To what extent do you regard Socionics as true? (select all that apply)

[Not A Communist Shill]

?

[Sol]

I doubted until noticed how good it described my experience with people by IR theory.
It's possibly to fool yourself about your and other people "strong" traits/functions. But when you identify types and then that somehow fits to IR theory - it should not be accidental. That made me a "believer". Then I've paid more of the attention to this and notice types as a factor of behavior, relations, mind contents which is useful to know. I trust to what notice as clearly and good fiting to my experience.

I agree with: 4 dichotomies, 8 functions, Jung's approach about strong(conscious)/weak(unconscious) functions, Augustinavichiute's ideas about general 8 functional model, her valued/nonvalued functions and linked with this pairs of supplementing/opposing functions.
Other parts of theory of these 2 people I perceive with more doubts. Or reject, especially where Augustinavichiute contradicts to Jung without good basis - as what function she supposed as weakest, her acceptive/productive kind of functions, Reinin's traits, etc.
New theories about Jung types of people besides these 2 - is not Socionics to discuss here and I tend to reject that fantasies until those will be proved objectively, or mb would fit good to my experience sometimes.

> Model A is true

has correct, wrong and doubtful parts. you may use only parts which are correct

> Duality is true

as one of factors for a sympathy and friendship relations

> VI is bullshit

In 2015 in socioforum's experiment I've proved objectively that intuitive-nonverbal VI is useful method. It gave average typing match of 15-17% what is clearly higher than accidental case of 1/16 (~6%). So this kind of data may be used for typing. With better skills the accuracy will be higher. In the experiment took part random people of that forum.

> Gulenko is God
Gulenko is mb heretic

is heretic. not "mb"

> Socionics is not a cult

As it's still is not proved objectively in main parts, so people trust significanly irrationally. In this degree it's a cult. In the same time it's psychology hypothesis too.

> Socionics is pseudoscience

Not is. May become if there will appear disproof of all its basic theories. Alike nonexistent of supplementing functions effect. Doubtful to be disproved, as besides subjective observations there is objective basis. Should exist Jung types, as people objectively notice their traits what allows to get higher than accidental typing matches.
Supplementing functions effect may be proved if something alike my IR test will show higher than accidental match with some typing method, for example a common test. Or by % of good IR compared to bad IR in good/bad relations, divorces, emotional status.

> Socionics qualifies as a hypothesis

it's mainly hypothetical still

> ESEs only exist in theory
Only a Critic could make this thread
Skeptic was right
It has some evidence going for it

has some objective numbers mentioned above, besides subjective experience

> I can prove it mathematically

there is good chance to prove some basic theory in experiments. this is done with the usage of statistical methods/mathematics. an example was experimental proof of VI usage

> It hasn’t got any evidence going for it
It’s probably mostly bullshit
It’s probably all bullshit

if to type with hard mistakes. and never check what is done in typology on today

P.S.
Socionics has a basis and hope to be accepted by psychology practice. It needs experiments done sucessfully, by diplomed psychologists and publicated. Then may pass a time to process new data and break a possible resistance. Check how not long ago "easily" was accepted by medics the idea that bacterias from their hands lead to diseases and deathes, that they need to clean hands better.

[Jarno]

Socionics is only 1/3 of the relationship experience. Therefor putting too much emphasis on it can be misleading sometimes. Instincts and tendencies have a big influence whether you get along with someone.

VI is possible if you know enough types. Saying that VI is bullshit is an indicator you are still a beginner

[ContractedCriminalboy]

I regard it as true through simple application. I apply the theory to reality and it works effectively so to me it's true. Probably one of the least BS theories of psychology to me. VI in terms of physical structure is BS but in terms of body language and appearances, how one carries and expresses theirselves, it's legit. Duality is overrated as hell but true. God I wish ESE's existed only in theory, they torment me.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I answered based on the view that I am don't think that there is anything going for Socionics that could be explained adequately by other means. I couldn't think of anything regarded as "key" to Socionics other than Model A and duality, otherwise I would have included them. I don't mean to troll when I vote that "It’s probably all bullshit".

