongly calculated average match seems ~30-40%, but if to calculate correctly it is ~17%.

Practically, I never saw anyone in experiments or other with real typing matches >50%. Mb more experienced and better typers without heretic bs than in those experiments would got higher average matches, but those results are intersting also as show what is expected in masses - on forums, in clubs, etc. If people studed in the same typology school - the chance to get higher matches should be also. <20% is average, in general.

You may also to look at large lists of actors types of >500 names. The matches drop to ~20% with the size. The problem of lists - there is many not independent matches as typers saw those types at other typers. The larger lists are - the more of their own opinion is there and more new actors. So the match drops closer to real one.

The similar experiments mb repeated, they are not hard. Mb used any typing materials, just it's important that typed ones did not know the Socionics theory to do not play on some types. The optimum would be typing videointerviews of random people. Bloggers seem as 2nd choice - that would be analogue of actors but some better. Even special typing questionnaires gave low matches.

[Aylen]

@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.

[Singu]

@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.

I don't remember, just post it here or something.

[Aylen]

I don't remember, just post it here or something.

Too bad, it had some interesting stuff. I probably should post in a dna thread or make a thread. I don't think it would fit here but since I saw you I thought I would ask. Thanks...

[vesstheastralsilky]

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

[Sol]

when the typing went wrong...