Socionics Personals | | Female Straight 16-25 Oceania Libra ENFj |
| | Male Straight 16-25 Middle East Sagittarius INTj |
| | Male Straight 26-35 North America Pisces INXj |
| Join now! |
Who is who?Learn how to convert between different systems
V.I.An introduction into the widely used Socionics Visual Identification technique
TestsA collection of Socionics related tests and quizes
Q & AsAsk a Socionics related question or provide an answer to an existing one
ArticlesVarious articles on the subject of Socionics and Types in general
ForumsWant to discuss Type? Head to Socionics Forums!
|
Socionics is better than made out to be by some of you
by Ryan(LII)
Some of you, I've noticed, are really bad at typing people, and this would conclude the fact of you not liking socionics, especially not seeing use for it beyond the logic. A major problem is that a lot of you regard MBTI in your socionics efforts. Trust me when I say that the dichotomies aren't the same in both ... theories. Ultimately the functions and relations are what you think about when talking about socionics type, and these are very different in MBTI as well.
Take two of my friends for example. Knowing their MBTI type was not very useful. Friend 1 is an INTJ and friend 2 is an INxP. There is no relations built on knowing these types and no real distinction of values. I self typed them with socionics, and friend 1 I decided upon ESTp, and friend 2 I decided upon ESTj. There is no correlation from MBTI to socionics as far as this.
However the relations match up to me, to theirs, to others I type. I've learned so much more about their values and thought processes and how I could talk to them with the most insight into their interests and thoughts. I know their strengths and weaknesses and I know where I can help and where they can help me. I've experienced it.
I know more about my values, especially quadra values and learned why the dual type is really an ideal relationship. I agree that any relationship can work, but socionics really pinpoints with stunning accuracy what problems may occur and where I can help and where I can build. I believe that many of you who "complain" about its inaccuracy or its lack of effect in the real world simply need to back up a little bit and keep the big picture in mind.
Socionics is incredible. It's far more developed than the Jung types and far more precise than MBTI. For you MBTI people, keep MBTI out of your socionics analyzing. You have to keep a clear, separate area for it. I hope that everyone decides to give it another chance, and I know this bashing will proceed because a some of you won't find the ability to logically understand how to type people or won't be able to think in terms of theory in real life.
And if that's the case, leave your opinions of it to yourself. Because you are not only criticizing this theory, but you are criticizing people behind it, people like me, and the people who can see the correlations, and you're not giving any constructive criticism or reason besides that "you can't understand it." If you could understand it, you'd realize that there is a lot of constructive criticism to give, but there is only so many steps we can take, and so many hypothesis to make.
I refuse to believe socionics is bullshit. Some of you grasp that you don't understand it, not that it doesn't work. You are very likely mistyping yourself or others, and you need to back up and rethink, like I said, or back off. Maybe stop for a while and come back when you feel refreshed. To the rest of you, the fans, there is still much to learn. Don't disregard your past thoughts about socionics, and keep exploring its possibilities and the new theories that come along with it.
|
|
C9 Well put, Ryan. I think it is also important for those interested in Socionics to be patient with typing others, especially those who are inexperienced in typing others. For instance, I almost always guess wrong once or twice before narrowing in on someone's true type. For those with much experience this is may not be the case, but for those who are new to Socionics, typing should be a fluid process. That is, it may require a fair amount of detective work, and you should not settle on your decision until you are absolutely certain. If that person does not match up with the hidden agenda, intertype relations, or traits of the type you have guessed, guess again. -- Travis (INTj) |
C10 I find the beginning of the article "some of you i've noticed are incredibly bad at typing people" to have the author present air of unfounded superiority, then to continue discussing socionics without a balanced critique but rather just a propaganda campaign to be the actions best described as that of a brainwashed fanatic. -- Cyclops |
C11 Bob - in case you could not read what you yourself copied and pasted, E - open and OFTEN talkative, I - OFTEN appear reserved, quiet and thoughtful. meaning you don't ALWAYS act a certain way. I am an introvert but there are times that i am talkative. i've read on wikisocion.org that the main difference, in socionics, between I and E is that E's more often initiate relationships, whereas an I will let others. and i am actually INFP in MBTI and INFp in Socionics, but i don't think it's like that for everyone and imo it is ignorant to assume such a thing since the dichotomies DO NOT match up. if i were an INFP in MBTI and used the MBTI functions in socionics, then i would be an INFj. the description for INFj doesn't describe me, but INFp does, to more extent than any MBTI description has. you seem to have little understanding of socionics... or what this article was about to begin with. admittedly what had drawn me to socionics more than MBTI was the intertype relations. before i knew what socionics was, i had been reading up on everything i could about MBTI. i found it difficult to believe that my ENFP mom could be the ideal match for my type, because she is childish and annoying and seems to think that she is psychic and knows everything when in reality... she doesn't. and under the "least likely for relationship" was ESTP, and "possible relationships" was ESFP. i didn't believe that at all, i am so drawn to those two types, so i tried to find as much as i could about the relationships between types, when i stumbled across socionics. and of course socionics gave a totally different explanation, and one that made sense to me. when i first started reading about socionics i found a lot of controversy between it and MBTI and i didn't really know which one to believe but that just made me want to research more and more, as much as i could. a couple of years ago i had to write a 15 page paper for a creative writing class and i chose to write about socionics vs MBTI. i guess i had a sort of "sudden realization" that a lot of MBTI doesn't make sense. -- Anonymous |
|
Would you like to add anything? |
( When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)
|
|