How do you use socionics in real life situations?

[JuJu]

Uh, I actually think that Lou Reed is an IEI. I mean, he wrote songs like "I'll Be Your Mirror" and "Heroin". They sound pretty NiFe to me.

Regardless of what Socionics type Lou Reed's songs "sound to you," you're incorrect.

It's not subjective. You are just wrong.

Like many people here, you post your opinion even though your opinion is fairly uninformed. (Less than 20 posts.) That is why many people here can't agree. (You'll notice ppl who have been here for awhile and know their shit often agree on typings. E.g. Niffweed and I agree on 85% of typings, I saw... I often agree with Gilly as well.)

I'm fine with you posting your opinion, but I'd suggest you think twice about talking down something (Socionics) you don't yet understand.

[Singu]

Regardless of what Socionics type Lou Reed's songs "sound to you," you're incorrect.

Well I'm not really just basing it on how his songs "sound", I'm basing his typing based on his song lyrics and his personality and so on. I DO know a bit about Lou Reed and the VU, so I thought I'd share my opinion. There are also other things like how he was a pretty eccentric man with an eccentric personality (Ni) or how he was good friends with Andy Warhol (an IEI) or how he was a regular at his "factory", a group of typical eccentric bohemian artists getting together and making a bunch of arts (very IEI-like). And how are his songs (lyrics) not mostly Ni/Fe? I actually thought that he was ILI at first.

I mean, if you know more about Lou Reed, then I would like to know WHY he's LSI... It's not like I'm a huge fan, but I used to listen to him a lot.

Like many people here, you post your opinion even though your opinion is fairly uninformed. (Less than 20 posts.) That is why many people here can't agree. (You'll notice ppl who have been here for awhile and know their shit often agree on typings. E.g. Niffweed and I agree on 85% of typings, I saw... I often agree with Gilly as well.)

Oh come on, you are basing my knowledge on the number of my posts? Don't get me wrong, I'm not just some newbie, I used to lurk here on this forum, and I do know a bit about Socionics, actually.

[JuJu]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just some newbie, I used to lurk here on this forum, and I do know a bit about Socionics, actually.

...I know a lot about it.

Enough that I can tell you definitively that you are wrong about the typing you gave. (I don't want to turn this into a type thread about Lou Reed, lol... Search function "Lou Reed" and you'll find some posts about why he is Se-ISTj.)

Part of the reason some people here are so confused about Socionics is b/c people who know "a little about" it post their opinions when they don't yet have enough clarity as re: Socionics... They make Socionics look like a guessing-game or a crapshoot.

It is not.

If I play an A chord on the guitar and you say its a C chord... It's still an A chord... You're just wrong.

Just as when someone is ISTj and you say he's INFp... He's still ISTj... You're just wrong.

I don't want to discourage you, b/c I'm sure you are just trying to understand the theory... However, I'm suggesting you open your mind and let in some of what the more knowledgeable people here have to say... You will understand the types, and the theory more quickly--and will achieve a better understanding of it overall.

That's the message anyway.

[Wynch]

IMO to make socionics practically testable, one would have to create an experiment that puts concrete data (numbers, results) to the notion of compatibility between people.

The next thing would be to propose a method of establishing typings that is does not in any way avail itself of subjective asessments. Ideally you'd want a method that, with a little help, a contemporary computer could employ. Again, this would involve feeding the computer concrete data gathered under experimental conditions.

Put the two together, and you have a scientifically testable claim: does the method of establishing typings predict the results of the experiments or does it not.

I would be willing to change my self-typing to ESE, marry you and have amazing children over this post alone. We should talk more.

Establish logically and empirically consistent system first. Everything else, second.

[JuJu]

I would be willing to change my self-typing to ESE, marry you and have amazing children over this post alone. We should talk more.

Establish logically and empirically consistent system first. Everything else, second.

LOL!!!

You two would be great at helping to iron out the logic. Seriously... I'd love to be in on these experiments.

I'm interested in "second," haha, which is making Socionics practical for people to use ASAP. Teaching ppl how to do it so it can benefit them as quickly and fully as possible.

