What Socionics premises do you consider useful/valid?

[Jonathan]

It occurred to me that we have all these people discussing Socionics, but we don't necessarily all agree on which Socionics premises we believe are valid. Some of us consider the functions important, others de-emphasize them. Some of us believe that the Reinin dichotomies are really the most useful part of Socionics, whereas others are quite skeptical about their validity.

I suppose it's hard for people to have a fruitful discussion without each person's position being somewhat clear.

*** So, what do you find valid and useful? ***

For me, here's basically what I consider valid and useful:
1) The construct of functions having an introverted or extraverted form (as long as its clear that both are highly related).
2) The idea that opposite functions have a quality of implying each other; for example, being around Alpha SFs makes one become more aware of Ti; focusing on Fi creates an outward impression of Te; focusing on Ti while playing music creates an outward impression of Fe expression; and so forth.

What I find potentially destructive and not useful is:
1) The implication in Model A that half of the functions (i.e., those of the opposing quadra) are irrelevant and useless to a given person.
2) Any definitions of functions that make their introverted and extraverted forms appear unrelated.
3) The idea that people are stuck into using the functions in a predefined hierarchy, or that they should limit the kinds of mental connections that they make.

One other thing I'm not entirely sure of is if the functions are really, ultimately, each one thing; it seems to me that each of the "functions" refers to a cluster of related but ultimately different qualities. Nevertheless, one can devise any number of more rigorous systems of definitions where the functions are, indeed, each one thing.

[tcaudilllg]

It occurred to me that we have all these people discussing Socionics, (discussing socionics is an external object dynamic)but we don't necessarily all agree on which Socionics premises we believe are valid. (lines of agreement are external field dynamics)Some of us consider the functions important, others de-emphasize them. (considering functions important is an internal field dynamic within a field; de-emphasis is an internal object dynamic...?) Some of us believe that the Reinin dichotomies are really the most useful part of Socionics, (belief is an internal object dynamic) whereas others are quite skeptical about their validity. (?)

I suppose it's hard for people to have a fruitful discussion (discussion is an external field dynamic) without each person's position being somewhat clear. (personal positions are external object dynamics)

*** So, what do you find valid and useful? *** (what are your internal field statics?)

For me, here's basically what I consider valid and useful: (you are saying, "these have potential.")

Now you try.

[Exodus]

It occurred to me that we have all these people discussing Socionics, (discussing socionics is an external object dynamic)but we don't necessarily all agree on which Socionics premises we believe are valid. (lines of agreement are external field dynamics)Some of us consider the functions important, others de-emphasize them. (considering functions important is an internal field dynamic within a field; de-emphasis is an internal object dynamic...?) Some of us believe that the Reinin dichotomies are really the most useful part of Socionics, (belief is an internal object dynamic) whereas others are quite skeptical about their validity. (?)

I suppose it's hard for people to have a fruitful discussion (discussion is an external field dynamic) without each person's position being somewhat clear. (personal positions are external object dynamics)

*** So, what do you find valid and useful? *** (what are your internal field statics?)

For me, here's basically what I consider valid and useful: (you are saying, "these have potential.")

Now you try.

This illustrates another important premise of Socionics: that everyone uses all the functions.

However, this does not preclude the premise that different types use them differently (i.e., in a "predefined hierarchy").

[krieger]

I'd like to take a slightly more 'judging' aproach to language analysis here, meaning that instead of looking at the messages' form I will be trying to get at the intention that brought about their formation. Also, I will test a dependable principle that I feel carries strong merit, against reality.

It occurred to me that we have all these people discussing Socionics, but we don't necessarily all agree on which Socionics premises we believe are valid. Some of us consider the functions important, others de-emphasize them. Some of us believe that the Reinin dichotomies are really the most useful part of Socionics, whereas others are quite skeptical about their validity.

I suppose it's hard for people to have a fruitful discussion without each person's position being somewhat clear.

*** So, what do you find valid and useful? ***

Prior state: there is a perceived climate of confusement around the discussion of socionics and the issue of which principles are sharedly held by the community. This climate upholds the Ni-Se state (chaos/turmoil/strife), which Jonathan perceives as detrimental to the development of the discussion.
Transition: Ni -> Gamma -> Te. Make parties involved aware of the perceived issue, so that it may cooperatively be solved.
Posterior state: People reading the message are stimulated into concretizing and sharing their position, thus making for a climate of cooperation/fruitful discussion. (Te)

*edit* a slight update... This analysis is probably more accurate than the one before.

As to what principles I value... I really am not sure - I am entertaining a lot of them, and I am really certain of none of their merits. The function cycle is currently a pet project I'm putting much stock in. I'm hoping it's of as much metaphysical value as I first took it to be... (then again maybe it is - I'm picking up hints of it in Gottlob Frege's work)

Oh, and the definitions tcaud is using are great. Also many of the descriptions of function states written by smilex have proven to be very dependable.

[tcaudilllg]

labcoat: I'll be the first to admit that you are better at linguistic analysis than I.

http://www.audrey1.com/quotes/index.html

I am more than ever awed and overwhelmed by the
monumental talents it was my great, great privilege to
work for and with. (describing strength levels of forces across time ("more than ever"))
There is therefore no way I can thank
you for this beautiful award (thanking someone requires a perception of suitability for thankfulness; this is a production of the accepted state)
without thanking all of them (personal feelings carry the day, and govern the perception)
because it is they who helped and honed, triggered and
taught, pushed and pulled, dressed and photographed - (these are external field dynamics, I think; consider a discussion of role is also considered)
and with endless patience and kindness and gentleness, (these are internal object statics, as denoted by their "endless" character)
guided and nurtured (still in ... apparently crosstyped (crossordered?) functions are negotiable between themselves)
a totally unknown, insecure, inexperienced, skinny broad (these are external object dynamics; when you think about it they are traits that can link people together, and they acknowledge a reality produced by the acknowledgement of the aforementioned roles) into a marketable commodity. (a marketable commodity is an external field static)

[ncassidy]

I find the types, inter-type relations, and cognitive functions useful, though I don't really accept anything to do with information metabolism or VI. And I agree with everything you put down.

