Socionics is amazing

[Jeffster]

Meh. I don't find it to be that amazing.

 

[527468]

Not criticizing, but INTPs are not the best at analyzing based on functional or actually applying knowledge to the real world. Its good to know your weakness as well as strengths.

I'm not an "INTP."

In regards to relationships in general its one big compromise. You cant just look at one aspect of it. Its all about dynamics. Sometimes taking care of one function will pull them out of it and push them into something else. You cant base anything off a static view. You have to figure out what the best compromise is.

Actually, this theory is based on a static view, though I know where you're coming from. I haven't mentioned one bit of subjective proceeding. I'm not into examining personal things right now, since this is a thread about Socionics. I'd also find it quite off base if I were to submit a personal example to define a theory. Its like saying statistics mean everything, no pun intended.

 

[FigerPuppet]

Socionics can go suck a donkey dick. MBTI is far superior.

Because I said so, that's why.

 

[BlackCat]

Wikisocion is a pretty amazing site. If you actually take the time to read the theory, it all makes sense. In describing the self it seems socionics won me over, since I can relate to their INFj description extremely well, especially with their in depth descriptions of the functions.

Most people I'm guessing just dismiss it due to the socionics official website being ridiculous, while the wiki is good.

 

[Unique]

Also let it be noted that it said there are two physical appearances ESTPs are likely to have... the "skinny" "mostly business" appearance which is how I would see myself and quite a few famous ESTPs are not body builders ! haha

I am trying to get a bit more healthy though...

Also in regards to the ESTj - INFj duel... I've seen it work... time and time again

I have lots of duel INFp friends and an activity friend ENFj !

 

[527468]

Yeah, relations is the way to go. It even helps in typing people, coming from the other angle. I've done it many times before and have said, "ahh, now I see it. It makes so much more sense this way." Of course now I'm much more familiar with people of the types, and one type usually fosters a variety of people in their visualizations.

And there are subtypes, so far based on ego. So you can either have an E subtype or an I subtype, and subtype means how you access your main function. As an INTp, my possibilities are Ni or Te. There are two definitions for each on wikisocion.

BlackCat, I've pointed out to some people who've commented on my test that they come out extraverted on it, when they're actually introverted (socionics version of introverted), and that's because they're usually of the extraverted subtype. Since you came out ENFp even though you're an INFj might imply that you are INFj-Ne. This is likely.

 

[BlackCat]

I am definitely an extroverted subtype... it sounds good even though I don't even know what that means. That makes the ENFp result make sense, when I look at the functions of the ENFp vs the INFj.

As for relationships, I've done this in my head since I found out about MBTI, with my own definitions. I defined how it felt to be around certain people, that there was a pattern. I found patterns in how people acted, their thought processes, actually pretty much everything. Then I take that and I compare to how I feel around them and for what reasons, how we get along and for what reasons, etc. Then I can determine their type. I'm almost always accurate too. These feelings get specific with the dichotomies as well, (T/F, E/I etc).

The socionics relationship types helped me make these feelings concrete... and made the process MUCH easier. It's a good tool.

EDIT: Actually regarding relationships I had my own dichotomies I made up in my head for defining how well I'd get along with people. They also worked, but I didn't have anything concrete such as a personality type or relationship type to peg it to.

 

[527468]

I am definitely an extroverted subtype... it sounds good even though I don't even know what that means. That makes the ENFp result make sense, when I look at the functions of the ENFp vs the INFj.

Lol. Here is one definition of both subtypes. I do agree, it can make the process quite concrete. That's why I ordered some books.

Again, I'd always take these definitions with a grain of salt and look for the bigger idea, not the specifics. Although I'm usually quite pleased since socionics has been dead on with a lot of specific pieces of information.

EII subtypes - Wikisocion

 

[BlackCat]

Aw, I had the extroverted subtype thing wrong. ENFj definitely sounds like it for me (I can't relate to INFJs much or at all in MBTI... which explains this).

Let's continue this conversation via PM lemons... I want to know more and you obviously know a good bit.

 

["?"]

I also wanted to use this opportunity to publicly screw MBTI. Screw you MBTI!

I knew this was coming at some point. This is my problem with Socionics followers (which is the same for MBTI followers), move on and stop making some unrealistic comparison that one or the other system is better. They're two separate systems and we will never know if either is following Jung's original theory. Granted based on his theory, it appears that Socionics "gets it" when it comes to introverted types. However enthusiasts need to once and for all stop with the banter of being better than MBTI merely because they started out in Western culture using her four-letter codes. They have reverted to using the 3 letter codes so cut the strings already and become a system in your own right. In the end both have their flaws, but it sounds as though Socionics' is based more on the interpretations. I have suggested for years to Socionics followers stop wasting time on the comparisons and get the descriptions from Russia fully translated. I am ISTP in MBTI and LSI in Socionics. That is where the comparison ends.