Its logical soundness (or vice versa) doesn't mean a damn to me if it can't help in a tangible way... But I've found it can.

IMO Socionics needs better teachers, and then lots of people will start to benefit.

[Wynch]

But you see, JuJu, the problem with socionics is that people want to skip ahead to using it before they've established what's being used. So people develop a vague context of the logical framework and then begin a free-for-all of typing. However, if persons A, B and C all have a different understanding and the logical framework is unclear, then you have nothing to argue on. Nothing but vague principles which people will argue about until the end of time.

There needs to be an estbalished norm to which the theory refers to (which is why these forums have been titled "Model A" forums. From there you can flesh out the theory as long as the premise refers back to the original skeleton. Lastly, you can figure out how to apply this practically by making a study that can refer back to your theory and system and produces empirical results.

Unless this is happening (and holds up to peer review, because we can all be geniuses and still have ideas that do not hold up to critical analysis), then we can all come and say "You are full of shit and have no idea what you're talking about." And we can all do this to each other.

Unfortunately I'm too lazy to do anything other than skeleton and theory, and only then if I have someone to work on it with so we can ping ideas. I get tired of solitary confinement i.e. writing papers.

[FDG]

I think it's very useful. I don't piss off LSIs very often at all anymore, and if they start looking uncomfortable I know exactly how to handle it. I recognize that there isn't anything wrong with LSIs, but that we're just very different in how we think and view the world. I recognize when my SEI father in law needs rescuing from my LIE mom, and step in and handle it. I help my IEE daughter and her LSI friend try to understand each other and not fight so much. I recognize when to keep keep my mouth shut around my ESI brother. It is pretty easy to put it into practice once you understand how it works and can type people correctly. In fact it's hard to NOT put it into practice. It's like recognizing when someone is carrying too many packages and needs another pair of hands, and then stepping in to help with a few things.

Yes, good post.

[Wynch]

But this becomes a question of exploring a system or exploring a concept. If you want to talk about exploring the concept of typing people, then by all means, absolutely anything is valid. You could offer me a system where you type people based on varieties of fruit, and as long as it's logically consistent and has some empirical value, then why the hell not?

But if you want to talk about a theory, you need to build off it's original premise or else you're no longer talking about that. Calling something socionics simply because you use the XXXx structure, doesn't make it so. If you and I try to type someone and we're functioning within two different theories then when you say I'm wrong and I say you're wrong, neither of us is wrong or right. We're just not talking about the same thing.

Oh, and to add to that. If we want to talk about something like Reinin dichotomies, we can argue the case for them based on Model A. If you look at the dichotomies, most (if not all? I haven't looked throroughly into all of them) function within Model A and "classical" socionics. They're just another format of breaking down type characteristics. They're still related to the original model and the logical roots of most of what I've seen seem to be consistent with Model A. Expanding on a theory is ok. As long as it shares the same foundation as what everyone else is trying to talk about.

[Wynch]

tbh, I think we're in agreement here. If people want to talk about alternate theories then they should be allowed to talk about alternate theories without harrassment or fear of condemnation. Ideas shouldn't be censored.

That said, this is a socionics forum. People talking about things which are either not at all socionics or that do not connect back to socionics (meaning things that relate back to the original theory) should post in places where it's appropriate. And if you're going to use something that doesn't relate back to the original theory to refute thoughts on the original theory, then you're just contributing to unnecessary confusion.

[JuJu]

But you see, JuJu, the problem with socionics is that people want to skip ahead to using it before they've established what's being used. So people develop a vague context of the logical framework and then begin a free-for-all of typing. However, if persons A, B and C all have a different understanding and the logical framework is unclear, then you have nothing to argue on. Nothing but vague principles which people will argue about until the end of time.

There needs to be an estbalished norm to which the theory refers to (which is why these forums have been titled "Model A" forums. From there you can flesh out the theory as long as the premise refers back to the original skeleton. Lastly, you can figure out how to apply this practically by making a study that can refer back to your theory and system and produces empirical results.

