the existence of types

[Khamelion]

I mean people are not slaves to the descriptions of their "type", regardless of whether or not they believe it is their type or not.

But what does it mean to be a "slave" of their type? Everyone has free will. Everyone can choose to act like any type, and everyone can follow any profession they want to and be successful. However, a person who, following their most natural priorities, motivations and behavior, would be typed as an ENTj, will find it more stressful relating to someone who, under the same criteria, would be typed as an ISFp than one who'd be typed as an ISFj. That can be clearly observed, I have observed that, and so have many others. If others can't observe it, I think they're wrong. That's it really.

Ugh....just take my word for it that we are on the same wave length, I'm just not saying it the way you would.

[Expat]

Ok.

[UDP]

Socionics never has, isn't, and never will be, useful for the average person or ordinary pop-psyche enthusiast. Sorry.

We'll judge that AFTER it's been taught at HS level for a couple years. Plus: socionics isn't finished yet....

I think socionics has great potential for world peace.

ROFL

If it is done in the right way, Tcau, I agree with you.
It will take time, but that's okay.

[FDG]

Thats also why people of the same type look similar and the type would never change (type based the person itself could change often in life, like "going where").

I agree with everything except this. I used to belive it too, but again: there are many people that change their appearance during their lives, if you agree that type is somehow connected to appearance (I do, too).

[aestrivex]

I think socionics has great potential for world peace.

ROFL

If it is done in the right way, Tcau, I agree with you.
It will take time, but that's okay.

good luck

[Joy]

"role"... lol I so hate that word

I see your point though Kioshi. In a way it's similar to the way I see valuing functions, minus the "role" part. When people interact with others sometimes it stands out when they respond positively or negatively to the functions the other person is using. It makes it easier to understand why relationships do or don't work out, among other things.

[discourse]

Socionics does work when you will have normal amount of information available and someone experienced teaching you. It will also make clear to you how not large this theory is inside the psychology. That means rest of the psychology works too and helps people fine. Me like some others introduced to it, had a belief that this is something different. That the normal psychology isn't good enough. They were childish opinnions. Naive. But I was quite a young then. And I was wrong off course. In order to understand socionics you will have to know the rest of the psychology. And off course you can help yourself finely with out it and others too.

The way I see it, socionics forums are for people who don't research the matter very deeply. They communicate about it briefly. It's a way of a social interaction. Socionics is just an interesting topic to discuss. And there are reasons for that why it is the best to use it for so in online.

If you will want to understand socionics from a more complex view point, then you will have to study it in real life. The matter is too complex for a posting in the internet. You will have to have a group of people around you doing their hobby reasearch. Only then it can bring good results. Specially if you have already some kind of a background what supports you to do the science. I suggest to form a group from the fellow students in your university to study it. You will also need to verify the results in the light of other sciences. Then socionics is the most accurate and enjoyable.

Thats the level most of us will gain if we will want to. A number of people doing hobby psychology in their neigborhood.

The most important level is the level of scietific research made by scientits. Like they are doing it in Russia and Ukraine. Remember all those Ph.D's like Bukchalov. This is the 'real' socionics. It's the top of the socionics mountain.

So my life experience goes together with the ideas of Rick. Socionics forums are just for spending one's time. To do it more profitable way you will have to study it in the right world. And you can make research in a 'lab' like many famous socionists are doing it.

In my opinnion the internet is most usefull for socionics when the forums are not just for time spending, but they are basicly online socionics magazines where valid socionics research by us will be published. And commented by the readers.

But these are just my ideas.

[UDP]

I think socionics has great potential for world peace.

ROFL

If it is done in the right way, Tcau, I agree with you.
It will take time, but that's okay.

good luck

What, is this some sort of Fe polr ni te thing?
It's like an INTp litmus test

what really is causing your vibrant reactions?