 

[Poki]

I'm not an "INTP."

I didnt think I remembered you being INTP. Just havin a little fun.

Actually, this theory is based on a static view, though I know where you're coming from. I haven't mentioned one bit of subjective proceeding. I'm not into examining personal things right now, since this is a thread about Socionics. I'd also find it quite off base if I were to submit a personal example to define a theory. Its like saying statistics mean everything, no pun intended.

Being ISTP I dont really stick to a theory. I can see so many different personalities within me based on relations with others. Some bring out the extrovert, some bring out the J in me. The thing I noticed with socionics relations is it takes these into account. One thing I picked up on recently is double standards. We all have them and if someone elses double standard doesnt make sense they appear fake to you. I am still trying to figure out my double standard, I think mine has something to do with me being more J and stepping out there to make decisions based on what the other person would like. MBTI is actually a good static model based on functions, but it does have its limitations and the descriptions are to external based to be of to much use.

 

[nanook]

(wrote that with "?" in mind, but it's universal anyway)

but IF your are LSI in socioncs, then you are dichotomy tested ISTJ in mbti,
because mbti is NOT based on the theories of functions, but on the dichotomies which are the same as the socionic ones.

OR you are originally a dichotomy tested ISTP in which case you are SLI

mbti throws functions into the game as extra bonus after the typing procedure. they are meaningless to the mbti dichotomy test.

and these bonus function explanations for each type are not even coherent in them selves.

but once people have read them and identified with one of their liking, they will fake their test replies to get the result they want. so if you like Ti you will suddenly test as ISTP, when you have tested as ISTJ before. (and if not, you are a random exception)

so i used to test as INFJ (my very first result ever was INFP but after reading only one profile, i changed my mind for two years of being an mbti fan).

i have breathed in the mbti and took everything out of it and learned to understand all the functions i my mbti time. but i did not compare types. only when i compared all types, it became apparent, that i can not be the INFJ, because i am not like the Fi people, but the Fi people are like the ISTJ Directors, so Fi must be J, so i figured socionics is right.

but the dichotomies of the mbti are right on and identical to socionics and the systems are behaving compatible with those testees who have never heard about functions.

and so the function theory of the American mbti influenced sites is just plain nonsense.

at the beginning of a text about an introverted types functions, they word functions to sound as if they were talking about the same that socioncs talks about. and they have to do that, because whatever they say about these functions must appear as if it is compatible with the extroverted types who have the same functions.

but then after one or two paragraphs about the function of introverted types, the mbti texts make a funny logical switch, to make it look, as if (for example) this so-far correct wording of introverted thinking could possibly explain the behavior of this individualistic introverted perceiver, who drives motorcycle like snake blisskin and tests as ISTP

when in reality, this introverted thinking CAN ONLY BE the explanation for the authoritarian strength of the director archetype who will allays test as ISTJ or INTJ in the mbti. because its the only thing, that can explain the director.

if you would actually understand Ti, if you could evoke it as theory of mind, then you would see how it becomes the dominant director. and observing people will proof the theory of mind correct. more than that, you will see how this Ti of the ISTJ director lives inside of the ESTP creating a subset of his features. again, observations proves theory of mind to be correct.

anyone who believes that Ti could possibly explain the individualistic doer (istp) has only copied the definitions, but failed to evoke (understand) them and compare this evoked understanding with ALL types who have Ti and so on.

 

[nanook]

i don't want to sound absolutist. i might be wrong in my understanding of the functions and so my conclusions might be wrong.

but please understand the basic message of my argument:

you can not tell me, or other people who use a similar understanding, that mbti can not be "compared and measured" against socionics, as if they were somehow independent. since they do not relate coherently to each other (they are in part alike, but in part opposite), one of them must be wrong, because both claim to signify a single reality, but both portrait a different reality, but there is only one reality. so one of them MUST be wrong (portrait reality i a twisted way, half of it right, the other half nonsensical). one of the functions models must be twisted according to it's own definitions. i am not talking about the dichotomies.

you can believe that socioncs is all wrong, i am okay with that.

but don't make claims that are logically impossible.

[mbti-functions plus dichotomy as united bundle] AND socionics can not coexist peacefully, in a single mind. you can master both perspectives, but IF you master both, and i do, you MUST see, that they contradict each other fundamentally.

so this position is a logical MUST based on my understanding, which is a typical understanding.

you don't have to give me right, but you must acknowledge, that you can not POSSIBLY expect me, to sign the statement that
my understanding of socioncs "should not be compared and measured with" my understanding of mbti.
because this statement is impossible, according to the understanding that i have illustrated, for the sake of communication.

you CAN say, that in your understanding the systems can coexist independently, but you can NOT expect that people, with an understanding like mine, should agree. that is pure logic. hope you can follow me there.

