# "unpopular"



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Zero11 said:


> That´s what I call quick to judge :dry:
> Because this site wasn´t reliable for you, you condemned that socionics were just a MBTI rip-off, V.I. wouldn´t work but it does with sufficient experience it helps to narrow down possibilities. (I know thats not the way Ne works :laughing: and your introverted judment is pretty much the opposite of my introverted perception) Pi Je vs. Pe Ji our views are totally alien to one another.


and you are awfully quick to judge behaviors you observe as the product of socionics elements.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Based on a observed pattern :wink:


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Zero11 said:


> Based on a observed pattern :wink:


look in mirror.


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> That´s what I call quick to judge :dry:
> Because this site wasn´t reliable for you, you condemned that socionics were just a MBTI rip-off, V.I. wouldn´t work but it does with sufficient experience it helps to narrow down possibilities. (I know thats not the way Ne works :laughing: and your introverted judment is pretty much the opposite of my introverted perception) Pi Je vs. Pe Ji our views are totally alien to one another.


I didn't just think it was an MBTI rip-off, I thought it was a crackpot doing MBTI wrong... it even slowed down my learning of MBTI as a result because I mixed the two theories together, started ISFP AND INTJ hunting because I thought there were two ways MBTI types compliment. It's one of the reasons I now try and refrain from the four-letter names in Socionics. 

You're being Extinguishy, I can sense it.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Jack Oliver Aaron said:


> Everyone started off with MBTI (unless you're Russian or Ukrainian), including myself and I started off thinking Socionics was a rip off of MBTI (mostly because, probably like you, I came across ₪₪₪ Socionics - The New Psychology ₪₪₪ first which is seen by the rest of the Socionics community as a crackpot site). Things like Visual Identification, although based on highly recurrent patterns between people of different types, are not rules integral to Socionics theory and the practice is snubbed by the majority of respectable socionists.
> 
> Yeah, clubs are just a means of describing shared traits between Intuitive-Logicals, Intuitive-Ethicals, Sensory-Logicals and Sensory-Ethicals. They don't really go much deeper than that and aren't really meant to, unlike quadras.


I first came across Socionics on PersonalityCafe from overly enthusiastic Socionics students, ENFp/IEEs always asking MBTI ISTPs about duality. The problem with that is that MBTI ISTPs aren't always SLI/ISTp I got tired of it pretty quickly, mostly because they insisted on mixing and correlating the two systems, especially when I realized that MBTI and Socionics are not one-to-one. Also, the references they used were pretty bad (it was the site that you linked, too!), and because of it, I did think that it was a crackpot system.

Now, I don't think it's a crackpot system anymore, but it's just not the system I prefer. But I've been researching it, because I really didn't know that much about it, and I want to be able to make an informed opinion.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> i have idiosyncratic interpretations of IM elements in socionics, but mine are closer to augusta's interpretation's than jung's -- so this is the only point here where we "disagree" although that is not the right way of putting it.


Yeah, I get what you're saying. Your opinions differ/diverge from Jung? I'm googling Augusta's function descriptions right now. I don't think I've read any of her theories before.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> That´s what I call quick to judge :dry:
> Because this site wasn´t reliable for you, you condemned that socionics were just a MBTI rip-off, V.I. wouldn´t work but it does with sufficient experience it helps to narrow down possibilities. (I know thats not the way Ne works :laughing: and your introverted judment is pretty much the opposite of my introverted perception) Pi Je vs. Pe Ji our views are totally alien to one another.


Your analysis breaks down when one considers that the pro-VI and anti-VI stances are not attached to any given IM element. It isn't about narrowing down possibilities or leaving them wide open; it's about using or rejecting a method based on its perceived credibility and reliability. Also, do you even know his type, or are you tossing out knee-jerk typings again?


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

madhatter said:


> Yeah, I get what you're saying. Your opinions differ/diverge from Jung?


well, quite a bit, but so do augusta's at that.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Jack Oliver Aaron said:


> I didn't just think it was an MBTI rip-off, I thought it was a crackpot doing MBTI wrong... it even slowed down my learning of MBTI as a result because I mixed the two theories together, started ISFP AND INTJ hunting because I thought there were two ways MBTI types compliment. It's one of the reasons I now try and refrain from the four-letter names in Socionics.
> 
> You're being Extinguishy, I can sense it.


