Common Socionics misconceptions

[Expat]

1) If you have arrived here after already finding your type in Myers-Briggs, especially if through a MBTI test, do not assume that your Socionics type, as defined by Socionics theory, corresponds to the MBTI you have found for yourself. You should look at your Socionics type from scratch.

2) Socionics types are not related to MBTI through a J/P switch for introverts. That works only if you are defining types according to ego functional ordering and assuming that Socionics functions = MBTI functions. That is however not helpful to find your true type, either in Socionics or MBTI.

3) Typing by VI - Visual Identification - is not something that can be easily learned or applied simply by looking at pictures of people of a certain type, much less by correlating specific facial features (length of the nose, thickness of lips, etc) to Socionics characteristics. It only makes sense to try to use VI after you already understand Socionics and have observed enough individuals of each type.

4) Socionics - like Myers-Briggs - has Carl Jung's Psychological Types as its starting point. It is definitely useful to read Jung's writings on that. However, Jung's types and functions are not the "true" Socionics types and functions. It makes no sense to argue Socionics from a purely Jungian standpoint. It's necessary to understand Socionics functions also independently from Jung.

5) Socionics is not a personality theory in the sense of personalities as mainly defined by external behavior traits. Socionics's types are defined ultimately by deeper personal priorities and motivations. However, external behavior traits provide clues as to the person's priorities and motivations.

6) Socionics is an interpersonal relationship theory. However, the Socionics relationships only work as described in situations where all other external factors are relatively neutral. Everyone understands that many factors (age, culture, family relationships, professional relationships, etc) influence interpersonal relationships. All those factors being equal, however, relationhips do work as described by Socionics, especially over time.

7) Duality is not some sort of "mystical experience" as some descriptions sometimes may suggest. Your dual is simply someone whose company, by temperament and functional preferences, is most comfortable for you, since your dual appreciates and needs precisely what you regard as your strengths and is most happy to help you and support you precisely in those areas you most appreciate it. However, you may still not get along with your dual if s/he is your boss, your rival, your superior officer, your teacher, someone of a very different culture, etc.

[aestrivex]

3) Typing by VI - Visual Identification - is not something that can be easily learned or applied simply by looking at pictures of people of a certain type, much less by correlating specific facial features (length of the nose, thickness of lips, etc) to Socionics characteristics. It only makes sense to try to use VI after you already understand Socionics and have observed enough individuals of each type.

since when did VI make sense even if these criteria are met?

[Expat]

since when did VI make sense even if these criteria are met?

well, if they are not met, it makes even less sense.

[machintruc]

I don't think yet someone could think seriously that VI provides more than correlations...

[Slacker]

I think that types might be able to be canceled based on how someone carries himself/herself, the facial expression (though one photo isn't really enough to go on there) and maybe choices of clothing and hairstyles or something. But I am not a fan of the VI thing either overall.

I like the list though.

[aestrivex]

I think that types might be able to be canceled based on how someone carries himself/herself, the facial expression (though one photo isn't really enough to go on there) and maybe choices of clothing and hairstyles or something. But I am not a fan of the VI thing either overall.

canceled? what?

[Jarno]

Finally a good explanation that j/p don't have to be switched. thanks expat.

i must say that duality in a love relationship has had a mystical impact on me once. nonetheless is the above description perfectly correct for nearly all cases.

[Slacker]

I think that types might be able to be canceled based on how someone carries himself/herself, the facial expression (though one photo isn't really enough to go on there) and maybe choices of clothing and hairstyles or something. But I am not a fan of the VI thing either overall.

canceled? what?

Cancelled out I meant - like "he doesn't look like an ESTp, but I can't tell much else."

[aestrivex]

o ok.

[Jarno]

VI is certainly not constant enough. Therefor not reliable as a compleet tool.

But i have been able to type people in one second based on VI and later on, i could check that it was right.
as example the sad eyebrows that give some SEE a suprised-look.

Ofcourse these are seldom occurances. But it's still pretty awesome that faces often indeed correlate to certain types.

The bad thing is, some people seem te be exceptions. So VI just won't work at all.
The good thing is, it's a really fast way to type someone.

[Stormy]

5) Socionics is not a personality theory in the sense of personalities as mainly defined by external behavior traits. Socionics's types are defined ultimately by deeper personal priorities and motivations.

I understand that Socionics Types are more than just surface behaviours, but in what way are they based on differing motivations, as opposed to differing levels of awareness of the different Information Elements?

