Knowing about socionics can be isolating

[loopyclouds]

Basically the title. Not only is it such a niche and complex subject that most people will think you are a weirdo for spouting anything about it, it’s also a theory largely revolving around human relations which again will make you seem like a total weirdo for seeing what is supposed to be dynamic, natural and unique - human interaction, as something that is somewhat predictable and predetermined.

The closest I’ve ever got to speaking about socionics in real life is with people who are relatively well-versed in MBTI, but even then being interested in socionics demands a certain depth of knowledge which being interested in MBTI doesn’t, so most of the time it’s very surface-level conversation.

[Expansion]

People want to know how can i use something, through how can i relate to it.

In MBTI it is job placement, not relationship placement in the west.

J is organizing externally.

P = organizing internally.

F is taking a consensus of group values and weighing in there in final decisions.

T = weighing in on facts and making an impersonal judgement outside of group sentiment.

E is you being assertive and proactive.

I = being reserved and reactive.

Then you get stats of: ISTJ is the most common type if you are a dentist. If you are an airline pilot it is ESTJ, ISTP and on down the line.

Intertype via Socion isn't in the USA brew. You''ll have to go to MBTI authors to find those stats, and here, they push against S and N pairing because stat-wise it ends up in divorce court, or at least unhappy vs N to N & S to S bonds.

Completely different takes.

[Tallmo]

Basically the title. Not only is it such a niche and complex subject that most people will think you are a weirdo for spouting anything about it, it’s also a theory largely revolving around human relations which again will make you seem like a total weirdo for seeing what is supposed to be dynamic, natural and unique - human interaction, as something that is somewhat predictable and predetermined.

The closest I’ve ever got to speaking about socionics in real life is with people who are relatively well-versed in MBTI, but even then being interested in socionics demands a certain depth of knowledge which being interested in MBTI doesn’t, so most of the time it’s very surface-level conversation.

Of course. But you can teach a friend Socionics and you'll be less lonely. That's what I've done. I knew he was LII so I thought he might have the capability and intetest to learn it. It worked.

You can also meet people in the forum or even in real life.

[The Reality Denialist]

I'd say that if a person actually understands it, they have to be quite actively observing people.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

People take it too seriously. It's not some magical key to understand the world. There are dozens if not hundreds of subtypes, who knows how they affect the theory. It's all just nerds making theoretical assumptions about the world based on imagination really

[squishycans]

Basically the title. Not only is it such a niche and complex subject that most people will think you are a weirdo for spouting anything about it, it’s also a theory largely revolving around human relations which again will make you seem like a total weirdo for seeing what is supposed to be dynamic, natural and unique - human interaction, as something that is somewhat predictable and predetermined.

The closest I’ve ever got to speaking about socionics in real life is with people who are relatively well-versed in MBTI, but even then being interested in socionics demands a certain depth of knowledge which being interested in MBTI doesn’t, so most of the time it’s very surface-level conversation.

I think it's hard because people don't really want to be categorized by others. It makes people uncomfortable. I'm never mentioned Socionics, but have MBTI on multiple occasions (because that's what people usually hear about at some point). It starts with fascination and then derision because they don't like some aspect of the categorization.

For example, I know an LSE that seems to revert to ILE when relaxed/playful. And everyone in the group agreed that he is "extroverted" and could see this childlike playful nature coming out. But this LSE was (is?) divorced and has become misanthropic, so he feels "I am introverted at home" and thinks the theory is stupid. And points it out immediately if you try and discuss personality, as if to shut down any talk about it. Well...you know, eh, I said this in my first introduction post here, "this is hard to talk about". Usually type disagreements aren't actual disagreements, but disagreements on what the actual categorization is supposed to entail. And I don't know how to get people on the same page with that. Some people just obsess over it and lose the complete picture for some reason. It's like they just can't stop themselves.

[DEAD]

Basically the title. Not only is it such a niche and complex subject that most people will think you are a weirdo for spouting anything about it, it’s also a theory largely revolving around human relations which again will make you seem like a total weirdo for seeing what is supposed to be dynamic, natural and unique - human interaction, as something that is somewhat predictable and predetermined.

The closest I’ve ever got to speaking about socionics in real life is with people who are relatively well-versed in MBTI, but even then being interested in socionics demands a certain depth of knowledge which being interested in MBTI doesn’t, so most of the time it’s very surface-level conversation.

I learn about the theory for thrills. I don’t care if anyone else knows about it, but if I want them to, I’ll just introduce them to it. I know that it’s mostly a hobby that I do by myself, and I don’t share with people.

It’s just a tool for me to try and understand systematically how I process information and how other people do it as well.

As for interactions, well ITR are a rough guide. I know that my parents (LIE and ESE) are superegos and that’s why they fight and argue, mostly but they sometimes are in agreement.

ITR are far from accurate. I’ve interacted with some IEI and we don’t see eye to eye, and I’ve interacted with some EII and we get on alright, but the general consensus is that IEI > EII, but it all depends on how well typed the person is, and the kind of information that I can extract from them.

But too much Fi and Ne, and I’m out.

[necrosebud]

I do sometimes wish I didn't think abotu it at all/did not let it influence me and just went by my instinct/gut feeling generally idk

maybe I should attempt to try to do that more