Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezra
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by athenian200
I personally think that MBTI is somewhat languished on it's functional side, and places too much emphasis on dichotomies in the way it tests for things. I think it might be more effective, if you want to earnestly pursue the cognitive functions perspective, to research and build upon the Socionic understanding instead. Even without the Russian material (which could be translated in the future), I believe it's still more complete and coherent in terms of it's functional relationship model.
|
I completely agree. |
I don't understand Socionics well enough yet. However, given my limited knowledge, I don't get these criticisms.
If you think MBTI is somewhat languished on its functional side, then study the theories of Beebe and Thomson which are built off of MBTT. If you feel that too much emphasis has been put on dichotomies in the way it tests for things, then expand your understanding using Step II and III as there are some good books describing the facets.
Also, Myers explored the couplings and Gianninni wrote in depth about them in terms of Jung's archetypal theory. In Giannini's book he also describes the connection between individual development according to Erickson's theory and Lowen's modelling of brain and type. In MBTI Step II and elsewhere, the functions are described in how they develop over time in the way they're used. There are numerous books that detail how type plays out in group interactions. Then, when you add in Temperaments and Interaction Styles, you have a pretty in-depth system. On top of all of this, there are the strong corelations to FFM which is as well-researched as personality studies go.
I realize that Socionics system is interesting and has great potential, but I think your too lightly dismissing MBTI. I plan on further studying Socioncs and I definitely look forward to more and better translations of material. I just don't think one system is better in all ways to the other. Like Temperaments to MBTI, they're different and yet not utterly different as they're both based on Jung. I'm sure that both systems can learn something from the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezra
As a side point, in the Please Understand Me II notes, Keirsey talks about how the ESTJ and the ENTJ are vastly different, as opposed to MBTT, which sees these two types as very similar.
|
The two systems are simply talking about two different patterns even though they correlate to an extent. Both can be true simultaneously. What is same or different can be seen from many perspectives. ESTJ is the opposite of INFP as far as the letters go, but functionally speaking ESTP could be considered more opposing. Confirming this, ESTP is the opposite Temperament and opposite Interaction Style as shown in diagrams. So, there is an example where the two theories end up pointing one to similar insights.