# List Socionics Types



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Hello @PolskiSocion, I wish I could tell you with certainty what my type is, but all I know is that I fall within Gamma quadra somewhere. For now I've settled with SEE since I'm trying to determine whether I'm using Socionics Se or Socionics Te more.

Also, @Boolean11 and @aestrivex, could you two please get married and get a room already? Christ. :wink:


----------



## Grau the Great (Mar 2, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> thats fine with me. you can have all the problem with my presentation as you wish. i do prefer that you don't -- i find it weird and unsettling that people have a problem with my presentation so often. so i suppose i apologize if i came off too strongly, i didn't realize the reaction.
> 
> but still, people don't pay attention to the argument -- as you didn't. *probably, you didn't because it is complex and technical* and you are not interested in getting that technical (which, you should be so interested) and that is okayish. but not reading the argument because you dont like the presentation is pretty bad.


Nah, it's actually because you come across as an arrogant know-it-all in your posts, and I've yet to see anything impressive enough to cut you slack for your crappy attitude.

For someone who seems to think they're brilliant, you certainly have trouble with reading comprehension.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> No it is simply his website, his perspective, his thoughts, anybody can make a website these days. In the english speaking community, there is no official Socionics institute.


I wonder why that is. It wouldn't be because Socionics was NOT invented by people in the English-speaking world, would it?


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Just read the whole thread. WTF is wrong with you guys? The OP is probably just trying to get to know people and make small talk. I don't know how you guys can go off on a tangent like that when he hasn't even said anything that warrants any kind of debate. Basically all he said was "Hi, I want to get to know people. My type is this and that, what is yours?"

Hi @_PolskiSocion_, how are you?
I'm an INTp .... of sorts. I test very clearly as INTJ in Myers-Briggs, but socionics tests don't work for me, they can't decide whether I'm INTp or INTj.

Anyway, how's the wheather in Poland? Is it snowing there too? 
What are your interests apart from Socionics? I like reading, swimming, watching Star Trek and the occassional documentary, going for walks or daytrips with my husband. Have you travelled a lot? If so, what's your favourite country out of those you've visited so far? Mine were Greece, Sweden, Wales and Mongolia.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> O_O
> 
> okay whatever you say bra











__


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

FlaviaGemina said:


> I don't know how you guys can go off on a tangent like that when he hasn't even said anything that warrants any kind of debate. Basically all he said was "Hi, I want to get to know people. My type is this and that, what is yours?"


yes. and i think that is a problem because it is a conceptually awful way of approaching the topic. can you see why?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> yes. and i think that is a problem because it is a conceptually awful way of approaching the topic. can you see why?


I think the only person who can't seem to comprehend why this thread is not dangerous or bad is you. He wanted to get to know people and since he's typed IEE it also makes sense that to him, learning about socionics, type and theory does not just come from sitting with your nose in a book but also interacting with people from different types and see how it works in practice but also so he can study people and see how the theory makes sense to him too.

Socionics is a theory about people so it's only natural people would also try to understand from a people-focused perspective.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

I've made it through this thread -- success!


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I think the only person who can't seem to comprehend why this thread is not dangerous or bad is you.


That's fine. I'm happy to be on the island. And I agree with what else you said, that it is important to take a people-centric perspective. It is extremely important.

But, this thread *is* bad. Perhaps not bad in the sense of being dangerous to the mental well being of its participants, but it is bad, precisely because it approaches socionics as a form of categorizing rather than as people-centric.


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

PolskiSocion said:


> I learn under Socionist Vladimirovich at Socionics Institute in Moscow. There I take intensive course towards bachelor qualification. Now, I keep update on progress from International Institute.


Theory of Socionics is rather short and available in books (there are many of them in Russian language in Internet). There are no universally respected Socionics practitioners and no objective basis to think someone is better in typing than other, but there is rather low match in typing between anyone (including guys with experience and diplomas from different schools). So you pay money for what you can get free from books, and no one will teach you to type people objectively, as maximum - as him, but it's doubtful that you'll have match with teacher higher than 50%, while avarage match between guys from different schools is ~15%. I think you waste your time in these schools, the only good thing - you may get "magical" papers with degree inscription, - without objective experimental basis of typology and practitioners' skills, with background of strong general divergence in typing, - these papers have only subjective meaning.



> From which material do you learn?


Books: Jung, Filatova, Beskova, Sedikh, Gorenko, partly some other yet. Then was 10 years of typing and understanding that it works, in general.



Boolean11 said:


> In the english speaking community, there is no official Socionics institute.


Language does not mean here. Anyway, there is nowhere official Socionics institute - anyone in Russia may register himself as institute, Socionics Institute in Moscow is just one of private Socionics schools founded by T. Prokofieva, without official and universally aproved status - there is no true science, just business.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> That's fine. I'm happy to be on the island. And I agree with what else you said, that it is important to take a people-centric perspective. It is extremely important.
> 
> But, this thread *is* bad. Perhaps not bad in the sense of being dangerous to the mental well being of its participants, but it is bad, precisely because it approaches socionics as a form of categorizing rather than as people-centric.


I don't think that was the intention of the thread at all and it seems to be missing the point of what the thread was about. If you thought the OP has the wrong approach, you could've taken that in a thread where he actually clearly lays out his ontology.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

PolskiSocion said:


> @_Boolean11_ At beginning, I learn under Socionist Vladimirovich at Socionics Institute in Moscow. There I take intensive course towards bachelor qualification. Now, I keep update on progress from International Institute. From which material do you learn?


Sadly none but from various websites and comparing secondary insights from those who have learnt it through other means. At the moment I'm trying to get in touch with those that have learnt the theory in its native language since they'll have the most comprehensive insight and will point me to the best sources.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I don't think that was the intention of the thread at all and it seems to be missing the point of what the thread was about. If you thought the OP has the wrong approach, you could've taken that in a thread where he actually clearly lays out his ontology.


if "the point of the thread" is to avoid ontological criticism, i don't respect it. if the OP does not wish to respond to or read my ontological criticism, that is his or her prerogative.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> if "the point of the thread" is to avoid ontological criticism, i don't respect it. if the OP does not wish to respond to or read my ontological criticism, that is his or her prerogative.


I am not saying you have no right to criticize his ontology, but the way you do it was unnecessary and was just a perfect opportunity to cause more shitstorm which again, was unnecessary. Perhaps you should see him as a source from who you can learn from instead of someone you necessarily need to criticize, since he is after all, one of few members here who has confirmed being taught by an official institute.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I am not saying you have no right to criticize his ontology, but the way you do it was unnecessary and was just a perfect opportunity to cause more shitstorm.


I do not and did not anticipate shitstorm ensuing from ontological or epistemological criticism. If I have offended you in some way by criticizing someone's ontology in a way that was too abrasive, I apologize. Nonetheless, I feel the ontology is important, and I don't/won't apologize for bringing it up.



> Perhaps you should see him as a source from who you can learn from instead of someone you necessarily need to criticize, since he is after all, one of few members here who has confirmed being taught by an official institute.


Being taught by the ISI or a subsidiary of the ISI means nothing to me.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> I do not and did not anticipate shitstorm ensuing from ontological or epistemological criticism. If I have offended you in some way by criticizing someone's ontology in a way that was too abrasive, I apologize. Nonetheless, I feel the ontology is important, and I don't/won't apologize for bringing it up.


Well, you should know by know that boolean happily attacks your posts when you make abrasive claims without much of a source to back it up. The way you write and present yourself is troublesome and while some people may be more tolerant to it, some people are not, especially if they disagree over theory. 


> Being taught by the ISI or a subsidiary of the ISI means nothing to me.


I would still personally be curious how they go around doing things, but that's me anyway.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


>


You are not helping the situation -.-


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Well, you should know by know that boolean happily attacks your posts when you make abrasive claims without much of a source to back it up. The way you write and present yourself is troublesome and while some people may be more tolerant to it, some people are not, especially if they disagree over theory.



boolean attacks my posts no matter what i say, so i don't feel that what boolean does or says is worth worrying about.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> boolean attacks my posts no matter what i say, so i don't feel that what boolean does or says is worth worrying about.


