Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: The decline of internet Socionics content

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,780
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exegesis View Post
    We have all seen typology systems like the Myers-Briggs fall to shambles because of the way it's employed on the internet..
    I have strong Deja Vu's about this post. Not just one, but multiple.

    But you are wrong with the solution you provide to this perceived problem. There are 16 types in Socionics, and as such there are at least 16 different approaches to Socionics. E.g. if you are truly LIE (and I have as yet no reason to doubt it, nor is your type relevant to the dicussion at hand), you will never - and I repeat: NEVER!!- understand the anti-positivist approach towards Socionics that the average IEE applies. Neither will an IEE truly understand the approach an average LIE has towards Socionics.

    Trust me, if we are only allowed to do it in your petty little LIE way, there will be no reason for other types than LIEs and ESIs to stick around here.
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    TIM
    LIE-ENTj 3w4 so/sx
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult View Post
    I have strong Deja Vu's about this post. Not just one, but multiple.

    There are 16 types in Socionics, and as such there are at least 16 different approaches to Socionics.
    If there are to be 16 different approaches to Socionics, how can you reconcile them into a cohesive, consistent typing that applies for the system as a whole? How do you translate?

  3. #3
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,780
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exegesis View Post
    If there are to be 16 different approaches to Socionics, how can you reconcile them into a cohesive, consistent typing that applies for the system as a whole? How do you translate?
    The first question is: is there a need to reconcile them? To what purpose? If it is your aim to end up with a cohesive scientifically valid theory, by all means, go ahead, do the research and publish your findings. But I, for one, am not so much interested in the science behind Socionics, even though I do a lot of thinking relating it to insights from other behavioral and social sciences. I use it mainly in my day to day life, to decide how and when I am going to act in interaction with other people. I'm not just using Socionics, but with people of 'normal psychology' often Socionics suffices to decide who to interact with and how to interact with them. To me, all that I have learned about Socionics, which is undeniably an IEE appraoch to Socionics, helps me a lot in daily life. So I do not really have a need to reconcile my perspective on Socionics with those of other types. Of course you can always learn from other types, even your conflictor, but you will never quite fully get their approach to Socionics, simply because they are focusing on other aspects of reality, and thus end up with a different perspective on Socionics than yours.
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •