How many type descriptions have you read

[persimmonism]

I have this niggling thought that in order to truly call myself a socionics enthusiast I would have had to read at least one full type description for each type, the very short ones not counting.
Which made me wonder if other people also don't read much about other types or if it's just me.

Sometimes I read about other types when I get curious about a person I know, but I don't stay for the entire profiles. My knowledge about types is based more on real life observations and knowledge of IE placement.

What about you?
By extension, what have you relied on to inform your knowledge of different types (descriptions, IE, observation, crystal ball, stalking, mulling it over in your head during the night etc)

[Poptart]

I’ve read all of them multiple times, but I’m probably a freak lol.

[Poptart]

I rely on model a to understand the different types. Also IE descriptions, type descriptions, and my own observations.

[The Reality Denialist]

I prefer to form a schizophrenic collage just about everything I come across. This is not an exception.

I’ve read all of them multiple times, but I’m probably a freak lol.

Cool but the straight jacket belongs to me.

[MidnightWilderness]

I am probably one of the worst typers in sense that I can't actually come up with a solid coherent typing for anyone. Like... just.. horrible. IEs don't make sense to me except for Ne which seems obvious to me now. Nothing makes any sense anymore... ITRs just feel too subjective, I need more experiences with the types.

For now I am all alone on my journey, but soon I will meet more people and develop a proper typing method... I will read a bunch of Socionics literature, watch videos of the different types, and make more observations. I will disguise my psychological questions as normal conversation questions. Already I can sense the general vibes of a person, I just need certainty.

One day I will feel the typing force within... One day...

[Bethanyclaire]

@chocolatte Just last night I was thinking of asking something similar haha. I’ve also read bits and pieces. Starting to read more but would also find it hard to read a whole single description unless I have a particular reason (if I’m using it to analyse an individual). My knowledge of the IEs is poor but I can type people ok (more than ok). I think I will slowly start to learn about the IEs. I learnt a little about the placement but want to learn more about how to describe them.

I have a question: How long did it take people to ‘learn’ socionics to a level where they feel confident in their understanding? (Or reasonably so)

I’m 1.5 years in. (Context= in my early 30s, not as smart as some people on here lol). Also spent some time on enneagram a bit before that.

Atm I’m reading Gulenko/ Filatova..want to read others. I learn from people on here too And my own observations are important (I could try to expand on this). I’m trying to find a balance between all 3 atm.

I find it hard to memorise stuff so I think my knowledge will always be wishy washy (though maybe more to it on an instinctive level).

[Sol]

should be >10 authors. >5 were books. some were texts in Internet, where I could read about not all types

note
types descriptions are a compilation of types traits theory. it's secondary data
unofficial translations to English may have incorrectly or not distinctly translated places

old (up to ~2005) types descriptions of some authors in Russian
http://socionics.org/type/default.aspx
http://ru.laser.ru/authors/len/types/index.htm

[Tallmo]

I don't read socionics anymore. But I consider Jung's descriptions to be the most accurate and the highest quality. Love reading them. Every time I discover something new, that I hadn't understood before. It's now exactly 100 years since Psychological types was published for the first time. (so a good reason to get the book and start studying)

[FreelancePoliceman]

I don't read socionics anymore. But I consider Jung's descriptions to be the most accurate and the highest quality. Love reading them. Every time I discover something new, that I hadn't understood before. It's now exactly 100 years since Psychological types was published for the first time. (so a good reason to get the book and start studying)

As I recall, Jung only really provides much description for 8 base types, right? I don’t remember him writing descriptions for, say, an SLI (or Si-Te person) and SEI (or Si-Fe person), just a general Si base person, and these descriptions mostly just cover the base, and partly touch on the suggestive.

[Sol]

I consider Jung's descriptions to be the most accurate and the highest quality

It's baseless.
The good what Jung described is basic principles of types only - core definitions and not expanded interpreations alike descriptions of types and functions.
Jung's texts in general (and significantly descriptions of types) are muddy mess. Also they do not have 2nd function while it's important (exists 16 types, not 8).
His expanded descriptions of functions may have mistakes, an example of what is Si.
Also, Jung did not described J/P dichotomy, which is useful. He had no Augustinavichiute's expanded interpretation of E/I which includes objective object/links between objects and is useful for understanding of functions.

Socionics has own doutbtful hypotheses and problems in texts taken from Augustinavichiute (texts of who are bad too, - in style and in much of doubtful baseless content).
But popular Socionics books (most of them) give main ideas about types and their descriptions good - more clear than what Jung wrote. Sometimes more correctly. It's useful to read several of such books to understand where they all match. Among recommended authors are Filatova and Beskova.
Due to low quality and limited info of Jung's texts, it's better to study Jung's typology by Socionics and MBTI books (about dichotomies) which have popular and more clear style. Only then, at least as 2nd book, it's important to read Jung too, - to understand what is the core of his types theory. Most of his book about types is just useless water, where the typology begins since 10(!) chapter. His "Tavistock Lectures" can be useful for types too, though they have the same, just written in more clear way (as were made for students and in later time).

