Socionics Causes Pain

[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...