# Socionics Etiquette



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Seee...now that is going to vary for people. Some will, yah, but I imagine some will use it as a reason to avoid the subject.
> 
> I think you make great points against Snow's, but I don't know that either you or Snow are "right" in this matter. Different people need a different approach.
> 
> ...


I think it's good to get new perspectives, for sure, but if the perspectives are linked entirely to a different system, wouldn't they end up not being that relevant? If someone has the sources to look through, they can then work out what makes sense and what doesn't, then bring that up - plus their ideas of how to deal with the hazy areas. I do think areas of Socionics feel like they're not quite fully developed (but then, I can only read English sources so that might be why) and some input into those could be helpful. Or going deeper into the structure and why it is as it is etc.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Just some general comments: 

I don't think the issue with socionics is not having enough information as much as it is the material not clearly explaining why the differences between socionics and MBTI matter, not communicating what the end goal of the theory is, and not having a regimented approach to teaching the theory in a way that aligns with that goal. Very few people come to socionics specifically looking to learn about intertypes, and I think that is where the theory's greatest payout is. 

The most frequent issue I see in this forum (aside from all the stupid debating and trolling) crops up when someone takes an IE or type description too literally. Socionics type descriptions either aren't consistent between authors, highlight different/conflicting characteristics instead of the overall portrait of the type, or describe the types in a way that isn't driven my information metabolism and isn't unique to that type. There also isn't a lot of literature to broadly compare and contrast types, forcing new people to either depend on reading IE differences, or pick which type they "relate with" the most based on the type descriptions. People who do understand the theory well can't convince someone they shouldn't relate with a type description, and there's nothing obvious in the theory itself that stops someone from thinking they are a type so long as they can see themselves that way. There's little to make you think twice, until you start deeply understanding the intertypes (which most people never get to anyway). 

People who are comfortable in understanding socionics are those who somehow learn to identify types by common informational habits (not external behavioral traits), and be confident in that typing even in cases where the person doesn't fit the verbatim type description by what they look like or what conversation topics they gravitate towards. When I type someone, I almost always MUST speak to them personally, because I would otherwise have no reliable way to identify which aspects of our dialogue leave a gap in my understanding, where that gap is, and what IE's it requires to process the gap. These gaps between what kind of information is expected and what kind is given are absolutely critical to identifying sociotype, because they speak to how the two of you process information. 

I really don't think enough is communicated to how Socionics is at the level of information, not self perception.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

owlet said:


> I think it's good to get new perspectives, for sure, but if the perspectives are linked entirely to a different system, wouldn't they end up not being that relevant? If someone has the sources to look through, they can then work out what makes sense and what doesn't, then bring that up - plus their ideas of how to deal with the hazy areas. I do think areas of Socionics feel like they're not quite fully developed (but then, I can only read English sources so that might be why) and some input into those could be helpful. Or going deeper into the structure and why it is as it is etc.


Right, but that's part of the point isn't it? Let them grapple with the material for themselves. Let them make sense of things. The key here is to not explain the model itself, it is to explain what is needed to be known to understand the model and how to come to terms with it for themselves, this forging their own understanding that will be disparate. Then we debate, and learn what we shall learn.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Right, but that's part of the point isn't it? Let them grapple with the material for themselves. Let them make sense of things. The key here is to not explain the model itself, it is to explain what is needed to be known to understand the model and how to come to terms with it for themselves, this forging their own understanding that will be disparate. Then we debate, and learn what we shall learn.


Oh, yes, I don't think people should always say 'X is X for sure', but having people explain aspects, like what terms mean, is helpful. And being pointed to reliable sources is generally helpful also.


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

@ALongTime , @To_august , @Entropic , @owlet

Again, I agree with most of the points you guys are making. Ultimately it's a matter of difference of opinion here based on potential, possibility, and/or probability; we all identify a different method or approach as "more likely" to impact the way PerC people involve themselves in Socionics.

As such, I will continue to ensure to include MBTI language into my Socionics explanations, while you guys may choose another path.
@Fenix Wulfheart - As with pretty much all newly introduced soft science subjects (such as those in politics, psychology, theology, etc.), socionics will be cursed to fight against the popularly-accepted previously-embraced systems (such as MBTI in this instance) before it's ever accepted. (Even the theory of evolution, proven beyond reasonable doubt, is still not accepted in some more religious and traditional parts of the world.) The question therefore might become "how do we help spread this system?"

There are several ways, obviously, to spread the knowledge. I am not discounting any of the other ways--even if those ways include heightening accuracy and understanding of Socionics. I am approaching the subject of spreading it to the PerC community; by doing this, I am suggesting not to "get more people even if they have an incorrect understanding," but rather to simply prioritize relations with the predominant community (MBTI) over focusing on being absolutely precise. I also identify this as a sacrifice, however it's one that can easily be mended over time if people decide to pursue the subject in the first place.

I see the alternative as one in which fewer people will enter the Socionics community, and therefore ultimately will not encourage the growth of Socionics in as efficient a manner. My recommendation is merely an opportunity (from my perspective) which people can take advantage of if they so choose.


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

Figure said:


> Just some general comments:
> 
> I don't think the issue with socionics is not having enough information as much as it is the material not clearly explaining why the differences between socionics and MBTI matter, not communicating what the end goal of the theory is, and not having a regimented approach to teaching the theory in a way that aligns with that goal. Very few people come to socionics specifically looking to learn about intertypes, and I think that is where the theory's greatest payout is.
> 
> ...


Well said. I agree.


----------

