12 replies to this topic

[Ashton]

File Name: Socionics Demystified - eBook

"Socionics, a comparatively new Social Psychology from the 1970's was exposed primarily by Lithuanian Sociologist Aushra Augusta. It also includes work from Carl Jung's Psychological Types, Sigmund Freud's work on the conscious and subconscious and incorporates Antoni Kepinski's informational metabolism theory. Socionics Demystified introduces us to the sixteen psychological or personality types broken down by their Jungian functions or attitudes.By investigating how each of these make up components of the sixteen types we can see at a glance how they vary providing the basis behind explaining the inter-type relations. Why do some people arouse or irritate us? What ways can specific types of relationship be useful to us, or not? A closer look at the conscious and subconscious mind with an idea behind how information gets metabolised i.e. transmitted and received between individuals will attempt to answer the above questions."

Click here to download this file

[Gilly]

That was written by a former member of the16types, Spencer Stern. He is an idiot.

[crispy]

I bought the book a few weeks ago. He goes into depth about INTj's and then doesn't say anything substantial about a lot of the other types except how they are different or relate to INTj's.
Also it's significantly less clear than say, Filatova's book . It's like he wrote a book that was meant for only himself to read and then sold copies like a dildo.

[Golden]

Very strange book. And if I had only his descriptions to go by, I couldn't type myself as IEI in a thousand years.

[Ashton]

Lol. I figured it sucked because it was by Spencer Stern—I've never bothered to look at it myself and I probably never will. I figured I had a duty to put it up here to prevent people from wasting their money.

[discojoe]

I'm skeptical of any literature that claims to demystify anything it if was written by an LII.

[Gilly]

It has nothing to do with being by an LII, he's just an idiot.

[poli]

How the book was written isn't that good, but the material provided is actually closer to Socionics than Filatova's book. He just doesn't explain it that clearly and misses a lot of points. I'd still actually recommend people to read it though, even if its a little off.

It wouldn't


take


you that


long.



Though the best Socionics book to read is Jung's psychological types. Too many Socionicists just seem to have completely different and incomplete, oversimplified ideas about Socionics, and Jung's types are complete, rich with truth, well explained, and seem to fit nicely with inter-type relationships. There's just too many opposing arguments, that people can't seem to come together and use the Jungian foundation and notice its high relevancy. Other ideas are oversimplified and lack depth of understanding and experience. Jung's are by far the least wishy washy and stereotyped.

Read it all. The temperament descriptions, introvert/extrovert descriptions. Those seem to help develop the reasoning of the natural personality "categorization."

[Golden]

Well, my mom used to have this giant orange cat I nicknamed "Jughead." When you picked him up, he just sort of flopped over and exposed his fat orange belly. He had no dignity, no intensity, was just completely laid-back. The IEI descriptions in this book sound like Jughead. Totally passive.

So either I'm back to where I started (debating whether I actually am IEI), or IEIs are not all happy-go-lucky phlegmatic softies.

[pete]

If I'm not mistaken, this site http://www.slideconsulting.com/ belongs to the author of that book.

[Golden]

Okay, so sorry to all "me, me, me," but what do people think of descriptions of IEIs that make us sound like peace-loving mushballs? Like on that website pete linked to, the guy says that IEIs never show anger. ??? I know one IEI of whom I'd say this is true--I've never seen her get angry per se. But I know do, and my IEI best friend does, and her IEI partner does, too. (These are the IEIs I know very well.) So what gives? When I see descriptions that emphasize minimal emotional range and expression for an IEI, I start to wonder again if I'm EIE, although I'm clearly not!

And what about E types in this equation?

[BulletsAndDoves]

You shouldn't be so insecure about being soft. I mean I'm soft and sensitive, I don't think they are weaknesses. I'm just naturally that way. It sort of is more powerful than being powerful when you think about it. Cause when people try to toughen you up, but you just sort of plop down like a soft fag instead- it angers them and drives them crazy.... idk man but seriously. Meek doesn't always mean weak. And being soft doesn't mean you're not strong. so just embrace your weaknetheths and thtop being tho thilly!

Plus the insecurities people have and the way they are awkward and emotionally self-honest are just... a lot more interesting than how self-confident somebody is. Like when you actually are strong, nobody will care but you. But when you are weak, everybody is going to remember that and gossip about you forever. I think in that sense, being weak and soft lives on more than being the other way. You can't really make any good art if people are strong and always make good choices, etc.

It is eternally heroic to have a soft shy fag up against a big straight manly brute. It's like Biblical you know? It doesn't have the same artistic poignancy if BOTH are strong or BOTH are weak.

you loooove peace you looooove it you want to make the world a better place admit it. *chases u around like pepe le pew*

[BulletsAndDoves]

btw gang, I looked up socionics on my kindle and the only book is like... way too much money and only got 2 stars lol. I might download the free sample though. Ashton or somebody else should try to write something and get it published.