# Introducing socionics to people - observations



## selena87 (Aug 15, 2014)

I've been trying to get some of the people I know in real life into socionics.

First I tell them briefly about this psychology concept that divides people into 16 types, and that it helps with their career and understanding themselves. Then I make them take the test at sociotype.com and read the type profile.

They turned out to be: 

1 ESE
1 LSE
1 EII
1 IEE
2 SEIs

All of these happened one-on-one separately.

The ESE and the LSE were quite interested initially. Ne hidden agenda? They were quite willing to take the test, it didn't take much convincing at all. I have observed the ESE for a week prior to this, and typed him as ESE secretly, it turned out that I was right.

After reading the profiles and agreeing with them, the LSE was bored within minutes and changed the subject. The ESE asked me a few questions about inter-type relationships, and I answered them to the best of my knowledge, but somehow I had a feeling that he was just humoring me, so I made it short and concise. Nevertheless, he lost interest after an hour.

The EII was quite into psychology and understanding people, so I thought that it would be easy to broach the subject. However he actually had the most difficulty taking the test, and also lost interest within minutes. I think it was mostly because his English was not very good and found it boring to read the profiles.

The IEE was the most interesting. He did the test and was amazed when he read the profile. "How is it so accurate? Did they write this just for me?" But then he went on a monologue about how all of these psychology tests are sketchy, humans are too complex and that you can't just categorize people like this.

I don't understand his reasoning at all. If this test is sketchy, then why did you identify with the IEE profile so much? If the profile is accurate, I'd say socionics has done a good job of categorizing you. I guess I just don't understand him, so I changed the subject after that.

The two SEIs actually were the most into it and lasted for the longest. They texted me for weeks, asking about the reinin dichotomies and model A. They were really interested and I enjoyed playing the role of teacher. However, I had a feeling that they were only doing this for fun and didn't take it seriously. I'm into socionics because I think it is useful for understanding myself and people, and it's a good tool to improve my social skills as well. I often saw those archetypes play out in real life and finally found the words to describe them in this system. Of course, the theory is really fun too. Whereas the SEIs were only here for fun, they didn't seem to care if this is socionics or astrology. Mobilizing Ti? Anyway, they were into this for about 2 weeks.

To this day, I still don't know anyone in real life who takes socionics seriously, or at least not to my extent. Is it because I'm terrible at explaining concepts and made it too boring, or am I just a nerdy weirdo to be into socionics at all, as always?:bored:


Have you ever told anyone in real life about socionics, and if so how did it go?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

selena87 said:


> I don't understand his reasoning at all. If this test is sketchy, then why did you identify with the IEE profile so much? If the profile is accurate, I'd say socionics has done a good job of categorizing you. I guess I just don't understand him, so I changed the subject after that.


It's called the Barnum effect. I very much identify with the ILI profile, and not remotely with the LSI profile. Because the ILI profile is vague and easy to equate with, and the LSI profile is insulting.


----------



## westlose (Oct 9, 2014)

It's not really your fault, because Socionics needs a lot of time and work and people must have a motivation in order to go further into Socionics. 

We can't really do anything about people and their tastes. All people are following their own fate, and are making choices according to their desires. There's probably a deep reason about why someone gets interested in typology, even if I can't understand what it is. But the fact is that we just followed our needs, and we arrived to like and learn more about Socionics.

Even here, some people are just doing it for fun. Some people want to find themselves, and how they fit in the world. Some people want to understand others people, or humanity. And some wants to play with connections, or understand a complex system. And there's always a hidden and unconscious motivation behind it.

Anyway, the best you can do is to generate interest. People will certainly be interested for a while, but they will get bored soon if there's no real goal in the end.

People are just more comfortable with their own subjective desires and boundaries.

I will give you an example. I used to like Dota 2. I was somewhat deeply interested in this game, because it brings me some nostalgia about Warcraft in general. Also I was a LoL player and I thought that Dota's gameplay was more interesting (very violent, compared to LoL).
I tried to convince some friends to play with me, but that's impossible: they were too attached to LoL. 

Also, Dota require a lot of time, before you can even "play", because the learning phase is quite hard, frustrating and long. Not very attractive indeed. Why would they waste their time on Dota when they can play to their favorite game.

I think that Socionics is in the same way, not very attractive unless you take it very seriously. Indeed, you won't understand it fully before a long time, and even finding one's type can take 1 or 2 years. And the problem is that people will see it as an entertainment, because they are not initially attracted to it.

So yeah, I think that it requires a lot of attraction and motivation. But that's the same for everything else. Imagine that a friend introduce you to a random thing (I dunno, a sport). You will probably be interested (because of curiosity), but the probability that this thing actually become your main activity is quite low.


----------



## selena87 (Aug 15, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> It's called the Barnum effect. I very much identify with the ILI profile, and not remotely with the LSI profile. Because the ILI profile is vague and easy to equate with, and the LSI profile is insulting.


Thanks Fried Eggz, I understand what you mean by the Barnum effect. But by this logic, everything we identify with could just be the Barnum effect. Where is the line then? How to find out if it's real? It's the same deal with learning the functions, the only way I can think of right now is to compare with all the other types and with other people.



westlose said:


> We can't really do anything about people and their tastes. All people are following their own fate, and are making choices according to their desires. There's probably a deep reason about why someone gets interested in typology, even if I can't understand what it is. But the fact is that we just followed our needs, and we arrived to like and learn more about Socionics.


