# Limitations of Socionics



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

The same limitation that any map has.
It is not the territory.


----------



## socionicssssss (May 22, 2015)

The system is a chaotic mass of vague, Russian ramblings. Luckily WSS Labs are putting in the effort to sort out the mess and make it into a coherent system that makes some semblance of sense.

Also, empirical backing would be nice, but that takes time.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Silveresque your problem is that you don't seem to understand that Jung's cognitive functions aren't exactly equal to socionics' information elements. Augusta draws upon Jung's definitions of functions in formulating the definitions of the information elements, but the IMs are more about what kind of information you focus on when interacting with the environment whereas Jung's functions are that - psychic functions. It's a hairsplitting but very important difference. You will for example see that Augusta also understood introversion and extroversion differently as objects vs fields. Fields focus on the relationships between objects which incidentally, is extremely similar to how you described Ti in a very recent post of yours as being the logical relationships between objects. 

Another problem with Jung is that he is widely unclear of what he means sometimes, which requires heavy interpretation from the reader to understand what is being inferred to. There's no such problem with socionics.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Entropic said:


> @_Silveresque_ your problem is that you don't seem to understand that Jung's cognitive functions aren't exactly equal to socionics' information elements. Augusta draws upon Jung's definitions of functions in formulating the definitions of the information elements, but the IMs are more about what kind of information you focus on when interacting with the environment whereas Jung's functions are that - psychic functions. It's a hairsplitting but very important difference. You will for example see that Augusta also understood introversion and extroversion differently as objects vs fields. Fields focus on the relationships between objects which incidentally, is extremely similar to how you described Ti in a very recent post of yours as being the logical relationships between objects.
> 
> Another problem with Jung is that he is widely unclear of what he means sometimes, which requires heavy interpretation from the reader to understand what is being inferred to. There's no such problem with socionics.


I have heard that there are differences between Jung's functions and IM's, but I haven't found much information on it so I can't say I know much about it. 

Though actually, I kind of already viewed Jung's functions in that way, as something in the environment we either pay attention to or ignore. There's probably a bit of both involved in these processes, "psychic functions" within us and "information elements" within the environment. I mean, if we are focusing on a particular aspect of reality, that's going to be reflected in our cognition, isn't it? And vice versa. 

But like I said I've found hardly any information on what makes IMs separate from psychic functions and why it matters, so I may be missing something. 

(On the other hand I guess I can see how it is possible to treat them as separate things, like for example two people could be using the same type of cognition to focus on different types of things.)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> I have heard that there are differences between Jung's functions and IM's, but I haven't found much information on it so I can't say I know much about it.
> 
> Though actually, I kind of already viewed Jung's functions in that way, as something in the environment we either pay attention to or ignore. There's probably a bit of both involved in these processes, "psychic functions" within us and "information elements" within the environment. I mean, if we are focusing on a particular aspect of reality, that's going to be reflected in our cognition, isn't it? And vice versa.
> 
> ...


I don't treat them differently personally, because I think neither is a complete picture of what they are. You should probably read Kepinsky's article of information metabolism, though: 

Information Metabolism - Wikisocion

Socionics :: Information Elements


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

You may want to read on the information aspects as well. The information elements are the means by which we process and create them, and help to determine if "this stuff I am thinking about" is related to element X or element Y.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

I truthfully don't have huge criticisms regarding Socionics; it seems to be an effective tool for it's intended purpose, at least when compared to the other widespread alternatives out there. I can understand peoples dislike of the four-letter code, and to me it makes less sense than the three-letter code, but it's never truthfully been hard to understand, for myself at least. 



Entropic said:


> Another problem with Jung is that he is widely unclear of what he means sometimes, which requires heavy interpretation from the reader to understand what is being inferred to. There's no such problem with socionics.


This reason, perhaps, is why I tend to be rather indifferent to Jung's writings, even if I have some interest in the subject itself.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Jung needed an editor that understood his thoughts. Some of his writing makes me think his voice should be over a loud-speaker while I am tripping on acid and falling through some vertigo of psychedelic colors. He meanders through his thoughts a lot.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Entropic said:


> I don't treat them differently personally, because I think neither is a complete picture of what they are. You should probably read Kepinsky's article of information metabolism, though:
> 
> Information Metabolism - Wikisocion
> 
> Socionics :: Information Elements


I think I get it now. There are no Judgment and Perception in socionics, it's all just types of information. Socionics doesn't really use any of the same divisions Jung used, instead it uses objects/fields, statics/dynamics, and internal/external.

