In a way that other theories, in psychology etc didn't. What did you discover for yourself, examples?
(EDIT: I'll post examples for myself soon)
In a way that other theories, in psychology etc didn't. What did you discover for yourself, examples?
(EDIT: I'll post examples for myself soon)
Having been raised by a (bat-shit crazy) conflictor, I grew up hating myself, now I know it's mostly differing values, because conflictor is no longer bat-shit crazy but it's still shitty, like average-to-good conflictor IR.
Not really discover, I sort of knew somehow, it was more about self-acceptation and putting limits. Now I just like reading the stuff people write around here, makes me think stuff, it's great.
MBTI confused me, and enneagram was too self-centered. I needed to position myself in regards to others through some "tangible" system I guess, like something out there that encompassed and classified humans coldly, without giving a fuck about their feelings and sensitivities.
It helped me understand, depending on the situation, why some people like detailed and long discussions or explanations (Ti-valuers) and why others (Te-valuers) tend to be bored by it.
The longest, detailed and most heated (Fe) discussion that I've witnessed was between an LSI and ESE. Both competent and both of them wanted to make sure that everything was understood before they got to work on something.
It also explains why some LSEs just can't sit still and listen when they want to get something done and already know how they want to do it.
Excellent idea for a thread! Should be a lightning rod for constructive input. I'm less interested in providing a 'personal' account and more invested in trying to provide a convincing basis for the theory's value.
That said, at the risk of rambling myself into knots, I'll (try to) be concise:
- Identification of the Ego block assists in providing clear form and instance of ones strengths.
- Identification of the Super-Ego block assists in providing clear form and instance to ones weaknesses and anxieties.
- Identification of the Super Id block assists in providing clear form and instance of one's subconscious desired, complimentary elements, pointing one to what makes one attain a sense of wholeness.
- Identification of the Id block assists in clarifying the other side of the coin of one's strengths, that one otherwise does not consciously recognize the use and value of.
- Identification of the Program/Base function assists in providing form and instance for the basic phenomenology/worldview through which one generally operates and lives through.
- Identification of the Creative function assists in providing clear form and instance of how that basic phenomenology/worldview is made manifest in the world, the 'output' of one's Program IE.
- Identification of the Hidden Agenda clarifies the projected strength lurking beneath the conscious surface that one likes to accentuate, but that others can identify as rudimentary in nature.
- Identification of the Suggestive function essentially speaks for itself, and clearly helps us identify what we are most suggestible to, as well as something we should perhaps be careful not to be manipulated by.
- Identification of the Point of Least Resistance function clarifies our must vulnerable, underdeveloped, and avoided IE.
- Identification of the Quadra assists in clarifying where and why one may naturally find resonant comradery in others.
- Identification of the Dyad assists in revealing the inverted expression of Your essential nature, that which constitutes You, with an inversion of strengths, providing a clear direction and instance for balance.
- Given that the world does not literally contain merely 16 varieties of people, Socionics subsystems, eg: IE Subtypes, DCNH subtypes, Bukalov's Signage, Cognitive Forms, etc, help further differentiate ourselves as distinguished individuals even within our type.
- Intertype Relations can help us contextualize and generally make sense of the nature, strengths, and shortcomings of interpersonal dynamics of our relationships, past, present, and future.
- Understanding of individual differences provides a sense of our own individual humanity, and that of others, enabling further understanding, comradery, and diplomatic relations between otherwise frictional relations, overcoming misunderstandings.
- Understanding of Intertype Relations may potentially save friendships and even families and marriages, potentially improving each of these domains, both providing us a northern star of what to seek, and enriching our ability to cultivate lasting bonds.
Understanding and above all consideration of all of the above provides us with both a personal compass that may guide us in our relations, self discovery, as well as enable observational ability to identify patterns innate to human behaviour. 'Typing' others can be a fuckin' tenuous gamble, but when all the pieces fall into place, few things are more satisfying. This recognition aids us in innumerable ways, expediting interpersonal understanding, which itself can optimize both comprehension and relations. You can more effectively get in Your own head, and better understand the nature of others. Be it Duality, Activity, Intra-Quadra or otherwise, It may just help You find the love of Your life
If the above cannot convince You of the (at the very least potential) value of Socionics, I'm not sure what more could be said to such a skeptic. I'm eager to hear additions.
