Hi
Typology has been my interest for quite a while now, but I don't really have anybody to talk about it with. It's difficult to introduce Socionics to friends. I have tried but only one has taken the bait so far and actually done the work of learning what it's all about.
So that's why I wanted to join the forum now.
My type is SEI.
I know the types and the relations pretty well. Mostly from working with people in real life, typing online and reading for years. I've known typology for 10 years. However, I'm not that good with the detailed, technical stuff of the inner workings of Socionics.
I think I could contribute to the discussion on the following topics:
- DCNH
- the SEI type
- topics in Jungian psychology
- understanding the PoLR
- Criticism of duality as "the best" relation
- How to choose the right career
- On the nature of type
- The MBTI/Socionics "controversy"
It would also be really cool to do something with socionics in real life. Setting up dates and so on. Maybe in collaboration with other people. I live in Finland, so maybe getting in touch with other socionists here.
I consider Socionics the only way of learning typology really well. It's not possible using Myers-Briggs, it seduces people into a flawed understanding of types and functions. Another way is reading original works of Jung & jungians but that's very challenging and would take a lifetime. Misunderstandings always happen, but with Socionics and time there is the possibility of seeing the types clearly.
I've spent the last years reading Jungian general psychology. First I didn't understand anything, then I understood something. Now I see how undervalued and misunderstood Jung is. Some people think he is "esoteric" because he studies the psyche as immediate experience, "phenomenological psychology" if you will. That's unpopular in our time when everything should be reduced to neurology to be considered credible. Jung also uses "metaphysical" concepts, because these concepts often describe psychological phenomena better than anything else. Modern people who undervalue the reality of the psyche misunderstand this, and see it as metaphysical garbage, when it actually is phenomenology, as it always has been in the living experiences of real people.
And typology is of course a very limited way of understanding people. But at the same time that's a strength. It's limited, objective and rigid so you can at least get something right. You don't have to deal with the whole person in his complexity. You just say, "Ok, he is XXX type and then at least we know something about him, what to expect, and his compatibility with others. Let's deal with the rest later."
My interests are classical music, playing the guitar, painting, nature, dreams and ice cream