Socionics Model and Associations
Here's most of a letter I wrote recently regarding my typing of person that was discussed at the Polish socionics forum:
The fact is, all socionists type by association, even those who claim otherwise. And all socionists apply some type of "model thinking" — even those who seem to type by association alone. I used to make more of an effort to present my thoughts and conclusions in "model language," but I don't care enough anymore. It's a kind of intellectual laziness that comes from feeling that the socionics model as it is is doomed anyway. Associations with people of known types are actually a good way of typing (and again, every socionist relies on them heavily) inasmuch as the types of the people being associated with were properly identified and analyzed by the typer.
People would like to think that socionists have some strict algorithm they apply, because this would make socionics easier to understand, apply, and develop further. However, I don't believe I've ever met such a socionist. As soon as a person begins taking responsibility for his typings of others, he finds that "model thinking" alone is insufficient to produce a result. It's like listening to a technical debate between two experts and trying to determine who is right using your emotional reactions alone with no intellectual knowledge of the subject. Emotional reactions can be honed and cleansed of outside influences to the point that they become a fine tool for understanding many things, but they are clearly inadequate to deal with primarily intellectual matters. Likewise, socionics is primarily about how we respond to different types of people on a mostly unconscious level. Using "model thinking" alone (if that were even possible) can get you quite far, but it's not the ultimate arbiter. The ultimate arbiter is the network of invisible psychological-emotional connections between people, which are hard to put into "model language." Once this invisible network becomes evident, you can use that to correct your understanding of the model.
At least that's the way I see things. Many socionists who emphasize a model-heavy approach would disagree with me, particularly those who are unable to feel the nuances of interpersonal interaction on an emotional level. But actually the whole reason of socionics' existence is to explain relationships, and the better it does that, the more useful it becomes. The model is a semi-decent approximation at best.
2 comments:
The language of socionists (a derogatory title) musters a false sense of intellectual authority. They like to believe that they’re doing something particularly clever but a light reading of philosophical or psychological literature, or even personal experience exposes these arrogant frauds as the pompous and unsophisticated losers they are.
Socionics is for people who want to do psychology but don’t have the temperament or wit to do psychology.
"But actually the whole reason of socionics' existence is to explain relationships, and the better it does that, the more useful it becomes. The model is a semi-decent approximation at best."
It may explain relationships but I don't think it does a particularly good job and I definitely don't believe that socionics is "useful". As you have shown in past posts a lot of what contributes to social success has very little to do with socionics. I would even go as far to say socionics hinders social success (as well as psychological health) by making people rely on a mechanistic nerdish substitute for social wit that leads them to make fundamental mistakes in understanding the self and its relation to others. Socionics disintegrates any form of social phronesis with its misrepresentative simplistic framework and delusional implicit promises which are interwoven in its inherent structure.
I wouldn’t go as far to say socionics isn’t true but I would say socionics has enough truth to be convincing but not enough truth to be useful. Which imo makes it dangerous particularly when people decide that they want to “use” it.
Post a Comment