I think part of the reason (probably a lesser reason) that I linger on the forum is that I'm not aware of a comparable community that is interested in measures to determine compatible relationships. Although I'm dismayed that there appears to be little drive to complement or even replace Socionics tenets.

[Tallmo]

Socionics is extremely accurate if understood correctly. A true revolution in psychology and cognitive science, far ahead of its time.

Duality is true as a unique chemistry and fullfilling compensation. As I've said before I dont really belive it's the best relationship anymore. But I agree on the basic facts about duality.

[Exodus]

I didn't choose "I can prove it mathematically", but I have defined/constructed certain aspects of the model mathematically in a way that makes sense and corresponds with how the theory is actually used. I described part of it here:

https://wholesocionics.blogspot.com/...thematics.html

[myresearch]

There are 7.8 billion people on this world. So there is a chance, a slim chance that EII e8w7 might exist but the existence of ESEs is just mambo jambo.

[Bethanyclaire]

Duality is true as a unique chemistry and fullfilling compensation. As I've said before I dont really belive it's the best relationship anymore. But I agree on the basic facts about duality.

You don’t believe it’s the best relationship? Why is that? I have been wondering myself recently how much ‘better’ it actually is.

[Computer Loser]

I think there's something to socionics; it definitely seems to fill in the gaps of the question: "Why are people the way they are?"

For me, this question feels similar to the question, "Does God exist?" It's like I intuitively know (regardless of "sufficient data"), deep down inside, that God / socionics exists, that these forces and fields invisible to the eye, exist. The pieces and clues are scattered around, it's just a matter of logically putting things together and coming to the logical truth/conclusion that it does exist.

There's a lot of fancy terms, names, and labels- "Socionics" "Model A" "Model G" IMO it doesn't really matter what the outside label is or what we call it. We can call soccer "football" or we can call football "soccer" at the end we're all trying to kick the ball into the net to win the game. And sure, the different models are trying to be the most "accurate" but at the end of the day again we're just trying to explain, "Why are we the way we are?"

I think a lot of people tend to be skeptical of socionics because:

1. they often confuse persona for type; they don't dig deep enough to see nuances and patterns that seemingly fit together; you have to strip down all the layers of one's persona until you reach "the core" or "type" of a person.

2. it's not an easy process; just look at all the forumites fighting over each other's types, and all the confusion and dismay when it comes to everything typing.

3. the lack of standardization; I only wish (for the sake of "the masses") there was more empirical/concrete data and more practical applications of the theory. Right now, there's a lot of theoretical information available out there but the problem comes in interpreting/applying the theory - it's still highly subjective and open to interpretation, at least here in the US/on these forums.

With that being said, if you observe yourself and your interactions closely enough, you'll no doubt notice patterns; some aspects of your psyche not changing since birth, noticing certain informational aspects you clash with, some that open you up, informational strengths/weaknesses/blind spots etc. You'll notice that with certain people, no matter how hard you try, you can't fully "get." Then you'll notice there are others that you CAN understand without saying a word. ( Lol, Spooky!!)

These are undeniable patterns that keep repeating throughout our experience.

[xerx]

Even if Socionics were true, I don't think that it's wise to let it influence your self-image and relationships. The power of suggestion is very strong, and it's common to see people modifying their behaviour in order to squeeze themselves into type descriptions, often written by distant psychologists from a completely different culture. This is understandable, because Socionics is such an intriguing theory with great explanatory power, but one does get the impression that people are too ready to espouse it totally and uncritically.

