# Is there a pattern in how each quadra approaches/understands and applies Socionics?



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Yeah, I'm not necessarily into it for the sake of application, like "oh, if I know mine and others' types, that would help me solve x problem." I'm not even sure it could reliably be used that way (although it does give me some inspiration for writing, which is a kind of application I guess). It's more of an interesting lens to see the world of people through. 

So similar to what @Word Dispenser said.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Kink said:


> It's more of an interesting lens to see the world of people through.


^This.
As a Te valuer I'm interested in application, but it's more of an application in a sense of understanding myself and other people, what makes us tick, how differently we approach the world and why we do it differently in the first place.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Narrow minded? Alphas? _Really_?
> 
> Odd.
> 
> ...


*agrees with you*

I'm actually starting to think there might actually _be_ some usefulness to it, though, because it might help you figure out what most people are persuaded by?

Enh, not something I'll seriously test, but probably something I'll keep in mind.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Autvoyeur said:


> *agrees with you*
> 
> I'm actually starting to think there might actually _be_ some usefulness to it, though, because it might help you figure out what most people are persuaded by?
> 
> Enh, not something I'll seriously test, but probably something I'll keep in mind.


Well, I'm not saying it's not useful... In the same way that philosophy is useful.

I'm just saying that I don't take it too seriously, basically. It doesn't really seem as if anyone who understands and follows the theories really reach any kind of consensus. In a way, I think that's awesome, but if there's no way to collaborate and reach conclusions, then it's really just spit-balling ideas to see which ones stick in particular situations.

Which is something I love to do anyway, so win-win.

It becomes dangerous when people try using these ideas to base very important life decisions on.

Like: "I will only ever marry the TYE type, and if I don't get to marry one, I will be miserable forever."

And it even gets kind of annoying when someone is going, "Blah, she is an UGH type. That means we could never get along in a million years. I should just avoid her based on my own typing of her (Which could be wrong, and their typing of _themselves _could be wrong as well-- And the very idea that you can't get along with someone based on the theory is just quackery. Of course you can)."


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Oh, well see @Kintsugi there must be differences then. 

I would have absolutely no interest in socionics if it weren't for the intertype relations, and applying what I know in advance from them to my real life relations. I.E. using is as a tool, like some of the Alphas and Deltas here say they could not do (which I respect as a viewpoint, but is very different). 

Outside of the intertypes, which I'll get to below, the only thing that "understanding the way other people think" offers to me is a rationalization when I don't understand why someone is doing/thinking something differently. It reminds you other people use other information differently than you do, and the "barrier" there is reason to take other POV's in equanimously. Bypassing socionics-related communication barriers gives you quite a bit of knowledge-power in social situations, because most people don't realize they are there. 

Ultimately, though, I see no problem using socionics as a tool with relations. Notice - using - not _over_using. The patterns of how an interaction between two types takes place is far too repetitive and predictable for me not to use it to maintain or leave open distance between others. It's not to say I won't speak to someone who is an ESE, for example - I just manage my psychological distance from them to keep things as balanced as they can be. And to do that, you have to decide they are type X, and I will react in Y way, which is using the theory as a tool for keeping balance in relations.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta stuff is all sexy. Renin Dichotomies are sort of pointless and infuriating to use when typing yourself. That's all I can say?


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

I feel socionics lacks objectivity. How can I objectively determine if someone is using one cognitive function? If I had to write a research on socionics, it would probably be about how to detect external, concrete manifestations of cognitive functions, whether through communication style or speech patterns. 

I dislike how typing someone involves too much of their subjective perception about themselves (especially through tests) and little of objective, external facts about the individual that are accessible to everyone.


----------



## Dalton (Jun 10, 2013)

Aiwass said:


> I feel socionics lacks objectivity. How can I objectively determine if someone is using one cognitive function? If I had to write a research on socionics, it would probably be about how to detect external, concrete manifestations of cognitive functions, whether through communication style or speech patterns.
> 
> I dislike how typing someone involves too much of their subjective perception about themselves (especially through tests) and little of objective, external facts about the individual that are accessible to everyone.


I wish I was SEE... I wanna be your Dual. :blushed: 
(i.e. I agree with what you said.)


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Aiwass said:


> I feel socionics lacks objectivity. How can I objectively determine if someone is using one cognitive function? If I had to write a research on socionics, it would probably be about how to detect external, concrete manifestations of cognitive functions, whether through communication style or speech patterns.
> 
> I dislike how typing someone involves too much of their subjective perception about themselves (especially through tests) and little of objective, external facts about the individual that are accessible to everyone.


Out of curiosity, how would you overcome the problem of discrepancies between external appearance and behavior, and internal cognition and values? For example, a person could be warm and expressive externally which seems like Fe, but that doesn't necessarily mean their mindset and valuing process is Fe. Measuring external manifestations may be more objective, but it's also indirect and may not translate into internal cognitive preferences.


----------



## westlose (Oct 9, 2014)

Aiwass said:


> I feel socionics lacks objectivity. How can I objectively determine if someone is using one cognitive function? If I had to write a research on socionics, it would probably be about how to detect external, concrete manifestations of cognitive functions, whether through communication style or speech patterns.
> 
> I dislike how typing someone involves too much of their subjective perception about themselves (especially through tests) and little of objective, external facts about the individual that are accessible to everyone.


Functions are about mental processes. Ask questions to a Fe/Ti user, and to a Fi/Te user. You will see that they don't answer the same way. Actually, functions manifest in the behaviour of a person. But I agree, it's very hard to notice them.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

Silveresque said:


> Out of curiosity, how would you overcome the problem of discrepancies between external appearance and behavior, and internal cognition and values? For example, a person could be warm and expressive externally which seems like Fe, but that doesn't necessarily mean their mindset and valuing process is Fe. Measuring external manifestations may be more objective, but it's also indirect and may not translate into internal cognitive preferences.


