| 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!
|
Who agrees?
by Danny
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 ... person might like red crayons, or to paint with oils, or to cook on Sundays. It doesn't tell you what kind of food he likes to eat. It doesn't tell you whether he has a sensitive place in his heart for people in general, or whether he believes in a good rule of thumb: "Treat others how you would like to be treated." Personality theory tells you some basic mechanics of a person. It doesn't get into their heart. It doesn't get into why they like a certain perfume, or what a person puts in his journal.
I write all this because I've been interested in psychology for years. I probably always will. But my motivation was to understand people. Well, it's a very limited way of understanding people. Most of what people are is above the core functions. Most of a building is above the foundation. Most of a cake is not the first layer. Most of a beautiful flower is not its roots. So what if we understand all the core functions and technical things? We haven't learned much. I can't say "I only want to date an INFP" for example. INFP? I could LOVE an INFP. I could also find one very HARD to get along with. Instead, I might find myself quite in love with a personality type that hey! I never technically thought possible. That's because life surprises us. There is no knowing all there is to know. Now, I agree that certain types might more often conflict than others. That's not a rule though. And it greatly depends on the ability for each type to be self-sacrificing, instead of having to have their way, being selfish. Putting the other person ahead of yourself sometimes is like oil in an engine. It just makes life run more smoothly. There's less conflict, especially over simple stupid things, too.
This is supposed to be a question and answer board [Editor: This meant to go to Q&A section, initially]. So I'll make my question, "who agrees?" and if you haven't thought of it, you might. I've spent a lot of time studying types. And I'd say it is pretty interesting overall. But, I'm also tired of my brain trying to assess what everyone's type is. Has it reached any conclusions? Maybe for a few individuals. Has there been any real value in it? No. I appreciate those individuals for a hundred things that don't have to do with whatever I discovered about their type.
|
|
|
| C46 Just before reading this article, I had the same feeling of being tired of trying to type people and thinking if soconics typology is applicable to everyone. There are a lot of factors that affect people's behaviors, making it hard to make accurate socioncs types for them. It is difficult because people may have personas that are different from ther "true selves", and external prefereces such as their favorite color of crayons, favorite food, etc. are not directly assessed by socionics. However, the point is to use your knowledge of personality types to practical use; to understand and accept yourself and other people as they are, to noursh your own strengths and recognize those of others', to have realisitc expectatons of other people, and to improve your interactions with them according to their types, all of which might not have been possible if you are not aware of the basic foundations of personality. If you use your knowledge of socionics only for the sake of typing people, then you do not get any benefcial use from it. -- Buce |
| C47 Even if socionics can only tell us the core of a person . Isn't it good? That means we would have a constant but subtle influcence on a person we can use to deal with him. Kinda more reliable than astrology no? -- INTP |
| C48 Just to respond to a comment, the main point of socionics is not to type people just for the sake of typing them with four letters and fitting everyone in a box. Socioncs recognizes and accepts that it does not cover the human being entirely. There are a lot of non-socionics factors that affect the personality a person shows the world such as familial upbringing, societal expectations, physiological circumstances, accustomed behaviors, and other external preferences that are apart from inborn cognitive processes. Even though there are still no enough empirical evidence up to date that proves socionics to be scientifically true (which is due to the lack of instrumentation available as of now to measure a human's personality objectively), the fact that we can see certain patterns of thinking styles in different people that we get to know for an extended amount of time shows that it is something to be actually considered. Just an analogy: we recognize homosexual people, and have probably known some of them in our lives. Do we need empirical evidences and scientific bases on whether they are actual homosexuals and what differentiates them from heterosexuals just to believe that they are real? No. It will be interesting to do so, but that will be a privilege, not a necessity. What’s important is that they exist, just as personality types do. Socionics does not consider people merely as types nor express that all of the people in the same personality type are identical. Rather, it states that each person, as an individual, has natural thinking patterns which are explained by the personality type’s description he is most associated to. Socionics does not describe each personality type subjectively