# New here... Why is Socionics so negative?



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

The consequence is obvious the theory has more interconnections and the Static/Dynamic dichotomy is a crucial one it´s like a part of the theory that was lost in time :blushed:. The Forms of thinking are a very good extension of the supervision ring and the dyads (Duality).


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

What description did you read that was so negative?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> The consequence is obvious the theory has more interconnections and the Static/Dynamic dichotomy is a crucial one it´s like a part of the theory that was lost in time :blushed:. The Forms of thinking are a very good extension of the supervision ring and the dyads (Duality).


Okay so it isn't morally compromised by Kant, just some intellectual ideas about the nature of space/time and stuff.
I can deal with that. =D


----------



## Mostly Harmless (Oct 16, 2011)

I don't think socionics is unnecessarily critical or negative, and I believe that the concept of dualization is a way to personal growth. Seek out people who can help you get better at stuff you really want to be good at, and if a dual isn't readily available, try to figure out for yourself what parts of you need development and improvement (which a socionics should be able to tell you) and work on them. 

You could also bestow your gifts on those who don't have them but would like them. That should be a good way to feel better about yourself.


----------



## Alhazred (Oct 20, 2010)

UtmostLEMAZING said:


> In mbti, I'm INFJ. This translated to IEI, or INFp in Socionics. I've been looking into it a bit, and after reading the specific descriptions of IEI on the16types I am left with a sour taste in my mouth. The descriptions there make me seem like a very passive, irresponsible, unmotivated, arrogant, emotionally manipulative prick. And the worst part is that I can see it... and it's so painfully true... (and worst of all, rather than excepting it as my own fault, here I am trying to put the blame on socionics instead, saying that "it" has somehow mislabeled or poorly displayed IEI in order to take the blame off myself, which is very much the IEI thing to do...)
> 
> :sad:
> 
> ...


First of all, as I've understood it, the socionics INFp cannot really be translated to INFJ. So you can fairly be an INFJ, but not an INFp. It's kind of more complex than that, and it's fair to say, that socionics just describes a different person. Socionics gives rather huge and detailed description of every type but it shouldn't be taken word by word. "Irresponsible and manipulative prick" can be applied virtually to ANY feeling type (especially Ps), who is going wrong.

Second thing. Shortly, IEI has the Time Intuition as their primary function, which is not exactly Ni of an INFJ. The auxiliary function, Emotional Ethics doesn't correspond exactly to the MBTI Fe, it's more of a mixture of Fi and Fe.

Personnally, I believe, as neither Socionics nor MBTI are not the exact sciences, as we are talking about such highly complex and not always rational creatures as Human Beings, this explains, why both socionics and MBTI, using a number of common theoretical works arrive to sometimes different conclusions.

I rather look into MBTI as a practical instrument, which works, helps people, but not always exactly to the point.

As for IEI self-development issue, as someone who speaks Russian, I've read at least a whole page of IEI useful advises. In a couple of phrases:

1)Try not to spend money, buying some useless little stuff.
2)Don't subdue your ethical and moral values to the desire to have an "easy" and "painless" life.
3)Be less capricious, try to complain less to people who are close to about your problems. Stop continuously accusing them for "not caring enough about you".
4)Try to care more about people close to you, and show more generosity.

In general, as well as you, I find it rather irritating, the way the socionics highly praises and valorises such types as INFj (highly positive description on one of the major Russian socionics web sites, from a person who kinda secretly admires INFj's) ESTj, ISTj or ESTp, and at the same time describes INFp as immoral, capricious, immature, coward, manupulative and at the same time absolutely fu***ng cruel scumbag. Like a miserable Big Bad Boss accolyte from movies. It's like all types have negative traits, but they especially hated the INFp's ones. I find it rather biaised. I was even thinking (having Russian origins myself) that as the Socionics was invented in the former USSR and than became very popular on post-Soviet Republics, it's point of view on different personnality types was influenced by both positive and negative aspects of Russian social evaluation stereotypes.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

hornet said:


> I still don't like this Kant business.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


kant being mentioned in an article by gulenko does not mean that socionics is influenced by the ideas of kant.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

@Alhazred Yeah, the way EIIs are portrayed is stupidly annoying to me.


----------



## Mostly Harmless (Oct 16, 2011)

It does seem somewhat true that there are more positive descriptions for Alpha and Delta types. The Se/Ni valuers are made to sound like pervert nut jobs (beta) or greedy assholes (gamma.)