Last edited by Memento Mori; 02-13-2019 at 08:04 AM.
"We live in an age in which there is no heroic death."
Model A: ESI-Se -
Enneagram: 1w2, 2w1, 6w7
Instinctual Variant: Sx/So
For me it's acted as a good template in understanding the key distinguishable behaviors and outlooks of different people. While I don't think socionics is flawless, it is in my view the cleanest typology system out their along with enneagram and very good for getting your foot in the door in regards to understanding others and yourself.
I find this question a little strange. Socionics helped me discover my type, with all that comes with that.
But I think the most enlightening thing was that it made me see that my type of consciousness (Si) is not abnormal or a flaw, it is directly comparable with more "useful" strengths that other people have, like thinking, and needs to be put to use.
Last edited by Tallmo; 02-15-2019 at 01:52 PM.
A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
(Jung on Si)
In general, I thought I was "wrong" or abnormal prior to discovering Jungian typological systems. Learning that others share my cognition styles was very helpful. It's also helped me to be more self-analytical in my efforts to improve myself and to improve my communication skills. It's helped me try to understand how other individuals think.
About my thinking I've known nothing so interesting.
The significant discover by Socionics related to my weak region. Socionics gave one of important factors to explain the emotions which I have to different people.
It was fascinating. A random hypothesis, which has no prove and respectable status appeared to be correct and very useful. It took some monthes of trying to use the theory on practice to notice it's correct indeed. In that times I had an interest to psychology in general and near, read different books. Socionics was among popular hypotheses, some people said opinions about my type and so I have decided to read about this too. Initially, I was sceptical alike to another "astrology".
It didn’t help me at all. Probably made life even more difficult over the past 10 years.
It's helped me accept characteristics of myself and understand them, as well as the same with others. Though I believe it (typology as a whole) works best when you don't take it too seriously in real life and just view it as, well I don't know, fun facts or trivia or something light hearted of sorts as opposed to a strict scientific method and sit around overanalyzing it. It's probably all bullshit anyway but I have a reality on it so eh, it's true enough for me but again mostly fun stuff than anything.
Compared to other psychology? Well I generally dislike a lot of psychology outside of typology so, in the sense that I actually enjoy it lol.
This is such a huge question, I can only give some examples. Basically socionics explained why I like the things I like and why I don't like the things I don't like, and helped to explain which of these things are "normal" or acceptable.
It didn't. I tried to find someone else with similar methods of thought. So otherway around, I guess. Sadly, if I did, I didn't identify it, and I didn't identify with the person. Still, I theorized that could be the case, so who knows. Maybe I just can't recognize myself.
I'm very self knowlegeable, so that is a thing. Or at least I think I am. How do you type a shrug? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Figured it out. LIE. I'm extraverted, which is incredibly counter intuitive for a person who doesn't tend to go out much. Don't know how often I'll be on, but don't expect me to respond often. Only option I'm willing to debate is Si vs Ni right now. Mission accomplished.
It didn't help me really, it only limited the perspective of both myself and of others.
There's no such thing as "Thinkers, Feelers, Sensors and Intuitives". The existence of something is not the evidence for the lack of existence of something else.
I'd say concepts like "Dimensionality" are harmful at best, and it limits your ability and your belief in able to achieve something.
"Thinkers" pretending like they're more logical and objective than others, and Feelers thinking that Thinkers are innately more logical and objective than them, and can never reach that state, I think, is fairly dangerous.
"Intuitives" don't have some sort of magical and mysterious understanding of things, and "Sensors"don't have some sort of magical aesthetical or medical understanding, nor are they magically grounded in "reality" or "concrete thinking".
