# Socionics is fundamentally flawed



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> No, you are not guessing randomly... it is based on an estimation made by Ti (i.e. weighing one number against another). What you choose to guess is also Ti (i.e. your best guess). But the process of deciding on a number is Te.
> 
> so far so good
> 
> ...


You need to drop the argumentation and focus on what I say being correct and understanding why. I've already been through all this internally, so I am giving you the short-cuts to the end answers.

They are the personal choices being made as to what to place next to each other. Other things could have been chosen subjectively. Ti is linked to Fe. The person feels what they want and so they Ti together (spaces between) things that are accepted as objective facts (things closed in parenthesis). When their feelings are challenged, they just go a level deeper to pick whatever they want and rearrange things. At the end of the day, though, it's just how they feel, with rationalization being what they use to express such.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> They are the personal choices being made as to what to place next to each other. Other things could have been chosen subjectively.


I apologize for a delayed reply.

_(A=B, B=C; therefore, A=C)
(A=B), (B=C); (therefore, A=C)
(A)(=)(B), (B)(=)(C); (therefore), (A)(=)(C)_

Yes, you could have chosen D=E, E=F etc instead, or D>E, E>F etc... but that is completely irrelevant. It is like discussing whether or not a judge chose the right trial, instead of discussing whether or not his/her judgment was objective and fair, or challengeable.



> Ti is linked to Fe. The person feels what they want and so they Ti together (spaces between) things that are accepted as objective facts (things closed in parenthesis). When their feelings are challenged, they just go a level deeper to pick whatever they want and rearrange things. At the end of the day, though, it's just how they feel, with rationalization being what they use to express such.


Firstly, Fe does not equate to feelings! Fe is a judgement process_ based on _feelings/emotions.

Secondly, you incorrectly assume that everything boils down to feelings. Cognitive processes interact with feelings/emotions, but they are distinctly different. Ti is a cognitive process, which is mainly subjective, so it is not likely that two persons will come to the same conclusion about 12456*48569 (unless they calculate it step by step, but then it is about logical deductions, Te). It is the estimation/"weighing" that is subjective. However, IF A=B and B=C THEN _everyone_ will deduce that A=C. This process is objective.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> I apologize for a delayed reply.
> 
> _(A=B, B=C; therefore, A=C)
> (A=B), (B=C); (therefore, A=C)
> ...


So the judge subjectively chooses who goes to jail and who does not.


----------



## Arto (Jun 15, 2015)

Tellus said:


> Firstly, Fe does not equate to feelings! Fe is a judgement process_ based on _feelings/emotions.


I think Fe is a judgement process, based on information accumulated through other functions, which results in emotional expression, obvious to outsiders or not.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Which is why Te is often attributed to efficiency. The process of guessing is Te. What you choose to guess is Ti.
> 
> 
> This is Te. It's objective. You know what it is, others know what it is, and it is treated as objective. When you go into explaining why it equals 8 to a child, you then enter Ti, via your subjective choices for how to arrange the objective fact of "4" and "+". The fact that the equation is objective fact has no bearing on how you teach the child. There is no objective "correct" to how you teach it as long as you maintain the objectivity of "4" and "+", so the rest is your own subjective logic, Ti. Now, if you develop the Ti into an objective process, and try and make it more efficient to teach it, then you are treating it as an objective process which may be measured.
> ...


How long did it take you to get to the sqrt of 15625? It took like 2 attempts and like 5s to me. It looked like this:

"it ends with 25...that must mean that it has the number 5 somewhere in it, most likely the last place. 625 also has a clean sqrt...that being 25...ehich means that the last numbers are 25. and the number 15625 is too large for a double digit sqrt, so it must be at the very least triple digit, somewhere between 125 and 250. Do note that I made mistake in putting the 25(pow2 = 625) in front when I first guessed it was 250. Then I tried it the other way around and also found out that the dirty root of 156 is 12...add it all up... 1 2 5...BINGO! Multiply 125 * 125 and get...15625!"

I'm actually good at that wtf, shouldn't I like suck at L? Or P for that matter...


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> So the judge subjectively chooses who goes to jail and who does not.