Very interesting :mellow: this view raises my acceptance to 100% this makes it far easier to understand.

Do I understand that right that you accidently mixed them up and this disturbed your natural learning process / you became confused with it? Oh yeah it must be that way. As I understand the empathy that lies beyond this it makes me able to view this from a complete new angle. I had no idea that it worked this way so direct :shocked::sad: a classic deadlock which appears differently for the types.




> Your analysis breaks down when one considers that the pro-VI and anti-VI stances are not attached to any given IM element. It isn't about narrowing down possibilities or leaving them wide open; it's about using or rejecting a method based on its perceived credibility and reliability. Also, do you even know his type, or are you tossing out knee-jerk typings again?


Don´t worry only because I answer in the way I do doesn´t meant that I couldn´t see what you were talking about. I just put it into another context and to merge it only in the end.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> Don´t worry only because I answer in the way I do doesn´t meant that I couldn´t see what you were talking about. I just put it into another context and to merge it only in the end.


Which is to say what, exactly? Also, you ignored my question about typing him.


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> Very interesting :mellow: this view raises my acceptance to 100% this makes it far easier to understand.
> 
> Do I understand that right that you accidently mixed them up and this disturbed your natural learning process / you became confused with it? Oh yeah it must be that way. As I understand the empathy that lies beyond this it makes me able to view this from a complete new angle. I had no idea that it worked this way so direct :shocked::sad: a classic deadlock which appears differently for the types.


Yes, I thought I was looking at a new school of MBTI with very different ideas to what I already knew.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

madhatter said:


> Now, I don't think it's a crackpot system anymore, but it's just not the system I prefer. But I've been researching it, because I really didn't know that much about it, and I want to be able to make an informed opinion.


I think you'll end up liking it once it sinks in. I'll leave it to you to decide whether this is accurate or not, but I think one of the more important nuances of the system is the centering around information metabolism, and cognitive processing instead of "use," as people describe MBTI functions here. That difference is what really sets MBTI and socionics apart, IMO.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> Which is to say what, exactly? Also, you ignored my question about typing him.


Jung:
ENTP - The Visionaries :dry:


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> Jung:
> ENTP - The Visionaries :dry:


Interesting. Did you know his Socionic type before tossing IEs at him in this thread?


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

@Kanerou

I accepted his typing and if this were wrong I could change it later.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> @_Kanerou_
> 
> I accepted his typing and if this were wrong I could change it later.


OK.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

myexplodingcat said:


> I would like an explanation of the logic involved in this system. I'm aware that there is a relationship suggestion system and other interpersonal kinds of tools, but the sites I look at tend to just tell about them, rather than tell why. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong sites, but I haven't found anybody to direct me to the right ones.


I don't know how much material you have covered already, so here are some basics that you should study to get a good grasp on socionics.

The founder of socionics is A. Augusta. She drew this theory from works of Jung and works of Kepinski on information metabolism (IM). You can read about IM here but most people studying socionics skip this as this is only theoretical information of little practical use. The main point of this, that every socionics beginner should understand, is that socionics types are not types of personalities rather types of information metabolism. 

Socionics has 3 dichotomies which are same as the ones that MBTI uses: feeling-thinking, sensing-intuition, extraversion-introversion. Applying E-I dichotomy to T-F and N-S we obtain 8 information elements: Se, Ne, Te, Fe, Ni, Si, Ti, Fi. The descriptions of these information elements you can find in this post. These are original descriptions translated from A.Augusta's writing. These information elements (IEs) are then plugged into 8 functions of Model A to yield 16 types, descriptions of functions and Model A. Here are some characteristics of how each IE manifests in valued functions. So that's the fundamentals of 16 types.

The 16 types are further grouped into various smaller groupings in socionics, of which the most notable are quadra and temperaments. Types are grouped into quadra on basis of their valued IEs, into temperaments - on basis of their dominant IE. Information between quadra is exchanged across rings of benefit and supervision to yield quadra progression (some info on this here). 