It can open one's horizons for figuring out and observing diversity within people... but don't take it as the hard gospel truth since you'll become silly undermining all the contradictions it has.
Rather the correction I have found upon the theory is that it's best understood as influencing preferred behaviour in the absence of external protocol that mandates the emergence of a necessitated behaviour. TLDR if it makes sense to behave in an "Fe" manner then we all display "Fe" as it is the most appropriate social conduct available. The idea that an ILI or SLI has to be socially inept and be incapable of caring and adapting to social cues, emotions, etc is asinine; on top of that anyone can become socially inept given the right toxic impetus, or converse learn to develop socially barring those with medical conditions such as types of autism.
In spite of this there is variation, diversity, in what people may ascribe as "Fe" with regards to personality. Furthermore, it is very much possible and evident to see an ILI with superior competence in "Fe" compared to an ESE or EIE - that is superior awareness of group dynamics and emotions along with an ability to influence them.
Actually all thinking is both simultaneously abstract & concrete (as in: deriving in mental projections upon the world whilst equally being of the world and connected to it); despite this there's empirical difference to be felt empirically though hard to articulate. My own father is SLI, but as intelligent as me to uncanny levels with absurd similarities, it made no sense to diagnose him as my identical or quasi-identity, extinguishement or mirror (ILI, LII, ILE, LIE), as I have met people like that who are different from him. There is no mystical sensing - it was just a reductive abstraction of people like that who weren't even intelligent.
Last edited by Soupman; 02-23-2019 at 08:34 PM.
Yeah, it didn't help me, either. If anything, it made me a nazi about "things that I think should be important in accordance with my type", and that actually help no one. Acceptance goes a longer way. As a real understanding of the people in front of you does, as well.
That said, I like how socionics schematics can apply to the real world, in a limited extent, and that's what I like the most about it... but I really try not to let any of that fog my world-view.
you mistyped yourself. could to mistype other people. hence understood worse what types and IR are
also how to introduce the typology to masses still needs an improvement. besides checking and understanding what is objectively correct in theories, making better typing methods
it could be that the type displayed in my TIM is incorrect, I don't stick to it when thinking of who I am, socionics-wise. I don't even type other people based on their IR with an EII, but usually try to ponder the possibilities on a set of other possibilities, ie. "if I'm an xxx and she's yyy then this is duality, but if I'm xxy and she's yyy then it's semi-duality, and if I'm xyy and she's xxz then..." etc etc.
but honestly my tim makes the most sense, because of all the possibilities that I've already basked on : )
At best, I think it's a matter of processing speed and memory. Some people may very quickly solve logical problems or analyze social situations and emotional cues, while for others, it may take a while. But I don't think there's some sort of a fundamental "level" that some people can't reach even in principle. I don't think that Feelers/Thinkers/Intuitives/Sensors are a kind of entirely different "species" that typologies tend to describe in.
Some people may be thorough and methodical, while others are not. It may be because being methodical may take up a lot of mental resources that would otherwise be used for something else. And you could call him a "type", or you could casually refer to him as a "methodical person". But given this premise that I've given, it could be that he would be less methodical and be lazy when he's tired and have no energy left. So if you don't understand the reason why, then you're not going to understand how he's going to act in different circumstances and situations.
But how do you, as a 3rd-person observer, understand both Type A and Type B types of thinking? It must mean that you're capable of understanding both, and hence have the ability to use both kind of thinking.
If you say, "Well he's thinking abstractly, but I don't know what the hell he's talking about", then how do you know whether there's some validity to what he's saying, or he's just saying some nonsense?
Singu (took 4 years of analysis to reach this conclusion)
How do I understand both types of thinking as a 3rd-person observer?
I understand the different through contrasts and similarities with my own thinking - the most difficult question I struggled in those 4 years was reconciling the fact that other's thinking was both similar/borderline same at a rudimentary abstraction, yet it made no sense to conclude that it was identical either since empirically there was something different difficult to quantify.