Even if it were 100% the word of God and etched into the fabric of the universe, who's to say that Socionics is any more proper than basing your personality and relationships around a cultural, political, or self-invented identity? There's this political commentator named Dave Rubin who is probably my dual sociotype. I don't agree with almost any of Dave Rubin's professed political views, and I have strong suspicions that his political transformation has been less than credible. It would be inauthentic for me to associate with that man in any capacity that wasn't neutral, at best.

[Tallmo]

You don’t believe it’s the best relationship? Why is that? I have been wondering myself recently how much ‘better’ it actually is.

Well, it IS the best, if you want to live in bliss and "paradise". It's just that you outsource your weak side to your dual and and that blocks self-development. If you want to develop and integrate your weak side you need to get exposed to difficulties and suffer.

I also know some dual couples who are old now and they have been together for like 50 years, but there's something stagnated about them.

Check out the book "Lectures on Jung's typology" for more info. Here is the paragraph where they criticize duality, (even though it is not called "duality", rather "the opposite type", but they're referring to the same thing)

But duality can be a great experience so I am not saying that one should avoid it. But there are always alternative perspectives. There's no perfect relationship, but as a general rule, one should stick to the same quadra for marriage.

[Bethanyclaire]

Well, it IS the best, if you want to live in bliss and "paradise". It's just that you outsource your weak side to your dual and and that blocks self-development. If you want to develop and integrate your weak side you need to get exposed to difficulties and suffer.

I also know some dual couples who are old now and they have been together for like 50 years, but there's something stagnated about them.

Check out the book "Lectures on Jung's typology" for more info. Here is the paragraph where they criticize duality, (even though it is not called "duality", rather "the opposite type", but they're referring to the same thing)

But duality can be a great experience so I am not saying that one should avoid it. But there are always alternative perspectives. There's no perfect relationship, but as a general rule, one should stick to the same quadra for marriage.

Thanks..haha I think I just find it hard to really imagine being that happy..but I have been around duals so I guess I can imagine it a little..to me it sounds a bit like feeling like a child again.

I'm not sure why I'm suddenly questioning this atm but I guess you have to at some point. I guess it really is a difficult thing to accept deep down- that some people randomly stumble on true love and happiness..and others don't get to experience that. One more injustice in this already vastly unjust world. Although I guess at least it can happen to anyone, and it's nice to think of ordinary, otherwise unprivileged people experiencing this type of happiness, especially if they've had difficult lives before finding it.

However, the IEI in me has to believe that there isn't only one type of happy ending..that 'true love' is something more powerful than biology and that it's something that more than one set of types can achieve together. We only get one life after all, and two people helping each other through it, reminding each other they exist, are alive and have a purpose to love and be loved as a human being..has got to be something we can do for each other whether in a dual couple or not. I guess we have evolved in a way that this is possible..and in any loving relationship, duality or not, it will be things like commitment, getting to know each other better over time, and shared memories which make it truly loving in the end. Perhaps this is, like you say, an 'alternative perspective'. Bit tired as I'm writing so hope it makes sense.

[Not A Communist Shill]

"No book that makes an essentially new contribution to knowledge enjoys the privilege of being thoroughly understood. Perhaps it is most difficult of all for new psychological insights to make any headway. A psychology that is grounded on experience always touches upon personal and intimate matters and thus arouses everything that is contradictory and unclarified in the human psyche. If one is plunged, as I am for professional reasons, into the chaos of psychological opinions, prejudices, and susceptibilites, one gets a profound and indelible impression of the diversity of individual psychic dispositions, tendencies, and convictions, while on the other hand one increasingly feels the need for some kind of order among the chaotic multiplicity of points of view. This need calls for a critical orientation and for general principles and criteria, not too specific in their formulation, which may serve as points de repère in sorting out the empirical material. What I have attempted in this book is essentially a critical psychology.

