Did Socionics help with your dating life and personal relationships ?

[Done]

.

[Lesri]

It helped me to understand "why" people do certain things.

People tend to be too much subjective when judging what other does (to them or others), and always feel "betrayed".
But people have different triggers, goals, ethics etc.

Studying more socionics helped me to become more neutral and accepting of others, thorugh the understanding of their character at 360°.
Thanks to it, I stopped taking everything on a personal level, in brief.

In dating life for exemple, I expected a certain behaviour from people I was dating, and so predicted it all and reduced the impact it may have on me.

It also helped me to counter people who wanted to damage my family on the economics sphere.

[Squirrel]

It helped me to understand "why" people do certain things.

Same + how do they process things

[The Reality Denialist]

Hardly. I don't see it like that. People who want to be difficult will be difficult and so on. Obviously if you want to compile teams on a regular basis it might help. Obviously I have different "labels" now.

[crazymaisy]

I, from before getting married to being married, knew other personality things knowing that my guy would be, and turned out to be what Socionics calls my Dual. Opposite but same worldview. Nothing else for me.

As it goes, the better part of Socionics is aiding one to see their relationships and deal with how that *works best* -- 2006 helped me so much because of Understanding why SEE can be sooooooo..... at times, I got a 4th child from it when it was fresh information.

Yeah, changed my life to give birth to an ILE. My Socionics baby.

The ups and downs of SEE ... knowing full well about it makes it easier to live with. Yes, occasional Drama. It's OK though. I would have stuck it out anyhow.

I like finding myself doing something or saying something and it clicks with information. Socionics is actually my best friend. LOL

My SEE-ILI marriage hit the 30 year mark this past Monday.

[RBRS]

Somewhat yes, mostly no. Socionics types are often more internally complex than normies are.

[Aster]

No. I was already married. All it’s really done is provided me with an interesting take/explanation on why I’ve done or been attracted to certain people. A way to categorize (words/definitions). Basically the language to explain some things. But sometimes defining things isn’t so great. It carry’s with it glorifying or being prejudice against whole groups of people, which I think can be a bit limiting and dangerous and/or obsessive to the psyche. Basically once you’ve learned to look at things through this perspective, it can be hard to shake if you want to, and limiting.

it has its pro’s/con’s like anything, but yeah. But like I said l, A hard thing to shake, Especially when you really start getting in deep.

[godslave]

No. I don't date and I don't have relationships outside my family members, my doctor, my "social worker" and the people I see while I'm in the waiting room of my doctor or my social worker or while I'm queuing at the supermarket, the bakery or the pizzeria.

[Averroes]

Nope, I don’t have relationships and I’m terrible at typing in any case

[RBRS]

English language...

In my romantic relationship (didn't knew this was mostly about that) it hasn't helped either. I dont even self-type nor do type my GF so...

[lavos]

Mostly to avoid conflictors, which sometimes if you are not privy to socionics, you are attracted to. Ending up married to a conflictor can be a pretty miserable existence. Regardless, I don't date, nor have interest in romantic relationships for the time being, so it has been a post hoc realization. But I like to observe/study people and their relationships, and for that purpose it's been very useful.

[InterPrizeWes]

At least holistic typology did. To greatly form to psychic bonding with Bunny in cakes of summer cascades is the legacy of love taking the world by storm.

[RBRS]

At least holistic typology did. To greatly form to psychic bonding with Bunny in cakes of summer cascades is the legacy of love taking the world by storm.

That's actually a pretty funny enough space and flexibility to be categorized from the outside calling that out of their opponent.

I have done the same keyboard thing I think you do and the message seems cool anyways!!!

[Manatroid92]

I had a period where I felt pretty bad that I wasn’t meeting my wife’s expectations of me. Post-Socionics, I’ve learned she is most likely an ESI, and I’m most likely a Beta NF type. The difference between Fi and Fe valuers is pretty striking, but I’ve been able to understand where she is coming from much more easily, and I had even started to become more confident in myself (I blame myself less harshly for being weak or careless in the physical world, but I still do what I can to improve).

I think that’s one of the best parts of Socionics, honestly: not just understanding relationships, but understanding yourself and trying to improve your situation, because each type has their own weaknesses they need to address (can’t just make excuses all the time because your a Logical type so you can be a douchebag to everyone, for example).

