"big words therefore pretentious"Originally Posted by Number 9 large
I wasn't using a thesaurus or pretending to be something I'm not, you schmuck. That's actually the way I think.
"big words therefore pretentious"
I wasn't using a thesaurus or pretending to be something I'm not, you schmuck. That's actually the way I think.
The biggest problem imo is distinguishing stable personality from the continued flow and consumption of new experiences. Questionnaires for example, what you are doing it's just getting the insides of a person what they have eaten throughout their lives. You're asking them to vomit up their experiences. Experiences are not personality. Or maybe they are. the way I am even responding to this topic is based on what I've read in my life and experienced in my life. The food I have eaten. An animal and its food are not the same thing.
Also I think it is just European culture extrapolated without any knowledge of any other cultures. Jung has no clue how African Americans act for example. Russians either. It would throw their whole system out of whack.
"And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it, and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."
Again, the cultural issue is not a problem if you consider it all to be game theory.
Ok schmuckboy
I've already provided empirical evidence for both socionics and enneagram.
https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/
https://stackemup.livejournal.com/
The OP is truly a sick individual.
Because you are most certainly welcome here.
surejan.gif
Of course, everyone that disagrees with you is a sick individual. Fuck all the way off, dumb cunt
Socionics is "real"... as it's based on actual observations. That's the whole point. However, what was true in the past isn't necessarily true in the future.
This is called Inductivism.
The real test for what's "real" or not is if you can successfully predict the future via a test and get it right, and you can explain why. That's what a scientific theory does.
That's called hypothetico-deductivism or Popperian conjectures and refutations.
So how do you predict the future? Well if you follow a complex chain of deductive reasoning based on certain universal scientific laws and principles that do not change over time, then you can successfully predict the future.
However, Socionics does not have such universal laws or principles or theoretical perspectives.
"arithmetics isn't real. sometimes I got 2*2=5"
Jesus Christ... this is some seriously disturbing cultist religious shit.
Saying that there's some sort a divine social "mission" to a "type" is some ISIS level freakishness.
It's like as if people with their own individuality and uniqueness need to be "fitted in" to some grand plan that is "written out" by Socionics.
Creating "purpose" is on the level of religion and spirituality, not something that is supposedly scientific or even philosophical. No wonder that some people are so attracted to Socionics in a fanatic way: they're looking for a religion to guide them.
However it's worse than a religion, since at least religion is something that's personal and private. But because of its pseudo-scientific bent, it's taking everyone around them with them and forcing others to fit into this peculiar system.
Most of your rage against Socionics could be solved with some hot chocolate and marshmallows @Singu
Jesus Christ...you are such a petrified, whiny little bitch. Calm the fuck down. All this hair on fire hysteria just screams that you have a severe case of EXXP "they're (read: some hyperbolic manifestation of "the man") just trying to control us, dude." If you'd rather live off the grid, outside of the confines of some categorical system, fine, do that. Go play in traffic or something. You've already reiterated how and why you think Socionics is bullshit. Just stop trying to consistently and irritatingly pester the rest of us that don't immediately drop a turd at the notion---pardon---FACT that there are observable personality traits that often cluster together, thereby creating what could be called a personality type. You don't like Socionics being framed with a "religious"/"cultish" bent? Fine. I believe in science > evolution and natural selection > I tend to think that every cognitive type serves some sort of "purpose" that enhances the chances of survival for our species as a collective. If everyone successfully carries out their programming/hard wiring, then we should achieve some level of balance and homeostasis. Because I acknowledge that even you have a place in the cog, there should be some consideration given to your point of view; but at this point, you've said enough. We get it. You don't like Socionics > potentially, it has dangerous implications and consequences. Got it. Now STFU.
Hot Chocolate !!!!!!... #### I just noticed I am actually hungry.
lol @ irony. Most of your posts are filled with rage and hysteria, including this one.
Okay. Let's say that you or somebody found a "purpose" for a type. Does that mean that all of those types now have to accept that same "purpose"? Technically yes, since all types think and act more or less the same.
Please, nobody decides a "purpose" for somebody else. If you don't think that's seriously disturbing, then something is wrong with you.
And you're the one who decides whether it's hard-wired or not, what's good for others, or not? That's seriously disturbing.
I thought that kind of stuff only happened on totalitarian societies.
"we should achieve some level of balance and homeostasis." - sounds like Thanos lol.
I get it, you throw a fit whenever the Holy Truth of Socionics is criticized even slightly (hint: that's how "science" progresses, through criticisms).
It's like people here are so thin-skinned that they throw a hissy fit whenever an obscure theory that is not even their own creation gets criticized.
Why take it so personally, bruh? Maybe you're a little too invested in it?
..
