# Explain Socionics to me



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

I've never had anyone try to explain socionics in a good way and it seems as if my current perception of it being a very shallow system (mainly based on how it seems to be more about relationships and surface stuff than the "why") is quite wrong, so please - give your best shot 

I want to leave this thread understanding socionics a lot better.


----------



## sinigang (May 5, 2012)

Try http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=ILI and http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Ego_block and more.
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Model_A
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Information_element

Then tell us if it's still a very shallow system.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

You need to do a little bit more work than "i don't get socionics, explain it to me."

You can start here: Introduction to Socionics
Main Page - WSWiki


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Acerbusvenator said:


> I've never had anyone try to explain socionics in a good way and it seems as if my current perception of it being a very shallow system (mainly based on how it seems to be more about relationships and surface stuff than the "why") is quite wrong, so please - give your best shot
> 
> I want to leave this thread understanding socionics a lot better.


*Introduction to socionics*. That's one of the better intros into the theory IMO.

There are links to many other socionics sources here: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/116599-socionics-tests-links-resources.html#post2944681


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

sinigang said:


> Then tell us if it's still a very shallow system.


My perception of Socionics is that it puts you in a too tight box with too many components that can break.

As an ILI I supposedly belong in all these categories:
Gamma which apparently determines my behavior in groups and in relationships and relation with the different functions.
(Light) researcher which apparently adds another layer to my behavior in groups
IP which apparently means that I am relaxed and go with the flow
Cold-blooded which apparently determines my way of speaking
Lastly belonging to the "Victim" category which apparently determines my way of dealing with romantic relationships.

It seems as if someone needs to agree with all those 5 categories and the function of the type to be certain of their Socionics type and there just seems like a lot can go wrong and it seems from this perspective more focused on group behavior than who you are as a person and to be fair; I don't care much about how I act with other people or how other people perceive me so those 5 categories mean little to me. I am more interested in understanding myself and deciphering other people.

@_aestrivex_, you weren't exactly forced to enter this thread. I also think that if I get a lot of information on socionics here then it could help other people in the future.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Acerbusvenator said:


> @_aestrivex_, you weren't exactly forced to enter this thread. I also think that if I get a lot of information on socionics here then it could help other people in the future.


Well in addition to telling you that your request for information was not particularly well formed, I did actually post some links, you may have noticed.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

aestrivex said:


> Well in addition to telling you that your request for information was not particularly well formed, I did actually post some links, you may have noticed.


Yes I did.
1/3 of your post was whining at how I formulated the question
1/3 directed me to the socionics wiki main page which didn't really help me out because I asked about the system, not the types (the page just had a lot of the types piled up and other random stuff).
1/3 was the same thing cyamitide posted.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Yes I did.
> 1/3 of your post was whining at how I formulated the question
> 1/3 directed me to the socionics wiki main page which didn't really help me out because I asked about the system, not the types.
> 1/3 was the same thing cyamitide posted.


well, you're welcome.


----------



## sinigang (May 5, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> My perception of Socionics is that it puts you in a too tight box with too many components that can break.
> 
> As an ILI I supposedly belong in all these categories:
> Gamma which apparently determines my behavior in groups and in relationships and relation with the different functions.
> ...


You may assume that it puts you in a tight box because it gives so much info about you or pretty much any type. Logically, all of those would have to fit you well to prove its accuracy right? Of course, in the real world, none of these descriptions would give a 100% match. To the same degree, even MBTI which claims less can't give that fit. Even people who have the same type would still have a lot of differences between them.

The obvious reason for these is that there are too many factors unique to a lot of people which these systems can't predict. Though understanding each of them won't hurt. The better way, really, is to just learn both and build your own understanding. There are things which MBTI can't explain which Socionics can, even if its not 100% accurate.

So on the issue of having to fit entirely into the 5 things you mentioned above, like I've said, an exact match isn't necessary. It's not impossible for anyone to develop into something that is unlike their base type. More on that, you could start with reading about subtypes, which basically expands the 16 types to further classifications.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Acerbusvenator said:


> As an ILI I supposedly belong in all these categories:
> Gamma which apparently determines my behavior in groups and in relationships and relation with the different functions.


Quadra's based on the interaction of your valued IEs.



> (Light) researcher which apparently adds another layer to my behavior in groups


Source? Sounds like useless stuff to me.