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Not really. It helped me manipulate some types by giving ppl their dual seeking function but that doesn't last cuz it's not authentic and was too draining for me to use certain functions more than I'm naturally comfortable with. It explains underlying processes that are already there in nature but how to 'use it' often feels akin to asking a jungle to grow in ur home or something. Socionics is real, but so is feces- and how do you use feces? As manure to make things grow I guess.

[adage]

It made things worse.
Either I know I can't give the right answer and give up, or know I could give the right answer but don't want them coming back for more so give up.
It made me less prone to believe in positive relationships and I became jaded about it.
I also hate when I see plain as day how I could make people do exactly whatever I'd choose, or can predict their reactions accuratly.
It made people less interesting, as if they're closer to clones than unique individuals.
I actually like people a lot more when I get all this out of my head so I can be with whoever is there, not in my head with socionics.

[Aquamarine]

No

I also don't bring these typology things into my real life.

[xerx]

Only a little. My interpersonal relationships are so bizarre that they defy crowd-sourced Soviet psychology.

[EIE H]

It helped me to understand how and why I was consistently rejecting my duals related to my own insecurities and hangups. Also, it helped me to explain why I used to get butthurt over my conflictors and domineering over my supervisees.

[persimmonism]

It does help me not feel too terrible and silly during certain incidences and interactions in the past places I've worked (pub, coffeeshop, country club dining).. all 3 I had delta ST bosses. It's a plague..

Actually, though, Enneagram has helped me much more for dating and personal relationships.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Yes. It helped me understand ways of thinking that are different than my own.

[Adam Strange]

Absolutely yes.

Socionics changed my entire approach to dating. I went from "dating anyone who seemed compatible on the first meeting", to "first filtering for ESIs, and then filtering for good ESIs".

Night and day.

Socionics also changed my approach to people in my personal relationships. I went from "this person could be anyone at all and could do anything at all", to "this person can be expected to act within certain boundaries."

Again, night and day.

I find that I tailor my entire approach towards a person by what I believe to be their Sociotype. By and large, this has improved my relationships.*

This approach has a downside, though, when I mis-type a person. I'll treat them (and expect them to act) like the sociotype that I think they are. Normally, this doesn't matter all that much, but it almost always makes the interaction less than what it could have been, and in some cases, it makes a huge difference.

I was recently surprised to discover that I cut a lot of slack for types which I think are very different from my own type, and I am not so generous when it comes to relationships with types that I interact with better.

I've had people tell me, for this very reason, that they don't want to know anything about Socionics and ITRs. I can understand their concerns; that they might be unduly biased against someone for reasons which don't relate to someone's actual performance, but to tell the truth, I don't think any of these guys relate to someone purely on the basis of actual performance. They are all biased, they just don't want to admit it.

What I've seen is that, sooner or later, socionics ITRs inevitably play out in exactly the way that the ITRs predict. An objective action which is great in a Dual is poisonous when coming from a Conflictor.

What I try to do is to consciously make up for the problems that ITR creates, and for that, I'm grateful that Socionics has given me some more insight into the road ahead.


*When I started my first business, I partnered with a brilliant electrical and software engineer who had everything I needed. He could effortlessly do what I couldn't do. In retrospect, he was an ILE, because every time we'd interact, I got the impression that he was brilliant but crazy. I figured that I could take the brilliant and leave the crazy.
Wrong.
He built his half of the product and the company imploded because of bad relations. I put today's equivalent of half a million dollars of my own money into the company, and I'd have been better off burning the money, because I'd have at least gotten some heat from it. Every cent, gone with the wind.
Not because our technical abilities were lacking. It was because we didn't operate in the same universe of values. And, to be fair, neither one of us was connected enough to our feelings to know what was going wrong, or how to fix it. And that's the problem of being ignorant of Socionics.

[Averroes]

It might’ve marred by relationship with my EII gf if anything. Sometimes when she’d gush over a pretty flower, a cute little dress with frilled sleeves, some quirky hello kitty pajamas that she’d wear all the time in bed or something Si-related I would at the back of my mind think about how I’d be more compatible with someone Se-valuing instead of just accepting that every human is going to have some weird quirks/preferences/personality differences that’ll put you off a bit eventually. I was nitpicking differences that a normal person wouldn’t even think about

[Tallmo]

Of course. It's extremely useful. I know what to expect and I don't need to have false dreams about living happily ever after with a hot ILI or something.