It's good to make a distinction between the individual and the type. The type is a unit of IM that the individual has. This unit has been shown to be typical, it repeats itself in many other individuals.
You can indeed say that the type has a purpose, because the IM is a specialization that can realize itself. For example, a LII type is good at analyzing so that's the purpose of a LII, so to speak. That's not the same as saying that the individual's purpose is to analyze, but considering that the individual with a LII type is strong in the field of analyzing one might very well suspect that that will be his "life mission". But the individual is always so much more, his history, his environment etc.
When we talk about the "purpose of an IEI" (or any other type) we focus only on the type, and assume that if the individual has brought his type out into the world to do something meaningful, what could that be.
In that way, "the purpose of an IEI" will not be true for all individuals of this type, however, it will say something general about how this type of specialization can be made meaningful.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Well then that would only mean that types are more or less not the same. Because if they were... then they would all share the same purpose. Which... defeats the whole concept of types.
The fact is that that the assertion and the observation often don't jibe together. And so that you often have to make ad-hoc modifications like maybe it's due to upbringing, maybe this type is slightly different, not all types are the same and so forth.
Virtually any kind of assertion could be logically consistent with the observation. But being logically consistent doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. You could say that "This IEE has strong Ti because of his upbringing, because of his training, because he is intelligent, because he has dualized...". Or you could just say that having good relational skills and logical skills are not necessarily inversely correlated.
So how would you know whether your assertion is "true" or not? Well since there is only "one" reality, the assertion can't possibly be easily modified. There is only one possible explanation for something, and that explanation can't be easily modified.
The purposeful stuff is probably a little bit of a relic from the soviet era in which Ashura came up with the socionics system. Its no problem for most here I'm assuming.
I don't think its much of an issue if you look around given that people are playing out little story lines inside informational element niches.
For me its no problem at all because the personality is not the Self, or Soul. Maybe for you, you still are in the place that believes the personality is 'you'. So to have such a boxed in view like socionics is tantamount for a crime against your own humanity.
The personality is like a cloak, or another set of skin. Its just kind of modus operandi for your consciousness. Its not you. This is a bit of a spiritual insight that you have yet to come to.
Don't feel like the odd man out though. Many, many people, if not most people, feel that their personality is what they truly are for the entire lifespan, from childhood to death. So it's the normal.
1.) If I were to be generous, approximately 1/10 of my short posting history contains what could be argued as "hysteria"--I've taken a look and your ratio is inarguably far worse. Moreover, my wrath was primarily confined to 2 threads and concerned concrete, currently ongoing real life/time events that have a direct impact on my life quality vs. your nonstop bitching and moaning about barely trending personality theory and one in particular that the vast majority of the world is completely unfamiliar with. I believe this distinction matters.
2.) According to both my endocrinologist and geneticist, a reactive, short fuse/"hot" temperament is an integral, naturally occurring aspect of my being; I can attempt to mitigate it to varying degrees but, ultimately, what will be, will be. There is a liberating peace that comes with knowing and accepting my truth. Fortunately for you and the rest of the world, there are counterbalancing forces/dispositions as evidenced in this very thread by the likes of @Tallmo and @Finaplex whose views perfectly encapsulate my own, albeit with a lot less open hostility. Mother nature be praised for personality diversity--at another moment on the time continuum, you'd probably be unsatisfying lion food while the onlooking public cheered, were it solely up to me.
3.) I don't mind being "Thanos" so long as you don't mind being "Chicken Little"/"Chicken Licken"/"Henny Penny"--whichever birdbrained descriptor you'd prefer.
4.) I believe that living in sync with our (what should be ever more empirically backed/verified/defined/refined) cognitive hard wiring provides the best overall sense of contentment and fulfillment on an individual level and optimal systemic efficiency on a macro level. The "software" (read: epigenetics, environment, one's nurturing, and subsequent personalized quirks and idiosyncrasies) can come in a plethora of genres, but are only successfully playable so long as they fit the "hardware." One of the reasons why I believe that personality systems like Socionics can provide great benefit for everyone is because not only do they they practically allow for a degree of self discovery, affirmation and/or growth but positions our differences in ways that benefit the collective > humanity is the sum of its parts.
I was raised in an environment that stifled my lead functions in a way that always had me second guessing what, in actuality, are my greatest strengths; subsequently, that shit lead to a lot of unhealthy behavior on my part, all because I was constantly battling to stand in my truth. Personality systems, in part, allowed me to see that my drives and instincts were correct (for how my brain cognitively presents), and that I should follow them no matter what, in order to experience the greatest life satisfaction > this has proved to be true for myself and many others. Therefore, it's offensive for you to routinely diminish its utility in a space where people are trying to learn and improve. Are these personality systems perfect? Far from it. But that doesn't mean that they are worthless and should be discarded; instead, we must persist in making them work better, more accurately and with greater efficiency. Whoever said that would be easy? Don't be one of the lame motherfuckers warning everyone else about sailing to the end of the earth and falling off.