[FDG]

Socionics does work when you will have normal amount of information available and someone experienced teaching you. It will also make clear to you how not large this theory is inside the psychology. That means rest of the psychology works too and helps people fine. Me like some others introduced to it, had a belief that this is something different. That the normal psychology isn't good enough. They were childish opinnions. Naive. But I was quite a young then. And I was wrong off course. In order to understand socionics you will have to know the rest of the psychology. And off course you can help yourself finely with out it and others too.

The way I see it, socionics forums are for people who don't research the matter very deeply. They communicate about it briefly. It's a way of a social interaction. Socionics is just an interesting topic to discuss. And there are reasons for that why it is the best to use it for so in online.

If you will want to understand socionics from a more complex view point, then you will have to study it in real life. The matter is too complex for a posting in the internet. You will have to have a group of people around you doing their hobby reasearch. Only then it can bring good results. Specially if you have already some kind of a background what supports you to do the science. I suggest to form a group from the fellow students in your university to study it. You will also need to verify the results in the light of other sciences. Then socionics is the most accurate and enjoyable.

Thats the level most of us will gain if we will want to. A number of people doing hobby psychology in their neigborhood.

The most important level is the level of scietific research made by scientits. Like they are doing it in Russia and Ukraine. Remember all those Ph.D's like Bukchalov. This is the 'real' socionics. It's the top of the socionics mountain.

So my life experience goes together with the ideas of Rick. Socionics forums are just for spending one's time. To do it more profitable way you will have to study it in the right world. And you can make research in a 'lab' like many famous socionists are doing it.

In my opinnion the internet is most usefull for socionics when the forums are not just for time spending, but they are basicly online socionics magazines where valid socionics research by us will be published. And commented by the readers.

But these are just my ideas.

What do you think about the library @ socioniko.net, the one available in russian, which we can access via translation?

Also, I have used socionics extensively IRL in order to mediate disagreements (although, admittedly, sometimes it has served the inverse purpose: I have gotten annoyed more easily at some type's socionics predicted inabilities).

[Rick]

I mean people are not slaves to the descriptions of their "type", regardless of whether or not they believe it is their type or not.

Yes, and it's important to remember that type descriptions are themselves approximations.
Joy:

I'm just inclined to think that there are a whole lot of people who don't fit into any of the Socionics types.

Obviously, the fewer types a typology has, the more general each type will be. 16 types is a pretty general typology. 256 would be a pretty specific typology.

Part of the problem is that people naturally tend to describe each of the 16 types as if they were very specific when, in fact, they are not. All the really colorful and hence memorable type descriptions out there are too specific to be able to accurately describe 1/16 of the human population. If you think of type as something much more general than the descriptions, I think concerns like Joy's cease to be an issue. If you study any person long enough, you'll see that they have clear socionic preferences and consistently expect certain things of their environment that can be described well in socionic terms. And even if that doesn't work, there are still clear relationship patterns. I agree that people of the same type can be very different -- almost to the point of practical uselessness -- but at the very least relationship patterns remain clear (in my opinion).

From what I've observed, expecting people of the same type to be the same is a natural stage that most or all socionics hobbyists pass through. Sometimes every little difference between people causes mental stress ("how can this be?? Isn't that a contradiction?"). I guess the more people of each type you come to know, the broader your understanding of each type necessarily becomes. I can totally see where people lose interest in socionics when they begin to see how broad those categories have to be. One person's response might be to conclude that socionics has no practical worth as a descriptive tool, while another person might conclude that what's left is still good enough to use.

[Going B. Zerk]

People are complicated, you can’t just put them in neat boxes.
There are many many theories on personality, some are rubbish but others like socionics and the enneagram have enough truth to them imo. That’s not to say they’re almost flawless, but that generally speaking, they’re accurate enough compared to rl.

[Joy]

Rick, I don't use type descriptions to define types.

Like I said in the first post, I see distinctions between functions and I believe that people generally have functional preferences, but I fail to see why there couldn't be people who value Si and Se or Fi and Ti, etc.

