User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 44

  1. #31
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Socionics is just too complicated to be practical or perhaps I haven't dedicated enough time to understanding how the functions interact with each other. It really doesn't help that I have no reference point however.

    The rare occasions where I've moved towards socionics. I end up getting lost as I can't figure out what my own type is, and it seems neither can other people who have spent a fair amount of time studying it.

  2. #32
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Socionics is just too complicated to be practical
    You're referring to subjective practicality.

  3. #33
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Socionics or Keirsey are probably the best Jung-based systems. Even though Keirsey has no interest in cognitive processes (and I don't blame him), his type descriptions are very much in line with Jung (especially after you read Psychological Types). And I think Keirsey's PersonalityZone is the best MBTI-related site. Very insightful and detailed.

    MBTI was created by two women, thereby severely lessening the instrument's credibility.

    Socionics was invented by a Russian woman, so she's pretty much a man.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lemons View Post
    You're referring to subjective practicality.
    True.
    Hm. I've found it too complicated to be practical. Well actually I lie. I'm just angry at socionics because I can't figure myself out within it. I've tried in the past, and gotten back results from others that I'm INFp, INFj, INTj, ISFj, ISFp... It's insanity.


  5. #35
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    True.
    Hm. I've found it too complicated to be practical. Well actually I lie. I'm just angry at socionics because I can't figure myself out within it. I've tried in the past, and gotten back results from others that I'm INFp, INFj, INTj, ISFj, ISFp... It's insanity.

    It's all relative until you get close enough to logical analysis. Then it is quite systematic until you get close enough to ethical analysis.

    The laws of the universe > entities > knowledge and ethics. I'm not saying one is more important. I'm saying the universe is so big that everything is relative when you can view the entire thing, which you can't, and when you get close up you start seeing patterns between objects and ideas. Principles are even closer to subjectivity.

  6. #36
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    Exactly. If you are a Ti-Ne type, then regardless of system you will remain that type since both systems have the commonality of deriving from Jung's definitions. Therefore I am Ti-Se which makes me ISTP in MBTI and ISTj in Socionics. Now that they are moving further from cognitive functions, I may be something completely different. I am curious as to whether anyone has compared the quadras to Keirsey's temperament? Most likely the comparison is futile since the types falling into the four groups are not the same.
    This seems the most reasonable of any explanation given on this thread thus far.


    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    Socionics or Keirsey are probably the best Jung-based systems. Even though Keirsey has no interest in cognitive processes (and I don't blame him), his type descriptions are very much in line with Jung (especially after you read Psychological Types). And I think Keirsey's PersonalityZone is the best MBTI-related site. Very insightful and detailed.

    MBTI was created by two women, thereby severely lessening the instrument's credibility.

    Socionics was invented by a Russian woman, so she's pretty much a man.
    THANK JESUS CHRIST someone gets this. Doesn't anyone else use MBTI simply for mental categorization of externalized behaviors (and using the trends to guess at future behaviors)? There's a BIG difference between this and actually trying to assign internal cognitive processes to these externalized behaviors! I'm rather tired of being psychoanalyzed to death by people who can't accept the boundaries of their own knowledge--of what is even plausible to claim any real knowledge about. Yes yes, I'm sure you're a real pro at cognitive function psychic readings and all, but you're still limited by the fact that I'M IN MY HEAD and YOU'RE NOT.

    At the end of the day, using typology for anything beyond categorization of externalized behaviors is just a cute parlor game, like guessing at celebrity MBTI types. Fun to toy around with, but not very definitive and not particularly useful.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #37
    Senior Member Into It's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    The answer is quite obvious, if not easy: they are both bullshit in the end
    I disagree.

    Socionics claims to be able to define a person's type by facial features/bone structure. That is the reason I never took the time to learn it.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Into It's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post


    THANK JESUS CHRIST someone gets this. Doesn't anyone else use MBTI simply for mental categorization of externalized behaviors (and using the trends to guess at future behaviors)? There's a BIG difference between this and actually trying to assign internal cognitive processes to these externalized behaviors! I'm rather tired of being psychoanalyzed to death by people who can't accept the boundaries of their own knowledge--of what is even plausible to claim any real knowledge about. Yes yes, I'm sure you're a real pro at cognitive function psychic readings and all, but you're still limited by the fact that I'M IN MY HEAD and YOU'RE NOT.

