User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 54

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    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.

  2. #42
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    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.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    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.

  4. #44
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    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.

  5. #45
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    This isn't MBTI Central, guys.

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    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.

  7. #47
    WTF is this dude saying? A Schnitzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Socionics
    B.S.
    Posts
    1,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    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.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A Schnitzel View Post
    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.

  9. #49
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    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?

  10. #50
    Arcesso pulli gingerios! Eldanen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    697

    Default

    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!

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI vs socionics j/p
    By Poki in forum Socionics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-10-2014, 06:33 PM
  2. Socionics Online Meetup #2: MBTI vs. Socionics
    By HandiAce in forum Socionics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-10-2013, 03:12 PM
  3. MBTI vs Socionics
    By Amargith in forum Socionics
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 03-27-2013, 07:57 PM
  4. MBTI vs. Socionics: Which one is better?
    By Idontcare in forum Socionics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 02:13 PM
  5. MBTI vs Socionics
    By Urchin in forum Socionics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 07:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO