Socionic Types
The 16 socionic types differ on four axes (called 'dichotomies'): rationality/irrationality, extraversion/introversion, intuition/sensing, and logic/ethics. Each type has an innate preference for one pole of each of the dichotomies, making 16 possible combinations. This does not mean there is a complete absence of the opposite mechanism, however. It means that one is more flexible and multi-faceted, while the other is more rigid and simplistic. The nature of these dichotomies is best understood through a study of the actual psychic functions that they are derived from.
Although people of the same type very often display similar personal values, life strategies, interaction styles, and even facial expressions, such traits such as IQ, musical talent, sports abilities, charisma, "personal power," etc. are little related to type. A review of how socionists have typed famous people will demonstrate this. No type is inherently "predisposed" for success or failure in life. A common error of beginning students of socionics is to want to relate non-socionic traits to socionic types.
In addition, socionics does not view type as being such a rigid structure that a person can change little in life. One's positive or negative thinking patterns, overall outlook on life, and emotional health are not tied to type and are quite flexible. In fact, socionics describes in general terms what it is each type needs to become balanced and "whole." Socionic type is one of the things — along with inborn physiological traits — that does not change, even if outward behavior, emotional states, and attitudes do. Socionic type describes psychic mechanisms (patterns) so "deep" that they are difficult to gain a full awareness of, much less modify in some way (but then, why would you want to modify them??).
In upcoming posts I will start posting minimalistic type descriptions, perhaps fleshing them out over time.
4 comments:
I'm not sure this is the right topic I should put this question under, but it'll do.
I want to know, why is it so hard to figure out your own socionics type? I've been into socionics for probably 2 years now, and I still don't know my type. Why is it so hard?
What are some ways to figure out my type and be sure it's my type?
There may be different reasons for you not being able to figure it out:
1. you might be a teenager and still in the process of figuring out who you are, and so you have less objective feedback from your environment telling you what kinds of behaviors work well for you and which don't.
2. you might display a combination of behaviors or traits that typically belong to different types, thus requiring a higher level of analysis to figure out than someone who matches popular type descriptions very closely.
3. you might be in a life situation that doesn't allow you to be yourself and has confused your self-concept.
The best way to be sure your type is correct is to have some real-life interaction with other socionics fans, most of whom have probably identified their types correctly, and see what comes of that. That will give you a good baseline for thinking about your own type. Are you aware of the socionics seminars coming up in August? (see http://www.socionics.us/news/seminar.shtml)
Also, I personally offer type identification services using a test, discussion, photos, and video. Feel free to contact me through socionics.us.
1. you might be a teenager and still in the process of figuring out who you are, and so you have less objective feedback from your environment telling you what kinds of behaviors work well for you and which don't.
Yep, that's probably why.
I can't get to a seminar, but maybe you could record it? So the people not there can still learn something.
>> I can't get to a seminar, but maybe you could record it? So the people not there can still learn something.
I'll think about it. I don't have a video recorder, and we'd basically have to just set the camera on a tripod and leave it on for 6 or 8 hours each day. I'm not sure anyone would want to edit it, and I don't know how it could be distributed.
Post a Comment