# Is Socionics based on religion in collectivist European cultures?



## NewBeginning (Oct 8, 2016)

How is it that Socionics is unheard of in individualist Western society? Is it more of a rationale for physical relationships rather than actual compatibility through people's abilities to empathize with one another?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

NewBeginning said:


> How is it that Socionics is unheard of in individualist Western society? Is it more of a rationale for physical relationships rather than actual compatibility through people's abilities to empathize with one another?


It has more to do with culture and language barriers than with the nature of the theory imo. If Socionics were conceived in Western society or its sources were primarily developed in the English language, it would be more known out there.


----------



## Mr Oops (Jun 29, 2016)

Socionics is highly logical and structural system (=lot's of mental hurdles) with much less emphasis on empiricism and pretty much unverified.


----------



## NewBeginning (Oct 8, 2016)

Mr Oops said:


> Socionics is highly logical and structural system (=lot's of mental hurdles) with much less emphasis on empiricism and pretty much unverified.


It's unverified until you experience a friendly duality with someone and timing warms the heart but the physical hurdles offset the theory.


----------



## HIX (Aug 20, 2018)

Socionics is more accurate than mbti. 

Socionics = breaks down the functions scientifically 

mbti = stereotypes


----------



## Engelsstaub (Apr 8, 2016)

Mr Oops said:


> Socionics is highly logical and structural system (=lot's of mental hurdles) with much less emphasis on empiricism and pretty much unverified.


While it does need more verification I'd point out that it tries to systematize some knowledge we do have about people. Why for instance one person is more receptive to ethical and moral arguments (Fe: function 1 and 2) while another person tends to discard empty moralizing and wishful thinking (Fe: function 4)?

So far the best science has for personality is Big5, but it says nothing about the wiring of someone's mind and how that person processes the world.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

I mean yeah essentially you have to admit that we live in a society first (something that individualists can't possibly seem to comprehend) & you can make a religion out of anything, but you cannot always Profit from it, if you catch my drift. Also imperialists never bothered to learn foreign languages and google translates very badly.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

NewBeginning said:


> How is it that Socionics is unheard of in individualist Western society? Is it more of a rationale for physical relationships rather than actual compatibility through people's abilities to empathize with one another?


Most people don't even know what MBTI is. MBTI is a niche thing and socionics is a niche of the niche, no wonder, that no one really knows anything about it.

BTW Socionics originated in western culture, so I have no idea, why would you assign it to other culture.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

NewBeginning said:


> How is it that Socionics is unheard of in individualist Western society? Is it more of a rationale for physical relationships rather than actual compatibility through people's abilities to empathize with one another?


Socionics hasn't been translated to any Western languages (English, Spanish, French, etc.) until somewhat recently. Since there is a big language barrier between Western languages and Russian language, very few people could read anything about it. Russian is considered to be category 3 for English speakers, which is not the most difficult but category 3 is high up there on difficulty level, so almost anyone living in the West couldn't read anything about socionics. It's also the case that both MBTI and Socionics have been concepted in 1970s and 80s when we didn't have the internet, so these typologies existed only on paper. It was with the coming of the internet, which made information copious and easy to access, that more of us could learn about such things.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

NewBeginning said:


> How is it that Socionics is unheard of in individualist Western society? Is it more of a rationale for physical relationships rather than actual compatibility through people's abilities to empathize with one another?


I don't think it has anything to do with collectivism vs individualism. To describe Eastern Europe as collectivist is missing the point. I would use the word "personal-ist" to describe us. What do I mean by "personal-ist"? It is more about the person and personal relationships. So, it's about the person and his friends and family. That's the full extent of our collectivism. People outside our personal circle of friends and family are treated usually in an individualist manner. Every man (and his family and friends) for himself (themselves)  For this reason, I would say Eastern European culture is somewhere in between individualist and collectivist. I was talking to someone yesterday about this, and I can say that we can relate both to Western and East Asian thinking in some ways. We're somewhere in between.

In a collectivist society you would have strangers caring more about strangers and society as a whole, striving to maintain a harmony. We're not about that. For example, don't expect smiles when inside of a store. We don't pay much attention to strangers and their needs and society as a whole barely registers among our concerns. If a stranger is getting beat up in the street? Not my fight! It's the police's job to handle that. We don't associate easily with strangers as a whole. Another aspect of this "personal-ist" thinking is the fact that we tend to prioritise personal relationships above work, rules, institutions, money, etc. Say I have to handle 2 cases at work. I will always prioritise those with whom I have a better personal relationship. If I don't like you, I don't care about your emergency, you can wait, my circle takes precedence. There was this guy, South African, and he once did something very nice for me, praising me to my managers. From then on, his requests received automatic priority status on my part and I even broke the rules to help him. Or another coworker, who moved to a different position, because she was very, very nice, whenever she had a case, I would be like: "Fuck off everyone else! Move aside! Passing through!"

A final point I want to make is that in other societies, you have this hierarchy: individual-family-circle of friends-community-town/city-region-nation. We usually skip community and maybe even town/city and move on straight to region and nation. I had a visiting American professor in college and one of the things that really struck me as very different is how much Americans associate into all sorts of NGOs and all that talk about "community". You'd think a more collectivist society would take that to the next level, but actually no. We have few NGOs and in general "community" isn't something on our minds.


----------



## DHernandez (Jun 15, 2019)

You’re asking if it is based upon one individual’s perception that certain physicality is paramount, as opposed to two individuals perceptions being roughly equivocal, as spoken?


----------

