Do you tend to assume that people have a similar grasp on socionics as you?
For instance; if you are not very good at operating socionics, do you tend to assume that other people aren't good either?
By contrast, if you are apt at understanding the theory, and/or typing people, do you tend to assume other people are too?
Discuss.
Of course not. It's rather obvious people are at different skill levels understanding the material.
What I think is that everyone builds their own version of the system based on which source(s) they read, their own personal understanding of it, of the world, of people, their personal experiences...
It's the idea that people are different but there are patterns, tho where those patterns start and end's another story.
The reason I'm asking this is because I think I've noticed a trend in some people, that suck at socionics, in that they tend to assume everybody else sucks like them too. These people (who typically are unable to type themselves correctly) are quick to attack your self-typing, assuming you or some other who DOES use socionics well, is not good at it like them. Their mindset is like "Hey, I can't use this, so nobody can".
And the other part is because at least in my case, I tend to assume everybody can use it and I'm surprised when I find people can't. I suspect you require ability in certain IM's to be able to use Socionics well. Probably (some guessing) gamma Ni and alpha Ne.
It's a kind of projection
Anyway, my answer is no , I don't
Sometimes. Or, more that they interpret it in the same way I do.
The vast majority of people suck at reading others holistically, but most people are good at picking up on certain patterns that are meaningful to them. So it depends.
Thinking about it more , I expect everybody around me to know well about socionics , then I become surprised when I see the same people don't know information I know
Good question. My answer is: No. I think many of this forum's users are better at it than me. I don't think I have a good understanding of it, and if I did, I wouldn't have asked so many people questions about its structure... I think at least 1/3 of this forum's users would have a proficiency of 70% or higher, or at least how I'd rate it; I'd say mine is about 25%. I'm good at typing people, but that's about it. Whatever disability I was born with and/or possibly whatever medicine I took prevented me from being proficient in my base function of Ti... it happens; Rose Kennedy (or whatever JFK's sister's name was) was widely believed to be mentally retarded, had to go into some place for disabled people, and she was an LSI-Ti.
All of my life, I've been unhappy because my base and creative functions weren't working for me. They were supposed to, but they didn't.
I've been studying socionics for ~4 years now, but only through V.I. of members of my mom's family and a few other LSI-Ti celebrities could I tell I was an LSI-Ti. But it's common for Ti-egos to have conflicts between dealing with reality and their emotions.
On MBTI-style tests, I usually test as an introvert and a thinker, often as an ISTP, and that correlates with socionics LSI.
I'm sorry, but I'm psychologically disturbed.
No.
I feel like I’ve come a long way myself with my own understanding of socionics. I’ve changed my perspective quite a lot in the last 8 years. Probably the most in the last 2 years. I see it as a child discovering, a teen who thinks they know everything already, and then the maturity phase. Some people get stuck in some stages longer than others for various reasons.
But I think it’s entirely possible for two people stuck in the ‘maturity’ phase to come to different conclusions based on different paths and conclusion. It’s matter of perspective and mental organization.
No one is going to organize their closet the same way, and they might have their own system. One says these two shirts belong together because they are similar colors and another says these two shirts belong together because they are similar styles.
I personally feel rigidity in the system, or any system, really…and not being open to other perspectives, closes the door to a lot of intellectual growth.
but I’m very aware of how different and how similar others perspectives are to mine, regarding the system, and where its coming from, I think. Eventually you have to favor one, or it gets confusing. Been there, done that
a lot more people here are more knowledgeable than me about socionics and I enjoy reading their posts. I admit I do skip over some when it seems to me it’s coming from ‘a wrong place or path’, like they are just trying to prove themselves as a certain type or whatever, but even that is still interesting to read, I just don’t take it seriously.
There are idiots who assume that just because people use different typing methods than them, they are "wrong" and therefore "suck at typing." Those people usually are taking typology as though it is factual and concrete, rather than keeping in mind it's only theory (and can therefore not actually be "wrong" because everything is all in question anyway).Originally Posted by lavos
There are also idiots who assume that they know individuals on this forum well enough to type them forcefully. In general, those who try to force others into another type are usually just going around projecting, trolling, and/or sucking at understanding people.
