Socionics as Common Knowledge

[Raver]

I'm curious to know how many in this world or at least in the developed word have learned socionics or at least MBTI fully? I mention MBTI only because it is more popular in North America and it gives somewhat of a general sense of Jung's theory, if not partially false. Most of the people around me have never heard of it until I mentioned it to them first, but there is a few people here and there that know what it is? Do you think it is healthy for socionics to be spread as common knowledge around the world? or should we hoard it for ourselves and feel elite because we few privileged people know it? Are there any statistics concerning this topic? Overall, I feel it could make communication and relationships more meaningful and beneficial. Of course, there are drawbacks to this treasure chest

*Vote once, won't let me switch back to unique choice*

[FDG]

I voted "only us" but only because I agreed with "people that stumb into it". I also agree that it could be taught in higher level (say, PhD) of psychology/economics/business corses; by taught I mean, a course of one semester dedicated to its basics.

[Dioklecian]

I voted "only us" but only because I agreed with "people that stumb into it". I also agree that it could be taught in higher level (say, PhD) of psychology/economics/business corses; by taught I mean, a course of one semester dedicated to its basics.

There are some major stumblig blocks for that:
-what is a type?
-where does it come from?

[snegledmaca]

I voted "only us" but only because I agreed with "people that stumb into it". I also agree that it could be taught in higher level (say, PhD) of psychology/economics/business corses; by taught I mean, a course of one semester dedicated to its basics.

There are some major stumblig blocks for that:
-what is a type?
-where does it come from?

No there aren't. A type is an information exchange model, and it's a consequence of the informational metabolism between people. This is not MBTT where one assumes types to be real without proving it first.

[flower]

I voted 'Doesn't matter', but for a reason. People go through life and learn things and do things that are interesting to them, and they do this to fill their lives and help them where they need some assistance in life.

People usually only learn eg mathematics to a deep degree if they need to to get a certain job or because of some other practicle reason. People learn stuff, and watch tv programs because its fills their life, hopefully for the better. The point im making is this: try asking a very busy person who works very log hours to start watching a new tv program or take up a new sport, they probably wont, ask another person who works only part time and has a lot of free time to do the same thing and the chances of them doing it a considerably higher.

People dont dip into everything they can in life and choose the best things to incorporate into their life through experience and sampling, they simply do things as they go along, and until something happens that warrants a change, they just keep doing what they are doing, oblivious, and happy to be oblivious of other possibilities.

Socionics is no different, people find out about none mainstream things like socionics because they seek the information it holds and they are searching for that something other things dont provide. The person who is content with life, dosent need any input from socionics, and usually dosent want to know, as subconciously they know it may de-stabalise the persons world. So it dosent matter who knows about socionics, because those who want to know about it will find it, those who dont will not, and this will be benificial for both sets of people.

I could have voted 'Only us, people that stumble into it' aswell for the same reason.

[Exodus]

This is not MBTT where one assumes types to be real without proving it first.

Socionics is not "proven".

I don't think anyone really knows what effect knowledge of Socionics will have on the general population. My guess is that most people wouldn't take enough time to learn enough about it to make any sense of it. Maybe one could avoid mistypings by relying on Socionics consultants that are more familiar with the theory.

[Creepy-bg]

everyone (that is whoever wants to) and it should be put into a form that's consumable by the general population. I have no problem with the logic heavy theory and all, that's what works for some people. But I am bothered by this notion that to put things into terms that are digestable to other, simpler , types of people would be some sort of inexcusable corruption of the system. There's no reason why both (or many) forms can't exhist. Nobody's forcing you to conceptualize it as say something akin to astrology. But if some people could benifit from it exhisting in that form as well, I think it should.

[XoX]

It could be beneficial that people would know the basics of socionics. However it would be beneficial that they would know basics of physics, economics, other cultures, other languages, zillion other things. I'm not sure which is more important to learn. And it is hard to see socionics as integral part of schooling system (like language, mathematics, history etc) at this point. Perhaps the concept of information metabolism could be somehow integrated into other subjects so it could be indirectly taught. I would love to see it studied and improved/disproved at higher academic level and more books written about it and general knowledge increased. I don't see this being very urgent and critical at this point though. Let those who find it learn it and judge it. If it has a lot of useful relevance to real world it will eventually become mainstream.

[tcaudilllg]

When you think about it, socionics is a form of sociology. There is no reason at all why a chapter on socionics shouldn't be in every highschool sociology book, and certainly in ever college sociology text.

[UDP]

It will be some day. I don't think people will really be able to avoid it much longer.

[aestrivex]

It will be some day. I don't think people will really be able to avoid it much longer.

how naive.