# Why is Socionics so hard to get into?



## SnowShrew (Feb 17, 2017)

I am having trouble getting into Socionics. It's all too complicated and I lose interest easily. I am so much more comfortable with MBTI and Enneagram. Can someone maybe send me some links to websites that describe it well? Or better yet, could someone give me a general summary of the important aspects of Socionics?


----------



## DarkSideOfLight (Feb 15, 2011)

I like the term mental masturbation. That's what comes up to my mind when I think about summarizing Socionics. So much stuff in this system is pulled out of ass like this whole compatibility system, visual type recognition or slightly altered function order taken from MBTI that it doesn't make sense unless you seriously shove all of it down your brain really hard. Unnecessary level of nonsense.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

SnowShrew said:


> Or better yet, could someone give me a general summary of the important aspects of Socionics?


I'd say the most important part of Socionics is intertype relations. It gives you something that can be applied and used.

You're familiar with MBTI, the core idea isn't that different. Socionics is just a more thorough system based on Carl Jung's work.



DarkSideOfLight said:


> I like the term mental masturbation. That's what comes up to my mind when I think about summarizing Socionics. So much stuff in this system is pulled out of ass like this whole compatibility system, visual type recognition or slightly altered function order taken from MBTI that it doesn't make sense unless you seriously shove all of it down your brain really hard. Unnecessary level of nonsense.


As opposed to MBTI, where everyone's a super special snowflake that they call an 'intuitive' except the people you don't like. Those people we call 'sensers' and they are trashed endlessly.

You might as well change the name of MBTI to 'one big superiority complex.'


----------



## bremen (Apr 25, 2016)

Wikisocion is a good place to start studying it, I recommend reading about the Quadras which is the grouping system for types, maybe check out the temperaments and then the information elements which is basically the functions before diving into types. It will be probably easier for you to learn socionics if you accept that its different than Mbti.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

SnowShrew said:


> I am having trouble getting into Socionics. It's all too complicated and I lose interest easily. I am so much more comfortable with MBTI and Enneagram. Can someone maybe send me some links to websites that describe it well? Or better yet, could someone give me a general summary of the important aspects of Socionics?


Well, human nature is complex and human psyche is complicated. Socionics is a very simplified system from this perspective that describes only a portion or a layer of it. If you familiarized yourself with Jung's Psychological Types or works of Naranjo or Riso/Hudson and found them comfortable to understand, then there's no reason for Socionics to seem very complicated. It's far more transparent and consistent as a system in comparison to writings mentioned above. As a logic-driven thinker, whose capacity to solve complex problems that involve a lot of moving pieces few can match (as some MBTI INTJ descriptions claim), it has to be a non-issue for you. Unless you're looking for a one webpage explanation with shortcut labels to pigeonhole people.

You can start with reading up on each of the information elements here or a shorter outline here, which should give a good understanding of IEs as separate aspects. Then proceed with learning about the way they are positioned in the model of a type - Model A. And finally you should read about Quadras to get the idea of the way types are distributed and grouped according to their shared valued IEs.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

But i love socionics more. Because the description is more informative. That's how i study my crush you know. Herherher.


----------



## SnowShrew (Feb 17, 2017)

To_august said:


> Well, human nature is complex and human psyche is complicated. Socionics is a very simplified system from this perspective that describes only a portion or a layer of it. If you familiarized yourself with Jung's Psychological Types or works of Naranjo or Riso/Hudson and found them comfortable to understand, then there's no reason for Socionics to seem very complicated. It's far more transparent and consistent as a system in comparison to writings mentioned above. As a logic-driven thinker, whose capacity to solve complex problems that involve a lot of moving pieces few can match (as some MBTI INTJ descriptions claim), it has to be a non-issue for you. Unless you're looking for a one webpage explanation with shortcut labels to pigeonhole people.
> 
> You can start with reading up on each of the information elements here or a shorter outline here, which should give a good understanding of IEs as separate aspects. Then proceed with learning about the way they are positioned in the model of a type - Model A. And finally you should read about Quadras to get the idea of the way types are distributed and grouped according to their shared valued IEs.


It is partly because I am INTJ that I am not getting into it. It is my Te. I do not see any practical use for it right off the bat, and it is demotivating me from actually trying to put everything together. I had a similar thing with Enneagram at first too, until someone convinced me of its usefulness.

I've been trying to give the benefit of the doubt for Socionics after seeing how useful the other two systems could be. But I just can't help but be a bit skeptical as to how much practical use Socionics really has. I have also heard that the cognitive functions for Socionics and MBTI do not necessarily correlate, but I think they should. This also makes me wonder whether or not I should waste time reading about it. Why not have a unified theory of MBTI and Socionics where the functions correlate for sure?

That said, I will look into the websites that have been mentioned on this thread. And hopefully, I will find the system to be a useful one as well as the other two.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

SnowShrew said:


> It is partly because I am INTJ that I am not getting into it. It is my Te. I do not see any practical use for it right off the bat, and it is demotivating me from actually trying to put everything together. I had a similar thing with Enneagram at first too, until someone convinced me of its usefulness.


