My Problem with Socionics

[jason_m]

Here is the issue:

I am clear Se-PoLR - there is really no other function that could fit in that spot. The problem is that I can then only be EII or LII. However, I do not seem to really value either Te or Ti. As an 'EII,' I have not read even a single description of Te that I find 'cool' or 'interesting' or 'intelligent!' Not one! Maybe I am dual with LSEs. However, they are the only Te type that I find even mildly interesting. (Barring ILIs, but that is only because of the way they use Ni). LSEs are also just mildly interesting to me and that's it... If I am an LII, I also struggle with Ti as my main function. Just like Te, it is something anal that is not really interesting to me. And just like with LSEs, I find the ILE's Ti cool, but that is the only one with Ti that I find interesting. With IEEs, I find their logic so poor that I often struggle with them, so that is also not a possibility. Anyway, I am going to take a break from the theory for several months. I have been struggling with it for years. It is time for a break!

(For years, I had been struggling with the definition of Ti, because it is the only function that can fit in my ego-block and therefore make the theory work. And just when I find a definition that makes sense, I am bombarded by all this stuff about Ti as 'structure,' and 'classification,' and 'precision' that is just dry to me, and therefore doesn't fit into my ego block! Now it's back to the drawing board again!)

[Kill4Me]

I've already provided empirically valid evidence for socionics and enneagram.

https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/
https://stackemup.livejournal.com/

Ti-lead equals hard-headed data collection. Ti-leads have a cognition for using data to get at the most fundamental truths (axioms) and then building knowledge from the ground up. So Ti is the ultimate in the linear, logical, clear-headed scientific approach.

It's important to differentiate between real socionics and fake Socionics. Fake socionics comes from Ausra lackeys who are obsessed with redefining the functions to exclude Jung...these guys don't care about money, either. Bullshit socionics society also muddied the waters but that was about money.

Stackemup Typology (Socionics-side) is bringing real socionics back into the forefront and winning the battle against these defilers so you don't want to miss out...

[Bento]

Function descriptions aren't supposed to be advertising or interesting imo. Personally I don't find anyone interesting when I look at them from a functional perspective. What matters is my connection to them, their personal values, what they do with they lives, how they treat other people, what they wish for etc. Socionics won't provide any help in those areas since it attempts to shrink individuals to type descriptions. That's not bad per se but it has it has limitations when compared to reality where people exist in all kinds and shapes. Whether we find those people interesting or not is often not a product of the theory but variables (like upbringing and what kind of person you are at this point in time) that can't be rationalized that easily.

[Tallmo]

No wonder you cant find your type if you expect certain reaction from function descriptions. Valued functions has more to do with how the objective mind works. What information is preferred by the mind in live situations. It is not so personal.

[ooo]

have you ever read some Talanov? I think his work is the future of typology, basically he gets rid of Extroversion/Introversion, Judging/Perceiving, and draws types from S/N/F/T... but with many more layers based on their propensity to be either low or high inhibited... (I'm pretty amazed because I've been thinking of the same thing for years.. uhla)

btw, I still have to figure how exactly how it works because the symbology he uses to describe the types is far from simple and intuitive, it takes a bit to digest... but I think it's really got valid potential.

we're a bit stuck thinking in Jungian terms, but we might well go beyond them.. it would better.

[jason_m]

It's not just descriptions. I mean in real life as well. Oh well, I'm going to take a break from it all to sort things out...

[Beautiful sky]

what do you think of violent movies, can you watch them?

[Beautiful sky]

Here is the issue:

just send me a VI

[Mila]

I suggest considering IEI.

[jason_m]

what do you think of violent movies, can you watch them?

Yes and no. Think of Terminator, Robocop, John Wick. All of those movies are violent, but there is some justice in them. Now think of No Country for Old Men, Training Day, and Hostel. All of those movies turn my stomach. Now Stephen King. Yes and no. There is some eerie kind of vibe he sets that I like, but they do not always have a good ending...

[Beautiful sky]

Yes and no. Think of Terminator, Robocop, John Wick. All of those movies are violent, but there is some justice in them. Now think of No Country for Old Men, Training Day, and Hostel. All of those movies turn my stomach. Now Stephen King. Yes and no. There is some eerie kind of vibe he sets that I like, but they do not always have a good ending...