like those horoscopes and zodiac signs. It describes personality objectively through the main dichotomies from which a person’s psyche preference is selected; extraversion vs. introversion, sensing vs. intuition, logic vs. ethics, and rationality vs. irrationality. The point is to use your knowledge of personality types to practical use; to understand and accept yourself and each person you encounter as he is, to nourish your own strengths and recognize those of others', to have realistic expectations of other people, and to improve your interactions with each of them according to his personality, all of which might not have been possible if you are not aware of the basic foundations of socionics types. If you use your knowledge of socionics only for the sake of typing people and fitting them inside a box, then you do not get any beneficial use from it. -- Buce |
| C49 I somewhat agree - even with an experienced knowledge of your personality type and that of, say, your siblings' (and an understanding of the intertype relation that goes with it) it is difficult to actually APPLY the theory to make things better. This is because personal flaws and other personal attributes can severely affect any relationship. However I also somewhat disagree - having the true knowledge of your type, someone else's type, and how you relate to them type-wise is very effective in knowing what to expect in the relationship. I know that my super-ego relation with my mom will follow a pattern different from that of other types - we have a similar energy level, we both set and regulate our daily plans and activities, we nearly always emphasize different points about the same subject, etc. What makes socionics an effective and applicable 'pseudoscience' is having or learning the ability to a) differentiate between what consistently happens between two types and what personal factors occur in a relationship regardless of type; b) understanding your own and the other types' strengths and realizing how your strengths clash or assist another; and c) knowing that certain types truly do have advantages in certain areas over other types. On a side note, I'm wondering if you can confirm your type with me.. I'm thinking you're an INFj -- DAH |
| C50 Well, unless you an evil kniving con artist like myself, there really isn't much use. -- Anonymous |
| C51 I use MBTI for determining how I speak to certain people. In a team setting, I will also give them a role that their type would excel best with. It has helped a lot, actually... -- An INTP |
| C52 Socionics - like any personality &/or career typing test - uses theories that simply (in complex underlying ways) place people in a "zip code" of sorts so that people may come to understand other people's general being better. These things are not Gospel of Future Human Evolution (though I imagine some sort of treat these things as such). Typing (of many test types)- as well as a lot of experience in customer service-oriented jobs - HAS helped me a lot in dealing with people in the real world. But yes, get to know the people you're interested in - & what makes each one unique; each one of us is so much more than a system of set SSN/PIN/DOB/MBTI/Socionics/whatever statistical numbers & letters. With all that said, what's your (socionics) "zip code"? I want to know where you "live". (j/k) -- INTj or P |
| C53 Agree. Current Typology seems to mainly be about painting a landscape picture with an arrow that says "you are here" and some supplemental information about how you can get comfortable at your newly defined location and how to avoid getting too jealous of people at other spots. Thanks... I guess? However, the information about other types, and how their thought processes, actions, and motivations can be drastically different can be quite helpful for some people. A natural stance of many humans is to believe their own viewpoint is the most 'correct' or 'valuable.' All 16 types seem to get through life just fine, though. There isn't a 'perfect type' to aspire to - all of them are merely different. As such, trying to use personal values/preferences as a one size fits all naturally won't work because other people really are built differently. It's one thing to hear 'people are different' but quite another to have things laid out that explains how and why they're different (and why some are complete opposites and why that's also perfectly okay and natural). For some people this is already obvious (likely those naturally gifted at empathy), whereas for others it can represent an 'Aha' moment that helps alleviate a certain amount of frustration when dealing with other people. Still, that's about all it is right now. Typology has so much more potential, but seems to currently be content to just go around in circles fussing about the details of the foundation instead of actually proceeding on to the construction the building it is capable of creating. Currently, there's no real 'action plan.' That's not an impossible to solve situation. My current, personal hypothesis on that subject is around 10k words, so I'll spare this poor comment section such longwinded rambling. I need to do some more editing and revision on it anyways. -- Anonymous |
| C54 I find it to be extremely useful. It's not for everyone though. -- Danny |
|
| Would you like to add anything? |
( When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.) |
|