5.) For those with sufficient reading comprehension skills, they were able to see that I did say that your perspective is one that should be considered. You were not dismissed out of hand; there is some validity to your arguments. What I take issue with is the bitch made, incessantly nagging, "beating a dead horse" quality of your "criticisms." This is a Socionics forum, the vast majority of people here obviously find some degree of utility in it. You aren't on the winning team, bruh.
I'm afraid that Socionics can't help you much with finding your "purpose". It doesn't really "know" you in a way that you think it does.
Socionics is a relatively questionable theory tinged with mysticism that is not without many criticisms, and a pseudo-sociological perspective that can supposedly predict social progress with near perfect precision. Whatever that you read in Socionics is not the literal truth.
To be honest, what disturbed me is not only your post, but also the post above mine. Some people think that they can just have an "Order-Made Dual" who will be perfect for them and fully "gets" them, automatically cover their weaknesses, does whatever that they want them to do, fulfill their deepest desires and fantasies, and love them forever and ever, all without any effort on their part without needing to change or compromise a single bit.
Because... their dual is "made" for them. They have a "purpose". And having purpose presupposes having a designer. That's a religious outlook. Evolution doesn't have a designer, and we can't really predict how we're going to evolve in the future.
I mean people have tendencies to idealize love and romance, but that's a pretty skewered outlook. You can also see how it just does not work, given seeing people who have been posting here years and years and never managing to find their "perfect dual". Or some people delude themselves into thinking that their lover is their "perfect dual".
@Alonzo At least I don't constantly throw insults at people with bold texts and CAPITALIZATION.
Ok guys, I think we've had enough
Last edited by Aylen; 05-01-2019 at 12:44 AM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Socionics is bad fly singu fly
Well I hope you realize that you're the idiot for buying into this crap. However not my problem.
This place is an embarrassment to the rest of the world. It's literally filled with crazy people who believe in things like astrology, New Age, who practice sorcery and witchcraft, those who think Jung is someone who is really deep and profound, those who can barely write coherent posts.
I thought that despite all the craziness, there's still something to this "theory". It turns out that there wasn't.
I hope u realize that everybody knows that u dont know and are still looking for answers on this forum
Your lack of respect for other forum members is noted. Hope you feel better now. I have no issue with your opinions and may agree with some but your lashing out and insulting people's opinions and beliefs, no matter how crazy they are to you, is not how you change hearts and minds. If that is what you are attempting to do. If this is your goodbye then I wish you well.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Who says people buy this crap? maybe up to a certain point, but I highly doubt anyone is 100% "only socionics is real". Life is made of many things, there is no need to torture oneself over what one can't make sense of, because I don't think socionics makes sense in itself, one has to make sense of it. At best, it's a language people use to understand each others. If someone wants socionics to rule their life, it's no one's problem but theirs.
Socionics still not solid. You don't sell prototype for public use.. everything have stages . Most prototype don't have that much usable and selling falues. also people scared something that new. It's intimidating to them. I always wonder why some people treat me like ESTp. Now I know. Some say ILE's are crazy. Maybe it's true.
Of course it does.
The forces design the parameters. The genes design the rules. The chemical bonds design the cohesion. It goes further if you care to be more open minded. Random mutation just couldn't cut it itself.
As far as predicting how we will evolve you can bet it will involve gene manipulation and probably will follow firstly the betterment of mankind, followed, in secret at first, and then later on as society shifts, more openly following our imagination in a chaotic and common place fashion as the internet is to people today.
We created iphones inspired by a Star Trek Tricoder and the same thing will happen with our bodies in the sense that we will create living Gods from our super heros and superstition stories out of us as we manipulate and swap the genetic code right at the source. Fast forward even further and we will have really mixed up genetics in a new stiring of the pot the like of which has not happened since the Cambrian Explosion. Maybe that's been the plan all along, Life's plan, Earth's plan, to create an organism that can directly influence gene exchange in a way that has never exsisted before. Maybe that was life's dream since before the invention of sex.
Anyway you are firmly a materialist and basically only see 1, 0's, and the random firing of neurones that create consciousness. Which I'm sure you think is just a clever trick of the find while you suck Sam Harris's cock. Its all clock work to you guys and hopefully our science will just a million angle strong figure it all out.
Last edited by Finaplex; 05-30-2019 at 03:19 AM.
Socionics is only one piece of the puzzle, like the skeleton... Our life experiences, the generation we were born in, our parental influences, moral guidelines, etc all factor in as well
Socionics is simply an observation that people process information differently (ex: some people prefer to follow authority and empirical data vs some other people like to make their own conclusions) and that this affects interpersonal relationships; it’s a tool in the bag, not an absolute predictor.
