Relatioship-Personality System

[casanddra]

I have been studying this relationship system for several months now ([url]http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php[/url]) and would like to recommend it. It has helped me gain a lot of insight into people's interactions which previously I was clueless about: it explained why some people experience a lot of misunderstandings, how to identify and attract the types of people that are good for me, why some relationships are asymmetrical i.e. one partner loves another more than the other way around, why some people are draining to spend time with while others are energizing.

How it works: First you type yourself using one of 16 personality types using profiles. Names for the types consist of 4-letter designations, such as ESFj or ISTp. Then you type your friends, lovers, family members, co-workers, etc. Each personality type has a specific theme of relations to another type that you can read about here: [url=http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/list.php/category/28-Intertype-Relations]Intertype Relations[/url]

If you have any questions please ask, I'd be happy to answer. This system is absolutely free too (they don't ask for any money, it just takes several months to get good practice in typing people).

[IndiReloaded]

Recycled Myers-Brigg + physiognomy (personality based on someone's head shape). There's no science to it, tho its advertised as if it is scientific. Especially the claims for having a 'mathematical basis'. Bullshit.

That said, it has entertainment value. Much like astrology. So long as your comments stay in this realm, I'm not likely to rip you a new one for posting about it.

[casanddra]

Recycled Myers-Brigg...

You have no idea what you're talking about. Myers-Briggs doesn't have inter-type relations.

+ physiognomy (personality based on someone's head shape).

You are very poorly informed. What you call 'physiognomy' isn't part of formal theory of this system. Just something a few members choose to indulge in.

And even if they do, the fact that one's personality is linked to one's appearance has been well supported by empirical studies, several of which are linked in this thread: [url=http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/37382-Personality-and-Physical-Appearance]Personality and Physical Appearance[/url]

There's no science to it, tho its advertised as if it is scientific.

It has never been advertised as "scientific". What drugs are you on?

It is better treated as philosophy or a new hypothesis.

Though those of us with a modicum of self-awareness and emotional intellgence can see that there is something very much true to it.

Especially the claims for having a 'mathematical basis'. Bullshit.

Eh? I've been studying it for some time now and never seen any math.

That said, it has entertainment value. Much like astrology.

You have entertainment value, too, I see.

So long as your comments stay in this realm, I'm not likely to rip you a new one for posting about it.

Rip me a new one? Is there something going on in your life that you're so aggressive over what is a very simple typology theory?

[IndiReloaded]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Myers-Briggs doesn't have inter-type relations.


You are very poorly informed. What you call 'physiognomy' isn't part of formal theory of this system. Just something a few members choose to indulge in.

And even if they do, the fact that one's personality is linked to one's appearance has been well supported by empirical studies, several of which are linked in this thread: [url=http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/37382-Personality-and-Physical-Appearance]Personality and Physical Appearance[/url]


It has never been advertised as "scientific". What drugs are you on?

It is better treated as philosophy or a new hypothesis.

Though those of us with a modicum of self-awareness and emotional intellgence can see that there is something very much true to it.


Eh? I've been studying it for some time now and never seen any math.


You have entertainment value, too, I see.


Rip me a new one? Is there something going on in your life that you're so aggressive over what is a very simple typology theory?

LOL, I certainly do know what I'm about and I'm very well informed. There is nothing wrong in my life. I simply have an allergic reaction to stupid people pushing pseudoscience.

Anyway, apparently I know more about socionics than you do. Shrug.

[Benni]

I took these tests before and the results were nothing like I really am!

[casanddra]

I simply have an allergic reaction to stupid people pushing pseudoscience.

For starters, it is not a "science" - it is a theory of communication. Different people communicate differently and if you and your partner have vastly different communication styles it is no secret that your relationship is going to be quite rocky. There is absolutely nothing "pseudoscientific" or "stupid" about this fact. It's common sense.

... and I'm very well informed.

Nope.

Anyway, apparently I know more about socionics than you do. Shrug.

Apparently you don't lol.

[IndiReloaded]

1. Look up the definition of psuedoscience

2. Look up the definitions of hypothesis and theory.

You use both terms and don't seem to understand what either one means or their relation to the scientific method--you are correct, tho: its not a science so you shouldn't be using those terms to describe socionics.

Different people communicate differently and if you and your partner have vastly different communication styles it is no secret that your relationship is going to be quite rocky. There is absolutely nothing "pseudoscientific" or "stupid" about this fact. It's common sense.