I use information elements and model A to define types. I fail to understand how there could be more than 16 Socionics types. If there are more types you're changing the theory to the extent that it really isn't even Socionics anymore. If we were to discuss another theory, I'd be inclined to say that unless the theory allows people to be any combination of types, I'd probably think of it the same way I think of Socionics.

Why couldn't there be someone who values both Ti and Fi? Why couldn't someone whose "base function" is Fe be an EP type? Why couldn't a "Fi type" have a "Fe PoLR"? Why couldn't there be someone who doesn't value Ni or Ne? You know... crap like that.

[Rick]

Rick, I don't use type descriptions to define types.

OK, sorry. It sounded like you were implying that.

Like I said in the first post, I see distinctions between functions and I believe that people generally have functional preferences, but I fail to see why there couldn't be people who value Si and Se or Fi and Ti, etc.

I use information elements and model A to define types. I fail to understand how there could be more than 16 Socionics types. If there are more types you're changing the theory to the extent that it really isn't even Socionics anymore. If we were to discuss another theory, I'd be inclined to say that unless the theory allows people to be any combination of types, I'd probably think of it the same way I think of Socionics.

Why couldn't there be someone who values both Ti and Fi? Why couldn't someone whose "base function" is Fe be an EP type? Why couldn't a "Fi type" have a "Fe PoLR"? Why couldn't there be someone who doesn't value Ni or Ne? You know... crap like that.

If you dig down, you always find that a person gives more attention to some things than others. If a person identifies most with the external world, his weakness will be in managing his internal world, and vice versa. I think that if the haziness of socionics bugs you, then it probably isn't for you, and you'd get more out of a different kind of approach to personality and relationships that makes more sense to you.

[Gilly]

This is how we know Socionics was created by a Positivist Ti type: not EVERYTHING that EVERYONE experiences can be described by socionics, but everyone CAN theoretically fit in SOMEWHERE.

[Dorian]

Thats also why people of the same type look similar and the type would never change (type based the person itself could change often in life, like "going where").

I agree with everything except this. I used to belive it too, but again: there are many people that change their appearance during their lives, if you agree that type is somehow connected to appearance (I do, too).

With this i've been thinking about their body, their face and some movements, well, actually whats building their aura.

I think socionics has great potential for world peace.

There is no chance that somehow enough people would know and understand socionics that like that there will be peace.

An if so, some people will misunderstood it and maybe making war against their conflict partner.

I also suggest that dump people could less handle their sexual behavement than intelligent people (even using condoms).You could see them in talkshows all day. So world wide there ever will be more dump people than intelligent.
I know this sounds weird but thats what i've mentioned in reality...

[Joy]

I think that if the haziness of socionics bugs you, then it probably isn't for you, and you'd get more out of a different kind of approach to personality and relationships that makes more sense to you.

Socionics as a theory isn't hazy and makes perfect sense... trying to apply it irl by fitting each individual person into a slot in the theory is what makes me lose confidence in the validity/accuracy of it.

I do think there's an approach that makes more sense to me... in my type theory there approximately 6,579,694,994 different types.

But again, I do see being aware of functions (read: information elements) as valid and useful.

[Joy]

I also suggest that dump people could less handle their sexual behavement than intelligent people

in case you want to know, I think you mean "dumb" and "behavior"

[Dorian]

in case you want to know, I think you mean "dumb" and "behavior"

Im german, its 11:41pm, im a bit stoned and not that good in english, sorry

[Joy]

lol it's all good... I assumed that English isn't your first language

[Dorian]

lol it's all good... I assumed that English isn't your first language

[snegledmaca]

I was under the impression that socionics is a part of cybernetics, not psychology, that it just deals with a lot of the issues that psychology deals with as well.

[Dorian]

I was under the impression that socionics is a part of cybernetics, not psychology, that it just deals with a lot of the issues that psychology deals with as well.

exactly.
snegledmaca, are you able to see these mind structures?

[Joy]

I was always under the impression that Socionics is at best a pseudoscience that's scoffed at by most psychologists.

