Socionics. I'm not so sure...

[Into It]

The types are based on the Typology types, but I guess they're somewhat different. The only source I really looked at described the way people's bone structures were shaped being good indicators of type. This sounds like outdated bullshit. The eight shapes are kind of annoying because they just refer to the functions, and I'd rather remember "Te" than "clear L-shape." Typology was not built upon, it was ripped off. Or at least that's the way it seems. I actually haven't done the research. But that's why I want to know your opinions. I heard that the Socionics type is the same as the Typology type only about 70% of the time. So I could be an ENFj according to typology, though I'm a strong P. Maybe I could even be something way, way off! Does this theory have any merit? If it does, it could be one of the most useful theories to use off the cuff for communication.

Can anyone tell me anything?

[INTJMom]

From what I have seen and heard, I don't care for it.

I like just having one system I understand well that I can use successfully.

[Apollanaut]

Originally Posted by INTJMom

From what I have seen and heard, I don't care for it.

I like just having one system I understand well that I can use successfully.

I agree. Carl Jung's theory is elegant in its simplicity, and yet complex enough to account for the infinite varaitions we see in people. IMHO, Socionics introduces unnecessary and somewhat forced additional levels of complication and obfuscation to the theory.

The only part of it I might subscribe to is linking physiology with type. I have observed that certain types often have a distinct facial or body type which can aid in their identification. However, I find the old distinctions of ectomorph, endomorph and mesomorph to be more useful for this purpose.

[Synarch]

I do enjoy the physical type descriptions though:

Intuitive-Logical Extratim - ENTp (The Inventor)

NTps usually have a distant, far away look in their eyes and it often seems as though they are paying little attention to what is going on. During conversation ENTps like to play with objects, like a pen for example, often accidentally breaking it. They may gesticulate when passionately telling a story.

ENTps do not know how to keep the right psychological distance with people. This becomes especially noticeable during long term interaction. One day they can be friendly and the next day they can be completely opposite. They often behave unceremoniously and can rudely butt in on others conversations. ENTps can also find it difficult to evaluate how others feel about them and therefore can make mistakes when choosing friends.

All true.

[Jack Flak]

Socionics throws you for a loop. I disagree with almost all their celebrity type-jobs, but their Intertype Relations are the best available.

They screw the pooch on some of it like every other school.

[mlittrell]

socionics is ehh

[snegledmaca]

Do any of you have actually experience in dealing with socionics? Or are these just impressions of it, not genuine criticism?

I've been into socionics for quite some time, feel free to ask me anything.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Apollanaut

I agree. Carl Jung's theory is elegant in its simplicity, and yet complex enough to account for the infinite varaitions we see in people. IMHO, Socionics introduces unnecessary and somewhat forced additional levels of complication and obfuscation to the theory.

The only part of it I might subscribe to is linking physiology with type. I have observed that certain types often have a distinct facial or body type which can aid in their identification. However, I find the old distinctions of ectomorph, endomorph and mesomorph to be more useful for this purpose.

How about phrenology?