User:Admin/Adapting socionics for different types

From Wikisocion

< Back to Rick's Writings at Wikisocion

If you're used to socionics, you may tend to take a lot of it for granted and not particularly question socionics' basic approach to things. But socionics is hopelessly     oriented. Some interesting posts by user Ashton at the Socionix forum reminded me of this fact. From a well-articulated     standpoint — which is what he presents, in my opinion — there is far too much nitty-gritty and obscure explanations in socionics that, frankly, "no one cares about." Also, type descriptions are either full of errors or are watered-down generalizations that don't mean much (again, from a     standpoint).

The function that is in greatest opposition to     is    , of course. What would     oriented descriptions look like? They would be stronger, bolder, more colorful, and would paint a clear picture of the person without delving into obscurities, internal properties, and theoretical or general language. Each phrase would say something clear about what the person is.

I would like to see such a set of descriptions and even an entire reformulation of socionics from this perspective. Of course     types would take fault with it. There will be "theoretical holes," "a lack of consistency," and an absence of "general understanding" in the descriptions. There would be plenty of strong statements that appear to be clear, but break down in "borderline" cases, which require the use of general formulations. Even so, if done scrupulously, the result would probably be no worse than a good     formulation of socionics.

But will any     type have a strong enough interest to do all this work? Doesn't the whole subject itself — "information processing" — lend itself more easily to an     approach, where formulations are more general, but "theoretically sound," and where everything is tied together conceptually? Likewise, I would be interested to see a genuine     reworking of socionics, and     approach, and so on.

Occasionally I compare my own writing style — which I think is conceptual, thoughtful, and approaches subjects from a distance, and is also drawn-out and "watered-down" — with the bold, direct, immediate writing style of     types, and I think, "how can they possibly get anything out of what I've written?" :-) And a lot of socionics is like this — not just what I write.