Unless this is happening (and holds up to peer review, because we can all be geniuses and still have ideas that do not hold up to critical analysis), then we can all come and say "You are full of shit and have no idea what you're talking about." And we can all do this to each other.

Unfortunately I'm too lazy to do anything other than skeleton and theory, and only then if I have someone to work on it with so we can ping ideas. I get tired of solitary confinement i.e. writing papers.

This is a great post... You are 100% right.

You are right... people are always jumping ahead w/ Socionics--imo, precisely b/c it is not easy and clear...

They learn a little Socionics and then mix and match with other theories... They take babelfished Russian out-of-context... They call themselves, e.g., ISTp when they are ISTj b/c they don't understand the functions, or the intertype relations, and instead are hung up on an idea of themselves as a certain temperament (a Western emphasis inherited from MBTI, probably.)

We've seen how out-of-whack this forum can get with these ideas.

I feel like there are a few people here to ping ideas off of, (you, Vero, for sure, among them...) But considering the number of people on the forum, it is a small percentage...

We are all at the infancy of Socionics in the West... And these are the growing pains.

That said, what you write goes to the heart of the current problems with Socionics.

In particular, I'm interested in how to establish a person's type empirically... I establish a person's type by type comparisons, which is referential and (as re: some intertype relations,) totally anecdotal. E.g. I learned about Kindred relations from Mimosa's post about them and my brief experience with an ESFj... I'd love some empirical guideposts.

In MBTI and "The Big Five," etc, it's easy to establish type... Those are simple little dichotomous systems. Also, there are good tests for them.

Socionics is not a simple little system... And type tests produce misleading results.


For now, it seems to me: unfortunately, the most accurate approach to tying oneself quickly w/ Socionics is via guru... Also unfortunately imo, the most accurate approach to typing oneself in the long haul is years of learning.

Do you think there need to be studies, Vero?? If yes, maybe we could form an organization and see if we could get some grant money to run experiments... If that happens, I think we'd get places with Socionics very quickly.

[JuJu]

tbh, I think we're in agreement here. If people want to talk about alternate theories then they should be allowed to talk about alternate theories without harrassment or fear of condemnation. Ideas shouldn't be censored.

That said, this is a socionics forum. People talking about things which are either not at all socionics or that do not connect back to socionics (meaning things that relate back to the original theory) should post in places where it's appropriate. And if you're going to use something that doesn't relate back to the original theory to refute thoughts on the original theory, then you're just contributing to unnecessary confusion.

In 100% agreement... Well-put again.

[Wynch]

I'm going to be really honest for a second here, JuJu, and say that I feel you're one of the people who jumps ahead of themselves where socionics certainty is concerned. I see you saying a LOT of stuff as though you know precisely what you're talking about, but you haven't really shown any kind of...tie back? As though people are expected to take your word for it, as it were, which always makes me skeptical.

And talking about grant money is really idealistic, I think. I'm not ambitious enough to head that route. I enjoy the intellectual pursuit of exploring socionics, but I don't think I have the ambition or attention span to really dedicate myself as a champion of it.

[Wynch]

You're quite welcome. Any time.

[Banana Pancakes]

But you see, JuJu, the problem with socionics is that people want to skip ahead to using it before they've established what's being used. So people develop a vague context of the logical framework and then begin a free-for-all of typing. However, if persons A, B and C all have a different understanding and the logical framework is unclear, then you have nothing to argue on. Nothing but vague principles which people will argue about until the end of time.

This.

[Jarno]

In MBTI and "The Big Five," etc, it's easy to establish type... Those are simple little dichotomous systems. Also, there are good tests for them.

Socionics is not a simple little system... And type tests produce misleading results.

What's wrong with socionics dichotomies? Most russian sites use them.

[JuJu]

I see you saying a LOT of stuff as though you know precisely what you're talking about, but you haven't really shown any kind of...tie back? As though people are expected to take your word for it, as it were, which always makes me skeptical

That's fair, really.

I wouldn't want you or anyone to take what I write for granted.