[Jonathan]

Hope you don't mind my adding my favorite Socionics misconceptions here:

"Si= any kind of enjoyment. If someone is having fun or is happy at all, that person must be an Si type."
"Se types are always mean, loud, vulgar, only think about power, and are obsessed with hierarchy"
"Te as a creative function means a person is highly organized, productive, and structured."
"Ti is understanding and Ne is intellectual curiosity and creativity, so any famous mathematician or scientist is probably Alpha NT."
"Ni dominant people are always on time."
"Fi means anti-emotion, so types with Fi in their ego block come off as automatons. If someone is emotionally expressive at all, that person is more likely a T type than Fi."
"LII and EII types are lazy, indecisive procrastinators because they correspond to MBTI INP types."

[Expat]

5) Socionics is not a personality theory in the sense of personalities as mainly defined by external behavior traits. Socionics's types are defined ultimately by deeper personal priorities and motivations.

I understand that Socionics Types are more than just surface behaviours, but in what way are they based on differing motivations, as opposed to differing levels of awareness of the different Information Elements?

The differing levels of awareness shape how you perceive reality, and therefore on which aspects of reality you focus when trying to optimize your own well-being.

This is reflected in Rick's type messages:

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9618

And, from the point of view of temperaments, I wrote their different motivations here:

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9027

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ht=temperament

Also, if anything, that is the reason for most of the relationships problems, also in this forum - the mistaking of motivations. An Alpha person making a joke at someone's expense, or teasing them, not with the intent of hurting or putting that person down, but in an attempt to cheer up the general Fe atmosphere around them - also their own, including that of the person being teased. The person being teased, if Gamma, especially INTp or ENTj, may dislike being put on the spot like that and really think that the tease is some sort of criticism or ridicule, and resent it - the precise opposite of what the Alpha person intended.

[Stormy]

The differing levels of awareness shape how you perceive reality, and therefore on which aspects of reality you focus when trying to optimize your own well-being.

That still seems like behavior, to me - all the Types share the same motivation (to optimize ones own well-being), but then rather than split into secondary motivations they split of into secondary behaviours (namely, optimising reality based on what parts of reality they perceive the most). Unless 'optimising [Information Element]' is counted as a motivation, in which case what would that refer to - increasing ones awareness of said Information Element? Increasing sources of that Information Element in ones environment?

P.S. Thanks for responding.
-

[Expat]

That still seems like behavior, to me - all the Types share the same motivation (to optimize ones own well-being), but then rather than split into secondary motivations they split of into secondary behaviours (namely, optimising reality based on what parts of reality they perceive the most).

Well, some motivations, like surviving, and feeling better rather than worse, are universal.

Unless 'optimising [Information Element]' is counted as a motivation, in which case what would that refer to - increasing ones awareness of said Information Element? Increasing sources of that Information Element in ones environment?

I don't think it matters, so long as we understand what we're talking about.

[Stormy]

That still seems like behavior, to me - all the Types share the same motivation (to optimize ones own well-being), but then rather than split into secondary motivations they split of into secondary behaviours (namely, optimising reality based on what parts of reality they perceive the most).

Well, some motivations, like surviving, and feeling better rather than worse, are universal.

And hence, not related to Type - therefore, Type does not delineate motivation.

Unless 'optimising [Information Element]' is counted as a motivation, in which case what would that refer to - increasing ones awareness of said Information Element? Increasing sources of that Information Element in ones environment?

I don't think it matters, so long as we understand what we're talking about.

In most cases...I'm trying to reconcile it with the Enneagram, which is based on motivation.

[Expat]

In most cases...I'm trying to reconcile it with the Enneagram, which is based on motivation.

Then you are in the right track in my opinion.

[Expat]

"Si= any kind of enjoyment. If someone is having fun or is happy at all, that person must be an Si type."

Yes, but if the persons favorite kind of enjoyment is spending two weeks on a beach doing nothing, then it's an indication of Si as a quadra value at least.

"Se types are always mean, loud, vulgar, only think about power, and are obsessed with hierarchy"

I think this is a strawman -- the key word is "always".

"Te as a creative function means a person is highly organized, productive, and structured."

As cre-Te? That is certainly wrong.

"Ti is understanding and Ne is intellectual curiosity and creativity, so any famous mathematician or scientist is probably Alpha NT."

Well, Alpha NT is a not a bad guess if you don't know anything else about the person.

"Ni dominant people are always on time."

This is an exaggeration/misconception by Stratiyevskaya, indeed.

"Fi means anti-emotion, so types with Fi in their ego block come off as automatons. If someone is emotionally expressive at all, that person is more likely a T type than Fi."

I never heard that one before.

[Stormy]

In most cases...I'm trying to reconcile it with the Enneagram, which is based on motivation.

Then you are in the right track in my opinion.

How do you (attempt to?) reconcile them, then? I mean...one is based on powers of two, the other, powers of three, so I'm guessing they must either be describing fundamentally different things or one of them is a more accurate representation.

P.S. Sorry I'm derailing this thread...feel free to PM any response and I'll take it up there.