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Promethea said:


> i would so trade my useless magical faery powers for the ability to actually do something useful.. at least you have Si for that.
> : P


:/ me 2...I'd want some Se to gtfo of my head and house....some Si would be nice so I can clean up and keep things nice, healthy, not fall asleep to it and wake up in a mess after binge thinking all weekend feeling like I've been partying as if its 999 (sick from lack of sleep and water). I'd also want some more Fe so I can be social and stop feeling so damn vulnerable in those situations. If I could then add a pinch of organization into my life....it would be one hell of a good pie...mmm...hungry.


----------



## RSV3 (Dec 31, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> Victor Goulenko has gotten invited to and delivered speeches at many Socionics conferences, which is more than you can ever hope for. He has lectured to thousands of socionists, for example Goulenko delivering one of his reports on evolution of civilization (I wish there was a translation of it)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think we can all agree that Gulenko is a well-known name in socionics circles and also that his theories are really extensions of classical socionics (similar to Reinin in that regard).
I personally agree with some of his thoughts and generally apply the "does this comport with my own personal experiences" test in judging them. However my knowledge on the subject is limited to the extent I don't know Russian; it'd be nice to get more russian sources translated to english.



aestrivex said:


> i appeal only to the content of what he says -- i specifically said as much that in my last post. instead, you appeal to his experience and qualifications. well okay, if you want to get into my qualifications. last year i presented a poster at a scientific conference. This poster later became a paper that is in press for publication in the Journal of Neuroscience. I believe these qualifications make me far more well suited and are far more important than any number of public speaking engagements viktor gulenko had, or grigoriy reinin for that matter who apparently has a PhD in the field of socionics. you may disagree, and i do not care.
> 
> in other words, buzz off with your petty provocations and nonsensical hot air about my "qualifications," as if they meant a damn anyway.


That's pretty impressive. What was the topic of the paper?


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

RSV3 said:


> That's pretty impressive. What was the topic of the paper?


The effect of attentional modulation on long-range inter-areal alpha-band synchrony.


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

@*UtmostLEMAZING *

I know that feel bro.

I think a lot of the personality descriptions are extreme/exaggerations.
As I read the descriptions of NTs I sometimes say, dang man they make me seem like a robot.

Then I read something like an NF and I am like, well I'm not THAT concerned about people and I'm certainly not that emotional.


----------



## Zeit (Dec 24, 2012)

UtmostLEMAZING said:


> In mbti, I'm INFJ. This translated to IEI, or INFp in Socionics. I've been looking into it a bit, and after reading the specific descriptions of IEI on the16types I am left with a sour taste in my mouth. *The descriptions there make me seem like a very passive, irresponsible, unmotivated, arrogant, emotionally manipulative prick*. And the worst part is that I can see it... and it's so painfully true... (and worst of all, rather than excepting it as my own fault, here I am trying to put the blame on socionics instead, saying that "it" has somehow mislabeled or poorly displayed IEI in order to take the blame off myself, which is very much the IEI thing to do...)
> 
> :sad:
> 
> ...



IDK how to say this tactfully, but

A lot of socionics profiles suck, and many are biased against certain types or quadras. IN reality, no type or quadra is better or worse, healthier or more 'negative' than others. 


The real question, I'd say, is why is it so hard to write a reasonable socionics profile and talk about socioncs without negativity?

I think a partial answer is that the 'easiest' thing to talk about in socionics are stereotypes relating to negative tendencies that may be found in a type, or even more so, a common socionics type and enneagram type. For example, a lot of Enneagram type 8 profiles strike me as a Fe-valuing SLE in socionics, and an unhealthy one at that. That may in fact be a common or easily recognizable type 8, but, there are type 8s that don't value Fe, etc etc etc. 

You can find a positive or negative take on any type or anything else. Don't get caught up in it. 
Sort of like political pundits, I guess.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Zeit said:


> IDK how to say this tactfully, but
> 
> A lot of socionics profiles suck, and many are biased against certain types or quadras. IN reality, no type or quadra is better or worse, healthier or more 'negative' than others.
> 
> ...


