• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

MBTI vs Socionics

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Mod note: Posts split from here

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.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
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.

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.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
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?
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
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.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Fine then, Jack. I disagree.

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

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Really, I am amazed that so many people are so closed to socionics.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
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.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
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.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
All I can see is your insistence that IJ types work on a closed circuit. Nothing more.
I've made no reference to that notion, but it's typical that you would see something which isn't there, and nothing which is.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
I've made no reference to that notion, but it's typical that you would see something which isn't there, and nothing which is.

Because of my goddamned subjective perception.

Stop bothering me, extrovert.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
It's you who injected yourself into the conversation to attempt to discount my stance. (And failed.)

I don't understand how you can possibly insist that you are objectively correct when you type yourself an introvert.

We are in the subjective field of whackjob psychology. This subjective field claims that all introverts are inherently subjective first and foremost. This subjectivity makes them either process in a closed loop or process in some whackjobed way that doesn't produce anything sensical when it's taken apart to its component parts. How can we even begin to argue?
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
I don't understand how you can possibly insist that you are objectively correct when you type yourself an introvert.

We are in the subjective field of whackjob psychology. This subjective field claims that all introverts are inherently subjective first and foremost. This subjectivity makes them either process in a closed loop or process in some whackjobed way that doesn't produce anything sensical when it's taken apart to its component parts. How can we even begin to argue?
To be fair, I do have an edge. I'm smart.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
The arena of subjectivity isn't fair. No edge.
Your argument of subjectivity (the definition you're using) is nonsensical. It would mean that no INTP could ever apply emprical science. Shame no one told Einstein.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Your argument of subjectivity (the definition you're using) is nonsensical. It would mean that no INTP could ever apply emprical science. Shame no one told Einstein.

I know. Bloody shame.

The system makes about as much sense as something tasting purple. You can't say exactly what you mean, but you know it when you taste it. This is why I can't get your argument. It's trying to explain the taste of purple, and it's trying to tell me that that taste is actually red.

You get what I mean?
 

Skyward

Badoom~
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
1,084
MBTI Type
infj
Enneagram
9w1
Haphazard vs Jack Flak

Typical NT love-hate relationship :D
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
I know. Bloody shame.

The system makes about as much sense as something tasting purple. You can't say exactly what you mean, but you know it when you taste it. This is why I can't get your argument. It's trying to explain the taste of purple, and it's trying to tell me that that taste is actually red.

You get what I mean?
I know what you think, and I think it's incorrect. Find an INTJ description which explains how the INTJ uses Ni, and what it actually does is explain "How INTJs think." It's not as if the INTJ is a stranger to intuition, or even "Ni," so it's not extremely difficult to make it a sensible description. It's just not the best description.
 
Top