MBTI vs Socionics

[Jack Flak]

Okay, the descriptions do kind of match, although they don't match perfectly. Personally, I think Socionics a bit more accurate than MBTI (even though they both have problems), but I stick with MBTI for two reasons:

1. Most people here can't understand Socionics because they don't want to take the time to learn it, and thus lazily correlate it with MBTI constructs if you talk about it.

2. A lot of the literature on Socionics is in Russian, thus I have to rely on interpretations.

I actually knew Socionics before I ever came to this forum, and gave up on it because no one else "got it."

Neither system is perfect. It's MBTI's application of functions which is so often discussed to no end, because you can't come to solid conclusions with a flawed foundation. For example, you can redefine Si as some perverse combination of functions to make it fit how ISTJs actually think, but the problem keeps coming up because the notions are erroneous.

 

[Athenian200]

Neither system is perfect. It's MBTI's application of functions which is so often discussed to no end, because you can't come to solid conclusions with a flawed foundation. For example, you can redefine Si as some perverse combination of functions to make it fit how ISTJs actually think, but the problem keeps coming up because the notions are erroneous.

Would you agree that Socionics starts with a less flawed foundation, then?

I'm not entirely convinced that we should do away with functions altogether, but I do think that perhaps the Socionic conception makes more sense than the MBTI conception.

I'm thinking that if you really want to make sense of this (rather than arguing a perspective for fun and seeing who you can convince), you should just start with Jung and Socionics while leaving MBTI and its notation out of it. I know it's tempting to play on the broad appeal because it's SO CLOSE, but it just can't be fixed. The flaws are inherent in it.

 

[Jack Flak]

Would you agree that Socionics starts with a less flawed foundation, then?

I'm not entirely convinced that we should do away with functions altogether, but I do think that perhaps the Socionic conception makes more sense than the MBTI conception.

That's my stance. It makes enough sense for most practical purposes.

 

[Athenian200]

That's my stance. It makes enough sense for most practical purposes.

Okay, then. I guess I agree.

The only thing I have left to say is that you should probably try to avoid explaining your ideas by building on and trying to modify people's understanding of MBTI, because it's inherently flawed by comparison with Socionics and Jungian theory. Instead, you should encourage them to view your ideas from the standpoint of Socionics and Jung while keeping MBTI out of their mind.

In MBTI, an ISxJ is by definition going to have Si as their dominant function, regardless of what that seems to break in Jungian (or even logical/common sense) terms. If you disagree, you've scrapped MBTI and started over with either pure Jungian theory, or other, more thoughtful formulations of it like Socionics.

The point is, if you want to discuss MBTI (and not Jung or Socionics), you have to accept the flawed foundation, because that's what MBTI is.

 

[The Ü™]

This isn't MBTI Central, guys.

 

[Jack Flak]

In MBTI, an ISxJ is by definition going to have Si as their dominant function, regardless of what that seems to break in Jungian (or even logical/common sense) terms. If you disagree, you've scrapped MBTI and started over with either pure Jungian theory, or other, more thoughtful formulations of it like Socionics.

The point is, if you want to discuss MBTI (and not Jung or Socionics), you have to accept the flawed foundation, because that's what MBTI is.

When someone says "Si is the ISTJ's dominant function...", all I do is say "No it's not." And if they say "Yes it is!", I'll explain why it's not.

 

[A Schnitzel]

This isn't MBTI Central, guys.

This was specifically in relation to wanderlust's Si and Ni thread, which you guys wrecked. We were talking about MBTI cognitive processes. Insulting the processes in a thread trying to differentiate between them is bad taste.

 

[Jack Flak]

This was specifically in relation to wanderlust's Si and Ni thread, which you guys wrecked. We were talking about MBTI cognitive processes. Insulting the processes in a thread trying to differentiate between them is bad taste.

The functions aren't exclusive to MBTI. They came first. We were discussing the functions.

And like I said previously, it's not as if documentation on these processes is in short supply, even for free on the net. If someone doesn't want fluid dialog, they don't have to take part in a message board discussion.

 

[Athenian200]

When someone says "Si is the ISTJ's dominant function...", all I do is say "No it's not." And if they say "Yes it is!", I'll explain why it's not.

If that's what you want to do, okay. I just figure you'd make it easier on yourself the other way.

This was specifically in relation to wanderlust's Si and Ni thread, which you guys wrecked. We were talking about MBTI cognitive processes. Insulting the processes in a thread trying to differentiate between them is bad taste.

I'm sorry you feel that way. *shrug*

I just felt that before we could define Si and Ni reasonably, we had to agree on the context we were discussing them in. Of course, in the process of doing that, we ended up talking about the nature of the systems in question, and then, of course, of the accuracy and validity of those systems.

I didn't insult the systems, I just conceded that in comparison to Socionics and Jungian theory, MBTI started with a flawed premise. That's not an insult, it's an assessment and an opinion.

Besides, the admins already split the thread off. What do you have to complain about?

 

[Eldanen]

MBTI isn't really all that much of a "system." It doesn't have one, really. There are the types and some very weak relations described, but that's pretty much it.

Information Elements for the win!

 

[wolfy]

Okay, pretend there are no such things as cognitive processes, only four-letter code.

Now, would ISFP then correlate with ISFp?

I think it would.

 

[FDG]

I'd say that Ni and Si of IJs is obviously dominant. You're just not very observant.

That's stupid. You can't be a J type if you have a perceiving dominant function!!

 

[Haphazard]

That's stupid. You can't be a J type if you have a perceiving dominant function!!

Why not?

I like my system better. A Perceiver leads with a Perceiver's version of judgement or perception -- Ji and Pe. A Judger leads with a Judger's version of judgment and perception -- Je and Pi. All Perceiver's function and all Judger's functions appear equally as Judger's or Perceiver's, even though one type focuses on perception and one on judgment.

To try to make it less of a mess, Pi is how a Judger perceives, which is very different, and appears very different, from how a Perceiver perceives, or even judges.

 

[Haphazard]

Look at a woman who wears makeup and a man who puts on warpaint for a game. They each paint their faces, but for each, the purpose and circumstances and even the finished appearance are so different that most don't compare the two. However, they are still doing the same thing.