It makes sense to have honest potential negative qualities in every type, it breathes a mark of reality into the profiles.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Zeit said:


> The real question, I'd say, is why is it so hard to write a reasonable socionics profile and talk about socioncs without negativity?


that's a pretty dumb question, in my opinion. it should go without saying that all types have a positive side and a negative side. a "reasonable" thing to do in writing a socionics profile would be provide an accurate depiction of these strengths and weaknesses.

the "real" question in my view -- which is exactly what is going on in this thread in my opinion, starting from post 1 -- is why people take a truthful depiction of their type's weaknesses so personally (as if they were all having the right idea of their type to begin with). another valid question is, when people take such things personally and make loud noises about it, why should you care?


----------



## Zeit (Dec 24, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> It makes sense to have honest potential negative qualities in every type, it breathes a mark of reality into the profiles.


Obviously.

...Look I'm not saying there aren't strengths and weaknesses... 
(but perhaps I am, it depends on meaning)

I'm saying some profiles exude condescension. I remember discussions in the past about how some of Filatovas profiles made certain beta people seem rather awkward or not very appealing, while aggrandizing an LSE, which was biased from an EIIs perspective. Things like that. Even in other more contemporary profiles, sometimes there are biases - it's not unusual. 

Perhaps this also comes from my own perspective that "being good at " or "weak at" is relative, and more or less a stumbling block in terms of typing or trying to learn or understand socionoics or types. It's applicable, but it gets in the way if you don't know how to properly interpret material or recognize what bias is. 

"All ISTpPs are mechanics'. "All EIIs are counselors". An LII will never be good a sports. Obviously shallow things like that, or their slightly more complex variations that are in some profiles. 

Types have preferred ways of dealing with things, imo. Strength and weakness towards handling a particular situation or information is relative and dependent on a variety of things. 



aestrivex said:


> that's a pretty dumb question, in my opinion. it should go without saying that all types have a positive side and a negative side. a "reasonable" thing to do in writing a socionics profile would be provide an accurate depiction of these strengths and weaknesses.


Maybe you shouldn't take what I say as an obvious strawman of hippie happy sunshine pumping "oh every type is super de dooper  " , and then it won't seem so dumb. 


If that's what's going on, though, I don't know - I just saw the OP and responded to it.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Zeit said:


> Obviously.
> 
> ...Look I'm not saying there aren't strengths and weaknesses...
> (but perhaps I am, it depends on meaning)
> ...


You obviously mean objectivity in stating the strengths and flaws, I agree 1000%


----------



## Sleepy (Jan 18, 2009)

UtmostLEMAZING said:


> In mbti, I'm INFJ. This translated to IEI, or INFp in Socionics.


You might very well be IEI, but one should never make an automatic switch to the socionics type. Many people who type themselves INFJ in MBTI are actually IEE, EII, IEI, EIE or something else. Remember that Socionics stands on its own.



> That being said though, it doesn't really seem to have any self development advice.


Socionics has TONS of self help advice. Many things are already obvious in the theory. And it's better than anything I've seen before. I've found this, but there's probably more:

- how to make the different intertype relationships work better (despite incompatibility)
- The different intertype relationships can be "used" to achieve different things.
- Team building
- how to understand and deal with your weakest point (PoLR)
- and how to handle super-ego information so it won't disturb you etc.
- general advice for the types
- type masking. Being forced to play a role and what this indicates
- Subtype theory DCNH can also be used for self help, but it's maybe not for beginners
- Duality itself is considered a therapeutic relationship that can heal you.
- Self-realization. The creative (2:nd) function is needed for this.

There's probably more, but I don't remember everything now.

You can check out the article archive at the16types.info and en.socionics.ru.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Zeit said:


> Maybe you shouldn't take what I say as an obvious strawman of hippie happy sunshine pumping "oh every type is super de dooper  " , and then it won't seem so dumb.


maybe you shouldn't take what i say as "obvious strawmen" of foolish stereotypes when i give you no reason to think of them as such.


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

UtmostLEMAZING said:


> In mbti, I'm INFJ. This translated to IEI, or INFp in Socionics. I've been looking into it a bit, and after reading the specific descriptions of IEI on the16types I am left with a sour taste in my mouth. The descriptions there make me seem like a very passive, irresponsible, unmotivated, arrogant, emotionally manipulative prick.


2 problems: 1) INFJ in MBT is INFJ in Socionics, both typologies use compatible preferences. 2) Your type may to be not INFJ, but some other; it's common when types are identified questionably (for example any test have not 100% exactness, and probability to identify correctly all 4 preferences is less than only some of them).


