Socionics Causes Pain

[Desert Financial]

When we give someone a Socionics type, we type them according to a system of fixed cognitive traits.

When we observe that the typed person diverges from the type we gave them in thought or action, we must develop an explanation for the divergence.

Socionics is a system of fixed cognitive traits. Thus, our explanation for divergence must conflict with the Socionics typing.

Therefore, when we hold on to the Socionics typing and our explanation for divergence, we possess conflicting beliefs.

Conflicting beliefs cause cognitive dissonance, or mental discomfort caused by maintaining contradictory thoughts.

Thus, attachment to Socionics causes discomfort because Socionics is a system of fixed cognitive traits that fails to explain divergence in thought or action.

[Raver]

How come you turned into Singu since switching to Se-LSI? Ti-ILE fits you much better IMO.

Embrace this type I have bestowed upon you my new initiate so Socionics can teach you its ways like it has to all of us. Repeat our mantra:

"Socionics is not a cult!

"Socionics is no longer a dating site!"

And all will be well. The church of Socionics always gives the mistyped and dissenters a chance for redemption so they can be one of us.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Desert Financial]

How come you turned into Singu since switching to Se-LSI? Ti-ILE fits you much better IMO.

Embrace this type I have bestowed upon you my new initiate so Socionics can teach you its ways like it has to all of us. Repeat our mantra:

"Socionics is not a cult!

"Socionics is no longer a dating site!"

And all will be well. The church of Socionics always gives the mistyped and dissenters a chance for redemption so they can be one of us.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I don't know exactly what you mean by "turning into Singu." He and I aren't the same person. I do think he has some good points, though.

If, by "turning into Singu", you mean that I'm criticizing Socionics - criticizing Socionics and typology systems isn't new to me. I've been doing it off and on for almost a decade, and did so even when I was entertaining the self-type ENTp here http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ing-Relativism and here http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...gious-Instinct. Before I joined this forum, I spent years arguing against assumptions in MBTI communities, so my tendency to go against the cultural climate of communities like this is more the rule than the exception. I'll admit that Socionics is a harder target to hit than MBTI because most of its source content remains obscured by the language barrier, making it more difficult to deconstruct. And I'll even go as far to say that in some ways it's more convincing than MBTI and at the very least fills a niche that MBTI fails to fill because it focuses on ITR and serve as an alternative model, but that doesn't mean that it's completely realistic or beyond criticism, nor does it mean that the way it's employed is beyond criticism.

[Chthonic Daydream]

Speaking in 2018 meme lingo, this post is big mood.

No rest for the wicked if you're a walking socionical-existential-crisis. No rest for the EIIs as Sol will probably type you as something else anyway.
No rest for /anyone/ since there will always be people disagreeing on your type, and you'll disagree WITH and AGAINST them, based on how compelling you deem their arguments to be.

[Not A Communist Shill]

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.

[Not A Communist Shill]

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!

[Not A Communist Shill]

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?

[Not A Communist Shill]

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.

[sbbds]

The irony here being that LSIs don’t diverge in thought or action.

[The Reality Denialist]

The irony here being that LSIs don’t diverge in thought or action.

Oh there is an interview where Gulenko explains LSI. It goes like this: "Once LSI's have fixed their facts it will stay like that regardless of reality".

[WinnieW]

Oh there is an interview where Gulenko explains LSI. It goes like this: "Once LSI's have fixed their facts it will stay like that regardless of reality".

Seems like a proof that I've typed my dad as LSI correctly.

[Desert Financial]

[Desert Financial]

[Raver]

[Aramas]

It's more like the conflict of meaning. People need meaning but meaning is inherently restrictive because it limits possible perspectives. So it's a catch-22 that makes people anxious.

So you have a few choices:
1) Deny the meaning exists
2) Accept the meaning as-is
3) Transform the meaning through an act of will

#3 is the resolution in many cases

[Singu]

I think Socionics has genuine negative effects on people that should be somewhat seriously considered.

Socionics prophesizes that you will have either positive or negative relations with certain people, but it does not predict (i.e. it explains why).

Socionics prophesizes that you will be successful or unsuccessful at utilizing certain innate abilities, but it does not predict.

Is it justified to say that "F types" or "T types" or "S types" or "N types" are no good at doing certain things, and so therefore they "need the help of their duals"? (which is often thrown around as insults around here?). Is it justified to create so much self-doubts in people's abilities? Is it justified to say that the reason why people have so much negative relations, is because of something so innate and in-born and determined that they can't really do much about it?