The downside is that I sometimes meet attractive people with horrible compatibility, like LSEs. And then I avoid them, and that can be wrong. Because sometimes you just have to follow your simple instincts and not your rational mind. It's necessary to experience different things in life even though they might not be ideal. It requires some wisdom to live with the knowledge of socionics. You can't just apply it like some dead algorithm. Life becomes a bloodless business.

[lookin4waifu]

I think it has been very helpful. It gets you thinking about social dynamics more and gives you ideas to test out during social interactions, which affords you with more experience and in turn gives you more to think about, like a never ending cycle. It’s also useful for personal development. However if you are originally bad at social interactions and at reflecting on these things in the first place I think it would probably be more destructive than anything.

[lookin4waifu]

Also if you tend to assume things that people say are true without verifying it yourself or get influenced by ideas like that easily… it is probably bad. Even things that seem true are just true until proven otherwise.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

It might’ve marred by relationship with my EII gf if anything. Sometimes when she’d gush over a pretty flower, a cute little dress with frilled sleeves, some quirky hello kitty pajamas that she’d wear all the time in bed or something Si-related I would at the back of my mind think about how I’d be more compatible with someone Se-valuing instead of just accepting that every human is going to have some weird quirks/preferences/personality differences that’ll put you off a bit eventually. I was nitpicking differences that a normal person wouldn’t even think about

I mean...that doesnt even seem anti Se. I gush over aesthetics too. 4D demo Si.

[serenaeva]

It's definitely helped me with figuring out why it is that i clash so heavily with certain people or get along with others. Also, it has helped me understand the aforementioned people better and try to adjust myself a bit to them if necessary.

[Bethanyclaire]

Confirmed my suspicions I’m a rare and wonderful IEI. (And stopped me being such a pushover).

[Averroes]

I mean...that doesnt even seem anti Se. I gush over aesthetics too. 4D demo Si.

Me too but she was mainly gushing over takeout food and clothes that I didn’t like that much. I’m pretentious to a fault, while she was into things that are kind of regular and pleasant/inoffensive

[Adam Strange]

Me too but she was mainly gushing over takeout food and clothes that I didn’t like that much

Lol, @Averroes. I once walked with my SLI ex-wife to the downtown library and had to endure a 45 minute long discussion of matching shoelace color to one’s Cool Autumn look.

Fuck. Never again.
Just shooting me would be kinder.

[Lord Pixel]

Yes. Tons of insecurity and self loathing just faded away after awhile after getting into typology, even though at first the initial shock of typology was super depressing, I remember I was trying to hide tears at work when I just found out about the greek tempermanents and I found out I was doomed to be a melancholic for the rest of my life, then the EIE HR lady caught me and I wanted to disappear, and right after that an ILE co-worker caught me and just announced "SEE! THAT'S THAT DEPRESSION MAN! lol it's almost like Fe can smell it in the air.

But I used to always have a sense of "I'm not worthy" when I was around any attractive girl, like alot of guys seem to. I used to think there was nothing attractive about me, that I couldn't attract women, that I couldn't get good enough at "game", and I lacked the confidence to ever be with a woman. I'm very glad I learned about socionics and Gulenko Romance styles which lines up with my experience, because if I hadn't actually had my own experiences with it, I'd be listening to the shit show that is the "manosphere" and fresh and fit and the rest of the idiots, which is super depressing, since it's all about how women only want Se/Ti/Te, and that men only want Si/Fe/Fi. Somebody also said duality starts when the two types makes contact with the other person's mobilizing, which has been my experience and has been what's worked like a charm when talking to girls. I would have just waited to stumble onto that by accident if it wasn't for socionics, and even then I'd think I was either lucky or that I'd have to cling on to the person forever, which is exactly what I did with my last gf. Anyway, socionics and especially the romance styles helped alot. Gulenko definitely called out my mating dance and it definitely works on the compatible mate.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Lol, @Averroes. I once walked with my SLI ex-wife to the downtown library and had to endure a 45 minute long discussion of matching shoelace color to one’s Cool Autumn look.

Fuck. Never again.
Just shooting me would be kinder.