----------



## HolyMoony (Mar 11, 2021)

UtmostLEMAZING said:


> In mbti, I'm INFJ. This translated to IEI, or INFp in Socionics. I've been looking into it a bit, and after reading the specific descriptions of IEI on the16types I am left with a sour taste in my mouth. The descriptions there make me seem like a very passive, irresponsible, unmotivated, arrogant, emotionally manipulative prick. And the worst part is that I can see it... and it's so painfully true... (and worst of all, rather than excepting it as my own fault, here I am trying to put the blame on socionics instead, saying that "it" has somehow mislabeled or poorly displayed IEI in order to take the blame off myself, which is very much the IEI thing to do...)
> 
> :sad:
> 
> ...


Have you ever seen SLOAN BIG 5 descriptions? You can look at similarminds.com. These are much worse than socionics descriptions. I'm RLUeI which is explained like the aimless schizoid depressed person without any social skills.


----------



## HolyMoony (Mar 11, 2021)

Inveniet said:


> Heh...
> Well I kinda come to look Socionics descriptions as MBTI descriptions without the makeup.
> And there is visual identification, this I can't take serious.
> 
> ...


I'm likely SEI and I feel like I'm doomed. Alpha quadra in general feels doomed.


----------



## Lauren222 (Apr 10, 2021)

UtmostLEMAZING said:


> mbti, I'm INFJ. This translated to IEI, or INFp in Socionics. I've been looking into it a bit, and after reading the specific descriptions of IEI on the16types I am left with a sour taste in my mouth. The descriptions there make me seem like a very passive, irresponsible, unmotivated, arrogant, emotionally manipulative prick.


Omg Socionics and their biases.
Don’t even bother lol

🙄... Justin Trudeau (Infj) is doing pretty well as PM.

And their theories about compatibility are just utterly out of line with reality. I’m INFJ. I wouldn’t date another ESTP if he was plated in pure gold and donated his life’s earnings to saving endangered whales (which he would never do in any event lol...)

This is the worst relationship I have had with anybody in my entire existence. I generally get along with everyone, but this was beyond my limit of patience and understanding, which is saying a lot.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

HolyMoony said:


> I'm likely SEI and I feel like I'm doomed. Alpha quadra in general feels doomed.


Hmm I remembered that you qouted me on this, then I ignored and forgot, but then you kept liking my posts, sigh...
I guess some of the stuff I wrote back then was semi-profound.
Even if it was 8 years ago.

So you feel that alpha quadra makes you doomed.
Well I wouldn't blame you, the spirit of our time is slowly turning away from Alpha to favor Beta quadra.
In your case you are in luck, because you have the knowledge you need to protect you from this at your fingertips.
Provided you have typed yourself correctly, I wouldn't know as I've never met you or even bothered to ponder any of your writing.

Just back out of all groups with LSI, SLE, IEI and EIE running the show and you are golden.
Seek out fellow Alphas, use Deltas to slow down Betas that cross your path anyway, and everything will turn out okay.
Hopefully at least, just don't exit the vehicle at any time during the tour,
they will always say they mean well, but even if they belive it themselves the results will disapoint you...


----------



## Tsurukaze (May 11, 2015)

The same thing is why I love Socionics, actually. It's brutally honest, but in a nonchalant rather than insulting way.

It is disappointing that the theory tends to have the attitude of, "You're pathetic, find your dual to be less pathetic, the end." I agree that some self-development theory is much-needed.

But MBTI gets on my nerves. That INFP's are beautiful fluffy bunnies who love to daydream and be sensitive is simply not totally accurate. The people I know have both negative and positive traits, and any personality theory should keep that in account.


----------



## Charus (May 31, 2017)

I guess it goes around with the fact that this Personality theory in general is very confusing when trying to combine with MBTI to make sure they fit and compatible.


----------



## UntetheredBalloon (Sep 3, 2021)

Tsurukaze said:


> The same thing is why I love Socionics, actually. It's brutally honest, but in a nonchalant rather than insulting way.
> 
> It is disappointing that the theory tends to have the attitude of, "You're pathetic, find your dual to be less pathetic, the end." I agree that some self-development theory is much-needed.
> 
> But MBTI gets on my nerves. That INFP's are beautiful fluffy bunnies who love to daydream and be sensitive is simply not totally accurate. The people I know have both negative and positive traits, and any personality theory should keep that in account.


This so much


----------

