User Tag List

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: Socionics vs MBTI

  1. #41
    Senior Member Array "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    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).
    Uber you must be limiting your observation to a certain set of descriptions. The ISP descriptions are the worse written that I have ever seen. It has been determined that in order to make his theory work, Keirsey wrote the ISP descriptions with a focus on Se not their dominant functions (Ti/Fi), whereas he focused on the dominant and auxiliary functions for the remaining introverted descriptions.

    Teamtechnology gives a good account of this.
    The confusion only arises when one tries to make Jung's theory fit into the framework of temperament. For example, in Please Understand Me, Keirsey starts his description of an INTP with:

    "INTPs exhibit the greatest precision in thought and language of all the types; they tend to see distinctions and inconsistencies in thought and language simultaneously. The one word which captures the unique style of INTPs is architect - the architect of ideas..."
    From a Jungian perspective, this section is clearly defining INTP in terms of the dominant introverted function: introverted Thinking. The description focuses on the inner world of ideas, thoughts, understanding, and explanations.

    The description of ISTP, however, starts with:

    "Just as impulsive as other SPs, the ISTP's life is artful action - and action is end in itself. Action for the ISTP is more gratifying if it is born of impulse than purpose. If the action is in the service of an end or aim, let the aim look out for itself; it cannot be allowed to influence execution"
    From a Jungian perspective, this section is clearly defining ISTP in terms of the extraverted auxiliary function: extraverted Sensing. The description focuses on action, and the outer (extraverted) world is so pre-dominant that it cannot be influenced by any inner world thoughts. There is no mention, whatsoever, in the ISTP description, of the introverted dominant function: introverted Thinking.
    The article also references to PUM II actually claiming that there needed to be some rearranging for Keirsey’s theory to fit:
    In Please Understand Me, Keirsey makes the association between Jungian typology and temperament. However, he does not make a straight association - rather, he:
    • points out what he sees as errors in Jung's theory
    • states that, to make Jungian typology fit with temperament, it has to undergo some rearrangement (pp29,30)

    So, according to Please Understand Me, the two theories cannot be directly put together - Jungian typology has to be changed in some way to make it fit with temperament.
    Keirsey expands on his criticism of Jung in Please Understand Me II. For example, on p331, he states that:

    "Myers' E-I scale is badly flawed because she inherited Jung's error of confusing extraversion with observation (S) and introversion with introspection (N). And so to make the E-I distinction useful at all, we must define the two concepts, not in terms of mental focus or interest, but in terms of social address or social attitude".

    This changes the meaning of the Jungian terms quite radically: social attitude, as appears to the outside observer, is a very different concept to mental focus of cognitive functions. Clearly, when Keirsey refers to "E/I", he means something quite different to what Jung and Briggs-Myers meant. When we talk about extraversion, or the letter "E" in the type code, then it is akin to using the word "trunk" in the US or UK. When we are talking temperament, we mean one thing; when we are talking type, we mean another. Unfortunately, because the same letter is used in both systems, the misunderstanding may not be recognised.

  2. #42
    Member Array Jwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009


    I really dislike socionics! It doesn't make logical sense to me and completely types me wrong. I took on of the tests and it told me I was an INTj, like I am in the Myers-Briggs. However, it told me that I was severely lacking in confidence (completely untrue), that I couldn't make up my mind about anything (another lie), and that I never got anything done (also untrue, although it depends on the situation).

    I read how they defined N as being very different from the MBTI model. That imagination and looking to the future goes along with indecisiveness, insecurity, and lack of motivation. Am I right in my understanding of the socionics N? If I am, I think that the socionics model is a little screwed up scientifically. I mean, I don't think that imagination and lack of confidence have anything to do with each other. So, why should them be lumped together in a supposedly scientific testing model?

    Anyway, I know I don't completely "get" socionics, but what I do understand about it doesn't actually make logical sense to me...

  3. #43
    my user title is too shor Array polikujm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008


    Do you know what website that was from? Because there are a lot of bad Socionics websites out there. Makes me want to puke out that horrible sushi I had the other day that has been wrapped around the outline of my stomach.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jwill View Post
    I mean, I don't think that imagination and lack of confidence have anything to do with each other.
    I don't remember reading that on any Socionics site. Ni is an irrational understanding of cause/effect, which actually tends to be a lack of direct attention towards the outer world (caring so much that you don't care sort of thing.) From what I've read there is no lack of confidence from Ni. If something goes wrong, or criticism occurs for the INTp, then the INTp doesn't really care. He proceeds into his nirvana, (like Dr. Manhattan)

    If that's a lack of confidence then you watch too much Dr. Phil.
    Last edited by polikujm; 04-10-2009 at 01:57 AM.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Array snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007


    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.
    That's throwing the baby out with the bath water. I mean, would you reject physics because somebody, who was claiming to be a physicist, was saying that the earth was flat? Or some such thing?

    Socionics, as of now, is an open system in terms of novel ideas. Differently put, there are all kinds of crackpots making various crackpot claims. But they do not define what socionics is. They merely contribute to it. In that people come up with stuff and stupid ideas get shunned by other individuals who contribute and the good ones get accepted.

    What is socionics, at least from my understanding, is the idea and study of informational elements, informational metabolism and informational exchange of informational elements. And people have come up with various models of describing these things. (Where most of these models, theories, ideas, and so on, tend to be complicated)

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI vs socionics j/p
    By Poki in forum Socionics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-10-2014, 06:33 PM
  2. MBTI vs. Socionics: Which one is better?
    By Idontcare in forum Socionics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 02:13 PM
  3. Socionics and MBTI
    By IndyGhost in forum Socionics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-14-2011, 12:13 PM
  4. MBTI vs Socionics
    By Athenian200 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 12:56 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