And to put the icing on the cake, is it justified to say "Well, this is all objectively true!", even though they have little convincing reason or arguments to backup those claims?

[Raver]

I think Socionics has genuine negative effects on people that should be somewhat seriously considered.

Socionics prophesizes that you will have either positive or negative relations with certain people, but it does not predict (i.e. it explains why).

Socionics prophesizes that you will be successful or unsuccessful at having certain innate abilities, but it does not predict.

Is it justified to say that "F types" or "T types" or "S types" or "N types" are no good at doing certain things, and so therefore they "need the help of their duals"? (which is often thrown around as insults around here?). Is it justified to create so much self-doubts in people's abilities? Is it justified to say that the reason why people have so much negative relations, is because of something so innate and in-born and determined that they can't really do much about it?

And to put the icing on the cake, is it justified to say "Well, this is all objectively true!", even though they have little convincing reason or arguments to backup those claims?

I can agree with this. This is Socionics major shortcoming because it doesn't take non Socionics psychological factors that can override it. I learned this the hard way, it was so disappointing. Socionics needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

[sbbds]

I can't continue. I don't want to have tears just for replying this question.

How I feel about conversing with Singu in general LOL

Sometimes though tears of laughter

[Not A Communist Shill]

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[VenusRose]

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

what does this mean...?

[Not A Communist Shill]

what does this mean...?

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/%CD%A...%A1-lenny-face

[VenusRose]

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/%CD%A...%A1-lenny-face

but what was it in response to...?
the link is too general haha, but i think i get the idea behind it, from googling it.

[Not A Communist Shill]

but what was it in response to...?
the link is too general haha, but i think i get the idea behind it, from googling it.

I was simply repeating @Raver’s use of it earlier in the thread, being in favour of that sort of thing.

[sbbds]

One thing I don’t like about Socionics is the way they basically say most of your relationships in life are going to be strained except for with your dual or a select few. Not only is that very unrealistic, it creates an impractically negative self-fulfilling prophecy effect.

I don’t think ITRs should be labeled “good” and “bad” in such a way honestly. At the very least, the emphasis on this should be lessened. Rather I think ITRs should be described in detail based on the functional interactions being broken down, so people can use that to consider things to look out for and how to improve their relations with people of all types.

[Raver]

One thing I don’t like about Socionics is the way they basically say most of your relationships in life are going to be strained except for with your dual or a select few. Not only is that very unrealistic, it creates an impractically negative self-fulfilling prophecy effect.

I don’t think ITRs should be labeled “good” and “bad” in such a way honestly. At the very least, the emphasis on this should be lessened. Rather I think ITRs should be described in detail based on the functional interactions being broken down, so people can use that to consider things to look out for and how to improve their relations with people of all types.

Well said, my least favorite aspect of Socionics is ITR. The main reason being that duality alone is not enough to determine whether a relationship will be good or not. It is just one aspect out of many. So if you get two people that are duals and something that is non-Socionics related, but is psychology related is not compatible then the relationship will not work. However, duality will work as long as other psychological aspects that are non-Socionics related are compatible too.

The same goes for non duality too especially for within quadra, but outside of quadra too. If you are compatible with your partner in every way, but with Socionics then the relationship can still work. Socionics is merely one aspect of predicting relationship success or failure, but not the entire picture. So Socionics is overbearing in the sense that it think it can override non-Socionics psychological factors that can influence relationships when the simple truth is it cannot.

[Adam Strange]

It is true that Socionics tends to present duals as being the only completely "good" relationship, and every other relationship falls off from that point to one degree or another. But it also describes the ITR's pretty well, and a person who is looking for good can easily find it.

I started my Socionics education from a condition of complete ignorance. I thought every person was a special snowflake and bore no predictable similarities to anyone else.

When I discovered Socionics, I began to realize that people do fall into definable categories, and this made the people around me a LOT more predictable, which made me feel more "in control" of the situation. I no longer felt as if I would find gravity reversed in the next room I entered.

I gradually came to see that the inter-type relationships predicted by Socionics were, by and large, also true, but conflict was not inevitable if space was given to the other person. I also discovered that, while I get along very well with all the duals that I have met IRL, all duals are not all sweetness and light. I also came to understand that my normal (Delta-learned, Beta refined) approach to women was so skewed that my duals were repulsed by me. Which was quite a valuable lesson.