I liken socionics to the discovery of the atom; Democritus, a philosopher, discovered the atom centuries before scientists even considered the idea - the problem: he formulated the basic 'elements' as 'earth', 'wind', 'fire', etc. Likewise, I believe the nucleus of socionics is way ahead of its time; IM, relations and 'soulmates' based on personality, etc. The problem, just like Democritus, is the formulation of personality based on 'Ti', 'Ne', etc. To me, this is like Democritus' earth, wind, and fire. I.e., it's the best we can do for now, but it has to be replaced with something more scientific down the road. Just my opinion. Everyone else can believe what they want.
This is so true. Although it's not so much a matter of being replaced as it is constructing a rigorous (and, potentially empirically testable) model.
Democritus's idea of atoms was totally scientific, it was just out of experimental range at the time.
Socionics is fake news
ＢＯＲＮ ＴＯ ＴＹＰＥ
WORLD IS A SOCIONIKA
心理学 Type Em All 1991
I am jung fan
410,757,864,530 PEOPLE TYPED
Socionics is a dangerous thing for a woman like me to have, but I have it.
This is not a problem but actually the strength of socionics/Jung. The discovery of psychic functions that are typical and relevant for personality is a huge thing. I dont really understand why you see a problem here. In psychology you have to observe psychological objects. Why would they have to be replaced?
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Is it pseudoscience? We'll know for sure once neurology is advanced enough, however many decades or centuries from now, to fully dissect the workings of the brain. But, whatever theory of personality emerges probably won't be as simple or look very much like socionics.
Iand miss Singu no matter what, even if nobody else believed socionics were true.
Singu and socionics are both the realest.
Easy to counter this one. You cannot prove that you were purely using the Socionics (Astronics, sorry) model when you tried to use it in practice, as you cannot prove that you didn't just make up reasonings at will using its model while actually going by your gut intuitions in reality. You cannot prove the actual internal consistency of the model by any of this.My takeaway from the OP (and most others with a similar premise) is that he/she/it doesn't know his/her/its own type, is 3 weeks old garbage juice at typing others, and therefore discredits an entire system due to his/her/its incompetence and/or lack of experience.
Has Socionics been proven “empirically?” Nope, but the existence of personality and personality traits that represent a pattern of reasoning, sentiments, socialization, and behaviors consistently demonstrated over time that strongly prompts one's assumptions, self-perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes have well been studied and verified (i.e., Big 5 Model, DSM/abnormal/clinical psychology, etc...), and that’s a good fucking start in the right direction. I mean, as far back as Galen (the Four Temperaments) and Hippocrates (Four Humours), people have been trying to stuff each other into categorical bins for thousands of years because a fair amount of us have fucking eyes capable of simple observation and brains inclined towards “neat” classifications (usually based on gender, phenotype, class, etc...) that help us navigate each other and the world more effectively. Without a doubt, personality and personality traits are real--personality types are just a logical extension of this.
Does Socionics, like many other personality typology systems, traffic in “oversimplified” categories? Yes, because humans are irritatingly complicated, too much to do anything but categorize them “big tent” style, as humans are wont to do; it's frustrating when people fall outside of these categories but that doesn’t mean that the categories are no longer useful, and particularly when we can decide upon them objectively, with as much consensus as possible. I wish folks *ahem* particularly Ti valuers *ahem* would understand that the system doesn’t have to be pitch perfect, in order for it to still work with a moderate to high amount of accuracy. Idealistically, the goal should be to make the system encompass everyone/all manner of diversity, but failing to do so does not invalidate the entire thing. Moreover, that’s why we can’t give up–it really grinds my gears when, because of complexity, some want to throw the baby out with the bath water, as opposed to become more rigorous in the quest for answers to overarching patterns and connections we know exist--forgoing this is the death of progress and innovation.
What I do know for a fact is that I'm learned af with advanced degrees [centered around human behavior] from the best institutions (read: I'm no fool) and have lived in 18 countries & traveled to 82; interacted with hundreds of mofos per year[x15]; across Finance, Medicine, Academia (humanities, social sciences, etc...), NPOs and HR departments worldwide; (read: I been around) and for the most part, Jung and works based on his work (MBTI, Socionics, etc...) closely match up with my own research and experience of people and our differences, which I have used exhaustively to "make the world better." Therefore, consider me unfazed and unbothered by the opinions of those who, at the end of the day, in all likelihood don’t possess the wherewithal to give one.
tldr: Socionics ain't real, in that it isn't empirically backed, but it ain't off the mark from systems that are empirically backed, and becoming more so, with more time and more science.
Science has gone past Socionics a while ago.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