[Jonathan]

Interesting that the major response I'd get would be an analysis of my prose here. Yeah, I can see Te->Si here. In fact, I thought of this post after having a discussion with an LSE type.

Now here's a further challenge: presumably types other than LSE may produce the Te->Si transaction. How does that transaction (or any transaction) function within the various types that use it? Can one tell hints of a person's overall type biases even when the discourse coming from that person highlights two functions that aren't both ego block functions (or in some cases are neither ego block functions)? What insights can you get on a person's overall type (if such a thing exists) based on the functions noted in that person's writing?

[krieger]

Don't have time to finish this, but I'd begin by breaking the speech up in atomic particles:

I am awed and overwhelmed by [the people I've worked with].

I have been awed and overwhelmed before by [the people I've worked with], but I am that now more than ever.

[the people I've worked with] are monumental talents and working with them was a great, great privilege.

There is no way I can thank you for this beautiful award without thanking all of them.

It is they who helped me become a succesful actress.

Their efforts to help me were so great that they fit the enumeration 'helped and honed, triggered and taught, pushed and pulled, dressed and photographed - and with endless patience and kindness and gentleness guided and nurtured'. (I can break this one up further)

Before receiving help I was a totally unknown, insecure, inexperienced, skinny broad.

In the acting bussiness an actress is succesful when she can call herself a marketable commodity.

Then I would analyse those.

[Expat]

It occurred to me that we have all these people discussing Socionics, but we don't necessarily all agree on which Socionics premises we believe are valid.

Some people are knowledgeable and wise, others are ignorant and foolish. Often both at the same time.

Some of us consider the functions important, others de-emphasize them. Some of us believe that the Reinin dichotomies are really the most useful part of Socionics, whereas others are quite skeptical about their validity.

If you de-emphasize the functions beyond a certain point, you're not really talking of Socionics anymore (which doesn't mean that you're necessarily wrong)

What I find potentially destructive and not useful is:
1) The implication in Model A that half of the functions (i.e., those of the opposing quadra) are irrelevant and useless to a given person.

Model A does not really imply that. That's a distortion. All functions are useful to all types. It's a matter of emphasis and confidence only.

3) The idea that people are stuck into using the functions in a predefined hierarchy, or that they should limit the kinds of mental connections that they make.

Same as above.

I find most of Socionics useful and valid - as long as you understand its limitations. For instance, I find VI valid, as long as you don't follow the path of attributing very specific, fixed, facial features to type.

Reinin dichotomies are valid, as long as you don't use them in a all-or-nothing way.

The functions, and model A, are merely approximations to try to describe why and how different people have different priorities and areas of confidence, and how that affects their relationships.

I find that most of the arguments by those who "debunk" Socionics are actually straw men arguments -- that is, they address not Socionics as it really is, but their own misguided understanding of it.

[olduser]

I take in everything. I try to observe every socionics dichotomy, whether or not I believe it to be true or correct. This doesn't give consistency to everything, but my data is plentiful and I can weed out what is important and my judgements are sound. Of course, most of my judgements concern typing individuals and are not meant to add to the knowledge base or perfect the system.

[Exodus]

most of my judgements concern typing individuals and are not meant to add to the knowledge base or perfect the system.

I think that's the best approach. It's possible to ask too much of Socionics.

[Blaze]

most helpful is intertype relations and functional order of each type and what this means for communication/values/etc.

i try to apply this stuff. then again i'm someone with lame Fi, lol, so i guess i sorta need some help :wink: .

[Slacker]

most helpful is intertype relations and functional order of each type and what this means for communication/values/etc.

I agree with this. Mostly, I try to type people and see if relationships are explained through Socionics. I agree with Heath too that I'm not concerned about perfecting Socionics. It is what it is. I take in everything and keep what feels right and works for me.

[tcaudilllg]

I am more than ever awed and overwhelmed by the
monumental talents it was my great, great privilege to
work for and with. (describing strength levels of forces across time ("more than ever"))
There is therefore no way I can thank
you for this beautiful award (thanking someone requires a perception of suitability for thankfulness; this is a production of the accepted state)
without thanking all of them (personal feelings carry the day, and govern the perception)
because it is they who helped and honed, triggered and
taught, pushed and pulled, dressed and photographed - (these are external field dynamics, I think; consider a discussion of role is also considered)
and with endless patience and kindness and gentleness, (these are internal object statics, as denoted by their "endless" character)
guided and nurtured (still in ... apparently crosstyped (crossordered?) functions are negotiable between themselves)
a totally unknown, insecure, inexperienced, skinny broad (these are external object dynamics; when you think about it they are traits that can link people together, and they acknowledge a reality produced by the acknowledgement of the aforementioned roles) into a marketable commodity. (a marketable commodity is an external field static)

[MysticSonic]

The functions as I understand them.

[CuriousSoul]

*** So, what do you find valid and useful? ***

All of them to various degrees, it is all pretty fuzzy science anyway... Personally I do like the Reinin Dichotomies, but they are not always that easy to make sense of.