Socionics

[Ezra]

I personally prefer this theory to MBTT.

It's more logical and consistent, and if people are interested in why I believe this, I will explain.

Has anyone else heard of it, and if so, what are your opinions of it?

Here's the wiki. There's also an entire wiki site dedicated to furthering western understanding of socionics (it's an Eastern European creation).

[Uberfuhrer]

I like socionics, too. It's much more related to Jung's original ideas.

People tend to dismiss it because it correlates a person's physical structure with psychological type, having more spiritual connotations. But Jung's original ideas were based more on spirituality than reason. I laugh at all the people here (and other MBTI fansites) who dismiss astrology, even though Jung directly used astrology to form his concepts.

In many ways, the MBTI pisses all over Jung's ideas. The original MBTI never stated how N's were more sophisticated and cultured than S's, that only happened when the FFM correlated the MBTI's N/S dichotomy to the FFM's Openness...the FFM quite bluntly states an N superiority, which thus gave rise to the N snobbery.

[MerkW]

Two other reasons why Socionics is less popular than MBTI:
1.) It's from Russia, whereas MBTI is from the U.S.
2.) Generally speaking, it is harder for one to determine their Socionics type than it is to determine their MBTI type. Socionics requires a lot of analysis and reading, while MBTI usually only requires a few small tests. Many Americans don't seem to have the patience to spend so much time on reading and self-analysis.

Note: Yes, it is quite unfair that Ns have such a bias. I do think, though, that there are other reasons as to why Ns often look upon Ss with disdain. I think, at least in some cases, a large degree of it comes from the fact that in school, at work, etc. Ns are often seen as bizarre, eccentric, or socially inappropriate to a certain degree by Ss (this applies, I believe even more so to INs than to ENs). As a result, it seems that several Ns often try to feel superior to Ss due to certain mockery and humiliation that Ns had to go through. Regardless, it is still completely unjustified.

[proteanmix]

I actually find the socionics ENFJ description a better fit for me than that MBTI version. MBTI ones are too high-minded.

Thanks for the link Ezra!

[Ezra]

Apparently IXXP = Ixxp, and IXXJ = IXXp, but if you look further into socionics, you will find that it is just not that simple.

Let me give you a rough idea. Socionists found that many people who related most to the INTJ of MBTT related best in socionics to SLE a.k.a. ESTp.

[MerkW]

Originally Posted by Ezra

Socionists found that many people who related most to the INTJ of MBTT related best in socionics to SLE a.k.a. ESTp.

I have heard of that, but I don't think it's particularly common. I think it's more common for an MBTI ENTJ to relate to an SLE, though. A lot of MBTI INTJs tend to relate most to LIE descriptions (especially LIE-Ni sub), interestingly enough.

[Gabe]

hmmm. so I looked at a few websites. And I still like the Jung-Von Franz-Beebe direction way better than socionics.

I think it fudges the original jungian description of the cognitive processes significantly. It all seems so freakin codified and regimented. Wheras the original jungian process descriptions bring to mind influential historical figures, social movements, the socionics descriptions are what, squares and triangles? And I can't stand the way they call only feelings ethics, when it seems so obvious to me that it's equally possible to have a thinking-based morality. It also annoys me that they say that some type "is" this and "is" that, even when they're talking about shadow functions. There's no slow, realisation of the shadow. Instead they just pull out some names and some other functions. The whole thing seems like such a rediculously intellectualized thing. Oh, and again, dispite the cut-it-up-into-little-pieces-ness, the cognitive process descriptions are (incorrect), overlapping, and sometimes contradictory.
Honestly, some of the stuff was neat, especially the names of the function-positions. but I still like the Beebe version of that better-it seems like socionics never even talks about the archetypes. And the way Beebe describes the developement of the function archetypes represents much better how I've noticed people 'grow up'.
-it starts the ego-functions but keeps calling all of them weak (?!!!) Is this supposed to be a model on how everyone is 'weak'?
It's confusing.

[MerkW]

Originally Posted by Gabe

-it starts the ego-functions but keeps calling all of them weak (?!!!) Is this supposed to be a model on how everyone is 'weak'?
It's confusing.

It was probably the Super Ego, and not the ego they were referring to. Your weak functions are the functions you aren't good at using (your Super-Ego and Super-Id functions) If you are an ENFP, this is how Socionics would apply to you:

Taking into account that you are a "beginner," here is a simplified model of your psyche:

Conscious:
1. Ne (Base function: you primary and strongest)
2. Fi (Creative function: helps base function. Not as confident in it, though)
3. Se (Opposite of your base function. Brings you annoyance)
4. Ti (PoLR: This function is your least proficient . It brings you pain)

Subconscious:
5. Si (you greatly admire people who are strong in this function)
6. Te (You need help in this, but not to an excess. It may unknowingly drive many of your actions)
7. Ni (You are strong in this function, yet you use it more on your own than in public)
8. Fe (Strongest subconscious function: You may find it useless, but it controls a great degree of your inner psyche)

[Athenian200]

Originally Posted by Ezra

I personally prefer this theory to MBTT.

It's more logical and consistent, and if people are interested in why I believe this, I will explain.

Has anyone else heard of it, and if so, what are your opinions of it?

Here's the wiki. There's also an entire wiki site dedicated to furthering western understanding of socionics (it's an Eastern European creation).

Yes, I've heard of it... in fact I was going to write/post an introduction to it for the people on here, but it got so technical so quickly I worried most people wouldn't be able to follow it and changed my mind.

I don't know what type I am in it... there are some who believe the same functions/order in MBTI make the same type in Socionics, others think the same letters are the same type, and some even think there's not necessarily a consistent correlation between the two systems.

But I seem to test as an LII (INTj) fairly often on Socionics tests, which leads me to suspect there may only be a loose correlation between the two systems.

[snegledmaca]

I like the idea of the informational metabolism. Personally it makes so much sense. Not entirely sure about the models of psyche I've seen so far.



Also, why haven't the reinin attributes/dichotomies been developed in MBTT? If I'm not mistaken they are derived solely form jung's three dichotomies.