If you want to understand the logic behind socionics system, then I urge you to read all of the posts and articles I linked above and spend some time studying them.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

madhatter said:


> I've been doing some research into Socionics theory recently, and I find most of its theories to be unnecessarily convoluted. Some things that I do like are the quadra groupings and the concept of the function blocking. Too often the subject of functions working in tandem is ignored in JCF. But some of the other groupings, like the clubs...the information I found on the clubs was very stilted, stereotypical and arbitrary, clumping together types that use completely different function stackings.


I've studied socionics for about a year myself and haven't found the information on clubs to be of much use. I'd say ignore it. The most useful groupings I've found to be quadra and temperaments, on rare occasion romance styles.



> I read some material on the Reinin dichotomies, and thought the same thing about these. These in particular I thought were unnecessary.


I've found Reinins are extremely useful in typing. When you're having trouble telling similar types apart, like quasi-identicals, comparatives, and look-alike relations, they are invaluable. They are not easy to get a grasp on, however. I've found the following particularly useful: Dynamic/Static, Merry/Serious, Tactical/Strategic, Process/Result, Positivist/Negativist. Some of the others haven't been very helpful. Aristocratic/Democratic and Asking/Declaring in particular should be used with caution, or better not used at all in typing someone. 



> And ultimately, my issue is that I don't like Socionics interpretation of the Jungian functions, especially with the Sensing functions. From what I have read of Jung, I don't see how the creators of Socionics came to these interpretations.


I agree with this and don't like Socionics descriptions of sensing functions either.



> Edit: Also, I forgot to mention that I don't like the visual identification and the physical attributes that are thrown into many Socionics descriptions. I believe physical attributes have nothing to do with cognitive processes.


Socionics has been created in Eastern Europe in times USSR was still in existence when there was a great degree of cultural and ethnic homogeneity, which warranted such specific descriptions. Now that Socionics is getting more global exposure such descriptions have become obsolete (a resident of Brazil would find information on how ILEs like to wear sweaters to be of no value). I think it's better to ignore such specifics rather than disqualify the entire typology because of them. Understanding the historical and cultural background of Socionics puts such things into the right perspective.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

LXPilot said:


> I think you'll end up liking it once it sinks in. I'll leave it to you to decide whether this is accurate or not, but I think one of the more important nuances of the system is the centering around information metabolism, and cognitive processing instead of "use," as people describe MBTI functions here. That difference is what really sets MBTI and socionics apart, IMO.


I prefer the cognitive processing approach, rather than behaviors and use, as well. Since first picking up my first MBTI book, I have become increasingly more Jungian in my outlook over the years. The 4 forced dichotomies and the J/P split are very misleading. But I don't adhere to one particular school of JCF either. So I'm reading about Socionics to give myself another perspective on it, since both systems sprang from Jung's ideas. I don't know if I will ever prefer it over JCF. But I'm always re-thinking my theories and opinions on it, so it doesn't hurt to look at some constructive criticism that Socionics provides. You know, why others prefer Socionics, etc.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> I've found Reinins are extremely useful in typing. When you're having trouble telling similar types apart, like quasi-identicals, comparatives, and look-alike relations, they are invaluable. They are not easy to get a grasp on, however. I've found the following particularly useful: Dynamic/Static, Merry/Serious, Tactical/Strategic, Process/Result, Positivist/Negativist. Some of the others haven't been very helpful. Aristocratic/Democratic and Asking/Declaring in particular should be used with caution, or better not used at all in typing someone.