    At the end of the day, using typology for anything beyond categorization of externalized behaviors is just a cute parlor game, like guessing at celebrity MBTI types. Fun to toy around with, but not very definitive and not particularly useful.

    It is worth noting that if you take a cognitive function test, which is not based on behaviors, your top two functions will most likely coincide with those of your mbti type's. Try it. It is true that all we can really observe is behavior. However, behavior can be used to determine an internal process. For instance, if I asked you to solve some difficult long division mentally, I could observe your eyes roll up to the sky as you remain motionless and infer that you are not using Se to look at the birds and the clouds but that you are retreating into your own head to use an introverted function, and since I understand that you aren't using interpersonal analysis to solve said division, I have used your behavior along with other information to conclude that you are using Ti. Now, you may be trying to trick me, looking at the clouds while pretending to solve the problem, but when you fail to give me the correct answer, I can assume that either you suck at math or that you were NOT using Ti.

    So you aren't entirely wrong, but I think your position is a little too strong.

  9. #39
    jump sleuthiness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    54 so/sp
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    1,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into It View Post
    Socionics claims to be able to define a person's type by facial features/bone structure. That is the reason I never took the time to learn it.
    What are you suggesting?

  10. #40
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into It View Post
    It is worth noting that if you take a cognitive function test, which is not based on behaviors, your top two functions will most likely coincide with those of your mbti type's. Try it. It is true that all we can really observe is behavior. However, behavior can be used to determine an internal process. For instance, if I asked you to solve some difficult long division mentally, I could observe your eyes roll up to the sky as you remain motionless and infer that you are not using Se to look at the birds and the clouds but that you are retreating into your own head to use an introverted function, and since I understand that you aren't using interpersonal analysis to solve said division, I have used your behavior along with other information to conclude that you are using Ti. Now, you may be trying to trick me, looking at the clouds while pretending to solve the problem, but when you fail to give me the correct answer, I can assume that either you suck at math or that you were NOT using Ti.

    So you aren't entirely wrong, but I think your position is a little too strong.
    Cognitive function tests are effectively the same thing as regular MBTI tests because they still put the internalized cognitive functions in externalized thought/behavioral terms; the very composition of the test in the form of words that symbolize subjective ideas makes this inevitable. In other words, the two tests ask the same things paraphrased--hence the correlation in results.

    We can't breach the barrier of another person's mind to even begin understanding the accuracy of his functional analysis, unless we are deeply involved with that person and have been privy to an exceptional amount of extremely private information, and even then it's still a far cry from pinpointing exact internal cognitive functions with any degree of precision.

    Especially on the internet! Sometimes I wonder if people have even the slightest conception of the amount of personality data you're missing when your communication is limited solely to text.

    Real brain functions can come in so many different varieties, combining in different ways to cause so many different behaviors for so many different reasons that it's almost laughably naive to pretend that complex human cognitive patterns can be explained completely in two lines by a pop Jungian pseudo-psychology. It's intuitively obvious that it has to be more complex than that, complex enough to make the "I can explain everything that motivates you to do everything" system too idealized for any real use beyond entertainment.

    Functions are useful labels to describe, arbitrarily categorize and help understand our own inner selves, but when applied to others with whom we cannot possibly share the same subjective experience, they get pretty fuzzy, pretty quick.

    Maybe I should specify that I'm not that big a fan of Jung. He's interesting, but I think by far his biggest contribution was the names in the categorization system and the method by which we categorize the external manifestations of these unknown internal motivations of others.

    As for Jung's functional theories, well...there's not much actual evidence to back them, once you try to cross the barrier into interpreting the subjective experience of other people.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. [JCF] Cognitive Functions vs. MBTI lettering type + Socionics
    By Melodrama in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-20-2016, 12:22 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-24-2015, 12:04 PM
  3. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 09-16-2013, 05:53 PM
  4. Type of learner vs. MBTI Type
    By NewEra in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 01:00 AM
  5. Is it reasonable to compare Socionics with MBTI?
    By Athenian200 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-15-2007, 09:41 AM

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