Opinion of socionics

[Napoleon]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics

No poll to generate real discussion here.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One of the canonical examples of a sort of thinking about psychology that commands some degree of interest as anything from a party game to a semi-casual description of one's general thought processes and attitudes, but is more or less useless for the purposes of diagnostics and actual psychological or psychiatric treatment.

[Napoleon]

One of the canonical examples of a sort of thinking about psychology that commands some degree of interest as anything from a party game to a semi-casual description of one's general thought processes and attitudes, but is more or less useless for the purposes of diagnostics and actual psychological or psychiatric treatment.

I'm glad you posted in this thread because I did sort of think of you when I most recently thought about socionics. As much as I like you, I think we would be about as far away from each other as possible (I'm a pretty hardcoree ESTP/SLE). I agree that its murky science but as far as uselessness, I think it was some merit in helping understand people better, especially in a work environment or relationship, but mostly irrelevant as far as "treatment" goes.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One of the canonical examples of a sort of thinking about psychology that commands some degree of interest as anything from a party game to a semi-casual description of one's general thought processes and attitudes, but is more or less useless for the purposes of diagnostics and actual psychological or psychiatric treatment.

I'm glad you posted in this thread because I did sort of think of you when I most recently thought about socionics. As much as I like you, I think we would be about as far away from each other as possible (I'm a pretty hardcoree ESTP/SLE). I agree that its murky science but as far as uselessness, I think it was some merit in helping understand people better, especially in a work environment or relationship.

I'd count work environments and relationships in this context as settings for 'semi-casual description of one's general thought processes and attitudes' (although especially with work environments that obviously depends to some extent on the workplace, and the application of the word 'casual' to relationships obviously has possible meanings that aren't the one that I intend here). I originally just wrote 'casual', but changed it to 'semi-casual' because situations like those came to mind. (And, yes, you're right--I'm INFJ.)

[afleitch]

To me it’s like the zodiac, but based on the application of some psychological ‘set square’ method rather than fanciful interpretations of celestial events. In either event, categorisation leads to expectation which for me is problematic. No one should expect something from themselves or someone else based on prior categorisation rather on a person’s  immediate and cumulative experience. Still, unlike the zodiac, it is useful in a way (except, like most concepts, when business or commerce gets its hands on it) in looking at how people communicate their ideas and how they get on well with others. However like the zodiac, the interwebs is abound with ‘meet your perfect match’ and ‘famous celebrities like you’ drivel based on the system.

I’m an INTJ and my husband, like Nathan it seems, is INFJ. Regardless of labels he helps me ‘sense’ more and I help him ‘feel’ a little less. I’m generally un phased, while he’s more tempered.