LOL. I know better than to ramble on too much about aesthetics, etc. to LIEs. Sometimes it's so cute, though, how lost they are about them. When I explained what leggings are to my LIE, he was like, "Ohhhh, I see, like warrior armor." I laughed because it's just simple fall fashion. Another time, I designed a strip club building just for fun, and he said it looked like a church. THERE WERE GODDAMN STRIPPER POLES IN IT, HOW THE JFDGBEDLFKJGHDKLJ LMAO I was like "wtf kind of church have you been to?!" Si PoLR is fucking endearing.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Me too but she was mainly gushing over takeout food and clothes that I didn’t like that much. I’m pretentious to a fault, while she was into things that are kind of regular and pleasant/inoffensive

I have a hard time imagining the difference because like...simple cute things can become sort of pretentious when put together into a big picture?

[Averroes]

I have a hard time imagining the difference because like...simple cute things can become sort of pretentious when put together into a big picture?

I don't want to be a dick, but imagine stuff that a stereotypical modest 2w1 Librarian or grandma would like - bland, modest, comfortable, not particularly flattering, etc. She loved shopping/thrifting clothes all the time but wasn't very bold or adventurous with it

[TheLetterA]

I find it helpful, but it’s not really something I would want to refer to a lot. Then I would feel the need to box people in for the sake of convenience because of how awkward I feel about others, aka autism. But again I’m not trying to box myself in, that’s just the way I am at the moment. Painful but true.

[Park]

Not really. I am inclined to think that studying the DSM and psychology more broadly might be much more useful, even though I haven't really embarked on that journey myself. If you get familiar with the intricacies of the different Clusters of personality disorders and all the research behind them, you can potentially develop a working understanding of the human psyche. And while, for instance, there might be very little psychopaths, narcissists, or borderlines as a percentage of the entire population, the majority of people match one or more of these profiles on a subclinical level, meaning they have many of the symptoms, triggers, traits, and characteristics of these disorders, except they are not pathological. So you can apply the same knowledge much more broadly. It should be useful to be familiar with this stuff as it has been substantiated with peer reviewed research, publications, and literature for decades, if not centuries, from when philosophy preceded psychology. Jung and its derivates (e.g. Socionics) provide just one narrow perspective on things.

[Park]

@godslave Why did you delete your reply?

[godslave]

@godslave Why did you delete your reply?

Sorry I thought that it was not that relevant but here it is again (I always save my deleted post before I delete them (and I do it a lot just don't tell @Evergreen ahah!!)) :

Not really. I am inclined to think that studying the DSM and psychology more broadly might be much more useful, even though I haven't really embarked on that journey myself. If you get familiar with the intricacies of the different Clusters of personality disorders and all the research behind them, you can potentially develop a working understanding of the human psyche. And while, for instance, there might be very little psychopaths, narcissists, or borderlines as a percentage of the entire population, the majority of people match one or more of these profiles on a subclinical level, meaning they have many of the symptoms, triggers, traits, and characteristics of these disorders, except they are not pathological. So you can apply the same knowledge much more broadly. It should be useful to be familiar with this stuff as it has been substantiated with peer reviewed research, publications, and literature for decades, if not centuries, from when philosophy preceded psychology. Jung and its derivates (e.g. Socionics) provide just one narrow perspective on things.

I think the study that DSM and ICD is very useful. I did study the DSM before Typology. When you have a good grasp of the extremes you can have a better idea about the norms. When you look at the Enneagram, Claudio Naranjo came up with the level of Health and matched each Enneatype with a pattern which can lead to a certain PD if unhealthy. The same thing with socionics, Ausra came up with the dichotomy of Shizotym/ Cyclotym (Rational /Irrational) which are psychiatric notions. Now, including Jung's work in all that was not an easy task, we must now be aware that there has been a great evolution in the cognitive sciences and our knowledge of the human conscious is far way better than it was in Jung's Time. So we have to be careful to not fall in making a Prophet out of Jung Ausra and separate the wheat from the chaff. We must remember that Freud too made a lot of mistakes and came up with a whole lot of nonsense. Imho, the trap is to think that Ausra's work validity is supported by the fact that she based her work on that of Jung and thus by an obscure syllogism conclude that the whole thing must be valid, the thing is that Jung's work is valid and sound in certain domains and less in others...

[Tallmo]

we must now be aware that there has been a great evolution in the cognitive sciences and our knowledge of the human conscious is far way better than it was in Jung's Time.

I would say it's the opposite. At least if you read Jung's own research. Nobody really knows anything about typology, and if they do, it's still much limited compared to Jung. And the whole of depth psychology is way ahead of its time anyway, hundreds of years.

Whenever I read something about current psychology it just sounds so limited and Te. They talk about things as if the psyche didn't exist.