I'll be back

[Number 9 large]

I'll be back

220px-Terminator1984movieposter.jpg

[jason_m]

I just read a whole bunch of socionics LII descriptions - I actually really identify with the type now. It had been years since I had visited Wikisocion; in past years, LIIs were associated with: organization, structure, schemes and classification systems, attention to detail, precision, and objective information. LIIs are now associated with: internal standards of logic and consistency, building a unifying system, having a model in their mind as to how the world works, abstract thinking and categorization, and evaluating ideas in terms of rules and principles. Before, I couldn't decide between valuing Ti and Te becuase I didn't value either. It is now clear that in the very least, Ti > Te and so LII is fine. (Thank you Wikisocion for sorting that out...)

[Beautiful sky]

You don't like experiencing objects?

[jason_m]

You don't like experiencing objects?

Correct. And with my weakest function, it's not necessarily some big, strong, hulking 'hunk' that I necessarily mind. It's someone with a big mouth or a 'loud mouth.' Someone could be strong-willed, but as long as they are quiet and keep to themselves, I do not mind them. Someone could also be some little 'wimp,' but if they have a big mouth, it can really bother me...

[Tallmo]

You need to get your type right first. THEN you can get into the details of PoLR etc. Otherwise there is a big risk that you dont understand what the descriprions are refering to.

[Sol]

I am clear Se-PoLR - there is really no other function that could fit in that spot.

there is no direct ways by which you mb clrearly sure some of your functions is polr or another weak one

videointerview may help you

[jason_m]

You need to get your type right first. THEN you can get into the details of PoLR etc. Otherwise there is a big risk that you dont understand what the descriprions are refering to.

I could understand the descriptions first, but there is really no other function that could fit into that spot, based on what I have observed. In other words, I could call myself 'ILE,' but if I'm not really Fi-PoLR, then is it accurate? I therefore figured out what functions could fit and then typed myself appropriately. It is a fairly simple idea and it seems to work...

[jason_m]

there is no direct ways by which you mb clrearly sure some of your functions is polr or another weak one

videointerview may help you

There is if you consistently do not like such people, and there is no other type of person that could fit into that spot...

[Sol]

There is if you consistently do not like such people, and there is no other type of person that could fit into that spot...

this points on nonvalued or the lack of good behavior in your valued. mostly about your weak regions. at least, on 2 functions of your superego. you'll can't understand clearly which one you dislike more by direct ways
by IR effects you'll can suppose that by taking into account different kinds of your possible IR - also which people you irrationally prefer. as it's not clear to distinguish by lesser data. it's your low conscious regions, not even strong ones where to understand between mirror types for you is not easy also - it needs to use J/P, E/I dichotomies. as for you both 1 and 2 functions look as significantly important. while to distinguish that for weak functions is harder

by suggestive-role regions you mb annoyed and hurted even more than polr, as it's weaker than polr by Jung
superego may be thought as the worst IR. polr is more conscious, so problems there are more noticable, but are lesser serious

[Beautiful sky]

Correct. And with my weakest function, it's not necessarily some big, strong, hulking 'hunk' that I necessarily mind. It's someone with a big mouth or a 'loud mouth.' Someone could be strong-willed, but as long as they are quiet and keep to themselves, I do not mind them. Someone could also be some little 'wimp,' but if they have a big mouth, it can really bother me...

I have a story. We were at me esi cousin’s bday. Her husband is SEE-the very loud subtype. My sli cousin upon hearing him do an excited scream gets upset and tells me “I don’t understand why he needs to be such a nuance. Can you explain this to me?” Of course my humanist side knows and understands why so I explained it to her. I also thought upon how the sli’s Sense of harmony was disrupted. Yeah I understand people and even though I have Se polr their behavior doesn’t upset me. It upsets me when I have to use my polr.
You don’t seem to be Se polr. You seem to be Si base

[FreelancePoliceman]

I have a story. We were at me esi cousin’s bday. Her husband is SEE-the very loud subtype. My sli cousin upon hearing him do an excited scream gets upset and tells me “I don’t understand why he needs to be such a nuance. Can you explain this to me?” Of course my humanist side knows and understands why so I explained it to her. I also thought upon how the sli’s Sense of harmony was disrupted. Yeah I understand people and even though I have Se polr their behavior doesn’t upset me. It upsets me when I have to use my polr.
You don’t seem to be Se polr. You seem to be Si base

I agree. And this might be reaching, but LIIs and especially EIIs don't think in such terms; e.g. 'wimps', 'hunks', and so on. They aren't terms that they would think to use, even putting them in quotations like this.