That is a good question.
Actually, I believe one's natural functions are always going to manifest themselves in one way or another. A Fi user may try to express a Fe-like behavior, but usually not for too long and not with the same spontaneity as a natural Fe user does.

I also think not all people are easy to type. In some cases, you need to know someone with certain depth or talk to them for some time to pick up on the essence of their cognitive processes.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Hmm. I went to the pub had a few pints and now I'm too tipsy to answer my own thread.

Sad times. 
Maybe I'll answer one day. I'm not sure I give enough of a shit about typology anymore, tbh. 

Thanks for the input though. 

EDIT: I told my bf what I just wrote. He said;

"sweetheart, why didn't you just wait and reply to your thread tomorrow or another day when you were are sober?"

<insert a long pause from me and eventual shrug of the shoulders>

He raises an eyebrow and says;

"so, you basically just acted purely on impulse in the present moment without thinking about the future consequences of your actions?"

I grin and shake my head proudly. roud:

Then he tells me to go to bed. :tongue:


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

Typhon said:


> There is certainly an attitude as to how each quadra appraoches the theory. I tried my best to come up with certain attitudes quadras might take on, but its by no means consistent.
> 
> Alpha tends to relate to it as either uninteresting or a wonder of science. They tend to view the theory as an asset to mankind, which annoys Gammas who tend to think Alphas are too narrow minded.
> 
> ...



Don't know about that Gamma bit. I don't typically restructure something, I build upon on it or just throw it out. Personally, I tend to focus on things which has use in my environment or future ventures. I've applied the model in building my teams for different projects/events. Sharing of ideas and different perspectives are a must in my teams. The better the communication between individuals, the better the work and less conflict management for me.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Kintsugi said:


> What do you mean by "asset to mankind" and how does this specifically annoy Gammas? My own view is that Alpha (particularly the NTs) over-complicate things and are more interested in exploring the possibilities than the actual execution. So, in some sense, I guess Alphas probably see Gamma as "narrow-minded", too. I actually think this is a problem with Ne/Si vs Ni/Se in general though.


Yeah, I think alpha and gamma may mutually view on another as narrow-minded. "Asset to mankind" - I'm just referring to how early socionists, who type themselves as alpha usually, referred to socionics as "the science of the milleneum" and Aushra's idea of duality as a "philosophical stone" etc. I think Ne generally might better appreciate if or not something is useful to humankind than Ni, but thats of course just what I've come to observe, not very falsifiable I guess. 




> Why skepticism?


I think the betas answered for me. Ne is alot more patient than Ni, as @_FearAndTrembling_ explained, Ni is less likely to fiddle around with a theory it finds completely distanced from reality.





> This part confuses me. I'd say it's the other way round and is a difference between Te (working with an objective system, such as Model A) vs Ti (working with their own subjective system). If anything, Ti distances themselves from the objective model and restructures it in their own terms (this is why it is subjective).
> 
> I might have completely misunderstood you here though so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


I think the term "objective model" is a misnomer. Ti wants a model, which is by its very nature distant from reality. Models try to represent reality as best as possible, though, I feel that the objective appraoch doesnt need a model. It simple observes phenomena and experiences them, there is no need to withdraw from the phenomena in order to restructure them in one's own mind(introversion). 

What I meant is also what @_wolf12345_ said about alphas and gammas: alphas might criticize gammas for not being nuanced enough in their understanding of the theory, I think Ti is likely to stay faithful to all the structural aspects of theory(Reinin dichotomies, dcnh etc) whereas gamma needs the model to act as a basis for representation, but is less "categorical" about it.





Word Dispenser said:


> Narrow minded? Alphas? _Really_?
> 
> Odd.
> 
> ...


I think every quadra is narrow minded in some ways, open minded in others. As I explained above gammas might view alphas a categorical regarding what is and isnt socionics. Maybe narrow minded isnt the right term at all, more like Ti makes more of a case about what is and what isnt socionics(and isnt technically wrong about that usually). Like I said above, Te is more broad, might sysnehtesize and juxtapose systems since for Te there are no "rules". Te is always testing "rules". Usually every "general rule" that Ti formulates can be broken down with Te, since there is always one case where boys prefer pink and girls prefer blue(for example ). The one area where Te might feel some kind of stability is math, though, because, for instance, 3 + 3 is always 6, no matter how you look at it. 







westlose said:


> Functions are about mental processes. Ask questions to a Fe/Ti user, and to a Fi/Te user. You will see that they don't answer the same way. Actually, functions manifest in the behaviour of a person. But I agree, it's very hard to notice them.


Is the way in which two people answer the same question a quantifiable property? Even if it were, how do you correlate it to socionics specifically? It seems that mental processes are very hard to quantify, measure obectivelty, and falsify, and thats a good thing, since I the contrary would imply that the human mind would have no privacy!


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

Yeah, pretty sure my father is Alpha. I feel that he's too long-winded and circumlocutory; if the topic of discussion is a horse, he butchers the horse until its remains have evaporated or decomposed. He would come up with countless examples to support his argument or just repeat them again and again, either not getting to the point or getting to the point and then overemphasizing it. On the other hand, he accuses me of being too blunt and taciturn. I try to explain something as succinctly as I can. I cut the bush instead of beating around it.

The tendency to over-complicate is spot on. Once, I was watching a movie in my bedroom and just to enhance my experience, I switched the lights off to feel as if I was in a theater. My father saw me and got furious for no apparent reason until he spoke. He thought my being in a dark room was a representation of my inner turmoil or something. I would just state an observation or fact for the heck of it and he would assume that I'm asking him to do something or whatever he assumes I'm intending, basically make a big deal out of it.


----------