Socionics has a greater value in terms of its practical use, imo. In addition to exploring individual TIM framework it has quadras and intertype relations that address the issue of interaction between types. Whereas MBTI is used mainly for work environments and career choices, the supposition for which are quite a bogus.



> I've been trying to give the benefit of the doubt for Socionics after seeing how useful the other two systems could be. But I just can't help but be a bit skeptical as to how much practical use Socionics really has. I have also heard that the cognitive functions for Socionics and MBTI do not necessarily correlate, but I think they should. This also makes me wonder whether or not I should waste time reading about it. Why not have a unified theory of MBTI and Socionics where the functions correlate for sure?


Why do you think they should correlate?

Of course you can make a unified theory, reconsider definitions and rearrange the structure so as to make a correlation, this wouldn't be neither MBTI nor Socionics anymore though.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

SnowShrew said:


> It is partly because I am INTJ that I am not getting into it. It is my Te. I do not see any practical use for it right off the bat, and it is demotivating me from actually trying to put everything together. I had a similar thing with Enneagram at first too, until someone convinced me of its usefulness.


Most of us here gave MBTI a fair try and deemed it completely useless. So, I'm kinda curious, what do you find useful about it?


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Others can speak to how they use it, but I find Socionics to be much more practical than MBTI. I think of it more as an interpersonal tool than a descriptive theory. 

Part of the reason I find it more practical is that it's more detailed. Types are defined by much more limiting criteria, which makes identification more consistent even when people of the same type appear very different in nondescript ways. 

The bigger reason it's more practical is the intertypes. For better or worse I care quite a bit about how I relate with other people, and Socionics offers the ability to predict certain types and qualities of interaction. Through the intertypes, I know in advance what kinds of information and communicative styles a person will respond to. 

To summarize, in my experience Intertypes can be used as:

A defensive tool in limiting/masking/simplifying interaction with people where unnecessary conflict is likely.
A more offensive tool to politicize with people who are connected with things you want, and likely to have an affinity to you and build rapport.
A tool for explaining more non-descript attitudes you may experience towards other people (and that they may have towards you without your knowing)
A predictive tool for other peoples' potential - which roles they will likely occupy in groups, what types of tasks or environments would make best use of their natural focus, who would be best to go to for ____, who would make the best _____, etc
Conflict management - knowing which aspects of yours, or someone else's communication could be toned down or amped up to keep things as amicable as possible
A way to identify otherwise hazy blind spots in your own everyday life, which input would best support those weaknesses, and extent to which they can/cannot be improved


There are of course going to be other uses of the theory, but those are my main ones.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

SnowShrew said:


> I am having trouble getting into Socionics. It's all too complicated and I lose interest easily. I am so much more comfortable with MBTI and Enneagram. Can someone maybe send me some links to websites that describe it well? Or better yet, could someone give me a general summary of the important aspects of Socionics?


It has a high barrier to entry, but gets easier over time. I'm several years into it and feel like a fish in water now. The first year poking at it was definitely the hardest, but if you slowly keep advancing eventually things come together.

A good website to reference is Wikisocion as well as discussions on 16types.info forum. For a database of types the old socionix gallery is sufficient.




DarkSideOfLight said:


> I like the term mental masturbation. That's what comes up to my mind when I think about summarizing Socionics. So much stuff in this system is pulled out of ass like this whole compatibility system, visual type recognition or slightly altered function order taken from MBTI that it doesn't make sense unless you seriously shove all of it down your brain really hard. Unnecessary level of nonsense.


Then that moment comes when you realize that it does make sense, how much sense it makes, and the sheer genius of it all. until then you're stuck floundering around.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Sylas said:


> Then that moment comes when you realize that it does make sense, how much sense it makes, and the sheer genius of it all. until then you're stuck floundering around.


Just had to wait for the Kool-Aid to take effect, huh? >_>

Personally I've looked at both and have gone back to MBTI because it's providing me more legitimate data to work with. Compare this to a bunch of unsubstantiated claims about "cognitive styles", "quadras", and of course the community that half of the time types by "vibe" or confirmation bias (seriously, the16types is a fucking joke) and I've just been so turned off to Socionics. I liked the _idea_ of it at first, because I'm naturally drawn to theories like that, but I'm pretty skeptical of even the functions themselves now.

So I guess in the end I experienced the opposite effect of what's mentioned here. I entered it skeptically - like everything - and really looked for validity, but what @DarkSideOfLight mentioned is what keeps pushing me out of it.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Socionics was a PITA until I needed to understand some reinin dichotomy better 
due to a real life application I had in store for it.
Suddenly I had the need to unravel Ti stuff.
Took me about an hour to crack it somewhat open.