@jason_m, if you're Si base or auxiliary (likely base), you wouldn't "like" using Se; its psychic energy, so to speak, would run counter to that of your dominant function, and witnessing it could very well irritate you. The main difference is that in situations where you'd have to use it, you could use it competently, whereas with the PoLR, overexposure would make you feel shaken, unsettled, and/or insecure, depending on the extent to which you've trained yourself to overcome your natural impulses. From what you've described, Se doesn't seem to make you feel insecure, but just irritated in certain contexts.

I second the Si-base typing. SEI seems particularly likely given weak Ti.

[jason_m]

I agree. And this might be reaching, but LIIs and especially EIIs don't think in such terms; e.g. 'wimps', 'hunks', and so on. They aren't terms that they would think to use, even putting them in quotations like this.

@jason_m, if you're Si base or auxiliary (likely base), you wouldn't "like" using Se; its psychic energy, so to speak, would run counter to that of your dominant function, and witnessing it could very well irritate you. The main difference is that in situations where you'd have to use it, you could use it competently, whereas with the PoLR, overexposure would make you feel shaken, unsettled, and/or insecure, depending on the extent to which you've trained yourself to overcome your natural impulses. From what you've described, Se doesn't seem to make you feel insecure, but just irritated in certain contexts.

I second the Si-base typing. SEI seems particularly likely given weak Ti.

I want to introduce you to a notion I learned about from philosophy of the social sciences. This is about why it is hard to create 'laws' in the social sciences the way we can in the hard sciences.

It is basically a thought experiment. The idea is: assume someone takes an umbrella outside (e.g., everyday). What 'law' could explain why they are doing that?

It could be because they live somewhere like Seattle, and it's always raining outside; it could be because they're blind and they need it to 'see' where they are going; it could be because they simply like the umbrella!; or it could be for another reason... In any event, it is very hard to specify a law as to why someone always brings an umbrella to work!

Now apply this to socionics. Someone likes to bet on sporting events and so they are typed as 'Te'; the same rules now apply: maybe they are just competitive and like to win (Se), maybe they like to take calculated risks (Ne), maybe they want to make money (Te), or maybe it's like a science experiment to them, and they're just interested if it's even possible to make money this way (Ti)... (Or maybe it's all of these things...) In any event, the same rules that apply to developing a law in the social sciences apply to socionics: there can be a multitude of reasons why people do what they do - therefore, it is very hard to infer from someone's behaviour, why they behave the way they do. That then could apply to your typing of me...

[FreelancePoliceman]

I want to introduce you to a notion I learned about from philosophy of the social sciences. This is about why it is hard to create 'laws' in the social sciences the way we can in the hard sciences.

It is basically a thought experiment. The idea is: assume someone takes an umbrella outside (e.g., everyday). What 'law' could explain why they are doing that?

It could be because they live somewhere like Seattle, and it's always raining outside; it could be because they're blind and they need it to 'see' where they are going; it could be because they simply like the umbrella!; or it could be for another reason... In any event, it is very hard to specify a law as to why someone always brings an umbrella to work!

Now apply this to socionics. Someone likes to bet on sporting events and so they are typed as 'Te'; the same rules now apply: maybe they are just competitive and like to win (Se), maybe they like to take calculated risks (Ne), maybe they want to make money (Te), or maybe it's like a science experiment to them, and they're just interested if it's even possible to make money this way (Ti)... (Or maybe it's all of these things...) In any event, the same rules that apply to developing a law in the social sciences apply to socionics: there can be a multitude of reasons why people do what they do - therefore, it is very hard to infer from someone's behaviour, why they behave the way they do. That then could apply to your typing of me...

Sure, you might have various reasons for certain actions. But we're dealing with generalities, and when many signs are pointing in a certain direction it's best to consider them.

