User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 54

  1. #1
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default MBTI vs Socionics

    Mod note: Posts split from here

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    That's correct, and I don't see why it's a problem. It solves problems.

    Take your example, ENTP & INTP. I see no theoretical reason to assume, nor have I observed in individuals, a defined preference for Ne in ENTPs, and Ni in INTPs. General introversion and extroversion alone can fully account for the personality difference.
    That's an interesting theory, but I don't think you can reasonably call that "MBTI" or "Socionics" anymore. You can't change it that much without calling it something else.

    The communication problem here is that everyone else is discussing MBTI theory, and you're discussing your own invention that happens to be similar.

    In other words, you aren't describing Ni and Si within the context of MBTI theory, but within the context of your own. And I'm pretty sure that isn't what was asked for.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    That's an interesting theory, but I don't think you can reasonably call that "MBTI" anymore. You can't change it that much without calling it something else.

    We're discussing MBTI theory, you're discussing your own invention.
    The topic is Si and Ni, which are Jungian functions. MBTI only happened to appropriate the functions, and apply them erroneously. This isn't an "Offical MBTI Only" discussion.

    I was responding to posts regarding Socionics, making the case for its superiority over MBTI, and then clarified my position on the theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    In other words, you aren't describing Ni and Si within the context of MBTI theory, but within the context of your own. And I'm pretty sure that isn't what was asked for.
    The OP didn't explicitly ask for MBTI-specific advice.

    I'm helpful, you're not.

  3. #3
    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
    The topic is Si and Ni, which are Jungian functions. MBTI only happened to appropriate the functions, and apply them erroneously. This isn't an "Offical MBTI Only" discussion.
    I don't think Jung's descriptions are well-suited to the personality type systems we use, and they should have been modified, but never were. I did that myself, by throwing out e/i for functions and simplifying the definitions so everything fits together without complications.
    Because of the above, I'd say you're not even discussing Jungian theory anymore, but rather a theory that you adapted from Jung's (and others) ideas.

    Do you disagree with that?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Because of the above, I'd say you're not even discussing Jungian theory anymore, but rather a theory that you adapted from Jung's ideas.

    Do you disagree with that?
    Yes I do, as a matter of fact. I'm precisely discussing Jung's theory, how it relates to MBTI and Socionics, and where things could have been done better.

    If yours and everyone else's goal is only to read what was written decades ago (Which it isn't), there's absolutely no need for discussion. Read a book.

  5. #5
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Fine then, Jack. I disagree.

    I'd say that Ni and Si of IJs is obviously dominant. You're just not very observant.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    You're just not very observant.
    I think that's a compliment, coming from you, so: Thanks!

  7. #7
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Really, I am amazed that so many people are so closed to socionics.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    Really, I am amazed that so many people are so closed to socionics.
    It's not hard to explain. When someone "knows" something, it's not easy or pleasant for one to conclude that one had the wrong idea all along.

  9. #9
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    In case you failed to notice, that doesn't describe the ISxJ.
    Umm... yeah. It does.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Umm... yeah. It does.
    (Not that it's ever possible to sway you with evidence,) allow me to present the description of Introverted Thinking for comparison, which I haven't even reviewed recently. Such is my confidence that it is more in line with describing the ISTJ than Introverted Sensing is.