[snegledmaca]

I was under the impression that socionics is a part of cybernetics, not psychology, that it just deals with a lot of the issues that psychology deals with as well.

exactly.
snegledmaca, are you able to see these mind structures?

Sometimes. Actually, that's how I type people.

[FDG]

Some additional thoughts (or ramblings, or nonsense, or whatever):

The biggest contribution cybernetics made to behavioral biology was the concept of feedback. Feedback is used to explain "hunting". Hunting is a process where the individual constantly varies feedback until the quantitative parameters of the system can be estimated. The concept of hunting is useful in understanding the process of synchronization.

I see the functions as representing the 16 primary variables in asynchronous interactions. Each represents a particular synchronization problem. Think of them like syllables in a monosyllabic language. They can be arranged and sequenced in an infinite number of ways.

These are unit elements of interaction. And it is important to understand the scale. Micro-vibrations in muscle fibers occur constantly at a rate of 10 to 20 cycles per second. These serve as a basis for temperature regulation and allow external activity to be rapidly altered. Secondary rhythms such as heart and respiration combine these muscle actions into longer trains. These autonomic functions are coordinated by the hypothalamus.

I don't see the intertype relations as (A - B), but rather as (A - environment - B). The concept of a base function assumes a static environment. The information A receives from B is a consequence of changes in A's environment resulting from B's actions. The objective, from a personality theoretic perspective, is to create an environment that supports both types.

I completely agree with this. Thanks for having inadvertitely verbalized my thoughts on the matter.

[Rick]

I was always under the impression that Socionics is at best a pseudoscience that's scoffed at by most psychologists.

This isn't really true, or it is less and less true in Russia and Ukraine. Now it is to the point that most psychology professors know something about it, and many larger universities at least cover it briefly in their course material at some point. I think socionics is close to achieving wide recognition within psychology over here as a [potentially] legitimate approach to personality and relationships. It's really no less legitimate than, say, Maslow's hierarchy of needs or any other theoretical model that attempts to explain complex aspects of human behavior.

[WhiteKnight]

The MBTI attempts to classify an individual as one of sixteen types. Socionics attempts to explain the informational metabolism between the sixteen inter-type relationships.

For a side-by-side comparison get our special report entitled "Socionics Vs. MBTI" free @ www.simplysocionics.com :wink:

[Rick]

...our special report

Group authorship? Interesting...

[Dioklecian]

Its' accurate in my opinion.

[krieger]

I did not vote. I don't think socionics theory as a whole is 'bull-shit', but I am very sceptical of certain constructs within it. I could summarise my attitute towards the theory as follows:

From what I can tell socionics in it's current state offers two things.

- a vocabulary of terms that puts names to phenomena related to personality dynamics.

- a set of dictates, laws and rules about what is and is not possible in regard to said personality dynamics.

I embrace the former, and reject the latter. In my oppinion, trying to force everybody to fit into one of the known personality types is typology abuse. Every person is a case of research in themselves.

[snegledmaca]

In my oppinion, trying to force everybody to fit into one of the known personality types is typology abuse. Every person is a case of research in themselves.

I totally agree with you but if you think socionics does that I think you have socionics confused with MBTI. It doesn't try to fit everyone into a personality type cause it doesn't have personality types. The acronyms are information exchange models. If I were to use personality my type most certainly wouldn't be IEI.
People don't realize that the acronyms are not personality types. One might write about the personality of people of a given type, but those are nothing more then generally observed patterns. It most certainly does not mean that a person of such personality is that type or that a type has the personality described.

[Exodus]

It doesn't try to fit everyone into a personality type cause it doesn't have personality types. [...] People don't realize that the acronyms are not personality types.

Purely semantic.