> IP which apparently means that I am relaxed and go with the flow


Can be, but don't get hung up on it. I'm not the typical IJ.



> Cold-blooded which apparently determines my way of speaking


Again, source? Never heard of this.



> Lastly belonging to the "Victim" category which apparently determines my way of dealing with romantic relationships.


Opinion on the validity of the romantic styles varies.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Kanerou said:


> Quadra's based on the interaction of your valued IEs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Got it from this: Small groups - Wikisocion


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

small groups are not created equal


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Acerbusvenator said:


> My perception of Socionics is that it puts you in a too tight box with too many components that can break.
> 
> As an ILI I supposedly belong in all these categories:
> Gamma which apparently determines my behavior in groups and in relationships and relation with the different functions.
> ...


MBTI does the same thing by grouping you together with bunch of people that supposedly have the same type and four even broader categories -- NF, NF, SF, ST -- which are same as clubs in socionics. Reading through the subforums of different types it becomes evident that every person posting there is a unique individual. So I have no idea what you're getting at here. Your criticisms so far have to do with applications of personality typing systems in general, rather than socionics.



> I don't care much about how I act with other people or how other people perceive me so those 5 categories mean little to me. I am more interested in understanding myself and deciphering other people.


How do you plan on accomplishing this deciphering of yourself and others, if you don't really care about how you act or how others react to you?


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> MBTI does the same thing by grouping you together with bunch of people that supposedly have the same type and four even broader categories -- NF, NF, SF, ST -- which are same as clubs in socionics. Reading through the subforums of different types it becomes evident that every person posting there is a unique individual. So I have no idea what you're getting at here. Your criticisms so far have to do with applications of personality typing systems in general, rather than socionics.


NF, NT, SP, SJ (I assume that's what you meant) is from Keirsey and have little to do with MBTI, it's a separate system.
I am merely trying to decipher the significance of all those categories.



> How do you plan on accomplishing this deciphering of yourself and others, if you don't really care about how you act or how others react to you?


Please enlighten me how the personality of other people connect with how I act if I only observe them. Maybe bad question of the socionics forum because it seems like that it's all about that.

Guess Socionics is too interpersonal for me.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Acerbusvenator said:


> NF, NT, SP, SJ (I assume that's what you meant) is from Keirsey and have little to do with MBTI, it's a separate system.


Those divisions are widely used on MBTI forums like this one, and MBTI publications and studies.

Even if you brush it off as Kiersey, fact still remains that MBTI groups you together with approximately 400 million other individuals into same type, and endows you with certain personality traits listed copiously on MBTI profiles. What happens when you don't fully fit all the characteristics and traits listed on those profiles? Since each individual is unique and different from others, there is no way everyone could fit into all those points listed on MBTI profiles. MBTI goes further to advise which careers are best for you, but what if none of those recommendations fit you? Then the MBTI house of cards falls apart.

It's weird that you have no problem with MBTI, meanwhile it's just as fragile as Socionics.



> I am merely trying to decipher the significance of all those categories.


It depends on who you ask. Different people place different value on these categories.

Quadra groupings are considered to be significant. I've brought up that typing by quadra values is problematic because they are often over-ridden by personal values, so it's not an accurate method for typing. However, communicating and spending time with people from your quadra still generally has a positive, uplifting effect on a person, even if your quadramates don't share many of your values.

Clubs and Erotic Styles are not considered to be significant grouping.

Temperaments is another grouping that I've found to be useful in typing people. Some may disagree on this. Temperaments divisions are based on your dominant function, whether it is Pi, Pe, Je, or Ji.



> Please enlighten me how the personality of other people connect with how I act if I only observe them. Maybe bad question of the socionics forum because it seems like that it's all about that.


You don't have to passively observe, you can _apply_ what you have learned from these personality theories.



> Guess Socionics is too interpersonal for me.


I have same problem with it and MBTI  There is very limited utility in these typologies.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> It's weird that you have no problem with MBTI, meanwhile it's just as fragile as Socionics.


