That's why they're mostly stupid
That's why they're mostly stupid
Some of the Socionics stuff in the Socionics subforum on PerC is not bad, you do have a few users who know their stuff really well, but there are more noobs to socionics overall, people asking alot of dumb questions too and it gets redundant for the regulars. And most of the site is not about Socionics, so if you're looking for Socionics discussion it's better to do it here.
There are alot of special snowflakes on PerC, kind of, but it's not nearly as bad as TypoC in that regard. TypoC is just ridiculous, the discussion has become highly politicized (what discussion there is left) and there's nothing about Socionics anyways. The moderation is way to severe on TypoC, so much that you get banned for insulting someone who provokes you. Guess what this creates? A situation where people push the buttons of the more reactive members, the latter end up getting banned while the trolls stick around and keep up their shit. Another problem is you have a power dynamic on TypoC where there are more left wing members than right wing or libertarian members, the former react really strongly to all the stuff the latter say, and they tend to gang up on them. But it's more often than not the right wing members who end getting banned while the others keep trolling and get into no trouble. It's really polarized and impossible to have a discussion on any topic without a horde of emotionally unstable kids getting butthurt and calling you a nazi.
Last edited by Ave; 03-02-2018 at 02:28 PM.
I've never registered at TypoC. I see no need. Occasionally their threads have come up in typology related google searches and sometimes I've seen useful information, but otherwise, what I've seen is novice level--either info I could find elsewhere or already knew, or oversimplified ramblings that read like a newb's tumblr typology page.
I have an account at Typology Central but I am not currently active. They occasionally have interesting threads on typology but a lot of what I have seen is non-type related, fluff and political arguments and trolling. Very exhausting.
Bickering and trolling is to be expected on any forum but so far I have found this one the most useful and peopled by more insightful, knowledgeable people than the other typology forums.
^ Same reason I’m here, @Toynbee.
Ok, so now we know that PersC is shit. But what is the next level after The16types.info?
There must be some forum up in the sky were people looking down upon this forum. Discussing how primitive it is.
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)
There is none. Not on this topic anyways.Originally Posted by Tallmo
Russian forums?
Yes, there are probably a whole lot of people in the Russian speaking world who have studied Socionics for decades with all the literature and so on.
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)
The best way to study socionics from what I can see is in real life, so, I think that, those who would see us as 'primitive', would likely be people who don't post on forums.
They would most likely look at this and wonder what we're all doing here. I do sometimes wonder myself.
Indeed, and they probably have more accurate understanding of the theory and so application of it so their forums are probably full of insights. Time to learn Russian! lol
Exactly. That's why I included that option in my poll.
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)
Some stuff I have encountered when it comes to Russian forums in form of links seems to hover on very stereotyped impressions.
There are some publications which go deeper or are just purely speculative writings.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
True. But forums can be full of like-minded people, I got to know people who I wouldn't have known if not for socionics/mbti. It's pretty rare (in my country at least) to find people like them everyday. Also, if you are really introverted and don't like or know how to communicate with people, forums can be good in a way... even though it's better to go and communicate outside. But I somehow envy people who don't use forums because I only started using it in the shittiest period of my life and I think it's the same for some people here too. And the latter can make us blind in a way, because our issues can cause us to misinterpret information given to us. And so unfruitful conversations... and uselsess forum...
I don't think i'm *that* introverted in the generic way of using the word, but, I still don't know how to communicate with people
IMO the "Socionics" Facebook group currently has the highest quality of discussion (which isn't saying much), though it is far less active than the16types overall.
Due to drama over the years there is no central location where all socionics experts get together to discuss things.
Jungian literature is also an option. They look more at the big picture and leave out the details. But there are topics such as transcending duality and "type sacrifice" (its not always possible to move forward in life following the lead function). Socionics can focus too much on the type mechanics but jungians put more emphasis on the individual as the carrier of the type. More open to the psychology of actual life. On the other hand some jungians have a bad understanding of the types. I havent read that much but stumbled upon these things in other contexts.
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)
I've tried reading Jung -- more for general insights than ones specific to socionics since his typology differs hugely from it (I'm not interested in debating this issue either). What other "Jungian" authors would you suggest?
intpforum.com?
that's a fun thought to entertain
i found an astrology forum a while back so I posted the link on perC to hear their thoughts since the template was exceedingly similar to perC, and by that I mean it was exceedingly similar to every forum based around personality-categorizing systems, but they were too busy mocking the members for relying on astrology to dictate their identities and relationships that they failed to recognize these similarities, so it's something like what we have here except I don't think socionics holds enough relevance in the typology community to warrant mockery since it'd probably require people to be aware of its existence
I'm surprised that a ranking system even exists because I feel like perC and 16t are almost antithetical to each other. 16t is a significantly smaller and more intimate community wherein typology plays a central theme in everyday interactions, whereas perC contains a multitude of subforums, each of which have their own unique mini-communities, few of which have any connection to typology, so it's kind of like several forums within a single forum
it's just that if you were to strip away those shallow comparisons (big, small, single, multiple) then you'd find that they're built with the same material
Last edited by wasp; 03-04-2018 at 12:19 AM.
I tried using it once many years ago and found it a little frustrating. It felt very social and shallow in regards to personality theory, like nobody really wanted to get too in depth and the one's that would usually just argued personal opinions, but maybe it's changed. Then again, maybe that's not a bad thing. Socionics kind of takes itself too seriously.
good bye
I've gotten the impression that there is a lot to learn from the (competent) Jungians. It would be very interesting to read through everything they've written on typology. With knowledge of socionics one already knows the basic type phenomenon so Its much easier to understand what they are saying.
They have slightly different terminology. For example, I realized that "inferior function" is usually referring to what we call Suggestive function.
Here's one example .
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)
That description of perC would also somewhat describe typology central.
The typology community, in general, is bs. Low self awarness idiot who never end to discuss "what I do/is that related to my type", trying to be sure to be a type more for thinking safety than for actual truth. I never had answer to my questions here and I bet that many are even lying on the interest they give to typology
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote