# Can Anyone Succinctly Describe the Merits of Socionics?



## Sleepy (Jan 18, 2009)

chaoticbrain said:


> Sleepy I forget that in socionics delta is considered the most serious. I'm curious why exactly is that the viewpoint ? I'm from the CT group (visual reading), and we can see that people having Se/Ni as well as Te/Fi are the most serious. And wouldn't that kind of make more sense ? Se and Te are both going to have a more objective view of reality than Fe and Ne. I'm curious what the reasoning is that delta is the most serious.


Ok, now I see, you type him ESI. That's at least a very interesting typing (alot more interesting than SEI) and a very fresh perspective. I'll look into it.



> As for the person you typed up there I think I might agree atleast with her function pairs. She has Fi no doubt, and I'd lean towards Se/Ni. However she's less serious than micheal Jackson ? . Micheal Jackson is serious because he's a gamma, but he's less serious than most, that being based on the fact that he has a less serious form of Fi. (seelie) Fi.


I don't know which person you mean. I suggested 3 persons.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

OMG WTF BRO said:


> Can l make you my short-term socionics buddy?
> 
> Passive commitment, minimal obligation :kitteh:
> 
> After looking over the information elements on wikisocion, l have some questions about ILE.


I am offend. I thought we were going to be Socionics buddies 4 lyf. WTF BRO, OMG. I'm going to go cry nao :sad:

...Ahem. *regains composure* I'd be interested to know what general opinion is on some of the flaws of Socionics as well. I don't mean so much in interpretation (people take visual identification and intertype too far, socionics.com is horrible, etc), but in the structure of the theory itself. Is there anything that seems actually _worse_ in Socionics type theory than in advanced MBTI function theory? Because... honestly I can't think of anything. Even the analysis I like by western Jungian theorists (Nardi, Beebe or whoever) is often centered around topics that have been extensively examined by Socionicists already. So I wonder if anyone can break through my bias here.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

RoSoDude said:


> I am offend. I thought we were going to be Socionics buddies 4 lyf. WTF BRO, OMG. I'm going to go cry nao :sad:
> 
> ...Ahem. *regains composure* I'd be interested to know what general opinion is on some of the flaws of Socionics as well. I don't mean so much in interpretation (people take visual identification and intertype too far, socionics.com is horrible, etc), but in the structure of the theory itself. Is there anything that seems actually _worse_ in Socionics type theory than in advanced MBTI function theory? Because... honestly I can't think of anything. Even the analysis I like by western Jungian theorists (Nardi, Beebe or whoever) is often centered around topics that have been extensively examined by Socionicists already. So I wonder if anyone can break through my bias here.


Dude, roso.

l am truly sorry for your lots. l had no idea. l will consult you for Ne based interpretations of data on as needed basis :kitteh:


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

chaoticbrain said:


> I forget that in socionics delta is considered the most serious. I'm curious why exactly is that the viewpoint ? I'm from the CT group (visual reading), and we can see that people having Se/Ni as well as Te/Fi are the most serious. And wouldn't that kind of make more sense ? Se and Te are both going to have a more objective view of reality than Fe and Ne. I'm curious what the reasoning is that delta is the most serious.


It's two different kinds of serious. Both quadra have a "serious" side because of Te and Fi, which is the shared component, but it's the S IEs that make the difference. 

Because Delta values Si, they will likely make efforts to ensure that their physical surroundings are aligned with how they want their engagement with them to be (or expect someone else to). They don't want a lot of aberration or chaos within these parameters - it's a more subdued, "orderly" seriousness, especially for LSE and SLI. If you understand the Alpha's need for easy-going environments and flip the Fe component (that it's communal/for everyone) to Te (it makes objective sense), you get Delta seriousness. You generally get this pastoral concept, where the desire is to maintain order, which can be both serious and relaxed depending on if it's being maintained. 

Because Gamma values Se, they will likely be more firm, rigid, and actionable (or expect someone else to be) in the way they deal with issues concerning Te or Fi. Because Se is directed outward instead of in, there is a more "stand alone" focus that can amplify the rigidity and singularity of Fi - especially with ESI, who prefer Se as Creative. I don't think this rigidity is necessarily the same thing as seriousness though - more that Gamma Sensing is more engaged with the outside, and lacks the softer feel of Si people. It can also be loose, with bantering, joking, cynical irony, and rough play that can look like Beta (a.k.a. give two shits about the orderliness as a Delta would).


----------



## ficsci (May 4, 2011)

Well for one, my actual MBTI is different with what Socionics thinks my MBTI type is

At least based on the result, the Socionics test I took picked up more on my life priorities. But it also sort of ignored a few aspects of my personality, as you can say with other personality typing.

So if you're getting to personality types to know better about yourself, you can get multiple perspectives by knowing more systems. Yay?



Sleepy said:


> Socionics IS the true Jungian typology, that's the best reason for studying it. Based on your question it seems like you have studied MBTI and you see Socionics as some "alternative" model, maybe a little strange and different. It can take a long time to realize this, but Socionics has the most accurate analysis of types.
> 
> When you move from MBTI to socionics you will find that a lot of the people you have typed have the same type in socionics, but some people you have actually typed wrong, and their real type is something else. It's not just that the systems type people differently, their actual type is something else than what you thought first. Socionics makes you more sensitive to certain things and teaches you to pay attention to the real type structure, as opposed to traits that merely look like cognitive functions without being it. On one hand it is more difficult to type people in socionics, because you actually have to get their type right. On the other hand it is easier because the types are clearer and in the long run you learn to see them really well. (there is no INFJ-INFP confusion in socionics for example)
> 
> ...


Dude, I still don't get what you keep referring to as "real". What is this "reality" you speak of? Unless you're just implying that you have 100% faith in this structure of organization.


----------