I've seen a lot of instances in which people assume there's only one correct way to interpret the information they see, but those who do this are usually just people who are disconnected from civilization. People with poor social skills who basically use typology as a substitute for interacting with and listening to fellow humans. A lot of it is also just confirmation bias.
A good example would be Alive the other day: he insists that I'm an irrational type because I change my profile picture often, depending on what I'm in the mood for. His mistake is that he assumes that means my emotional state changes often, rather than "what I'm in the mood for" meaning I get bored of looking at the same thing. In reality, outside of bipolar episodes, my emotional mood is pretty consistent: I'm pretty much just always doing ok/good, even in the shittiest of circumstances. (Besides, I am an irrational subtype.) I get why that can be viewed as shitty Ne on his part, since it's a failure to consider alternate possibilities, but I think it has more to do with just being bad at understanding other people.
Last edited by Fluffy Princess Unicorn; 09-07-2022 at 04:48 AM. Reason: thinking through more about how what I say will be received/interpreted
It is not "in question". Socionics has a sufficient development to be operated, is true, and works. Anybody who says "it is just a theory and not validated", etc, is suspect of what I'm saying in this thread. They just think that way because they cannot operate it. The problem is that people who figure this out (there are some) don't seem to stick around, and instead we have a low-skill group of people (some novices--others not so much) bringing the overall level of Socionics info down on the forum. There should be an stablidhed base of decent socionists, so that the novices can learn Socionics well. But they don't stick around. This place has been bleeding members like crazy, for some reason(s). Could go into some detail why I think this is.
@lavos,I lean that way, but I can't be absolutely sure of it; there is what seems like so much variation in skill between people, that it calls into question whether it's concrete. And some people may suffer from mental fluctuations like I do or not always being precise in communicating like I'm not, and that can cause problems.
As @Pink Bear pointed to, it's not always a good idea to use typology for interacting with people in person; but typing people also is something that tells me (that's just my own preference) who I should really avoid and it seems to tell me about peoples' skills and lack of skills. Strangely enough, socionics tells me I should almost always avoid EIE, my duals (and they're one of the ones I need to avoid most, even though I say yes to them too much), unless I need material services from them. Also, other systems/concepts (e.g., whether someone is a narcissist, which is like 50-50 in some types) also tell me if I should avoid them. I hate narcissists... that's what I need to be careful with when interacting with SLE-Ti... some are very narcissistic, others are not... it's a shame because it's something that can ruin many members of that otherwise good group of people.
Last edited by Disturbed; 09-08-2022 at 08:52 AM.
I'm sorry, but I'm psychologically disturbed.
Both rude and foolishly presumptuous.
If you can type people, your observations are valid. People need be more confident in their own observations.
Sometimes people who know nothing about socionics appear to have better typing abilities than people who do...my LSI and ESE family members say stuff about 'types' of people all the time that shows they could very easily learn to type people. An ESE pal recently tried to set me up with an SLE guy because she thought I'd go for someone 'edgy' like him...she barely knows me..
I think people over-complicate learning to type people. If you can spot the four temperaments you're half way there.
Behaviours of Temperaments (socionics.com)
I love the bit in the comments part of the article where it says in adolescence and old age, a person may start to act like a different temperament. I love the idea that this could happen when I'm old! I won't be a lazy, depressed IP anymoresorry this was just too interesting to not point out
Last edited by Bethanyclaire; 09-08-2022 at 07:04 PM.
Why? Is truth "rude" and "presumptuous" to you?
I was rude once to an ESI. Very rude. It is said in some ESI-LIE duality descriptions that this is something that bothers ESI very much, and "throws them off at a far psychological distance", which condemns the dualization. But I don't think I'm being rude now. There is just something about how LIE's state their truths sometimes that might seem so, but that ESI I was rude to, she was bothered, but heeded what I was telling her. That is the thing about duality; that you are driven to consider what your dual is trying to tell you regardless of the form of the delivery (being suggestive to the dual's base function).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