This fundamental tendency in my work has often been overlooked, and far too many readers have succumbed to the error of thinking that Chapter X (“General Description of the Types”) represents the essential content and purpose of the book, in the sense that it provides a system of classification and a practical guide to a good judgment of human character. Indeed, even in medical circles the opinion has got about that my method of treatment consists in fitting patients into this system and giving them corresponding “advice.” This regrettable misunderstanding completely ignores the fact that this kind of classification is nothing but a childish parlour game, every bit as futile as the division of mankind into IEIs and non-IEIs." - Carl Jung (from Psychological Types)

[Number 9 large]

the existence of ESEs is just mambo jambo.

then youve never met my mom

[Metamorph]

Missing: Socionics is a cult. Jung himself also would've hated it since he hated MBTI and socionics is less accurate to Jung, not more, due to the fact it introduces ITR. Of course, ITR is the real whole reason it's still around, since people meet their dual who is completely incompatible, feel like it's a sunk cost trying to relate to them, and even raise children in the cult. On the other hand, MBTI is still around because of the Myers-Briggs Foundation and corporations get paid to brainwash their wage-slaves with it in the workplace, even though socionics is definitely worse, because socionics is literally just around because of the sunk-cost fallacy and the costs were that much higher to begin with, while MBTI is around because people's bosses actively gaslight them with it and if people move on from those jobs, they have a chance to just be able to forget it entirely and feel like it was holding them back rather than feeling like there's a sunk cost.

The misleading letter from Jung on Myers-Briggs typology - Practical Insights

If you think socionics is interesting at all, forget socionics itself and look into Antoni Kępiński's theory of information metabolism and/or Jung's collected works instead. That will feed your interest and not harm you so much. Socionics is just glorified MBTI with the harmful ITR theory and nowhere near as much corporate backing.

[thistle]

"No book that makes an essentially new contribution to knowledge enjoys the privilege of being thoroughly understood. Perhaps it is most difficult of all for new psychological insights to make any headway. A psychology that is grounded on experience always touches upon personal and intimate matters and thus arouses everything that is contradictory and unclarified in the human psyche. If one is plunged, as I am for professional reasons, into the chaos of psychological opinions, prejudices, and susceptibilites, one gets a profound and indelible impression of the diversity of individual psychic dispositions, tendencies, and convictions, while on the other hand one increasingly feels the need for some kind of order among the chaotic multiplicity of points of view. This need calls for a critical orientation and for general principles and criteria, not too specific in their formulation, which may serve as points de repère in sorting out the empirical material. What I have attempted in this book is essentially a critical psychology.

This fundamental tendency in my work has often been overlooked, and far too many readers have succumbed to the error of thinking that Chapter X (“General Description of the Types”) represents the essential content and purpose of the book, in the sense that it provides a system of classification and a practical guide to a good judgment of human character. Indeed, even in medical circles the opinion has got about that my method of treatment consists in fitting patients into this system and giving them corresponding “advice.” This regrettable misunderstanding completely ignores the fact that this kind of classification is nothing but a childish parlour game, every bit as futile as the division of mankind into IEIs and non-IEIs." - Carl Jung (from Psychological Types)

I had to google this because the final sentence looked suspect Even in its original format it seems like a sharp rebuke from Carl Jung.

One of my concerns about Socionics is how Duality can be twisty and complicated. It's like something that can barely be captured and made real:

Attracting duals

There is a sort of "vicious cycle" phenomenon in the ability or inability to attract and retain socionic duals.
You need to experience dual relations to learn how to attract duals, but if you don't know how to attract them, how are you going to experience duality??

This is a real problem for many people, and it often takes hard work or ideal conditions (for example, working together for an extended period of time) to break out of the rut.
Other people have never experienced this rut and have a natural attraction to people of the "right type" and know how to act in a way that makes sense to their duals. After experiencing dual relations and the accompanying "therapy" described above, people usually attract duals faster by sending out clear signals to other people about their strengths and their normal state of mind.

When people send out mixed signals and do not seem to be relying on their strengths in interaction with others, duals react slowly, if at all. When one acts confidently using one's strengths, not only do one's duals respond with greater attention, but one becomes more attractive to everyone else as well. Developing one's strengths is the topic of a separate article.