A judge deduces (Te) certain things based on the law and the specific situation. Yes, there are also subjective elements in some cases since the law does not cover everything. But this subjective estimation by the judge corresponds to Ti.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Arto said:


> I think Fe is a judgement process, based on information accumulated through other functions, which results in emotional expression, obvious to outsiders or not.


Aušra Augustinavičiūtė:

"Extraverted ethics 

Perceives information about processes taking place in objects — first of all, emotional processes that are taking place in people, their excitation or subduedness, and their moods. This perceptual element implies the ability to know what excites people, and what suppresses them. It defines a person's ability or inability to control his emotional state, and also the emotional states of other people. 

When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the innate ability to induce or convey his moods to others and energize people with his emotions. He is able to activate the psychological/spiritual lives of other people and their emotional readiness for action. You might say that such a person has the ability to infect others with his moods and tends to impose on others the emotional states that he considers beneficial for their life activities."


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Ixim said:


> How long did it take you to get to the sqrt of 15625? It took like 2 attempts and like 5s to me. It looked like this:
> 
> "it ends with 25...that must mean that it has the number 5 somewhere in it, most likely the last place. 625 also has a clean sqrt...that being 25...ehich means that the last numbers are 25. and the number 15625 is too large for a double digit sqrt, so it must be at the very least triple digit, somewhere between 125 and 250. Do note that I made mistake in putting the 25(pow2 = 625) in front when I first guessed it was 250. Then I tried it the other way around and also found out that the dirty root of 156 is 12...add it all up... 1 2 5...BINGO! Multiply 125 * 125 and get...15625!"
> 
> I'm actually good at that wtf, shouldn't I like suck at L? Or P for that matter...


These are good examples of Ti processes. No, you don't suck at Ti (L), and I don't suck at Fe. However, this was a pretty easy task.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Tellus said:


> These are good examples of Ti processes. No, you don't suck at Ti (L), and I don't suck at Fe. However, this was a pretty easy task.


Aha, so we should do the hardcore tasks / challenges to really uncover our strengths?

I mean, they'd be difficult enough to show true patterns and to differentiate between the 3D+ and lesser IEs. Unless it's about preferences as MBTI stipulates.


----------



## Arto (Jun 15, 2015)

Tellus said:


> Aušra Augustinavičiūtė:
> 
> "Extraverted ethics
> 
> When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the innate ability to induce or convey his moods to others and energize people with his emotions. He is able to activate the psychological/spiritual lives of other people and their emotional readiness for action. You might say that such a person has the ability to infect others with his moods and tends to impose on others the emotional states that he considers beneficial for their life activities."


So then it is not merely a perception function? The perception of information does not actually happen through that function. It filters through it. Information recieved is then synthesized into action or emotion, which in itself is information to be percieved, but no by Fe itself.

It determines knowledge about the outside world through applying let's say some sort of not so explicit axioms of human interaction.
I'll try compare in an oversimplified way SEI and IEI (Si-Fe) (Ni-Fe) Information coming in throught the first function is then compared with Fe(which doesn't happen so linearly), that is much like a flexible base of knowledge. The first function (and not only it)even defines the priorities of the second. Fe is what makes either Si or Ni information make sense, much as Te does the same.
So in the end it is not Fe or Te that do the percieving, but more what aid it.
In Te or Fe doms i do suppose these functions are used in a manner that more avidly concentrates on their implementation, but i can not know that for sure.

I find it funny that you made a thread about socionics being fundamentally flawed, yet quoted it's founder as an arguement (just kidding) xD


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Ixim said:


> Aha, so we should do the hardcore tasks / challenges to really uncover our strengths?
> 
> I mean, they'd be difficult enough to show true patterns and to differentiate between the 3D+ and lesser IEs. Unless it's about preferences as MBTI stipulates.


Preference and strength is the same thing, but Bukalov's (and Yermak's) concept of dimensionality is more precise. And it means something specific, namely Ex, Nr, St and Tm. As long as we are dealing with the experience parameter, then we will not notice a difference between IEE's Ti and LII's Ti in terms of strength. However, +/- and consciousness are also factors. IEE has +Ti and LII has -Ti, and IEE's Ti is less conscious. 

Many IEE's are smart and like IQ puzzles, but very few become mathematicians. Why? Because the norm parameter of Ti is just too tedious for them: nomenclature, new math, new rules etc. 