After some time it emerged that we are extremely similar in paramount human thought but with difficult-to-articulate but important minutiae, causing the emergence of the difference empirically felt but not/hard to articulate. In a metaphor it's as if the same musical notes are being played, but something is different, if you exaggerate the notes - reducing people to a particular note, then it makes no sense because all the notes are on display within everyone; at the same time to conclude that there is no difference it a lie since there's something different about how the notes manifest themselves.
First I had to alter my definitions and face the fact that all human thought is bizarrely simultaneously abstract and concrete, what was normally understood as dominant intuition or thinking for example manifests dominantly in all types. I had to frame a new concept called intellectual variant - intellectual variants of all functions Si Se Ni Ne Ti Te Fi Fe.
S & T - are both about referencing reality starting from the object/point of reference then to idea; this perspective is stricter about aligning with the point of reference making this perspective seem too concrete.
N & F - are mutually about referencing reality again but instead starting from ideas first before the object/point of reference; with this perspective being not strict, it's references seem loose not concrete enough (those who don't share it can feel like the person is jumping all over the place).
E & I - are opposite priority upon reality; "E" is more "empirical" it needs ideas referenced in an explicit context, so called "practical" as priority; whilst "I" is more theoretical fixated on the point of illustration the details have before "practicality". We value both but have one as a priority... but there's more and this TLDR just cannot do the ideas justice
Emotions, Ethics, Relations are an entirely separate point of observation with intrinsic variation failed to be articulated by socionics.
Thinking about the future is an entirely separate activity everyone is capable of doing since it's a matter of projecting events in imagination, as the future is not a real place until it is the present. The matter of planning for the future, delayed gratification... etc is about intelligence, luck, the peculiarities of individuation, not an exclusive acumen.
All the other attributes assumed to the functions are separate traits that can be found evident or lacking in individuals. ESE physicists exist - case in point Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
All of those doctrines of thought have a certain kind of logic to them, and they all start with a certain kind of a premise. For instance, Empiricism starts with the premise that all knowledge comes from our observations and sensory perceptions. If you follow that logic, then Empiricism makes perfect sense, and you will reach a certain conclusion. The end result will roughly be called something that resembles "Te". While Rationalism would say that all knowledge comes from our a priori intellect. Again, that also makes perfect sense, and it would resemble "Ti".
I would however say that both Empiricism and Rationalism are wrong in terms of how we create knowledge, but that's besides the point. The point is that all of those thoughts have a certain logic to them that make perfect sense, if followed. It's just a matter of replacing the premise with something else.
We're not entirely sure exactly how we create that premise yet, yet nonetheless if you keep tracing back the thought process, then it eventually reaches a very simple starting point, or a very simple logic, that gets more complicated over time. And I think the reason why we can understand all these different doctrines of thought, is because they all start with rather simple logic, just with different premises. So it's more that our logic allows an infinite numbers of thoughts, if you could keep adding and changing the premise in unique and original ways. It does seem that the laws of nature and laws of physics allow the use of logic that can create an infinite combinations of information (and hence emulate any kind of possible physical laws), just as a computer can use logic that allows an infinite combination of information.
I think that our emotions work in similar ways, it's just that we can't "think through" our emotions like we can with our intellect. It happens more or less automatically, it's as if we can't access to our emotions and see what it's doing, even though we can feel its process. But I do think that emotions have a certain kind of a premise, which will be logically followed and reach a certain kind of a conclusion, just like our doctrines of thought. It's just that we can't edit the premise of our emotions. And our emotions tend to condense a mass of information, and arrive at a certain conclusion very quickly.
Our "intuition" may also work in similar ways. Our intuition may quickly try to condense, or try to fuse and mix different information in unique and creative ways to come up with something entirely new.
We don't call our emotions or intuitions or sensory perceptions "-isms", because we can't change or edit them as freely as we do with our intellect. So many doctrines of thought have been created, and so many of them died because they were found to be false, and only very few of them are still surviving today. But if they do die, then the people that carry those doctrines don't have to die, because they can just let their ideas die instead. So nobody is harmed in the process.
