User talk:Admin/Adapting socionics for different types

From Wikisocion

This gives me an idea for a new page: metametasocionics. Thehotelambush 23:41, 8 November 2007 (GMT)

Unfortunately, that page is blank — maybe because that's about all you can say about things when you try to avoid any kind of information "emphasis" :-) --Admin 00:00, 9 November 2007 (GMT)

Your biases will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Thehotelambush 21:33, 9 November 2007 (GMT)

We shall see, we shall see... --Admin 22:20, 9 November 2007 (GMT)

An     formulation of Socionics might end up like MBTI, describing the way you are now rather the way you are fundamentally. From my     perspective, that's useless; but an     type might only be interested in what's actually going to happen... a "surface" description that categorizes people into groups by what they do, for SLEs; I'm not sure what SEEs would be looking for. Brilliand 22:51, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Ironically, I pointed out the same thing in New York, when Rick said that Socionics will become interesting to Se ego types only when it can give them a tangible property, a material stake in the world - in fact just like the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, which has created a power structure in the world of psychology: people licensed to administer psychometric "instruments" have a clear advantage in reputation over their unlicensed peers. Thehotelambush 23:11, 27 April 2008 (BST)

I agree that one of the possible     formulations of socionics would be very much like MBTI. To refer back to Rick's own typing list: he has Phaedrus as LSI, and he's precisely the one to insist on the equivalency of MBTI and socionics (for typing, at least). Regarding a     formulation: I think it would have to be thought of in terms of    +    and    +   , just like what Rick referred to is actually the difference between    +    and    +   . I think that that a    +    approach is glimpsed through Stratievskaya's descriptions: there is a certain judgmental quality about her descriptions, which may be precisely what puts non-Gamma types off when reading them - a sense that, for instance, EIIs the most humane people; that SEIs are hedonists with difficulty with doing any work; that IEIs are dreamers with no time for "unlucky wretches" and so attach themselves to "powerful and purposeful" people; etc. Although she has tried to write sympathetically about all types (more so than some realize, I think), it is also clear where her preferences are. Likewise, I think that Filatova's descriptions provide a glimpse of the    +    approach: maybe an intermediate between the "analytical impersonal"    +    Augustan approach and Stratievskaya's judgmental    +    approach - a more "humane" socionics, which to me seems to be Rick's approach as well.

To me the answer may be that socionics has come full circle: that is, this is socionics^2. By that I mean that your socionics type will shape your approach to socionics itself. That is lalready demonstrated in the present divisions in the English online community. It is not inevitable, since at least the typing techniques - that is, reaching the same conclusions as to individuals' types - can be equalized. But the approach to understanding the types themselves will tend to remain divided. Expat 00:10, 20 October 2008 (BST)

I disagree. English socionics could still stand to have much more     in it's descriptions. Too many of the english community are way too caught up in the theory and process of typing as opposed to the actual applications of socionics (which makes sense, because us real life types would rather be out and about rather than being internet couch potatoes all day).

Yeah, the "real life" applications are why I am here, and yeah, I make do. However, it's still a lot harder than it should be for     types and probably takes more mental stamina to read through and understand some long socionics articles than it does other types such as logical intuiters.--Hoodrat 00:41, 20 October 2008 (BST)

[edit] Approach

Perhaps the best approach to take with this is to delve into mainstream psychology and see how     functions there. I would agree with many of the aforementioned suggestions that     tends to look a bit more like MBTI, and probably a lot more like the Big 5 (although the Big 5 appears to be rife with     as well). But that is not necessarily a bad thing. Truth be told, all the external aspects (   ,    ,    , and    ) are going to want more "empirical" and behavioral information. This focus on seeing these infospects (haha, portmanteaus are fun) manifest themselves in a positively observable way as functions in the psyche and in behavioral traits could provide a better context to the study of information metabolism in general.

Even as an     type, I sense the danger a strong disconnect between the theoretical elements of IM and the    -focused more overtly observable descriptions of types and IM interaction. I think the link between these two approaches may actually be    , not in the functional sense of extroverted ethics and visible displays of emotion, but in the infospective sense of the internal processes in objects. More concretely,     is the aspect that is best suited to explain the connection between the     theory and the     observations. Though my present interest in the field is far from type descriptions, I do not want to downplay their importance. The only particular danger I see with more     is perhaps an outright rejection of the theoretical models for something that is essentially no different than any trait sorter methodology.

The parts of socionics that should appeal to the     ego are already present. As it matures, it will likely pick up speed, and as it gains acceptance, will become a vehicle for     to implement change. To attract    , this value must be touted. For example, my decidedly SLE brother was very skeptical when I first began talking to him about my new hobby, but as he began to recognize the correlations in the real world, he became intensely more interested, and spoke of applying this understanding to the world around him. With time and research,     will come.

--- JRiddy 16:03, 7 May 2008 (BST)