The situation parameter is related to creativity. LII and ILI come up with new systems and theories about objects (Ti) all the time. IEE thinks this is a waste of time, since he or she is more interested in people/subjects. So IEE categorizes and theorizes about people instead (Fi/Ne).


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Tellus said:


> Preference and strength is the same thing, but Bukalov's (and Yermak's) concept of dimensionality is more precise. And it means something specific, namely Ex, Nr, St and Tm. As long as we are dealing with the experience parameter, then we will not notice a difference between IEE's Ti and LII's Ti in terms of strength. However, +/- and consciousness are also factors. IEE has +Ti and LII has -Ti, and IEE's Ti is less conscious.
> 
> Many IEE's are smart and like IQ puzzles, but very few become mathematicians. Why? Because the norm parameter of Ti is just too tedious for them: nomenclature, new math, new rules etc.
> 
> The situation parameter is related to creativity. LII and ILI come up with new systems and theories about objects (Ti) all the time. IEE thinks this is a waste of time, since he or she is more interested in people/subjects. So IEE categorizes and theorizes about people instead (Fi/Ne).


Do you agree with SSS(SocinicaSys) that a higher IE of a same type overrules the lower IE o that type? Like for example, in IEE, that would explain why they can't really fuel the Si to them(because it is overruled by 2D Se) and the fact that they don't really use Ni(because it is used by 4D Ego Ne).


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Ixim said:


> Do you agree with SSS(SocinicaSys) that a higher IE of a same type overrules the lower IE o that type? Like for example, in IEE, that would explain why they can't really fuel the Si to them(because it is overruled by 2D Se) and the fact that they don't really use Ni(because it is used by 4D Ego Ne).


I am not completely sure what you are referring to. Can you post a quote and/or a link?

"they don't really use Ni (because it is used by 4D Ego Ne)" This does not sound too crazy... I think IEE's Ni serves Ne, in a sense, but IEE definitely uses Ni.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Arto said:


> So then it is not merely a perception function? The perception of information does not actually happen through that function. It filters through it. Information recieved is then synthesized into action or emotion, which in itself is information to be percieved, but no by Fe itself.
> It determines knowledge about the outside world through applying let's say some sort of not so explicit axioms of human interaction.
> I'll try compare in an oversimplified way SEI and IEI (Si-Fe) (Ni-Fe) Information coming in throught the first function is then compared with Fe(which doesn't happen so linearly), that is much like a flexible base of knowledge. The first function (and not only it)even defines the priorities of the second. Fe is what makes either Si or Ni information make sense, much as Te does the same.
> So in the end it is not Fe or Te that do the percieving, but more what aid it.
> In Te or Fe doms i do suppose these functions are used in a manner that more avidly concentrates on their implementation, but i can not know that for sure.


Jungian Fe is judging function. It evaluates and organizes information. Socionics E also evaluates information but it does not compare two different behaviors, which is a big problem. 

E = internal dynamics of objects

Btw, all functions perceive information in the general sense (which that quote is referring to). This should not be mixed up with 'information-accessing' MBTI/Jungian perception.




> I find it funny that you made a thread about socionics being fundamentally flawed, yet quoted it's founder as an arguement (just kidding) xD


Well, it was an attempt to show that Fe does not equate to emotions. But E in Socionics _is_ flawed, and we should distinguish between Jungian Fe and Socionics E. These are correct (but less precise):

Understanding the 8 Jungian Cognitive Processes (8 Functions)


----------



## inabox (Oct 3, 2015)

Tellus said:


> I am not completely sure what you are referring to. Can you post a quote and/or a link?
> 
> "they don't really use Ni (because it is used by 4D Ego Ne)" This does not sound too crazy... I think IEE's Ni serves Ne, in a sense, but IEE definitely uses Ni.


Tellus is very right. My Ni usually serves Ne to suss out what possibilities should be pursued and what should be shut down  . I also use Ni in cases where my normal function preferences isn't of much use, like say, I have to be patient for the outcome of something.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

The world never behaves in perfectly predictable and orderly ways. Socionics originated based on one person's observations, that people tended to prioritize certain types of information over others in their interaction with life. Aushra wrote down the patterns she observed, but no definition she constructed was exhaustive because it's impossible to develop an exhaustive definition -- there is always an exception, or a case that is "in between" two definitions.

