tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-329620774026489964.post5695354273913271243..comments2024-03-27T07:37:43.263+02:00Comments on The Non-Ex-Socionist: Socionics Antidotes or TranscendenceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-329620774026489964.post-42682275618991644312011-12-13T16:00:33.613+02:002011-12-13T16:00:33.613+02:00Also, I meant "you're"Also, I meant "you're"AntMedeiroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06720086306657401076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-329620774026489964.post-40623852164413934372011-12-13T01:03:17.115+02:002011-12-13T01:03:17.115+02:00It seems to be a common problem that once people l...<i>It seems to be a common problem that once people learn of socionics certain nagging socionics ideas interfere with their natural, feelings-based impulses regarding relationships. </i><br /><br />Spot on, Rick. It's immensely helpful to hear another voice saying this. I think its great that you have continued to blog on the subject even as you move away from it. <br />I have personally AntMedeiroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06720086306657401076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-329620774026489964.post-38408370400098390902011-10-08T20:03:54.912+02:002011-10-08T20:03:54.912+02:00Fair enough.
I find this debate to be typical in ...<i>Fair enough.<br /><br />I find this debate to be typical in a way. One can always criticize either the object or the subject for an unsatisfactory situation. In my case, I'm criticizing the object — socionics — as being inadequate and tending to create delusions. I do frequently forget the other viewpoint, which is also legitimate — that the problem is in the beholder. Yes, people are aestrivexhttp://socionics.wsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-329620774026489964.post-16669679206085208672011-10-06T21:27:05.087+02:002011-10-06T21:27:05.087+02:00I'm very much enjoying this conversation, and ...I'm very much enjoying this conversation, and glad to see some new posts on this blog :)<br /><br />Something that has often struck me about many writings on socionics is indeed the [unintended] bias I perceive towards logical elements and a under-valuing of the possibilities inherent in ethical functions.<br /><br />I suspect that exposure to, and intensive study of, any new sufficiently lorimerhttp://lorimerlonghaul.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-329620774026489964.post-77203047052589204182011-10-06T18:59:46.853+02:002011-10-06T18:59:46.853+02:00Fair enough.
I find this debate to be typical in...Fair enough. <br /><br />I find this debate to be typical in a way. One can always criticize either the object or the subject for an unsatisfactory situation. In my case, I'm criticizing the object — socionics — as being inadequate and tending to create delusions. I do frequently forget the other viewpoint, which is also legitimate — that the problem is in the beholder. Yes, people are prone Ричардhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06677696858512091176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-329620774026489964.post-86395353687893170362011-10-04T20:47:43.055+02:002011-10-04T20:47:43.055+02:00Other teachings favor other modes of being to the ...Other teachings favor other modes of being to the detriment of feelings. <i>Socionics is one of these. Its great weaknesses IMO are 1) that it suggests greater veracity than it actually possesses due to its logical structure, and 2) that it overapplies logical thought to areas where feelings should rightfully dominate. You could say (as an oversimplification) that it is a logical type's aestrivexhttp://socionics.wsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-329620774026489964.post-80722793432834640662011-10-03T20:35:41.335+02:002011-10-03T20:35:41.335+02:00>> Using feelings may or may not be a better...>> <i>Using feelings may or may not be a better way to explain relationships, depending on the audience and context. Feelings can't always be explained well enough or quantified in a way that can be understood by people other than the ones who are in the situation. </i><br /><br />I was talking about choosing and acting within relationships, not explaining relationships to other people.Ричардhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06677696858512091176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-329620774026489964.post-62090823183904849882011-10-03T19:01:15.000+02:002011-10-03T19:01:15.000+02:00Socionics is only one layer amid a multitude of la...Socionics is only one layer amid a multitude of layers. It's the skeleton of communication, nothing more. The problems people have with the Trojan horse of socionics is applying it to too many things or in seeing it as everything. <br /><br />We all know there is quite a lot more to a person's body than its skeleton. And there are many other processes occuring inside a person's body Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-329620774026489964.post-77826248259189803482011-10-02T08:56:19.913+02:002011-10-02T08:56:19.913+02:00>> the thesis of your post here, that socion...>> <i>the thesis of your post here, that socionics essentially limits spiritual progression by sticking you in delusional, chauvinistic thinking, </i><br /><br />I would like to write more in a later post on what I consider to be delusions engendered by socionics. <br /><br />Chauvinistic thinking is, I think, more of a personality and intellectual trait than anything, and one who has it Ричардhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06677696858512091176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-329620774026489964.post-4399573719367755472011-09-21T19:26:25.260+02:002011-09-21T19:26:25.260+02:00I think you are a little bit blinded towards think...I think you are a little bit blinded towards thinking of socionics as strictly delusional and inspiring of a chauvinistic -- as you noted in your last post that your experiences are tainted with negativity and unusefulness.<br /><br />As far as all of that goes, fine, but I do not share that perspective -- actually, I think I have a very grounded view of socionics' limitations and don't aestrivexhttp://socionics.wsnoreply@blogger.com