I agree, its common sense. Which is why this 'socionics' is useless. Its not saying anything new or interesting. Its not scientific. There is no way to test its validity--making it useless.

Or do you really think you can tell someone's 'style' by the size of their forehead/shape of their head/creases in their forehead? LOL!

...

Are we done here? If you like, I will continue to ridicule you but I really suggest you find another outlet for your masochistic tendencies. In case you don't yet realize, I'm not posting for you (you have demonstrated your lack of critical thinking ability) but to prevent others from following your misguided path.

:crickets chirping:

[casanddra]

1. Look up the definition of psuedoscience

2. Look up the definitions of hypothesis and theory.

You use both terms and don't seem to understand what either one means or their relation to the scientific method--you are correct, tho: its not a science so you shouldn't be using those terms to describe socionics.

I have never called it a "science". Learn to read please. You were the first one to even mention that word. You are so desperate for arguments that you're putting words into my posts that are not even there! Not surprising to say the least.

I agree, its common sense. Which is why this 'socionics' is useless. Its not saying anything new or interesting.

Common sense though ain't so common nowadays. Relationships are confusing because you are being bombarded by so much information while dating and meeting new people. This is where Socionics comes in very helpful - it provides a system for you to sort all those impressions and make some sense out of them. This is why it is so useful.

Its not scientific. There is no way to test its validity--making it useless.

99% of advice on this forum isn't scientific or very useful yet here you are!

Or do you really think you can tell someone's 'style' by the size of their forehead/shape of their head/creases in their forehead? LOL!

No idea what you're talking about. It just once again shows how mis-informed you are.

Are we done here? If you like, I will continue to ridicule you but I really suggest you find another outlet for your masochistic tendencies. In case you don't yet realize, I'm not posting for you (you have demonstrated your lack of critical thinking ability) but to prevent others from following your misguided path.

The only thing that you have demonstrated is that you actually have no idea what you're trying to debate here.

[mwahahaha]

Havnt done the link, but i can deduce from this thread that cassandra and indireloaded are both really poor rides.

[IndiReloaded]

This is where Socionics comes in very helpful - it provides a system for you to sort all those impressions and make some sense out of them. This is why it is so useful.

Its about as 'useful' as astrology. You call it a 'theory' (or hypothesis--which is it?--I notice you don't want to address that point), but a theory means you can test the validity of the system.

Socionics = crap b/c it can't be tested and has no predictive power. Its in the same class as things like homeopathy and typing someone based on the shape of their skull.

If you can cite *from a reputable journal* a properly controlled experiment demonstrating the validity of this *theory*, I'll take back what I said. Until then, you're just another quack posting about yet another money-grubbing 'system' for understanding people. Don't even try to argue this point: there are entire businesses who take people's money for things like Myers-Brigg and similar tests. Typically stupid HR and psychology types.

BTW, understanding people actually isn't that hard. I can see why someone like you might have trouble b/c you are looking for something else to be the solution to your problems, but its actually rather easy once you pay attention to what *is* instead of trying to type people into meaningless bins.

[IndiReloaded]

Anyway, I just came up with a new 'communication theory'. I call it:

"Forumonics" -- Its a useful system where you can type people's personalities based it on the stupidity and/or lack of creativity of a poster on an internet forum.

Your class is: IFDS = Idiot For Damned Sure.

---

Now, I'm done bumping this thread. You haven't noticed, but noone on this forum seems interested in your silly system. You'll have to post your crap elsewhere for victims (ahem) customers.

[Mathias]

it is not a "science" - it is a theory

I think you need to take a science class sometime.

[casanddra]

I took these tests before and the results were nothing like I really am!

Test results depend on how you answer the questions. If you answer the questions to correspond to nothing like you really are, then the result will be nothing like you really are. This is how people end up getting wrong results; their self-conception does not correspond to their real self.

[Mathias]

Test results depend on how you answer the questions. If you answer the questions to correspond to nothing like you really are, then the result will be nothing like you really are. This is how people end up getting wrong results; their self-conception does not correspond to their real self.

You should probably just stop posting. The more you do, the more your credibility is damaged. There are people in here who actually do know how legitimate tests work, and you're just showing your ass here.

[Leona77]

Cassandra:
99% of advice on this forum isn't scientific or very useful yet here you are!

WRONG!

Cassandra, this forum IS VERY useful ! So please don't even try to justify your claims here.