You seem to express a negativism to Socionics and so do unreasonable praising of Jung's texts mess.
Among reasons, it that English language has a lack of good Socionics texts to study. Exists only one relatively normal book by Filatova. Then go in significant part a random data made by random people based on google translations and those auto-translations too. Those translations are not original texts! And what is made with such info is also may have lower quality and to create a mess in the understanding. English people also have too high attention to heretical ideas in texts as by Gulenko, only because those data got more of translations and fans of those ideas were more active on English sites.
Also, this may happen when you do not identify types good to understand Socionics theory on practice. When you trust much to doubtful places in Socionics texts (as Reining traits, model A doubtful claims) what reduces typing accuracy and makes a problem to notice that heresy in reality. Your own type is also can be other (and not rare case), what would make a problem to understand types theory, especially IR.

Among best Socionics descriptions of types is Gorenko's book. Though, it trusts much to model A in what functions in different places do, while not all that deserves be taken seriously.
MBTI descriptions are not bad too (if to compare with Jung's mess), except they mistake about kind of E/I functions for introverted types.
All that is better than Jung's descriptions to understand types in the beginning. Even MBTI related texts. And sometimes is more correct than what Jung wrote.

[Tallmo]

As I recall, Jung only really provides much description for 8 base types, right?

Yes. I think Jung used 8 types because that's what the uniform type distribution looks like: every type has a separate main function. If you want to go further you have to look at the weaker functions (creative etc.).

Using 16 types is not a uniform phenomenon. Then some types are distinguished by base function, but kindred types only by other functions. With 16 types you are dealing with two levels of analysis. Nothing wrong with that though but it differs fundamentally from the "clean" 8 types analysis.

It's a matter of preference. I prefer 16 types myself, but I think it's good to keep in mind what I wrote above. Thanks for mentioning this, I hadn't really thought much about this before.

I don’t remember him writing descriptions for, say, an SLI (or Si-Te person) and SEI (or Si-Fe person),

I agree. But he mentions that you can make the distinction by looking at a second function that works together with the main function.

and these descriptions mostly just cover the base, and partly touch on the suggestive.

He talks about stuff that is related to base-suggestive, base-ignoring, and base-role. He doesn't of course use Socionics terminology.

[Beautiful sky]

All of them lol

[Bethanyclaire]

My go-to resource has been sociotype.com
for a while. But now need to branch out.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

idk probably about 4-6 for every type. They all kinda basically say the same thing, 'IEIs are vulnerable victimy pussies that are too weak and sensitive and are bad with efficient facts and knowledge but are good at seeing how events are unfolding over time.'

Only thing I don't like is they make us all sound like mini oscar wilde dandies - and I don't think that's really true. I think it's true how we are innately vulnerable, bad at a lot of 'real world' stuff- but I think maybe a lot of the descriptions are based more on IEI-Fes than IEI-Nis. Sometimes I feel like the descriptions read too much like what a 'stereotypical sensitive artist wearing a beret' is like- and not a real person.

[Socionics Is Not A Cult]

All of them.

[Bethanyclaire]

I would like to read a lot more but I have to take my time. There’s something creepy about them. Also I think I felt the need to learn to type before I read too much because that way I can make my own mind up about what I agree with and what I don’t. I think I need to have seen the evidence myself for it to become meaningful and truthful to me or something. I suppose that’s normal.

[rose]

I don't like type descriptions. It's like they float somewhere like random ghosts.
Ghosts of the past, of certain settings I have no access to.
It could be because they were written by people who have lived very different lives than I have. A society that teaches people Te is the most valuable will be different from one that teaches Ne above the others.
To actually answer the question in this thread: too many. I'm counting from random MBTI stuff to actual socionists. I think I'm juggling with 10-20 descriptions for each types, I cannot absorb them into a coherent whole.
Sometimes, I have weird flashes like: G would likely type this person X; this person would be Y type according to this random comment I read somewhere. I can end up with 5 typings for one person, it's annoying.

[Exodus]

I have this niggling thought that in order to truly call myself a socionics enthusiast I would have had to read at least one full type description for each type, the very short ones not counting.
Which made me wonder if other people also don't read much about other types or if it's just me.

Sometimes I read about other types when I get curious about a person I know, but I don't stay for the entire profiles. My knowledge about types is based more on real life observations and knowledge of IE placement.

By memory, my stats are as follows:
All IEI descriptions obviously
A few SLE descriptions
One or two EII descriptions
Half of an IEE description
Half of an LIE description
A few lines of many others

What about you?
By extension, what have you relied on to inform your knowledge of different types (descriptions, IE, observation, crystal ball, stalking, mulling it over in your head during the night etc)

I've barely ever read type descriptions, except maybe for LII ones when I was just starting out. And back then they were all bad or barely legible machine translations. If you understand Model A and IMEs then you don't need type descriptions. In fact, if you're not careful most of them will actually harm your understanding rather than benefit it due to containing extraneous details (like about how EIEs' eyes look or some nonsense).

[Bethanyclaire]

Have started looking at some on socionics.com. They seem better than I remember. Some good snapshots (also funny?)