Self expantion theory and Socionics

[BrainlessSquid]

Recently I found this article on wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-expansion_model

And it seems to have some overlap with Socionics.
Some simple examples from this article:

1. "The second principle is that individuals often achieve self-expansion through close relationships which allow the inclusion of the other in the self"
is the same as the personality blurring effect described as a result of dual relationships (but not only those of course).

2. "Self-expansion is not consciously motivated"
Just as the ideia of dual seeking and HA functions.

3. "People who are most similar to ourselves provide a diminished capacity for self-expansion"
Like mirrors and Identicals are less effective than duals and activators for self-expansion

4. Also some article states that We are attracted not only to different people, but especially those who are similar to our ideal self (probably a dual for those who have interacted with one on a close level) and hold the same values.

5. "people may be fearful of creating a close relationship with an outgroup member as this may trigger animosity from original ingroup members."
I thinks this somehow relates to clubs and quadras

But this model seems too generic to me, and absolutely vague compared to Socionics.

What do you think about it? Did you know about this model?

[consentingadult]

I didn't know about this model, but more Social-Psychologists are on the same track:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo_phenomenon

https://mavericksocionics.blogspot.c...intertype.html

[Sol]

it has a relation to subjectivism
Socionics has it strong in the current state. taking into account low typing matches - the degree of mistakes is significant and people do not notice them often
but this does not mean what is seen is always wrong objectively
there is objective experimental basis to accept typology as being correct in its essence - stable typing matches higher than accidental (average ~17% vs ~6%)
also my IR test shows results which may point that not only types exists but also IR theory works. shows objectively by the match of 2 independent methods

the main reason for doubts is inabbility to use the typology correctly to get good results. then people seek for rationalizations - the same speculative "self-expantion" for being against the Socionics

[ooo]

we are like the universe, wooo

[Exodus]

But this model seems too generic to me, and absolutely vague compared to Socionics.

Yeah, it seems like a relatively uninsightful take on a spiritual phenomenon.

Of course the greatest relationship is your relationship with your Lord.

As for socionics, I see things more in terms of IM elements, so I would say that integrating the dual-seeking element is an important part of growth. What Jung says about completing a triad with a fourth - it's like that.