Now I need time to rethink socionics. So far I'm finding it a lot less straightforward than Jung's functions. And socionics just seems to make so many claims with model A that just seem baseless, like for example why can't I value both the subjective and objective relationships between objects? It seems too rigid to work out in reality.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> I think I get it now. There are no Judgment and Perception in socionics, it's all just types of information. Socionics doesn't really use any of the same divisions Jung used, instead it uses objects/fields, statics/dynamics, and internal/external.
> 
> Now I need time to rethink socionics. So far I'm finding it a lot less straightforward than Jung's functions. And socionics just seems to make so many claims with model A that just seem baseless, like for example why can't I value both the subjective and objective relationships between objects? It seems too rigid to work out in reality.


But it says that you do - you have both an introverted and extroverted IM in your ego block. It's just that an introvert is more likely to favor and focus on fields. It's no different than Jung in this regard.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Entropic said:


> But it says that you do - you have both an introverted and extroverted IM in your ego block. It's just that an introvert is more likely to favor and focus on fields. It's no different than Jung in this regard.


I was referring to Fi and Ti.

Socionics says that if I'm Ti base, I must be Fi role and vice versa. I don't think either fits as my role, as I seem to like both. Socionics also claims that if I'm Ti base I'm supposed to like and seek Fe. This doesn't seem to be true at all, I've been annoyed by Fe in the past and I find it hard to even imagine seeking it. And this has never changed across time or according to any interpretation of Fe. I'd say maybe I'm an SLI with heavy Ti use, but I've never been drawn to Ne either.

So what do I make of this? It's a huge mess right now, unusable. Maybe I just need to give it time.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> I was referring to Fi and Ti.
> 
> Socionics says that if I'm Ti base, I must be Fi role and vice versa. I don't think either fits as my role, as I seem to like both. Socionics also claims that if I'm Ti base I'm supposed to like and seek Fe. This doesn't seem to be true at all, I've been annoyed by Fe in the past and I find it hard to even imagine seeking it. And this has never changed across time or according to any interpretation of Fe. I'd say maybe I'm an SLI with heavy Ti use, but I've never been drawn to Ne either.
> 
> So what do I make of this? It's a huge mess right now, unusable. Maybe I just need to give it time.


Define your understanding of Fe and what it means to be Fe seeking vs Fi and using and enjoying Fi and then the same for Ne.

If you want we can take this to your type me thread.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Entropic said:


> Define your understanding of Fe and what it means to be Fe seeking vs Fi and using and enjoying Fi and then the same for Ne.
> 
> If you want we can take this to your type me thread.


I have to go to class for a few hours but I'll respond when I get back.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

To_august said:


> I think it's common for communities that are more familiar with MBTI to use such terms as Fi or introverted feeling.
> 
> I've never seen usage of those in Russian speaking communities. People call them strictly in Socionics terms - white/relational ethics or simply use signs of IEs (like this -
> 
> ...


For what it's worth I asked for it and we now have that here (I've been using them for the last few days). :r: :i: :L: :f: : :s: :e: :t:


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

Silveresque said:


> I was referring to Fi and Ti.
> 
> Socionics says that if I'm Ti base, I must be Fi role and vice versa. I don't think either fits as my role, as I seem to like both. Socionics also claims that if I'm Ti base I'm supposed to like and seek Fe. This doesn't seem to be true at all, I've been annoyed by Fe in the past and I find it hard to even imagine seeking it. And this has never changed across time or according to any interpretation of Fe. I'd say maybe I'm an SLI with heavy Ti use, but I've never been drawn to Ne either.
> 
> So what do I make of this? It's a huge mess right now, unusable. Maybe I just need to give it time.


I find that with my role; I seem to like both :r: and :L:, I certainly seem to do both. They're both conscious functions, of course, so you should be very aware of both. If you're an introverted rational they're both kind of a natural mode of operation, and role is definitely not as hated as PoLR.

What decides it for me is that I'm a lot more confident with my :r: judgements and and pretty unconfident with :L: judgements when it really comes down to it. That and I do value : from other people and dislike :e: (I like someone to take me through how to do something, rather than explain the rules of the system itself, but if I'm explaining it myself I'd think about the rules and be more :L but that doesn't really help you, unless you're actually an ESI.

But that's always been the biggest confusion I've had about my type, I prefer :r: but I like :L: maybe more than socionics tells me I should. There must be a subtype that gives greater value to the role function.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

ALongTime said:


> For what it's worth I asked for it and we now have that here (I've been using them for the last few days). :r: :i: :L: :f: : :s: :e: :t:


Finally!
Now it's time to learn their code letter-names for convenient usage.:kitteh:


----------