I'm aware that people are skeptical whenever they read something written with a tone of authority on a given subject... All I can tell you is that I am being genuine about what I write, and although I know I get things wrong on occasion--without being modest or boastful--I know my stuff well.

As to writing ahead of my understanding... The truth is: my understanding advanced a great deal during a time when I wasn't posting post here. (Dec, Jan, Feb of this year.) As a regular poster, I do not post (if you look at post counts) nearly as much as many... And it's true--you are right--I never really explained what I learned during that time... (Frankly I do not know how to do it without visuals... Which is why I am looking forward to producing this documentary.)

My motives for writing what I do here is to help other people use Socionics well, and in practice.. I'm very sincere about it b/c of how much Socionics has benefited me in my relationships with my family, my gf, and other friends....

I really do wish everyone could see benefits like this.

As regards "tie-back," I think I know what you mean... What you have to realize, Vero, is that is your skills, and intellectual criteria, as an individual and NeTi... Are not the same as my skills and intellectual criteria as an individual and a FeNi.

Whereas you are quite good at categorizing abstract data, and explaining your reasoning for it, I am not great at it. (My history of science profs will back me up.) When I try to write technically, it's even less technical and more gobbledy**** than Strrrng writes... It's unpleasant for me to do--and since I'm not getting paid to do it, you know, I haven't been doing it.

This is by way of saying, I'm very good at a different aspect of Socionics--especially, getting peoples' types right. (Personally, I believe this is a really important aspect of Socionics, b/c if a person never gets his/her type right, Socionics can never really benefit him/her.)

Specialized, yes, but it's what I am interested in, what my particular skill set lends itself to, and to be honest, that it works in practice (i.e. typing and accurately predicting of intertype relations) satisfies my intellectual criteria... So that's why I do it.

Categorizing the empirical e.g. "this ____ is an expression of this function because"--if that is what interests you about Socionics... I really hope you pursue it! I would love to read works about it... Socionics needs more works like that which aren't in Russian.

But what I'm trying to say is, it ain't my bag.

There are some people here who are hoping to learn the very basics of Socionics for various reasons, e.g. "what type am I?" "what type is my girlfriend?" "why do we fight?" That's where I want to--and can--help.

In other words, remain skeptical of me... Honestly... I want what I do to stand up to any evaluation based on Model A... Especially one based on your criteria, i.e. "tie backs;" but know that I may put it in different language, or you may have to ask me to clarify a point b/c I won't have explained it the first time.

If anything wins you over--again, I want someone scrutinizing who knows Model A--let it be that I continually get the typings correct. That's my goal.

[Lobo]

Juju, would you say that you are better at identifying types based on visual traits or on written descriptions of an individual? Also, what are the types of things that stand out to you which hint to a certain type? I know this sounds like an interrogation , but what do you feel is your strength in this aspect of Socionics? (focusing on type identification)

Thanks.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Cyclops]

What do you do with socionics?

When you've typed someone, do you 'do' anything with that type?

It's my experience that I get along with people that I get along with, that is to say, their type is sort of irrelevant.

The only thing I can think of is that it gives me a heads up when interacting with someone in a work environment, but, there are too many other factors to take into account. It could be useful when determining who to employ as an employer, but it's dangerous to limit the talent to your organisation based on what you think their type is, which might be wrong and even if it's right, it might still be irrelevant.

So I wonder the practical use of inter-type relations.

I tend to think that a use of socionics is to get to know oneself, a proper self awareness, but again the forer effect of identifying with a type, perhaps even a wrong one can affect that to create a false impression of oneself. And the forer effect of limiting oneself within a types constraints even a correct one may be helpful or damaging.

So maybe socionics just provides us with an excuse to explain why we're different to some people. We rationalise it by them being in a different type, and that makes it ok.

If I can give a classification to someone who's different to me, then it might make me less suprised at their behaviour.

Then again, if I type someone as my dual, I suppose I could use that as a reason to approach them if I wouldn't have done otherwise, like for instance when looking for a potential mate.