Granted, I've only read the Wikisocion page on these dichotomies, and read through the individual dichotomies pages, and I'm new to Socionics. Unfortunately, I can't read Russian and the original sources. I think it would be nice to have them translated into English, although coincidentally, I've been wanting to learn Russian for some time, though not because of Socionics, haha. From what I've read though, they are just unwieldy and unnecessary. As a mathematician, it just seems that Reinin's trying to force human psychology into a binary system, and it just doesn't work that way. This was the same criticism I had with MBTI before I discovered the functions. I would get frustrated with the tests and their S vs N questions, because they would force me to choose between them, when I thought that both options applied to me. I know that most typologies' very purpose is to classify human psychology, but I think that many of Reinin's dichotomies just aren't that meaningful. Some of Reinin's dichotomies, I could go both way depending on the situation. There were others that I didn't even understand what they were trying to define or what the purpose of the dichotomy was. And, there were only a couple that I found useful. But at the moment, I can't remember which ones they were. I have to read over them again. 



> Socionics has been created in Eastern Europe in times USSR was still in existence when there was a great degree of cultural and ethnic homogeneity, which warranted such specific descriptions. Now that Socionics is getting more global exposure such descriptions have become obsolete (a resident of Brazil would find information on how ILEs like to wear sweaters to be of no value). I think it's better to ignore such specifics rather than disqualify the entire typology because of them. Understanding the historical and cultural background of Socionics puts such things into the right perspective.


Very interesting. Oh, I'm not disqualifying the entire typology. There are similar trends in Enneagram and some MBTI off-shootings, and I don't disqualify them. It's just that many of the sources I have been exposed to had this VI element, which was off-putting. But I have since found other sites that don't have this, and these have been more helpful.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

madhatter said:


> Granted, I've only read the Wikisocion page on these dichotomies, and read through the individual dichotomies pages, and I'm new to Socionics. Unfortunately, I can't read Russian and the original sources. I think it would be nice to have them translated into English, although coincidentally, I've been wanting to learn Russian for some time, though not because of Socionics, haha. From what I've read though, they are just unwieldy and unnecessary.


I've found these extended descriptions of Reinins with examples which haven't been published on Wikisocion yet that have been immensely helpful to me for understanding them better.



> As a mathematician, it just seems that Reinin's trying to force human psychology into a binary system, and it just doesn't work that way. This was the same criticism I had with MBTI before I discovered the functions. I would get frustrated with the tests and their S vs N questions, because they would force me to choose between them, when I thought that both options applied to me. I know that most typologies' very purpose is to classify human psychology, but I think that many of Reinin's dichotomies just aren't that meaningful. Some of Reinin's dichotomies, I could go both way depending on the situation. There were others that I didn't even understand what they were trying to define or what the purpose of the dichotomy was. And, there were only a couple that I found useful. But at the moment, I can't remember which ones they were. I have to read over them again.


I don't think that Socionics has been meant as a study of human psychology but rather human information metabolism. In the course of my study of it, I've discovered that it's very structural and impersonal. It describes certain kinds of algorithms that your minds runs to make sense of reality, not the kind of person that you are. This also applies to MBTI since they have the same origin. It seems to me like both typologies have been largely interpreted and used in the wrong manner. They are not studies into the psychology of personality but instead fall into the category of structural cognitive science.

This may seem dry and impersonal, I certainly lost some interests in both typologies once I saw this, but it's interesting in its own right as it raises a number of questions of more philosophical nature.


----------



## Sleepy (Jan 18, 2009)

myexplodingcat said:


> I would like an explanation of the logic involved in this system. I'm aware that there is a relationship suggestion system and other interpersonal kinds of tools, but the sites I look at tend to just tell about them, rather than tell why.


Of course model A explains the intertype system (the interaction between functions and elements in different combinations), but I guess you wanna know where model A comes from. As far as I've understood Socionics was discovered from experience. Augusta worked in family research and noticed that there was a symmetry: people tend to get along well and have harmonious relationships when they differ in all three jungian dichotomies but only share the j/p (or rationality/irrationality). This is basically a fact. From observing these things for years it's pretty obvious that this is how things are. Anyway, since this can be seen in all 8 pairs with this combination, it suggests that there is an underlying symmetry. And they took it from there. I don't know all the logical specifics any further, but this is how it started I believe.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

@myexplodingcat

This may help.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

madhatter said:


> From what I've read though, they are just unwieldy and unnecessary. As a mathematician, it just seems that Reinin's trying to force human psychology into a binary system, and it just doesn't work that way.


I agree 1000%


----------