I guess it has to do with MBTI having more invisible categories. I see Socionics as a snowflake, it the middle there's your type and then you got all this little extras sticking out. I see MBTI more as a net with the cognitive functions in the center and then less cohesive and less important parts further out.
I'd say that's my problem, I must understand the system before I know what to dismiss and what to include - in MBTI I know to go by the cognitive functions and avoid dichtonomies and other over-generalizations to the MBTI categories because I've learned the system really well; in Socionics however it's all a bunch of information and I have yet to find the information to really know what to ignore and what to focus on - ofc that was just made easier with what you wrote bellow. :happy:
The reason I didn't get tired of MBTI was because someone showed me the cognitive functions - before that I was annoyed at the broad assumptions of how 4 letters were supposed to determine your entire personality, in time I learned that it wasn't about your personality but about how you process information and then it made sense with my growing knowledge of the cognitive functions.



> It depends on who you ask. Different people place different value on these categories.
> 
> Quadra groupings are considered to be significant. I've brought up that typing by quadra values is problematic because they are often over-ridden by personal values, so it's not an accurate method for typing. However, communicating and spending time with people from your quadra still generally has a positive, uplifting effect on a person, even if your quadramates don't share many of your values.
> 
> ...


Okay, thanks. This was exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. Some feedback to what I should focus on and what I can put less effort on.

To summarize what I've understood.
So clubs and erotic styles hold little place in Socionics other than "add-on". (I actually do really find that relationship stuff to be accurate sadly, I've always looked for a more dominant woman).
Temperaments are useful at times, but they are more of pinning down the likely type than posttyping.
Quadras are good to know, but nothing to focus on pretyping.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Quadras are good to know, but nothing to focus on pretyping.


As cyamitide mentioned, there are many different interpretations. My interpretation is that none of the groupings you mentioned are of particular importance, except for quadras, which are fundamental to socionics and everything to focus on.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

So what's your take @LeaT?
Anything to add to what @cyamitide has said?

I've been wondering a little about that function after the type, I assume it's just to show the dominant function?
Like Faceless got "LIE-Te"


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Acerbusvenator said:


> I guess it has to do with MBTI having more invisible categories. I see Socionics as a snowflake, it the middle there's your type and then you got all this little extras sticking out. I see MBTI more as a net with the cognitive functions in the center and then less cohesive and less important parts further out.


Socionics does have more groupings, but many of them like clubs aren't considered significant for typing yourself or others. In this respect I've also felt that Socionics attempts to define types with more precision and is therefore more constricting and rigid than MBTI, but you aren't required to cram yourself into all of them.

Most people take a few tests, read through type profiles, read up on information elements, cognitive functions, and Model A, survey their intertype relationships, and may be apply some basic dichotomies like static-dynamic, and stop there.



> I'd say that's my problem, I must understand the system before I know what to dismiss and what to include - in MBTI I know to go by the cognitive functions and avoid dichtonomies and other over-generalizations to the MBTI categories because I've learned the system really well; in Socionics however it's all a bunch of information and I have yet to find the information to really know what to ignore and what to focus on - ofc that was just made easier with what you wrote bellow.


Start by reading up on IEs and functions of Model A, there are some links posted on this page: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/130-Introduction-to-Socionics



> The reason I didn't get tired of MBTI was because someone showed me the cognitive functions - before that I was annoyed at the broad assumptions of how 4 letters were supposed to determine your entire personality, in time I learned that it wasn't about your personality but about how you process information and then it made sense with my growing knowledge of the cognitive functions.


Socionics is the same way. There's even more focus on it dealing with how one deals with information, thus socionics types are commonly abbreviated as "TIM" which stands for "type of information metabolism". Regrettably many of those who delve into studying socionics continue to treat it like a typology that specifies your behaviors and personality traits, instead of realizing that it has to do with information processing.



> To summarize what I've understood.
> So clubs and erotic styles hold little place in Socionics other than "add-on". (I actually do really find that relationship stuff to be accurate sadly, I've always looked for a more dominant woman).
> Temperaments are useful at times, but they are more of pinning down the likely type than posttyping.


Sounds good to me. From dichotomies list read about the basic ones like judicious-decisive, merry-serious, and static-dynamic.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> So what's your take @_LeaT_?
> Anything to add to what @_cyamitide_ has said?
> 
> I've been wondering a little about that function after the type, I assume it's just to show the dominant function?
> Like Faceless got "LIE-Te"


Err, why don't you just go read up instead of throwing random questions to people? The "Te" denotion for example refers to socionics subtype theory where we tend to actively seek to use one ego function more regardless if it's base or creative. I for example type as EII-Ne. The base function is always dominant. You can't apply MBTI terminology on socionics. The system is entirely different.