[Creepy-male]

I use it as a pretext for getting my social fix on these forums

Knowing someone's type tells me who I can close the distance on (as in, it's not comfortable for me to change the distance I have between myself and someone without some sort of reason; socionics is a good reason (Alpha nr1 quadra plz)). Also, LIIs are incredibly satisfying to interact with. And more importantly, they don't hate me like every other type

I'm drunk on sleep-deprivation.

[redbaron]

What do you do with socionics?

When you've typed someone, do you 'do' anything with that type?

good questions. Several things. First, I find the observation process itself kind of fun. It's like a game to try to figure out what type people are. And then go from there (type their spouse or their kids or their best friends). It's a bit like a puzzle. And the more you type people, the easier it gets.

I've found that I can be friends with practically any type, but getting CLOSE to certain types is definitely riskier than with others. Socionics gives a language to things we already pick up from people and maybe can't quite put our finger on. But what's unique is the way socionics is able to kind of predict the way the relationship will play out over time. It's fascinating and rather amazing.

And I also will say that I probably would not have been open to a friendship with my dual had it not been for socionics. I viewed him as too business-oriented and above me somehow. When I realized he was most likely SLE, I thought ok, if he wants to be friends I'll give it a go. It's my first duality experience and absolutely uncanny how accurate the descriptions are to our relationship thus far. (friends for 2 years now but only closer over the past year)

[Creepy-bg]

I use it to penetrate girls in their polr

[Khola aka Bee]

I use it as a pretext for getting my social fix on these forums

Knowing someone's type tells me who I can close the distance on (as in, it's not comfortable for me to change the distance I have between myself and someone without some sort of reason; socionics is a good reason (Alpha nr1 quadra plz)). Also, LIIs are incredibly satisfying to interact with. And more importantly, they don't hate me like every other type

I'm drunk on sleep-deprivation.

BUT I HATE YOU! (Ok, I don't really <3 )

In typical SEI fashion, I use it to look for appropriate mates and keep things running smoothly in social contexts. I try to use it to pick social groups where everyone will get along...or at least where there won't be a fight. I tend to invite people out more and more so it's good to know who is going to work with who from a socionics standpoint, although my own hunches on these sort of things are usually pretty good.

I have friends in many different social groups and I'd love for them all to get along, but there are a few that are SOOO soo beta and other groups that are Alpha/Delta - sometimes it takes a bit of care to avoid a collision! Then again, sometimes I introduce friends to each other and that is the best thing ever! ^_^

[Creepy-male]

BUT I HATE YOU! (Ok, I don't really <3 )

I hate you too

I am working on an experimental application in therapy for depression. I will let you know how this goes at some point, I think there is potential value there.

Hoooooooo? *ears prick up*

EDIT

I find the observation process itself kind of fun. It's like a game to try to figure out what type people are. And then go from there (type their spouse or their kids or their best friends). It's a bit like a puzzle. And the more you type people, the easier it gets.

And this one too.

[iAnnAu]

So maybe socionics just provides us with an excuse to explain why we're different to some people. We rationalise it by them being in a different type, and that makes it ok.

If I can give a classification to someone who's different to me, then it might make me less suprised at their behaviour.

^ Pretty much as far as I've been able to take it to now. I definitely think it could become reductive if I don't watch it; that would be a shame. For example, I'd be willing to try to apply socionics if I dated/became close friends with a person outside my quadra and we ran into conflict, but that would be in an effort to understand where he/she is coming from, *not* to say, "oh, socionics says we'll never see eye-to-eye on this due to our differences in information metabolism, so I'm not even going to try to resolve it."

I do think it's funny how I socialize on the board, though. Almost all my friend requests have come from betas, and that neither makes me think I'm secretly a beta myself, nor did I hesitate in accepting their request. I *like* to think it's because I'm able to express myself in a way that *even* members of my so-called conflicting quadra are OK reading ...

[717495]

I use it to penetrate girls in their polr

How does that work?

[717495]

It's not so much what I do with socionics as it is who I do with socionics.

[electric sheep]

I use it to know what to expect from people and to keep in mind what to do or not to do to piss them off.

+1
Also, I used it to choose a roommate.