    1. Thinking
    When describing extraverted thinking, I gave a brief characterization of introverted thinking, to which at this stage I must make further reference. Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by the subjective factor. At the least, this subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgment. Occasionally, it is a more or less finished image, which to some extent, serves as a standard. This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content, External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear. It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may [p. 481] undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour. As illustrative examples they have their value, but they must not prevail. Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. Should this latter ever occur, it is done only as a compliment to the extraverted style. For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.
    But just as little as it is given to extraverted thinking to wrest a really sound inductive idea from concrete facts or ever to create new ones, does it lie in the power of introverted thinking to translate its original image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical heaping together of facts paralyses thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency [p. 482] to coerce facts into the shape of its image, or by ignoring them altogether, to unfold its phantasy image in freedom. In such a case, it will be impossible for the presented idea to deny its origin from the dim archaic image. There will cling to it a certain mythological character that we are prone to interpret as 'originality', or in more pronounced cases' as mere whimsicality; since its archaic character is not transparent as such to specialists unfamiliar with mythological motives. The subjective force of conviction inherent in such an idea is usually very great; its power too is the more convincing, the less it is influenced by contact with outer facts. Although to the man who advocates the idea, it may well seem that his scanty store of facts were the actual ground and source of the truth and validity of his idea, yet such is not the case, for the idea derives its convincing power from its unconscious archetype, which, as such, has universal validity and everlasting truth. Its truth, however, is so universal and symbolic, that it must first enter into the recognized and recognizable knowledge of the time, before it can become a practical truth of any real value to life. What sort of a causality would it be, for instance, that never became perceptible in practical causes and practical results?
    This thinking easily loses itself in the immense truth of the subjective factor. It creates theories for the sake of theories, apparently with a view to real or at least possible facts, yet always with a distinct tendency to go over from the world of ideas into mere imagery. Accordingly many intuitions of possibilities appear on the scene, none of which however achieve any reality, until finally images are produced which no longer express anything externally real, being 'merely' symbols of the simply unknowable. It is now merely a mystical thinking and quite as unfruitful as that empirical thinking whose sole operation is within the framework of objective facts. [p. 483]
    Whereas the latter sinks to the level of a mere presentation of facts, the former evaporates into a representation of the unknowable, which is even beyond everything that could be expressed in an image. The presentation of facts has a certain incontestable truth, because the subjective factor is excluded and the facts speak for themselves. Similarly, the representing of the unknowable has also an immediate, subjective, and convincing power, because it is demonstrable from its own existence. The former says 'Est, ergo est' ('It is ; therefore it is') ; while the latter says 'Cogito, ergo cogito' (' I think ; therefore I think'). In the last analysis, introverted thinking arrives at the evidence of its own subjective being, while extraverted thinking is driven to the evidence of its complete identity with the objective fact. For, while the extravert really denies himself in his complete dispersion among objects, the introvert, by ridding himself of each and every content, has to content himself with his mere existence. In both cases the further development of life is crowded out of the domain of thought into the region of other psychic functions which had hitherto existed in relative unconsciousness. The extraordinary impoverishment of introverted thinking in relation to objective facts finds compensation in an abundance of unconscious facts. Whenever consciousness, wedded to the function of thought, confines itself within the smallest and emptiest circle possible -- though seeming to contain the plenitude of divinity -- unconscious phantasy becomes proportionately enriched by a multitude of archaically formed facts, a veritable pandemonium of magical and irrational factors, wearing the particular aspect that accords with the nature of that function which shall next relieve the thought-function as the representative of life. If this should be the intuitive function, the 'other side' will be viewed with the eyes of a Kubin or a Meyrink. If it is the feeling-function, [p. 484] there arise quite unheard of and fantastic feeling-relations, coupled with feeling-judgments of a quite contradictory and unintelligible character. If the sensation-function, then the senses discover some new and never-before-experienced possibility, both within and without the body. A closer investigation of such changes can easily demonstrate the reappearance of primitive psychology with all its characteristic features. Naturally, the thing experienced is not merely primitive but also symbolic; in fact, the older and more primeval it appears, the more does it represent the future truth: since everything ancient in our unconscious means the coming possibility.
    Under ordinary circumstances, not even the transition to the 'other side' succeeds -- still less the redeeming journey through the unconscious. The passage across is chiefly prevented by conscious resistance to any subjection of the ego to the unconscious reality and to the determining reality of the unconscious object. The condition is a dissociation-in other words, a neurosis having the character of an inner wastage with increasing brain-exhaustion -- a psychoasthenia, in fact.

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