[reyn_til_runa]

even in simple categorization of objects, you have to allow something to stand for a more varied set of similar/related objects. there are apples which belong to the larger group of fruits. it is not bullshit to say that all fruits are not apples, but to say that apples are fruits, we are clearly identifying something about apples that connects them to the broader characteristics of fruits. the generative system video that tereg posted has a lot to do with what i'm saying.

so, if you think of socionics as a generative system: it is interested in trying to compress a complicated human population into a simple set of rules in order that the rules may serve as a springboard for understanding coincidences to come. and, if you start with the rules and decompress, you may see recognizable patterns emerge. it's not designed to perfectly match reality, but to play with it, to inject some order into chaos. the idea is to see, like in a piece of generative music, where certain aspects align, where they don't, what lies between the points of intersection. the number of types - 2, 16, 98, 1000000 -- doesn't matter, really. the number of types just represent designated points of coincidence along a wide spectrum of human personality. fewer types means broader categories and more variety among members of one type group.

[hellothere]

even in simple categorization of objects, you have to allow something to stand for a more varied set of similar/related objects. there are apples which belong to the larger group of fruits. it is not bullshit to say that all fruits are not apples, but to say that apples are fruits, we are clearly identifying something about apples that connects them to the broader characteristics of fruits. the generative system video that tereg posted has a lot to do with what i'm saying.

so, if you think of socionics as a generative system: it is interested in trying to compress a complicated human population into a simple set of rules in order that the rules may serve as a springboard for understanding coincidences to come. and, if you start with the rules and decompress, you may see recognizable patterns emerge. it's not designed to perfectly match reality, but to play with it, to inject some order into chaos. the idea is to see, like in a piece of generative music, where certain aspects align, where they don't, what lies between the points of intersection.the number of types - 2, 16, 98, 1000000 -- doesn't matter, really. the number of types just represent designated points of coincidence along a wide spectrum of human personality. fewer types means broader categories and more variety amoung members of one type group.

this is very useful for my understanding... thank you

[tereg]

even in simple categorization of objects, you have to allow something to stand for a more varied set of similar/related objects. there are apples which belong to the larger group of fruits. it is not bullshit to say that all fruits are not apples, but to say that apples are fruits, we are clearly identifying something about apples that connects them to the broader characteristics of fruits. the generative system video that tereg posted has a lot to do with what i'm saying.

so, if you think of socionics as a generative system: it is interested in trying to compress a complicated human population into a simple set of rules in order that the rules may serve as a springboard for understanding coincidences to come. and, if you start with the rules and decompress, you may see recognizable patterns emerge. it's not designed to perfectly match reality, but to play with it, to inject some order into chaos. the idea is to see, like in a piece of generative music, where certain aspects align, where they don't, what lies between the points of intersection.the number of types - 2, 16, 98, 1000000 -- doesn't matter, really. the number of types just represent designated points of coincidence along a wide spectrum of human personality. fewer types means broader categories and more variety amoung members of one type group.

That is a very interesting way to look at that. Actually, when I made the post, I had actually thought of generative systems as a contrast to Socionics and how Socionics has developed. The temptation is there to some degree to find simplified ways to explain things that we observe and see by compressing them into formulas and definitions. But your perspective is most certainly an interesting way to look at the process -- using the type as an initial point instead of as an end point.

But, I think it's a bit more difficult to do that since the rule sets to dictate the initial point (the types themselves) aren't as concrete at this point in its development. The factors that define a type seem more like guidelines to facilitate our understanding rather than hard rules. And therefore since the guidelines are subject to interpretation, and are still being developed in a sense, it's unclear to see how it will manifest once you let the process do its work and see what it creates. But, I guess if you find a way to filter out the unnecessary definitions and subjective interpretations of IM elements and Model A, then I guess that process would probably be more clear.

But your perspective has given me something new to think about and consider.

[Joy]

For the record, I do think types "exist". (But of course, I can't KNOW they exist.) It's all about the axes.

[Ezra]

Those five who think it's all bullshit should fuck off and hang around in socionix chat. Those that are leaning towards thinking it's bullshit should do that too.

[Joy]

They could be joke votes.

[Logos]

For the record, I do think types "exist". (But of course, I can't KNOW they exist.) It's all about the axes.

I've always thought it's all about the Benjamins.

[Joy]

"Benjamins" and "axes" are synonyms.