(the passage is from this website)

[FDG]

Well, it IS the best, if you want to live in bliss and "paradise". It's just that you outsource your weak side to your dual and and that blocks self-development. If you want to develop and integrate your weak side you need to get exposed to difficulties and suffer.

I also know some dual couples who are old now and they have been together for like 50 years, but there's something stagnated about them.

Check out the book "Lectures on Jung's typology" for more info. Here is the paragraph where they criticize duality, (even though it is not called "duality", rather "the opposite type", but they're referring to the same thing)

But duality can be a great experience so I am not saying that one should avoid it. But there are always alternative perspectives. There's no perfect relationship, but as a general rule, one should stick to the same quadra for marriage.

It's an old post but the topic just popped out in my feed so...

Duality is considered optimal whenever you are facing "hardships" in life, this could mean anything from war to a health problem to a difficult time at work / family. That means, you are already getting exposed to the difficulties you mention in your daily life - and your duals helps you deal with it.
Also consider that humans don't necessarily need to grow stronger/better as a person. They mostly need to reproduce and keep their offspring alive.

For recreational purposes or in time of peace identical relationships can often be more rewarding.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Socionics is true but that's not the problem, the problem is it's been twisted and manipulated and hijacked by wrong-wing trolls and pretentious douchebags. I don't think Gulenko knows much about the theory, but he can be effectively confident and 'logical type enough' that emotional types with low self-esteem complexes and masochistic identities can follow him. If person A says the earth is round and then person B says the earth is flat but says it like Gulenko/Trump/Oprah or some other 'authority' - people start believing the world is flat. It's like going to a gay bar - most of the people are going to be submissive bottoms and only 1 or 2 an effective tops.

And well let's not forget Socionics come from Russia, a country where only 14% of people believe homosexuality should be accepted in society. Compared to USA which has about a 75% approval rating, and Canada in the 80s-ish and Sweden 90-something. So I mean, it's kind of being used as a tool for fascist incels to justify their bigotry.

"Confidence looks good on everybody", even fascist wrong-wing homophobic d-bags. And then people get manipulated and gaslighted into thinking a vulnerable minority group is doing the manipulation or gaslighting because that's exactly what they want you to think and you drank the Kool-Aid without even realizing you did. Heil Gulenko eh?

Gulenko types most people Beta, but Betas are also supposed to be sexual deviants and perverts who deserve to be exterminated for the greater good, so basically it's part of a genocide. Spot the Betas/Homos out, put them in camps to kill them, gaslight society that they're doing the right thing, make Sol smile.

[Sol]

Socionics = Jung's types + IR

Mathematically by stats the hypothesis of IR can be proved, in case it's correct.
For example, how long marriage pairs in different IR exist in average, how often those break, how good is emotional state in them (by self-report questionnaires, mb by objective measurements).

In my subjective experience IR theory is useful. This was noticed during 1st year after reading books about types. It's the main reason why my interest exists and stays still.

_Nonverbal_ VI has experimental proof since 2015, after the experiment (on socioforum) for typing match with usage of bloggers from youtube. It shaw up to 20% typing match (>1/16 of accidental), when people were offered to suppose types by >=2 videos per a blogger. Typers were random people from the forum, without special training in VI or big typing experience.
The experiment can be repeated easily. The one important condition - bloggers should be chosen by the organiser among those about types of who he's assured, to confirtm the possibility to suppose their types correctly by VI.

[Not A Communist Shill]

One of the very common, I think, misconceptions of your work among some writers in America is that they have characterized your discussion of introversion and extraversion as suggesting that the world is made up of only two kinds of people, introverts and extraverts. Would you like to comment on that?