Thanks westlose as always, that's very true, people have their own preferences. As a LOL player I completely understand your dota analogy : P I'm not into many of their interests neither and it seems unfair somehow to expect people to be into mine. And yes I assumed that the SEIs were not into it seriously just because they don't find a practical use for it, but on second thought, that's actually rather presumptuous of me to assume that my motivations are the only right ones.

As for socionics I don't think it's a matter of learning phase, as much as people dismissing it on some level. The basic concepts, model A and inter-type relations, are easy enough, it is just that many people don't think that this is worthwhile or valid. Actually, it's very normal that people don't put much stock in an obscure branch of Russian psychology unless they see it with their own eyes how accurate it is.

Anyhow, I'm totally fine with all of this. This thread is mainly to share my observations because I find it very interesting how different types react to this subject.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

selena87 said:


> Thanks Fried Eggz, I understand what you mean by the Barnum effect. But by this logic, everything we identify with could just be the Barnum effect. Where is the line then? How to find out if it's real? It's the same deal with learning the functions, the only way I can think of right now is to compare with all the other types and with other people.


Yes it could be. That's why it's important to test theories.

If someone doesn't equate with their own type then something has gone seriously wrong. If someone equates with multiple types, then the Barnum effect is in practise.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@selena87

For EII, keep in mind that with some of the more reticent personality types, some of them may simply not want you or others to know them behind the mask. One IEI got PISSED after I told some other people his personality type.

It's also somewhat normal for people to reject typology, similar to the IEE, when they fail at categorical logic. To you, you're thinking, "okay, dude... This is just a set of categories of generalizations," the IEE fails to realize that the groupings are not meant to specify individuality. Although you may understand the simplicity of theoretical social groups, he isn't adept at this line of thinking.

I have similar experiences with SEI's. Doing MBTI, socionics, palm reading, tarot, or psychoanalysis games turns them on, and I mean romantically, not just amusing.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> @_selena87_
> 
> For EII, keep in mind that with some of the more reticent personality types, some of them may simply not want you or others to know them behind the mask. One IEI got PISSED after I told some other people his personality type.
> 
> ...


Not only EII / IEI's. EIE's also love their masks. So they would be all reluctant to talk about this. Then there are SLE etc who just have IDGAF attitude towards this. Ultimately, the only people that will be really into this are IEEs and various T types(ILI / LII come to mind immediately).

As for me? I am into this because of POWER. It offers me further insight into the way people function and therefore gives me knowledge. And as everyone is aware, knowledge IS power. It helps me prepare for all the random, unforeseeable events and that only further solidifies my power base. With every atom of understanding more...yes, yes. It's plenty useful I tell you.

Also, who told you are ESE? It's one thing to go from ILI to LII or to LSI or to SLI, but isn't this a bit too extreme?


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

selena87 said:


> I don't understand his reasoning at all. If this test is sketchy, then why did you identify with the IEE profile so much? If the profile is accurate, I'd say socionics has done a good job of categorizing you. I guess I just don't understand him, so I changed the subject after that.


IEE's aren't IEE's unless their beliefs are incoherent to the point of regularly conflicting with each other. :tongue:


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Fried Eggz said:


> It's called the Barnum effect. I very much identify with the ILI profile, and not remotely with the LSI profile. Because the ILI profile is vague and easy to equate with, and the LSI profile is insulting.


There are many socionics profiles written by many different authors; doubtful all ILI profiles could be considered "vague" while all LSI profiles "insulting" in the same way. Unless of course, all these different profiles by different authors have a common trend to them, because they are describing the same thing.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Perhaps "honest" and "truthful" are considered "insulting." If something isn't true, and you know it isn't true, you probably won't care about it much, but if something is true and negative, you probably won't like it.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Perhaps "honest" and "truthful" are considered "insulting." If something isn't true, and you know it isn't true, you probably won't care about it much, but if something is true and negative, you probably won't like it.


True. Though sometimes authors are biased and don't relate well to certain types. The descriptions on socionics dot com were written by someone who self-types as LII, and who has expressed his dislike for ILIs at many instances. I do feel his descriptions of ILI sound somewhat negative, but I attribute that to bias on the part of the author. I have read other ILI descriptions such as the ones on sociotype and feel those are less insulting, even if they point out the negative traits in ILIs too.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Typhon said:


> There are many socionics profiles written by many different authors; doubtful all ILI profiles could be considered "vague" while all LSI profiles "insulting" in the same way. Unless of course, all these different profiles by different authors have a common trend to them, because they are describing the same thing.


I was referring to the most common and obvious one, which I assumed was being referred to.

If you have a collection, I'd love to see them.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

There's two sets of descriptions on socionics dot com. One is the physical descriptions, and one is the "exposed" descriptions. It says LII's are dirty and stink.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> There's two sets of descriptions on socionics dot com. One is the physical descriptions, and one is the "exposed" descriptions. It says LII's are dirty and stink.


There are three! The exposed, like I said, doesn't count - its negative towards everyone, lol. I was talking about the physical descriptions and the + / - descriptions.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Typhon said:


> There are three! The exposed, like I said, doesn't count - its negative towards everyone, lol. I was talking about the physical descriptions and the + / - descriptions.


Alphas are dirty LOL


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Alphas are dirty LOL


_Very _​dirty.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Typhon said:


> _Very _​dirty.


I call INTJs alphas lol


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> I call INTJs alphas lol


Ah, yes, because you equate INTJ with LII, right? Why is that funny though?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Typhon said:


> Ah, yes, because you equate INTJ with LII, right? Why is that funny though?


Because I currently have a dirty fantasy going on here. Shush. Lol


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Because I currently have a dirty fantasy going on here. Shush. Lol


Lol wut?


----------