I think you should focus more on the basics of model A and quadra values though, before you even bother with subtype theory.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> So what's your take @_LeaT_?
> Anything to add to what @_cyamitide_ has said?
> 
> I've been wondering a little about that function after the type, I assume it's just to show the dominant function?
> Like Faceless got "LIE-Te"


No it's a subtype. As far as traditional subtypes go, they usually come on the form of the base or creative function. LIE-Te and LIE-Ni are subtypes for LIE.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Err, why don't you just go read up instead of throwing random questions to people? The "Te" denotion for example refers to socionics subtype theory where we tend to actively seek to use one ego function more regardless if it's base or creative. I for example type as EII-Ne. The base function is always dominant. You can't apply MBTI terminology on socionics. The system is entirely different.
> 
> I think you should focus more on the basics of model A and quadra values though, before you even bother with subtype theory.


Thanks and I learn best by asking others. The answers are a lot more adapted to my questions than reading a wall of text on the internet. I also get a lot of feedback and suggestions which makes it a lot more efficient than walking around like a lost soul on my own :wink:


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Read here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/14-Type-and-subtype-descriptions-Meged-Ovcharov didn't seem that difficult.
Thanks btw. for answering my question about the added function, I had a feeling it had to do with the subtypes. :happy:


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Thanks and I learn best by asking others. The answers are a lot more adapted to my questions than reading a wall of text on the internet. I also get a lot of feedback and suggestions which makes it a lot more efficient than walking around like a lost soul on my own :wink:


I forgot to mention another very important thing, that studying real life examples of people of each type has helped me to weed out more relevant socionics stuff from stuff that is useless and misleading. 

It takes a while to wade through all the information socionics provides and to identify what works and what doesn't, and it's always a good idea to bounce that knowledge against your observations of people you know just to check that you aren't heading off into some imaginary theoretical la la world that has nothing to do with how actual people are. Socionics tends to have that effect on those who don't perform regular reality checks.


----------



## sinigang (May 5, 2012)

^
Ironically, I find that people who get very good at socionics find it really hard to type themselves. Lol


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

sinigang said:


> ^
> Ironically, I find that people who get very good at socionics find it really hard to type themselves. Lol


that is strange to me -- the more I got into it, the more corroborating information piled up, the more certain I became of my type


----------



## sinigang (May 5, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> that is strange to me -- the more I got into, the more corroborating information piled up, the more certain I became of my type


I would think that the more someone learns about socionics, or any personality theory for that matter, the easier it is to develop away from what he/she are stereotyped as. And therefore blurring one's own type. But that is only if you choose to do so in the first place. It could be just me though., but I could certainly say for me at least, it is easier to identify the type of someone who is not very versed, if at all, at socionics than someone who is. Of the many reasons being, they behave more according to type and thus clash hard with what they typically clash with.


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

Try to read wikisocion. Socionics is not more shallow than any other Jung's typology interpretation.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Sol_ said:


> Try to read wikisocion. Socionics is not more shallow than any other Jung's typology interpretation.


More shallow than the MBTI...?


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Sol_ said:


> Try to read wikisocion. Socionics is not more shallow than any other Jung's typology interpretation.


What do you define as shallow?

I define shallow like "shallow water" aka. something that is a lot on the surface, but not really on the depth.

I've been getting information on socionics now so it's getting interesting


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> that is strange to me -- the more I got into, the more corroborating information piled up, the more certain I became of my type


I don't think I've seen this anywhere, but I'm curious: what is your type, cyamitide?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

madhatter said:


> I don't think I've seen this anywhere, but I'm curious: what is your type, cyamitide?


i've looked into intp and isxps and stopped at infp


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

found this one as well if someone new to socionics reads this thread: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/8729-socionics-model-function-order.html


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

@cyamitide, what is the accuracy of using the relationships between people in typing?
aka. if you are typing person A and person A and person B are constantly fighting then you can remove the type that is dual with person B or identical etc.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Acerbusvenator said:


> @_cyamitide_, what is the accuracy of using the relationships between people in typing?
> aka. if you are typing person A and person A and person B are constantly fighting then you can remove the type that is dual with person B or identical etc.


Among people you don't personally know, such as celebrities, accuracy by typing via intertypes is rather poor. It improves if you are typing those you've known for a long time like close friends and family members.

I'll make another thread for this topic -- this hasn't been discussed much and it deserves some scrutiny.


----------

