| 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!
|
| Questions & Answers |
| Question #1278272614 | Sunday, 4-Jul-2010 |
|
|
| Hello everyone. I have been studying Psychological types for about 3 years now, since I first took the test when I was a sophmore in High School. Since then I have gone through some extreme changes. Along the way of trying to be some kind of psychological expert, I have completely lost my mind. My obsession with personality types has driven me to an isolated, obsessive compulsive state that revolves around this theory. No matter what I do or what I think about, I subconsciously think about how "it" relates to typology, "it" being the subject of my thoughts. And every person I interact with is apart of it. Nothing is safe from this. And no ammount of denial and self-reasoning can distract me from the fact that I am seeing evidence of how it is REAL! Is anyone with me? I have inherited the "common problems" that other people of my "type" have. Ones that I never had before I discovered this all! I use to have people-type theories of my own, and now they're replaced by someone elses thoughts and I hate it. -- Do not ask me my type. |
Your Answers: 1+ |
| A1 I have been studying psychological types for about 3 months now. Today I am able to identify types through traits of personality disorders. It is an insanely accurate way of type identification. Typology is a must for all Ne-s. It is essential for self-improvement and psychological self-defense. -- jgbr |
|
|
| A2 I encountered nearly the exact same situation as yourself a number of years ago; it drove me insane as well at the time. It helps to keep in mind that everything in this theory speaks only to the POTENTIAL LIKELIHOOD of the individual and not necessarily to the individual itself by any means. That is, just because a person FALLS INTO [x] type, and people who fall into [x] type have been observed to most often act one way in a particular situation (a.k.a., every statement pertaining to this theory- it is all observational/statistics in this way), does not by any means mean that THAT PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL who falls into [x] type will indeed act the way most individuals who fall into [x] type have been observed to act in that particular situation. I EXPECT nearly nothing of a particular individual simply because I know their "type" (and I would in fact argue that it is erroneous to do so)- there are too many differences in nature alone that this theory does not account for, not to mention the vast differences that come through nurture. Obviously looking at people this way creates conflicts in relationships- on the basis of a "type", you assume (or "wait to see"- that’s assuming, whether you like to admit it or not) qualities that are often simply not there. People often see what they expect to see- it is easy to loose true objectivity when you do see certain aspects of the theory that do ring true. What you don't see is all the things you’ve looked over that DON’T ring true, because you aren't looking for them. When you can't help but think about the theory (I would first advise that you clear it out of your head as best as possible), start to look for the things that DON'T match up between the theory and reality, and DON’T make excuses for why they don't. YOU DON’T TRY TO MAKE A THOERY WORK, YOU TRY TO PROVE A THEORY WRONG. THAT is scientific. You will be amazed at the difference it makes. I can assure you that I have encountered plenty of startling real world incongruities with this theory since I was in this ugly little "mental loop" shall we call it. I found later that even many of the things that probably were accurate about the theory were subject to many of my own horrible misinterpretations of it. Weigh the positives and negatives of this theory. For the few ways in which it might help you, is it worth the sacrifice of your internal and relationship conflicts? If the positives don't significantly outweigh the negatives, than there really isn't a whole lot of practical application for you (so why the heck else would you keep investigating it?). Realizing and accepting ways in which this theory is flawed should help a lot. A few huge recommendations I would have for you, other than I’ve already said: -A good way to start is to stop defining yourself by who this theory (or proponents of it) tells you you are. You are an INDIVIDUAL, not a statistic. Another interesting thought: Even all other flaws in the theory aside, if you truly were who this theory says you are, than coming to know about it in the way you do has changed that. So, EVEN IF THIS THEORY IS COMPLETELY TRUE, you have changed your personal statistics simply by knowing it, and have severely skewed (or ruined much of) its practical usage for you. -Readily indulge yourself into REAL WORLD socialization as much as you can. Learn about individuals piece-by-piece, and don't make any drastic assumptions based on a "backwards", statistics-based assumption of their actions. -Stay the heck away from any websites related to the theory, ESPECIALLY online forums such as 16types.info. About 1 in 100 people are objective about this theory on those things. Looking at it now, most of it is laughable and a little cult-ish to me (the theory itself is almost never questioned, just accepted! C’mon, right?!). -It may help to indulge moderately in another theory that conflicts with Socionics in some ways (or that does not clearly match up). This will demonstrate to you just how “fluid” this whole typing thing truly is. There are quite a great deal of attributes we could propose on which to divide the human populous, and measure the individual likelihoods of. There is no absolute truth to this particular way of doing so (I assure you the variation of the human mind goes far more in-depth that 16 divisions!). If you would indeed like another theory with some substantial following to broaden your horizons, perhaps give the enneagram a look (I actually prefer the enneagram at this point, as it makes many less excuses about the fact that it IS a sort of fluid theory, as opposed to socionics, that likes to pretend it is not PSEUDO-SCIENCE). I am sorry for the jumbled mess of ideas (the caffeine has that effect on me!) I truly wish you the best of luck! On the positive end, having to dig myself out of the “mental hole” this put me in allowed me the ability to think much more critically, not to mention bringing me a number of other positive observations, so I suppose you have that to look forward to. -- Friend |
| A3 P.S., if you feel you need any further input, I would be happy to help. You can reach me at treeshaveleaves@yahoo.com -- Friend |
| A4 Look at it this way: If the depth of the human character can be completely understood through a personality test, then aren't humans rather shallow? If you look at the statistics on this site, then you will see INFj, INFp and INTj appear at the top. They are the ones most interested in their personality. -- an INFj |
| *Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of socionics.com* |
Page 1 |
| Would you like to add anything? |
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)
|
|