*Function order: (INTJ/ILI as example)*
1.Ni - Dominant/Leading -- Ego
2.Te - Auxiliary/Creative -- Ego
6.Fi - Tertiary/ Mobilizing -- Super Id
5.Se - Inferior/Suggestive -- Super Id
7.Ne - Opposing/Ignoring -- Id
8.Ti - Senex/Demonstrative -- Id
4.Fe - Trickster/Vulnerable -- Super ego
3.Si - Demon/Role -- Super ego

Consider this the most basic need to know facts about the system.
Everything else seem to build on it.
There might be more, but as far as I can tell this is the basics.


----------



## DarkSideOfLight (Feb 15, 2011)

Sylas said:


> Then that moment comes when you realize that it does make sense, how much sense it makes, and the sheer genius of it all. until then you're stuck floundering around.


Sure it does if you have nothing better then disillusioning yourself into it. I feel Socionics takes it too far. Too much bs, as my friend said people have a tendency to create religion out of things and this is definitely a good example. MBTI gives a good framework and Socionics tried to get too deep into it, suffers from the just one more detail syndrome. Those boxes are a bit too small for my taste. 

@Shiver Socionics does turn people off who want answers or guidance instead of imaginary theory of everything. Enough is enough.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

DarkSideOfLight said:


> Sure it does if you have nothing better then disillusioning yourself into it. I feel Socionics takes it too far. Too much bs, as my friend said people have a tendency to create religion out of things and this is definitely a good example. MBTI gives a good framework and Socionics tried to get too deep into it, suffers from the just one more detail syndrome. Those boxes are a bit too small for my taste.
> 
> @*Shiver* Socionics does turn people off who want answers or guidance instead of imaginary theory of everything. Enough is enough.


How much is enough?
And why is that amount enough?
What standard are you setting for this measurement?

I'm imagining that your aversion is just a copout for your lazyness.
Yes this image is a lot to take in, but it is hardly too much I think.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

Some useful images for Socionics:


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

The scientist in me just feels compelled to ask how much of that chart is backed with actual data... I think that's one of my biggest problems with socionics and part of what he must mean by "enough". Theories are all well and good, but at some point there needs to be an effort to base it on something we can actually measure. While it's not the fault of socionics communities that there hasn't been a lot of research done on the topic, so many of the people I've encountered nonetheless love to take selectively interpreted ramblings of translated articles and treat them as proven fact. I _like the concept_, but at some point it has to be more than that I think.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

Shiver said:


> The scientist in me just feels compelled to ask how much of that chart is backed with actual data... I think that's one of my biggest problems with socionics and part of what he must mean by "enough". Theories are all well and good, but at some point there needs to be an effort to base it on something we can actually measure. While it's not the fault of socionics communities that there hasn't been a lot of research done on the topic, so many of the people I've encountered nonetheless love to take selectively interpreted ramblings of translated articles and treat them as proven fact. I _like the concept_, but at some point it has to be more than that I think.


The information is impractical and useless on it's own, but if you treat it as a game then it can be enjoying to explore the universe of typology.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

narcissistic said:


> The information is impractical and useless on it's own, but if you treat it as a game then it can be enjoying to explore the universe of typology.


I totally agree on that, yeah. Like I told the people on the16types at one point, it tends to be more a tool in the box for me than it is a theory I rely on to explain everything satisfactorily and its super entertaining on its own. I feel that socionics has me ask different sorts of questions than MBTI does, although myself as INTP/LII or INTJ/ILI isn't made terribly clear from what I ask. xD


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow (May 28, 2016)

SnowShrew said:


> I am having trouble getting into Socionics. It's all too complicated and I lose interest easily. I am so much more comfortable with MBTI and Enneagram. Can someone maybe send me some links to websites that describe it well? Or better yet, could someone give me a general summary of the important aspects of Socionics?


It's not hard at all. For introverts, change the P to J and the J to P. That's it. The order of their cognitive functions is not based on strength, but it corresponds with the order in MBTI.

So basically for an ISFJ the order of the functions in strength would be:

For valued-
Si
Fe
Ti
Ne

For unvalued-
Fi
Se
Ni
Te = PoLR function 

Basically socionics argues that an ISFJ and ISFP have the same order in strength of functions, but they value opposites (hence why the unvalued for an ISFJ corresponds with an ISFP). You can do this with anyone. Just switch the J/P to find out their unvalued strength. 

And the only other thing you should know is you can have relationships between types. So an ISFJ and an ENFJ for instance is "supervisor" relations with the ISFJ supervising the ENFJ. An ISFJ with an ENTP is "dual" relations, which is the best type. An ISFJ and INTP is "activation" relations, because we activate each other (Fe gets activated for INTPs and Ne for ISFJs). And so on. They have a chart for it 

Oh and one other thing you should know, there are 4 types of families, the alphas, the betas, the gammas, the deltas.

Alphas: ISFJ, INTP, ESFJ, ENTP (same functions valued, described as fun, creative and idea driven)
Betas: ENFJ, ISTP, INFJ, ESTP (more serious and focused on the group)
Deltas: ESTJ, ISTJ, ENFP, INFP (more practical and individualistic)
Gammas: ENTJ, INTJ, ESFP, ISFP (more vengeful and ambitious)


----------

