Socionics is better than made out to be by some of you
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.
|Document URL: | Last modified: 15 May 2009|
|Copyright © 1997-2017 SOCIONICS.COM|