It's not a secret that the MBTI/Jungian typology and Socionics are difficult if not impossible to reconcile. The MBTI is behavioral, while Socionics (especially the SSS school you're citing) pays far closer attention to information processing. When you trot out behavioral stereotypes like "we know that SiTe (Jungian functions) is the stereotypical accountant" you're trying to mix two disparate systems through cliches. That's so nonsensical it's not even wrong.

If you want to critically evaluate Socionics, you don't evaluate it by comparing it to MBTI stereotypes, lol. Instead, you should use tests that see if its empirical claims (like the claim that people have fixed relationships with certain types of information that persist over life) hold up in an experimental setting. 

Aside from that, you also seem to have some very fundamental misunderstandings of Socionics.



> Socionics Fi does not work either, since it is a static information aspect/element.


While SSS would tell you that quote is not specific enough to be revealing (people use many standards for behavior), if by "worse" that person was making an ethical evaluation of behavior, it's Fi. I'm not sure why you think that "Mary is behaving worse than Jane this afternoon" is a statement that can't be made with a static function. No Socionist would say that. A static element is one where a single decision is made at a certain point in time. The person in your example simply evaluated Mary's behavior and made a static opinion on it, and then evaluated Jane and made a static opinion, and compared the two opinions. Nothing about that is incompatible with the use of a static function.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Zamyatin said:


> The world never behaves in perfectly predictable and orderly ways. Socionics originated based on one person's observations, that people tended to prioritize certain types of information over others in their interaction with life. Aushra wrote down the patterns she observed, but no definition she constructed was exhaustive because it's impossible to develop an exhaustive definition -- there is always an exception, or a case that is "in between" two definitions.
> 
> 
> It's not a secret that the MBTI/Jungian typology and Socionics are difficult if not impossible to reconcile. The MBTI is behavioral, while Socionics (especially the SSS school you're citing) pays far closer attention to information processing. When you trot out behavioral stereotypes like "we know that SiTe (Jungian functions) is the stereotypical accountant" you're trying to mix two disparate systems through cliches. That's so nonsensical it's not even wrong.
> If you want to critically evaluate Socionics, you don't evaluate it by comparing it to MBTI stereotypes, lol. Instead, you should use tests that see if its empirical claims (like the claim that people have fixed relationships with certain types of information that persist over life) hold up in an experimental setting.


You (and SSS, and mainstream Socionics) fail to realize that if one theory/system claims there are 16 personality types, and another system also claims there are 16 personality types, then we have only four alternatives:

a) one type in system 1 corresponds to exactly one type in system 2 -- My viewpoint.

b) one type in system 1 corresponds to more than one type in system 2 -- There are more than 16 personality types, which contradicts both systems.

c) one type in system 1 does not correspond to a type in system 2 -- There are more than 16 personality types, which contradicts both systems.

d) "SSS does not deal with psychological types, but ways of thinking" -- Well, try to explain the difference! It is impossible, since there is no difference!!!

*Furthermore, logical deductions CAN NEVER be the same thing as "logical theories". The former is about objects and the latter is about fields.*



> Aside from that, you also seem to have some very fundamental misunderstandings of Socionics.
> While SSS would tell you that quote is not specific enough to be revealing (people use many standards for behavior), if by "worse" that person was making an ethical evaluation of behavior, it's Fi. I'm not sure why you think that "Mary is behaving worse than Jane this afternoon" is a statement that can't be made with a static function.
> No Socionist would say that. A static element is one where a single decision is made at a certain point in time. The person in your example simply evaluated Mary's behavior and made a static opinion on it, and then evaluated Jane and made a static opinion, and compared the two opinions. Nothing about that is incompatible with the use of a static function.


You don't realize that the information aspects must correspond perfectly with the information elements/functions. Otherwise Socionics is pointless; all intertype relations depend on the fact that an IM element Fi, for example, "produces" ONLY the information aspect Fi. 

Fi = internal (=implicit) statics of fields 
Fe = internal dynamics of objects

My point is that Fi does not deal with _behaviors_. Fe does. And Fe does not _compare _things. Fi does.


----------