[Rebelondeck]

Te-algorithms are for the most part no different than Ti-algorithms - T is T. The differentiation between the two lies in their configurations with their respective input processes. Te-configurations tend to require external involvement in their rationalization processes (like brain storming sessions) whereas Ti-types prefer to step back from everything; essentially, it's the same for Fe versus Fi. Therefore, 'structure' in a configuration sense is a valid aspect of type but I wouldn't associate 'precision' with any type because most people can be trained to be precise. Socionics has yet to progress beyond being a classification system and hasn't put forward plausible models of function although much of the literature seems to erroneously equate classifications directly with functioning.

a.k.a. I/O

[jason_m]

I agree. And this might be reaching, but LIIs and especially EIIs don't think in such terms; e.g. 'wimps', 'hunks', and so on. They aren't terms that they would think to use, even putting them in quotations like this.

@jason_m, if you're Si base or auxiliary (likely base), you wouldn't "like" using Se; its psychic energy, so to speak, would run counter to that of your dominant function, and witnessing it could very well irritate you. The main difference is that in situations where you'd have to use it, you could use it competently, whereas with the PoLR, overexposure would make you feel shaken, unsettled, and/or insecure, depending on the extent to which you've trained yourself to overcome your natural impulses. From what you've described, Se doesn't seem to make you feel insecure, but just irritated in certain contexts.

I second the Si-base typing. SEI seems particularly likely given weak Ti.

I should also talk about my experience with Te. (I don't want to get into Se, as it has not been satisfying to talk about at all...) It started in grade eight: I saw how my dad was making money and I wanted to become a 'big-time' accountant, lawyer or CEO. I thought of these as the 'coolest,' most prestigious type of jobs on the planet. As I started working harder in high school, I was doing really well in the math-related courses I was taking; I then thought of doing a double degree in math and business or economics and then go on to get my MBA at some 'big time school.' However, the first big blow came when I co-oped at a bank in grade 12. The work was not like math to me, and I hated stuff like having to count change to the exact decimal point, or repeatedly enter information into this DOS-esque database - again and again. That was when I completely reassessed my goals for career. I read these career preparation books I had, and they suggested that computing is actually a lot like math in that you have to define programs in terms of 'functions,' etc. I also read that you could make $100,000 a year as a software engineer. My goal was then to have a high-paying computer programming job. I went into computer science; it was actually a lot like mathematics and I loved it. My grades and GRE scores were so good that by the end of my 3rd year, I wanted to go to graduate school in computing. My goal then became to get a high-paying computer job OR become a university professor. By the time I finished my computer degree, I was seriously physically ill, and I could not work. Because of these problems, my goal was now just to have a reasonable life and reasonably-well paying career. I was now working once again in an office and just hating it. However, I started studying philosophy in my spare time, and I realized that maybe, if I work hard, I could squeak into a philosophy teaching career. Because of this, my goal was now just to have reasonably interesting work and simply survive - money was no longer important to me. While I was in philosophy, I tried to double major in philosophy and economics and then philosophy and math, but the teachers at my school just sunk me. I eventually just stuck with philosophy and won a medal for attaining the highest marks in philosophy in my gradauting class. However, I spent years being depressed because of my experience with math and economics, and I have just recently come out of it to once again realize that it's important just to have work that you like and simply survive - and for me, business/office work does not fit this criteria at all. So, as you can see, my Te has gone from wanting a professional career to wanting a technical career to an academic career to now money not being important. Really, since I wanted to become an accountant in grade eight, the function has simply 'dissolved.' From this, you can also see that I don't absolutely hate Te, but it's hard to say that it's a valued function. I would also say that I value math/science/philosophy a lot more than Te, maybe to the point that that area is Ti > Te. As I said, I do not hate Te, nor have I always minded it. I simply value Ti more.

[jason_m]

I should also add, just like Te has dissolved away, Fi has gone with it; in high school, I used to be 'put-off' by the 'cool kids,' by people who smoked, by alcohol use, by promiscuity, etc. Now, I am tolerant to the point that I engage in a lot of this stuff and no longer judge it... It is only really serious types of this behaviour (especially abuse) that I mind... Therefore, just like Te and Fi have disappeared, Fe and Ti have now snapped into the place where they resided...

[jason_m]

I should also add why I think I have been having a hard time finding my dual: I don't like things sugar-coated; I don't like complete honesty; I don't like someone strong-willed; and I don't like someone brief and business-like. It's only someone funny that I really like... That takes away almost everyone, and therefore makes it very hard to find someone who fits my criteria...