Well, Bismarck once said, "God preserve me from my friends, with my enemies I can deal alone!" You know what people are. They catch a word and then everything is schematized to fit that word. There is no such thing as a pure extravert or a pure introvert. Such a man would be in the lunatic asylum. They are only terms to designate a certain penchant, a certain tendency. For instance, the tendency to be more influenced by environmental factors, or more influenced by the subjective factor, that's all. There are people who are fairly well balanced and are just as much influenced from within as from without, or just as little. And so with all the finer classifications, they are only points de repere, points for orientation.

There is no such thing as a schematic classification. Often you have great trouble even to make out to what type a man belongs, either because he is very well balanced or because he is very neurotic. When you are neurotic you always have a certain dissociation of personality. And then the people themselves don't know when they react consciously or when they react unconsciously. You can talk to somebody and you think he is conscious and knows what he says, and to your amazement you discover after a while that he is quite unconscious of it, doesn't know it. It is a long and painstaking procedure to find out what a man is conscious of and what he is not conscious of, because the unconscious plays in him all the time. Certain things are conscious, certain things are unconscious, but you couldn't tell.

Then this whole matter of extremes, introvert and extravert, is a sort of scheme to hang an idea on?

My scheme of typology is only a scheme of orientation. There is such a factor as introversion, there is such a factor as extraversion. The classification of individuals means nothing, nothing at all. It is only the instrumentarium for the practical psychologist to explain, for instance, the husband to a wife or vice versa. It is very often the case—I might say it is almost a rule, but I don't want to make too many rules in order not to be schematic—that an introvert marries an extravert for compensation, or another type marries the countertype to complement himself. For instance, a man who has made a certain amount of money is a good business man, but he has no education. His dream is, of course, a grand piano at home, artists, painters, singers or God knows what, and intellectual people, and accordingly he marries a wife of that type in order to have that too. Of course he has nothing of it. She has it, and she marries him because he has a lot of money.

These compensations go on all the time. When you study marriages, you can see it easily. We alienists have to deal with a lot of marriages, particularly those that go wrong, because the types are too different sometimes and they don't understand each other at all. You see, the main values of the extravert are anathema to the introvert, so he says, "To hell with the world, I think!" His wife interprets this as his megalomania. But it is just as if an extravert said to an introvert, "Now look here, fellow, these are the facts, this is reality!" And he's right. And the other type says, "But I think!" and that sounds like nonsense to the extravert because he doesn't realize that the other, without knowing it, is seeing an inner world, an inner reality. And he may be right, as he may be wrong, even if he based himself on God knows what solid facts. Take the interpretation of statistics, you can prove anything with statistics. What is more a fact than a statistic? - Carl Jung

[Socionics Is Not A Cult]

[Not A Communist Shill]

Less than half of the people voted think Model A is true. (14 out of 33, or 11 out of 30 if the 3 people who voted for every option are excluded).

[The Reality Denialist]

I'd vote "possibly nothing is true" but it is not there and it is over.

Note that bullshit is supposed to be real. I have observed lots of piles of bullshit in my life so if it is true then.. but I can not confirm I exist in the first place.


Sure it looks something what wannabe scientist would craft when they have no access to a lab. However, I just look at it as an approximate slice of some plausible collections of experiences and for many it is like a compass for relational life only to discover that they are too autistic for it in the first place.

[Expansion]

It's another dynamic model and a type sorter.
It works to a degree because of the traffic that travels thru 16T.ryhme alert.

I think it is too Ti heavy, Gulenko makes his theories, and even his LII kindred spend a lot of effort to understand it for practical application.

On Reddit, LII decipher Renien and the breakdown requires Ti Ne to deconstruct and reconstruct.

I have a feeling LII or 1/16 of the population can work with it, and the others more or less need a lot more tools.

I never feel duped and all systems have their strengths.

I will say I'm confused in ITR because I can get along with types that I'm supposed to have conflict. I can post videos of ENFP LSI marriages who are happy couples, middle aged, not green.They are supposed to conflict .

Not so, they vibe in team fashion.