When our emotions were evolving, it's more that the people who carried those emotions had to die. So the emotions that didn't help us survive died, and emotions that did, survived. And the people died with them. So our emotions have been "hard-wired" into us, and we can't change or edit them as freely as we do with our intellect.
So how Popper solved this problem was to say: We can't justify any knowledge, but that doesn't stop us from presenting unjustified hypotheses and conjectures.
And as for the Logical Positivists' fear that if we give in to subjectivity and imagination, then it will lead to nonsense, dogmatism and arbitrariness, well we're free to criticize anything if we find them to be wrong.
So both Rationalism and Empiricism were overreactions to the problems being faced at that time: Rationalism was an overreaction to the arbitrary authority of the bible and the kings, and Empiricism or Logical Positivism was an overreaction to the authority of arbitrary subjectivity.
But what they did was to replace an authority with just another kind of authority: Authority of the bible was replaced by the authority of the intellect, and the authority of the intellect was replaced by the authority of the senses.
So what these doctrines of thought did was to say: You can't go there, you can't think of those things because they're "dangerous thoughts". So these things will ultimately restrict and limit our knowledge rather than let us grow and expand our knowledge. That's why they're no longer thought of as being literally true in science and philosophies.
We can't stop people from presenting any kind of hypotheses and conjectures, even if we initially think that they're nonsense, and we certainly can't stop people from criticizing anything, because only criticisms can detect error and improve something.
Rather see other types of cognition externally. I tend to be self-reflective > self-analytical. The reverse is true looking at people — which I don't reflect about but analyze. In that regard, socionics really helps to see styles, patterns, and niches of life. In a way, it inspires tolerance since each has their right to exist, a function and purpose, raison d'être if you will.
I also get less pissed off because I get that person XYZ may value other elements and can't be changed. Maybe that's a static view of things, but it helps to accept things.
I use socionics mostly as a categorization tool. I didn't learn anything about myself since how I thought about things prior to knowing about socionics is the same as how I think about things now. It's just that I can now associate how I think about things with the label of ILI (or maybe LII). I guess typing yourself properly requires introspection and so the process of using socionics made me learn stuff about myself, but I think it'd be a stretch to say that I learned more about my own cognition from the profiles. Rather, I looked towards the profiles to see if I actually do the things they say that that type does. Anything else would be mere bias and, perhaps, influence by the forer effect, if you wanted a particular outcome.
Socionics is a system of correlations that is useful for predicting interpersonal relations. If you can type people based on means that are not IR, then you can reasonably predict how they'll affect one another. It's a powerful tool. Honestly, I'm not yet at the level where I can confidently type others very quickly, and so I rely on my own experience and intuition for interpersonal affairs more than I do socionics. However, I see how socionics can be a great aid in this process, which is partially why I study it.
----- FarDraft, 2020
I had a fairly good grasp of my thinking style long before reading about Socionics; I simply didn't have any systematic framework. Socionics started me on developing a system by which I could understand my interaction with others. However, MBTI triggered the better insight into how I would be perceived by others from a distance, which is important for first impressions and public forums.
As in my style of thinking?
I don't really see it as perfectly clear. However I have picked up other's comments about my style and then fitted it in. Open to external means of losing oneself which is not bad thing to be as state of the own psyche does not really get burdensome although external mayhem/potentials/realities out there can become burdensome to be immersed in and then the need for occasional seclusion may become a necessity.
Measuring you right now
Winning is for losers
This isn't to say that socionics is much better. While there are still a number of things I find dubious, since the community is so much smaller, there isn't really a typing methodology per person like there is in MBTI. It's more streamlined and bad ideas get thrown away much more easily while the good ones stick. It's generally more consistent (from what I've seen) but still not enough to call it a cohesive theory. I still think it's more a set of correlations than anything - a philosophy that needs rigorous methodology to use effectively.
----- FarDraft, 2020
It gave me a model to compare my observations to which caused me to think about this sort of thing more.
----- FarDraft, 2020