Ideally none of you should interact with each other, but I doubt he agrees about that. And it's not so much about you or him in the end, it's about how you affect everyone else. I can for example imagine how newbies to socionics would feel threatened because they don't know what's going on. That seems counter-intuitive considering the reason as to why this forum exists.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> He has no "Fe" so he can't take offense, he will just see the overt "Te" criticism in that message. Deep "Fi" is only what makes him jittery


That's entirely besides the point. He's no longer trying to cause conflict so why do you? Fine, you don't like each other, no one said that you have to, but it doesn't mean you have to make every godamn thread in this forum into a pissing contest. To do it in this thread in particular that was not started by a person who wanted to argue about what socionics is or what it isn't is just plain out rude imo. Deep down you know this just as much as aestrivex knows this. Yet you let your egos inflate to the point you stop giving fucks but I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. The world doesn't just revolve around who's right and who's wrong.


----------



## Evasive8991 (Jan 15, 2013)

With regards to socionic types, I only have a detailed knowledge of my own; Model A - EII (INFJ) 1. Introverted Feeling 2. Extroverted Intuition 3. Introverted Thinking 4. Extroverted Sensing 5. Extroverted Thinking 6. Introverted Sensing 7. Extraverted Thinking 8. Introverted Intuition.

Some might consider that introverted feeling(1) is introverted ethics, and that Introverted thinking (3) is introverted logic. Etc...Each of the 8 functions are used differently and at different times. For example, Function 1 - Is the leading program, primary, base, or dominant function. This is the strongest CONSCIOUS function, and the most utilized function of the psyche. A person's outlook and role in life, is largely determined by the nature of this function. One is generally very confident in the use of this function, and may defend it when challenged.

Now, taking a jump ahead look at the 4th function (Extroverted Sensing) - The VULNERABLE function, or place of least resistance, is a WEAK and CONSCIOUS function, in addition to being the weakest function of the psyche. One painfully perceives his complete inability to use this function, and results negatively to its imposition upon him. (certain things we cannot deal with when forces are opposed to our extraverted sensing). TACTFUL assistance is required from one's MOBILIZING (Function 6) function to overcome the problems associated with this function.

So, each function is assisted by another when certain forces are opposed to them, coping strategies etc...In all honesty, I'm still trying to wrap my head around it and explain it with better examples and clarity, Ive written it down and gone over it many times. But this is just a quick look at socionic typing and how it correlates to Myers-briggs....Please dont anyone chew my head off


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Promethea said:


> That would be a good idea. Thanks.


Done.
Here's a new welcome thread for the OP were we can all say hello like civilized people. And if he does turn out to be a peddler of absurdities, we'll find out soon enough. But there's not reason to assume that at all.
http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...st-your-type-here-dont-argue.html#post3340072


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Evasive8991 said:


> With regards to socionic types, I only have a detailed knowledge of my own; Model A - EII (INFJ) 1. Introverted Feeling 2. Extroverted Intuition 3. Introverted Thinking 4. Extroverted Sensing 5. Extroverted Thinking 6. Introverted Sensing 7. Extraverted Thinking 8. Introverted Intuition.
> 
> Some might consider that introverted feeling(1) is introverted ethics, and that Introverted thinking (3) is introverted logic. Etc...Each of the 8 functions are used differently and at different times. For example, Function 1 - Is the leading program, primary, base, or dominant function. This is the strongest CONSCIOUS function, and the most utilized function of the psyche. A person's outlook and role in life, is largely determined by the nature of this function. One is generally very confident in the use of this function, and may defend it when challenged.
> 
> ...


The above appears to be a discourse on how Socionics works, not on how it correlates (or doesn't correlate) to Myers-Briggs. Furthermore, I doubt anyone will bite your head off; IMO, that's reserved for particularly stubborn and clueless sorts.


----------



## Evasive8991 (Jan 15, 2013)

yeah I realized after the fact that it wasnt much of a correlation haha . Its not exactly easy to explain how its integrated, especially if youre still in the midst of figuring it out yourself. But, for my own sanity haha, do you understand what I wrote


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Evasive8991 said:


> yeah I realized after the fact that it wasnt much of a correlation haha . Its not exactly easy to explain how its integrated, especially if youre still in the midst of figuring it out yourself. But, for my own sanity haha, do you understand what I wrote


To be honest, it felt like you were just spitting out a bunch of information that didn't seem particularly relevant to the topic at hand, aside from mentioning your typing. I had wondered if you had copied and pasted the majority of your post from somewhere. I don't agree that there is any correlation whatsoever between the two systems, but I'm not up for dragging that into this thread. Maybe elsewhere, if you feel like discussing it, though that particular debate pops up pretty often around here.


----------

