The Darling Duck~
Unpopular Socionic Opinions
Yes I said it! I want your unpopular opinions~
Good, bad, strange, etc...
ILIs say the darndest things.
VI is the worst way to type someone, especially on it's own.
Semi Unpopular Opinions:
You should only use Socionics as a last resort when making major life decisions.
Sometimes Identical relations are better than Duality for long term relationships.
The subtype system needs to be radically changed.
Socionics by itself isn't as good as Socionics in combination with other typologies.
I don't think I have any opinions that are truly, truly unpopular...
We say here about ideas of (and not about) _Socionics_ according to title. Hence, the ideas in texts of Jung and Augustinavichiute. Also I may add some more.
Among not common ideas
- Jung's one that types are personality disorders, which would be good to remove to feel better and be wiser.
- Following from the above: to choose occupations and interests in strong functions regions _only_ means predispose to accentuate the type, what means 1) arise neurotic effects of Jung type, 2) make bad personality traits worse, 3) make you lesser flixible by IR with other people
- Weakest is suggestive function and not "pain function" (3rd in Jung model)
- Reinin traits and related to them is not enough based for the usage (Augustinavichiute used static/dynamic trait seriously)
- To get significant use for your psyche in duality IR needs to have close friendship/love state with that human and to achieve this may need seriouse efforts. Other gives rather surface effect. Even when you are in duality marriage - this does not mean you have good relations with good cooperation and have significant positive influence on your psyche, - this may need _significant_ efforts to establish good care about interests of each other and get the good what duality may give.
- Very hard IR as conflictors of other sex initially and in surface cooperation are perceived mainly positively
- Worse IR does not mean to feel worse in such relations, this more means it's harder to establish good and pleasant relations (though practically this mb too hard and people are not predisposed to make too much efforts for this). Bad IR does not mean bad relations on surfacely seen level, but more a bad possibility for good friendship (on practice it's linked and in bad IR people have mainly bad relations).
- To be assured in your type until positive IR effects checking with people IRL is significantly risky for the mistake. It's also doubtful to have even beginner level of typing skills without such checking, as this proves the possibility to identify types correctly enough to notice IR theory and other basic thoery as working.
- To type people which are not good known to you as famouses and people which know types theory is best by nonverbal VI as main method. To identify types without VI means strongly reduce useful material what should significantly reduce the accuracy.
- Common typing accuracy is <50% and even experienced typers are doubtful to have typing skills with high (>90%) accuracy.
- Socionics in not in scientific state but in hypothetical, as this needs objective experimental proof. So it's risky and not appropriate to trust highly to anything in it, except by significant own experience. This also means to do not trust to opinions about someones types (including about own type) - it's better to identify types yourself, if you have basis to think your skills and data as good enough.
- Socionics is only ideas of Jung and Augustinavichiute. Plus if something will have an objective proof to be correct about types. Also some ideas of Socionics have more or lesser basis to be trusted, may conflict between each other, some ideas are better be excluded for the usage (acceptive/productive functions, Reinin traits, etc.). Jung's more basic ideas have a priority to be trusted, not secondary and expanded their interpretations by Jung or by Augustinavichiute, as the both could mistake too. (Jung mistaked even in own type). Augustinavichiute's texts besides good ideas, contain a mass of doubtful places. Jung's texts have mistakes about types. Jung and Augustinavichiute are more theorists and are doubtful to be said as good practitioneers of own theories. So some hypotheses which are used with the name of Socionics as: subtypes, most of Reinin dichotomies (as Augustinavichiute said them as drafts and did not used most of them in known texts), etc. made by other people - is not Socionics, but a practice which at best can be said as _partly_ Socionics.
- Socionics mb said as had significant influence of MBTI texts. An example is J/P dichotomy, which was integrated in Socionics books and tests identically. To represent types as norma (unlike Jung who said them as disorders), to recommend choosing occupations in strong regions only - taken from MBTI texts. To think 3rd Jung function as weakest could be goten from MBTI related text too.
- Jung thought his types as possibly be changed during the life, according to knowing same people in different time. Though he could just do mistakes in typing. While Socionics texts generally say types are not possibly be changed. Besides the type, Jung thought there exists inborn predisposition to have some type (same as to have leading right or left hand) and sometimes people develop other type due to external influences what makes a harm for their psyche.