[Expat]

How do you (attempt to?) reconcile them, then?

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ight=enneagram

I mean...one is based on powers of two, the other, powers of three, so I'm guessing they must either be describing fundamentally different things or one of them is a more accurate representation.

In my opinion, the 16 types of Socionics are a more accurate representation of what real people are like, but the Enneagram provides very useful insights into some types motivations and behavior, especially when they are unhealthy and under stress.

PS: Please continue this discussion in that other thread.

[Jarno]

"Ni dominant people are always on time."

Indeed a misconception. Intuition in time has to do with knowledge about cause and effect.
It has nothing to do with looking at your watch the whole day.

I would even claim the contrary of this statement because of their day dreaming: "Ni dominant people are always late."

I once went to an INTP meeting for 4 people,
the first was 10 minutes late,
the second half hour,
the third missed his train,
the fourth called the next day, he had forgotten the whole meeting...

[Jonathan]

"Si= any kind of enjoyment. If someone is having fun or is happy at all, that person must be an Si type."

Yes, but if the persons favorite kind of enjoyment is spending two weeks on a beach doing nothing, then it's an indication of Si as a quadra value at least.

This is a great point, and really gets the heart of where misconceptions come from and how to overcome from. The key words are "if the person's favorite kind of ... is..."

For my part, I love relaxing and having fun; however, I think posting on this forum or looking something up on Wikipedia is relaxing. Writing a story about people on the beach would be relaxing.

But actually spending two weeks on a beach doing nothing would be the most boring, stupidest waste of time that I could possibly imagine (although walking on the beach and coming up with great philosophical insights while doing so is worthwhile).

[Jarno]

another misconception:

- Introverts don't talk
- Extraverts talk all the time


Introverts do talk. And sometimes even more then an Extravert.
Extraverts can be withdrawn or shy (in big groups).

The most difficult to notice a difference is probably in the following two types.
ISFJ's are known to talk in great detail what they have experienced.
ESFJ's are known to be shy sometimes and say few words.

Remember, (as defined by Jung):
introversm means you are more aware of your own subjective opinion about an object in the world
extraversm means you are more aware of your relation between yourself as a person to an object in the world

I don't know if Socionics uses an other definition...

[aestrivex]

For my part, I love relaxing and having fun; however, I think posting on this forum or looking something up on Wikipedia is relaxing. Writing a story about people on the beach would be relaxing.

But actually spending two weeks on a beach doing nothing would be [boring].

precisely.

[Jonathan]

A few more:

"That person acted like a jerk to me. He must be my conflictor."
"It's easy to find who's your conflictor, super ego, and other 'trouble' relations. They're the people you despise on first sight."
"I have a great relationship with my spouse/sig-other,etc. Therefore we must be duals! Therefore, since she's this type, that means that I'm this other type."

Reality: people often seek acceptance by the supervisor type and other people who represent their PoLR.
A great relationship doesn't mean you're duals.
Being a jerk is being a jerk; and a person who's nice may still be your conflictor relation.
Friendships do not always work on standard Socionic lines, although Socionic conflict means a potential for some conflicts.

[Exodus]

A great relationship doesn't mean you're duals.

Absolutely. More accurate is that great long-term relationships are likely to be intra-quadra. That's about it.

There is a widespread tendency in Socionics to assume that famous people only freely marry/associate within their quadra.

[Jonathan]

There is a widespread tendency in Socionics to assume that famous people only freely marry/associate within their quadra.

Yes, that's a great point. Even experienced Socionists seem to go down that path. I think who a person's friends are is corroborating evidence for type, but by no means conclusive.

Here's another biggie:

"That person shows a lot of . Therefore, he's ILI."

Somehow, people assume that if someone has a function as a quadra value, then that means the person displays that function prominently. It could be true sometimes, more often not. A great example of how Ni types value Se is depicted in the relationship between Rocky and Adrian. Note that Adrian doesn't demonstrate an awful lot of Se, but she still likes Rocky.

[Exodus]

A few more:

"That person acted like a jerk to me. He must be my conflictor."

Along the same lines:

the first unofficial rule of typing in Socionics: 1) The more that I like something, the more likely it is that it or a person is of either my type or quadra. And conversely, the more that I hate something, the more likely it or a person is of a given type or quadra of my undying and irrational loathing. This principle generally leads Gammas claiming Alphas as Gammas and Alphas claiming Gammas as Alphas. And this 1st Law of Typing is probably most evident in music, movie, and other "What's my Type" threads.

And my own personal variation:

"This person is an idiot, and therefore my supervisee."

(most prevalent among logical types )

[machintruc]

[web:ec6d8ab661]http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww. socionika.info%2ferrors.html[/web:ec6d8ab661]

These are important socionics misconceptions.

