I've come to find this theory of personality type, as interesting as it is, equally as useless. For instance, even if I told you my type, or my friend's type, and it was accurate, what does that really tell you? Not much. It tells you something mechanical about me.
Personality theory does not tell you why a ...
|C1 The usefulness of personality theory is in gaining a pre-knowledge of communication and decision-making styles. The way one communicates is closely linked to the way one makes decisions, and vice versa. If you know how to appeal to another's sensibilities or to understand what might motivate the other, it can facilitate harmony and coexistence. It's an excellent means for a 'Tj' to become a better diplomat and diplomacy the key element in the success of most human relationships. -- I/O|
|C2 Why does a person come here and complain about Socionics? Football is boring, but I don't choose to go to a Friday night game and tell all the players how bored I am watching it. I just don't go. I let others enjoy their hobbies without questioning them about it. So, if you don't enjoy Socionics or don't find it useful, find something else to do. -- g-rat|
|C3 It may sound controversial but it raises a valid point - socionics is not everything. Unfortunately some people forget it sometimes. -- Dr. Zoidberg|
|C4 Socionics is my hobby. I don't read about it because I'm trying to change the world. And its my business how I want to spend my free time. -- g-rat|
|C5 Yeah, i disagree to a large extent of this article and i haven't even read it. Personality theory has helped me understand better my strengths and my weaknesses, help me understand how to have a better relationship with my parents etc. Of course it doesn't tell you everything, but thats the fun part. You need to leave room in personality theory for individuals upbringing and experiences. -- Anonymous|
|Maybe reading the article would help to understand it a bit better, don't you think?|
|C6 Validity in perception... observe nature thus have map of experience. In socionics similar to ecology we gradually identifying natural patterns. Becoming slightly more free and recognising experience outside primal survival emotions. Less fearful are they knowing others ways. -- Yoda|
|C7 It gives insight into the brain function, which is very useful in dealing with compatibility/communication issues. -- Anonymous|
|C8 When dealing with interpersonal styles and relations, the minor details like color preference are the decorations on that cake. What we're trying to establish here is 'do i have food sensitivities to the basic ingredients in this cake?" So yes, a relationship can be made or broken by the 'first layer' which i'm going to interpret here as the core ingredients of the batter rather than the physical structure of a layer cake. (lets take that metaphor and run!)-AB_XNFp -- Anonymous|
|C9 I agree. However, I find personlity typeing VERY usefull. Especially for my interpersonal relationgships. Communication and meeting needs is easier now. -- Anonymous|
|C10 It's not that what you're saying isn't true, but you're not giving credit where it's due either. Those preferences for which socionics doesn't account for are something separate entirely. What, exactly, is the use of knowing why someone likes red crayons? I think understanding other people's perspectives is a far more legitimate inquiry of study. Understanding other's perspectives as well as my own has made me a much more understanding person, and as a result, I can work through situations that would have previously resulted in merely frustration. I think you're missing the point of socionics. It's not about succinctly turning people into machines, it's about understanding perspectives and relationships. If you think that is useless, then you Sir are a demon. -- Joseph|
|C11 Afternoon, firstly I'd like to say that your article was beautifully written and exuded a real interest in other human beings - thank you for posting it. Personally, I find that typing is a useful, if somewhat limited, tool for understanding another person's communication style. Typing enables people to reflect on parts of their behaviour, and the behaviour of another, that they may not otherwise have reflected on. As a result, typing enables people to deepen their understanding of themselves and another person - and perhaps ultimately, "grow beyond" their original type. There is much more to all of us than our type, or our sun sign or our gender. Personality is a process that develops and changes over time, that can learn to love, hate, fear, enjoy, grow and evolve into something new. Ask yourself: Has typing been useful to me, has it enabled me to explore parts of myself and others that I previously would not have been aware of? If the answer to that question is "yes", then perhaps typing has served its function in your life. Then perhaps it has given you a framework from which to draw your own conclusions and embrace people for what they are right now and who they are becoming. You are right, there *is* much more to a person than their type, but that does not negate the usefulness, or the importance, of typing as a framework for human communication and understanding. My apologies for the long post - carpe diem. -- Hes|
|C12 There is no scientific, bio-psychological evidence that has been put forth yet even though the theory (socionics) has been around since the 1970s and even has roots in previous (sicentific?) "theories." Naturally, introspection can hardly be trusted in this case -- not all "types" are equally competent at it (according to socionics anyway). How about noticing intertype relations in the real world? -- ditto. VI? -- let's not make this a comedy. Speech identification is interesting -- but I'd be suspicious of using that as the "primary" mode of identification. Using myself as the "architectonic point" in the system, and a few close acquaintances to "plot" around me, I can construct several very possible "networks" depending on how I label myself -- albeit they're not all equally probable. Socionics provides no "falsifiable" conclusions and can remain merely "suggestive" at best. Food for thought maybe -- but not science. ***** An additional list of "celebrities" can be found here: http://www.socionics.us/celebrities/benchmark.shtml -- Anonymous|
|C13 I see your point, yet I agree with socionics. Looking back on different relationships and having similar thoughts like "well I can just be more self-sacrificing to get along" and the like, but it just doesn't work. In the long term that type of thinking does not work out well because inherently we want to be accepted for who we are. This is unlikely to happen in a mentally incompatible relationship. Besides, knowing about things like favorite perfume and desserts etc. although it may be interesting it generally will not make or break a relationship. Different ways of thinking and lack of real understanding can and in my experience will break a relationship. -- Anonymous|
|C14 its a generalized path to understanding tendencies and likelinesses of people. Of course it wont penpoint anyone.. but understanding personality types can help in understanding and approaching the people we encounter.. One can gain a greater understanding of himself by studying this... -- Anonymous|
|C15 i agree with you, knowing the person's type doesn't mean knowing the person. However, typing people can help you to know what they are like, how you need to approach them, what's important for them. When you get to know the person better, you will see their uniqueness and there type won't matter. I think that socionics describes the general character pretty well but each person within the type is different through background, life experiences ... -- akula|
|C16 I agree to an extent. It is difficult to make the MBTI immediately useful, however, the process of thinking about the underlying theory can help to gain a better knowledge of the human mind. I suspect the MBTI is most useful for NT types such as myself, who learn best by conceptualising and looking for underlying patterns, despite the lack of any obvious applications. I have found several uses for it in my (informal) studies. I have noticed that all my failed relationships have been with S types. I am now happily married to a fellow INTJ. By random chance, this would be unlikely. I have also found "type dynamics" useful, as they predict at what ages the 4 dimensions are likely to develop. I have also noticed that people who are not competent at their dominant function will tend to fail in life. For example, an ESTJ, with dominant function T, will tend not do well if their thinking skills are under-developed. While the MBTI cannot predict what day someone will cook on, it does have applications to cooking. An E may enjoy cooking for their friends. An I will prefer to eat alone. An S may prefer to strictly follow recipes and recommendations. An N may throw things in because they have a "gut feeling" that it will work. A P might stand there watching the food, wondering if it is cooked, potentially over-cooking. An S may decide that it must be ready and is more likely to under-cook. As for having a sensitive place in one's heart for people, this is most common in EFJ types, and least common in ITJ types. -- Anton|
|Would you like to add anything?|
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.