The specific dictionary entries show that "associate" completely encompasses "socialize", so you can use them interchangeably without fear of being misunderstood:
socialize — take part in social activities: to take part in social activities, or behave in a friendly way to others
associate —
- connect things in mind: to connect one thing with another in the mind
- pass time with somebody: to spend time together with somebody
- mix socially or professionally: to be involved with somebody or something in a personal or professional capacity
But "associate" and "socialize" do carry slightly different connotations due to associate's first definition. When describing someone who associates with a particular group of people the connotation is that they are "associated with" that group:
I want to be associated with intelligent people. / I want to associate with intelligent people.
I want to be with intelligent people. / I want to socialize with intelligent people.
This difference is subtle, but here is how it effects two of your specific examples:
I am a positive person and I like to associate with other positive persons.
This person wants to be around and be associated with positive people.
I like to socialize with new people.
This person likes to be with new people. You could use "associate" here and it would have the exact same meaning -- it is unlikely you could really be associated with new people.
In and into are not, strictly speaking, grammatically interchangeable in formal writing. On and onto have a little more leeway, but are also not always interchangeable.
But, colloquially we often use in for into.
It is perfectly acceptable to say go in the pool, jump in the pool, etc. But, as you correctly stated above, that introduces ambiguity:
I am going around in the pool. -- Unlikely to be the intended meaning, but it could be.
I am going into the pool. -- The more likely intended meaning.
I am urinating in the pool -- This might also be a likely interpretation from the colloquial usage of go to mean urinate (Thanks Digital Chris!)
I am jumping around inside of the pool. -- Again, unlikely from context.
I am jumping into the pool. Most likely scenario.
You can get on the bus, and you can get in the bus. But, they have subtly different meanings:
Get on the bus - Board the bus with the intention of riding.
Get onto the bus - Is awkward since it implies climb on top of. Better to say get on to the bus.
Get in the bus - Get inside the bus for whatever reason.
Get into the bus - Get inside the bus for whatever reason.
But, note that we don't get on the car. We do get in or into the car, though.
For whatever reason buses, trains, planes, and other large conveyances have a notion of being board-able (employing the preposition on), but cars and vans generally do not. (This may be convention.)
Compare this to a bicycle, motorcycle, etc.. You get on a bicycle, but this is the physical sense of being on top of it.
Languages are always translated into one another. Never in. But, you can speak in a language.
Some other cases where on and onto are not interchangeable:
Turn on the lights.
Turn onto the lights - You'd probably never say this. It implies that you physically are turning yourself onto some lights.
But, they are interchangeable when on carries the sense of on top of.
Put that on the counter.
Put that onto the counter.
Best Answer
Here is a dictionary link that shows the example you're looking for. It is #11: To make carefully worked out plans for. Although the example given is a bank robbery, any sense of planning makes sense here.
As to its currency and usage in American English. This is everyday, commonly used American English. Please feel free to use it in this sense as you see fit. I'm actually rather surprised that the definition was so obscured in the dictionary entries I've looked at.