# Socionics Schools and Organizations



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Olga: "Hi, thank you for asking me too. ) At the moment I will answer briefly. There are a lot of socionics study schools, centres, clubs and etc. But not all of them have a specific name like a direction of theory. They are schools of different socionists who teach mainstream socionics. If you consider directions of theory there are 5 major schools: humantirain (Gulenko), systemic (Ermak & Eglit), associative (myself), instrumental (Kalinauskas, Golichov, Reinin etc), physiognomic (Filimonov and Duchovskoi). 

There are also two institutes of Bukalov and Prokofieva, they are teaching mainstream plus something else. There are also 3 other schools of Mironov, Lvov (both practice Reinin dichotomies) and Novikova (her specific approach). Please, ask further what you want to know. I know many of the well-known socionists."

Socionics schools:

Structural School of Socionics (Trehov, Tsypin)

The Applied Socionics School (Elena Udalova) 

Do you know of any more Socionics schools and organizations?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Here's an interesting article by "ex-socionist" Rick DeLong:

Mixed Effects of Socionics

"Part of the implicit vision of socionics — especially of founder Aushra Augusta — is that by learning about socionics and discovering their socionic type people would solve their problems and organize themselves in new ways and pursue socionically harmonious relations in their private and professional lives, thus leading to a sort of grass-roots psychological revolution within society. Each person would gain the knowledge necessary to pursue self-realization, perhaps with the assistance of socionics 'guides.'

Though some socionists keep this vision alive, reality has proved more convoluted than expected. Instead of remaining one big body with one set of definitions and one understanding, socionics has divided into many different schools headed by their respective leaders who often diagnose types differently — at times _very_ differently. For example, there are schools that type ILEs much more often than other types, schools where EIEs and LSIs are considered by far the most common, schools where Delta Quadra dominates, etc."

"Socionics deals with very personal issues — one's self-concept and one's close relationships with others — and publicly aired disagreements about people's true socionic types can hit close to home. Differences of opinion about types are a constant source of frustration and often ill will between socionists and schools of socionics. The animosity seems to be greatest during public attempts to type people — either in person (with people from different schools present) or on socionics forums."

"As long as you remain within the 'walls' of one school, you won't encounter too much controversy, but as soon as you meet socionists from other schools (ie. at social events, conferences, or at online forums), conflicts often arise. Often differences of opinion can be overcome through discussion, which helps views to drift together, but occasionally it cannot; sometimes schools have such radically different approaches that effective discussion and cooperation is nearly impossible. For example, there are socionics schools that practice so-called 'physiognomic socionics,' schools that combine socionics with Taro cards (!), and schools where students are taught to think that all other socionists are in error. Such schools are far from the mainstream and have an understandably difficult time communicating with other schools.

By 'school' I mean something more abstract than an educational system or a building. Any group of people that discusses or 'practices' socionics together tends to grow into a sort of 'school of thought' over time. These people have consciously or unconsciously developed a certain culture, way of understanding things, and informational emphasis that becomes recognizable from without, even if the group does not realize it.

Ironically, socionics is a victim of the very socionic phenomena it describes; different schools gravitate towards certain information elements and attach different importance to different things, engendering informational compatibility or incompatibility at the organizational level. Of course, these phenomena are not unique to socionics!"


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

That is due to each school of thought being inherently based upon a viewpoint which is dissected and formalized. Going back to my house analogy... Each person has a home filled with objects, memories, sense of orientation to the world, hopes, futures, pains, loved one, etc., all that which a person is. They take this home and then dissect it in any number of ways, all the way down the individual pieces of wood, nails, etc. that create it. In reality, they don't do this process very thoroughly, and it's more of just a general mindset of deconstruction. By doing this deconstruction, they effectively reverse-engineer how their home was built. The problem with this is that everyone has a different home. Sure, some of them may be similar enough that one person's or school's home can be suited by this general mindset of deconstruction and reverse-engineering of construction, but as you get more and more detailed and specific, ultimately, the homes are different, and so they must separate and develop different directions of construction. More often than not, the homes aren't even remotely similar to begin with. So, why does this even exist in the first place?

On an objective level in relation to general society, even trying to do these things already implies not only similar homes, but homes so dang similar compared to general society, that someone from general society visiting both would be confused by how eerily similar they are.

From general society, using Socionics principles for explanation, let's say you divide up society into 16 sorts of people. You then take these 16 sorts and divide each into 16 sorts. You then take these 16 sorts and divide each into 16 sorts. And again. 16^4. 65,536 divisions. 4 levels deep compared to general society. Virtually every person involved with Socionics as a legitimate study are not only on the same first level, nor second level, but also the 3rd level (foundation of home). Some are even the same on the 4th level (raw materials). Although on online typology communities I occasionally meet different types, who actually behave differently, nearly everyone else (regardless of what type they claim) are so strikingly similar down to specifics of their life. The reason is that virtually everyone involved are identicals compared to general society. Once abandoning the "general society," they then enter the lower levels. Eventually they start looking at the foundations and bolts and screws.


----------