[machintruc]

[web:ec6d8ab661]http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww. socionika.info%2ferrors.html[/web:ec6d8ab661]

These are important socionics misconceptions.

[Jonathan]

I touched on this in the Niffweed thread, but I think the basic observation belongs here too:

Myth: Alphas are the great idea generators who are highly accepting of unusual ideas; Gammas criticize and shoot down ideas on the basis of them being unconventional and going against the norm.

A more accurate revision is:
* Alphas criticize ideas when they suspect that they stem from systemmic misunderstanding (i.e., they question if the person who came up with idea really understands).
*Gammas criticize ideas when they suspect that they're not the best or most effective way to go about something, or if they don't think they're useful (i.e., they question if the person who came up with the idea is going in the right direction or implementing it properly).
* Ability to come up with a lot of ideas that are useful to society is more related to intelligence, overall creativity, and other abilities than it is to type.

Unfortunately, the myth version appears to be deeply embedded in Socionics literature.

[Exodus]

I touched on this in the Niffweed thread, but I think the basic observation belongs here too:

Myth: Alphas are the great idea generators who are highly accepting of unusual ideas; Gammas criticize and shoot down ideas on the basis of them being unconventional and going against the norm.

A more accurate revision is:
* Alphas criticize ideas when they suspect that they stem from systemmic misunderstanding (i.e., they question if the person who came up with idea really understands).
*Gammas criticize ideas when they suspect that they're not the best or most effective way to go about something, or if they don't think they're useful (i.e., they question if the person who came up with the idea is going in the right direction or implementing it properly).
* Ability to come up with a lot of ideas that are useful to society is more related to intelligence, overall creativity, and other abilities than it is to type.

Unfortunately, the myth version appears to be deeply embedded in Socionics literature.

Looking at it totally objectively, you're correct.

However, it's helpful to examine both the positive and negative aspects of types, especially as they appear through the lens of good or bad relationships. We're only human, after all.

[Jonathan]

A common misconception that has come up a lot lately: The idea that people in a given quadra, especially duals or mirrors, are "basically the same type." This idea probably comes from the fact that people, in their work, often give some sort of special attention to their super id block, which makes it hard for the typist to tell which functions are ego block, and which are super id. Also, some highly successful people seem to be good at so many things within their quadra, it can mask their types.

However, duals are not almost the same. They're both really confident at what the other is not confident (or is even downright terrible) at. That's a big difference.

Mirror types are also sharply opposed in terms of the directionality (creative vs. accepting function) of the ego block.

[Park]

All ISTp's are car mechanics.

[Elro]

All ISTp's are car mechanics.

Definitely a misconception. Some are plumbers instead.

[Kirana]

Definitely a misconception. Some are plumbers instead.

or both.

[lefty]

7) Duality is not some sort of "mystical experience" as some descriptions sometimes may suggest. Your dual is simply someone whose company, by temperament and functional preferences, is most comfortable for you, since your dual appreciates and needs precisely what you regard as your strengths and is most happy to help you and support you precisely in those areas you most appreciate it. However, you may still not get along with your dual if s/he is your boss, your rival, your superior officer, your teacher, someone of a very different culture, etc.[/QUOTE]


********************
yeah well youre not a soulmate youre a mindmate so you have to speak for yourself. some people might find duality to be mystical and what the hell is wrong with thinking that way anyway?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

A common misconception that has come up a lot lately: The idea that people in a given quadra, especially duals or mirrors, are "basically the same type."

This isn't what people meant. We're just saying that duals seem extremely similiar to each other when you put them in a group of people. They *appear* to be the same type and behave as Identicals. That is why you ignore your dual, and why they pleasantly surprise you over time.

Mirrors are basically the same internally, but externally have different lifestyles. So that's why they get along. An EIE would get acting ideas from an IEI's writing, and vice versa.

Yes you made that post in February. It's now October. But I'm bored.

[Non]

1) If you have arrived here after already finding your type in Myers-Briggs, especially if through a MBTI test, do not assume that your Socionics type, as defined by Socionics theory, corresponds to the MBTI you have found for yourself. You should look at your Socionics type from scratch.

2) Socionics types are not related to MBTI through a J/P switch for introverts. That works only if you are defining types according to ego functional ordering and assuming that Socionics functions = MBTI functions. That is however not helpful to find your true type, either in Socionics or MBTI.

I'm new...so I read this as you told me and I don't understand it lol. Can someone give me a good link?

[Creepy-Snaps]

I'm new...so I read this as you told me and I don't understand it lol...Can someone PLEASE give me a good link to figure out my socionics type....I'M DESPERATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey, welcome. I think pianosinger's quiz from the start of 2011 is a nice, accurate, place to start. It can help determine what quadra you're in: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ra-Values-Test