# Which socionics type descriptions do you like the most?



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

which author's type profiles have been most helpful to you


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

I'm trying to learn socionics and I would discourage the first three because they tend to assume normality. A good description would remain specific without being concrete, and especially gulenko's descriptions are annoying as hell with the constant bias.


----------



## PlushWitch (Oct 28, 2010)

http://www.sociotype.com

OMG! I'm posting! :shocked:


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

Anything but socionics.com. Ugh.

Nah, I use wikisocion the most, it's the most systematic and axiomatic in terms of how it goes through things. Some things are incomplete, of course, but I find it's the best general resource. Also voted Stratievskaya because her stuff seems okay.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

Any of the LII/INTj ones. 



RoSoDude said:


> Anything but socionics.com. Ugh.
> 
> Nah, I use wikisocion the most, it's the most systematic and axiomatic in terms of how it goes through things. Some things are incomplete, of course, but I find it's the best general resource. Also voted Stratievskaya because her stuff seems okay.


Socionics.com seems more like MBTI descriptions in that they seem more dichotomy focused rather than focusing on functions and valued elements. 

I like using Wikisocion too. I'm not that familiar with Stratievskaya, should check those out.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

Stratievskaya XD Intuitive Logical Extratim - Wikisocion


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Gulenko - The descriptions are the most interesting and straightforward to read through and understand IMO, although I can't say how accurate the information is! :/ I like how it starts with a brief summary then goes into the details, weak points, behavior, etc, like it does on the wikisocion page.


----------



## NostalgicWizard (May 28, 2016)

"A picture is worth a thousand words. A video worth a-hundred-thousand, a person worth a billion."

You can never verify if a type system is correct using descriptions nor claims by the founders of indefinite accuracy. Such is the case with Socionics. The only way to determine if a system is true or not is to study an exhaustive typelist of signified examples, and inwhich to study the deeper psychology occurring that not many words in English can really conclude. Something so deep as a universal relational theory must be based on abstract empirical perception in order to be somewhat true, otherwise its oversimplified pseudoscience. Descriptions alone are a lack of evidence; while even descriptions with 20 confident celebrity typings per type is not anywhat conclusive. One generally needs a large gallery from which to study abstract psychological identifiers.


----------