For a while, after examining some now better-understood difficulties I had with out-of-Quadra types, I considered the advantages of building an all-Gamma shop, but quickly rejected the idea because other Quadras bring advantages to the table that Gamma does not have.

I think I'm aided somewhat in getting along with people by being LIE. I'm not out to change anyone and I tend to view people as being useful (needed for some reason) or not. This means that, while I'm kind of unfeeling and unsympathetic, I can see every type as being valuable, as having useful virtues, and as being worthy of my respect.

[sbbds]

When I discovered Socionics, I began to realize that people do fall into definable categories, and this made the people around me a LOT more predictable, which made me feel more "in control" of the situation. I no longer felt as if I would find gravity reversed in the next room I entered.

I’ve always been fairly sociable and charming due to Fe HA, but Socionics has enhanced it and has helped me out a LOT here in terms of confidence. I’ve basically been able to enter and survive in high society in a completely different cultural context because of it.

I gradually came to see that the inter-type relationships predicted by Socionics were, by and large, true, but conflict was not inevitable if space was given to the other person. I also discovered that, while I get along very well with all the duals that I have met IRL, all duals are not all sweetness and light.

Agreed on this, and the all types being valuable stuff.

[Singu]

I think that at the most, you either want to have certain kind of relationships with people, or you don't. Everything else is just self-fulfilling prophecies. I think that for the most part, human beings are capable of making free decisions, and therefore much of the future is actively being created by people, and not merely being foretold.

If you think that you really desperately want to have a good relationship with someone for some reason, then you will keep trying to (even if that's at the cost of your own well-being, but that would be your own choice). If you don't care to, then you won't. I think it's as simple as that. There's nothing in this life that's determined in strict ways.

[sbbds]

I think that at the most, you either want to have certain kind of relationships with people, or you don't. Everything else is just self-fulfilling prophecies. I think that for the most part, human beings are capable of making free decisions, and therefore much of the future is actively being created by people, and not merely being foretold.

If you think that you really desperately want to have a good relationship with someone for some reason, then you will keep trying to (even if that's at the cost of your own well-being, but that would be your own choice). If you don't care to, then you won't. I think it's as simple as that. There's nothing in this life that's determined in strict ways.

I think that different types having different qualities and strengths and weaknesses thus attracting you to want to get closer to them in varying degrees is part of the basis of ITR.

[Singu]

I think that different types having different qualities and strengths and weaknesses thus attracting you to want to get closer to them in varying degrees is part of the basis of ITR.

I think that there are perhaps people that you "naturally" get along with or don't get along with, although we don't quite know why. But it would be interesting to try to figure that out. I think that for the most part, it's because you're similar to them in some ways, and perhaps therefore strengthening tribalism.

I don't think you can quite smugly say that "Well I, as a free-thinking Socionist, can see all the patterns of human behavior and therefore I'm above it all, but for the rest of those unthinking fools, their behaviors are determined perfectly by Socionics and ITR. But not me."

People are also free-thinking agents that are actively determining their own choices, whether you believe in Socionics, or not. And hence, I don't think that human behavior is exactly predictable in such ways.

And so here's an interesting thought: Does having the knowledge of Socionics (and other psychological theories) change the behavior in humans?

[Hope]

everything can cause pain if you use it unwisely.

[Hope]

then, why do you care so much about conflict, pain and discomfort? Betas embrace pain and surpass it with determination.

[Singu]

then, why do you care so much about conflict, pain and discomfort? Betas embrace pain and surpass it with determination.

Yes, "Betas" do.

...Who are the "Betas"?

Whomever that embraces pain and surpass it with determination.

...Isn't that circular?

[Hope]

Yes, "Betas" do.

...Who are the "Betas"?

Whomever that embraces pain and surpass it with determination.

...Isn't that circular?

you are the betas singu. you are.

[Singu]

you are the betas singu. you are.

They only exist in your imagination, Atari.

It's sad that you take this fiction as the Absolute Truth.

[Hope]

They only exist in your imagination, Atari.

It's sad that you take this fiction as the Absolute Truth.

Never said it was the absolute truth. Its sad you are imagining stuff.

[Desert Financial]

then, why do you care so much about conflict, pain and discomfort?

I think it's fun to start threads like this and this to watch people flip out when the mission statement of the forum and the primary content of the forum is being challenged. I've always done shit like this wherever I'm at and always will. People need to be shaken up - not just for my own pleasure, but to move things forward.