 

[entropie]

(wrote that with "?" in mind, but it's universal anyway)

but IF your are LSI in socioncs, then you are dichotomy tested ISTJ in mbti,
because mbti is NOT based on the theories of functions, but on the dichotomies which are the same as the socionic ones.

I think the two systems are not compatible in the end, cause if we face the facts they are mabojumbo from the start. They are just a way of subjectively interpretating the world, which happens to be universally understandable.

I myself think socionics grasps human dynamics better than MBTI and the thought to bring a logical coherent connection between the two, I consider as a pointless effort.

 

[nanook]

They are just a way of subjectively interpretating the world, which happens to be universally understandable.

i would agree to that, when i am thinking in particular about the J/P dichotomy, which is a bad joke example of some "subjective universally understandable interpretation", as it sucks, and produces people to identify with one of the letter for completely random reasons (other than the attempt to fake a wanted result because of ideas about one's functions)

so if the dichotomy test is random, because it sucks, and socioncs tests are not random (but i dont know that) then there will never be a coherent connection possible, that makes sense to all testees. in fact, even if socionc results were random as well, they would be random as well.

so the basic truth is, that there is no reliable test, and therefore there are no coherent groups of sixteen Russian type testees, and sixteen American type testees, who could be controlled for consistency or compared in any way and set in any relation, per rule.

for the individual there are two choices:

rely ONLY on the dichotomy (which is statistically good but can go horribly wrong in individual cases), or rely ONLY on understanding of functions. (which starts out as chaotic confusion, but can be forced to match reality someday)

the only thing that matters, is that each individual has a coherent understanding of ANY typology, that he can apply to himself and consistently apply to everyone else.

 

[Snow Turtle]

I'll throw in an utterly pointless post to counter the previous one written by lemons.
Socionics sucks when attempting to figure out the individual.

 

[nanook]

Socionics sucks when attempting to figure out the individual.

figuring out the individual is the job of the individual.
socionics gives the same basic tools (functions) and more of them.
but taking them up into oneself is each one's responsibility.
i don't even understand how one can formulate, that socionics could be restricted to anything, like intra personal relations.
it's in the eye of the beholder to expand it for every need.
you can suck the whole puzzle out of a few bits of it, if you can do such things.
there is plenty inspiration in many blogs and sites.


i want to say, it does not get in the way of understanding the individual.

unlike mbti which is, in my view, contradicting it's own portrayals of the individual

 

[Snow Turtle]

figuring out the individual is the job of the individual.
socionics gives the same basic tools (functions) and more of them.

but taking them up into oneself is each one's responsibility.

i don't even understand how one can formulate, that socionics could be restricted to anything, like intrapersonal relations. it's in the eye of the beholder.

i want to say, it does not get in the way of understanding the individual.

From what I recalled: The problem with socionics was that individuals were attempting to figure themselves out via functions that were vague. This meant that individual would continously make mistakes regarding themselves, their understanding of the system and other people. It really is a theory that one has to understand in heavy depth before application of self-identification.

Tests aren't reliable in socionics making things all the more difficult. Then another person mentions how it's not possible to figure out yourself stand alone. You need another individual who knows what their socionics type is. The whole thing drove me a little barny... I've dropped socionics so many times over the last 2 years. x_x'

 

[nanook]

It really is a theory that one has to understand in heavy depth before application of self-identification.

i fully agree, and i doubt that a noticable number of people have what i takes to do that, therefore its not surprising that original Russian socionics is rooted in conservative elitism, where some guru is needed, who diagnoses people. in this form it's not really meant to be thrown into the Internet age, but thats true for most things in the internet

however time will create more and more online tests that work for noobs just like mbti tests ... but which are not based on dichotomies, but functions.

 

["?"]

(wrote that with "?" in mind, but it's universal anyway)

but IF your are LSI in socioncs, then you are dichotomy tested ISTJ in mbti,
because mbti is NOT based on the theories of functions, but on the dichotomies which are the same as the socionic ones. OR you are originally a dichotomy tested ISTP in which case you are SLI

SLI stands for Sensory Logic Introvert (or something like that). Nevertheless it equates to Si (introverted sensing)-Te (extraverted thinking). Basic understanding of functions will tell a reader you can only be talking about one type in MBTI (ISTJ) and Socionics (ISTp). On the other hand LSI stands for Logic Sensory Introvert (or again whatever terminology used in Socionics) which equates to Ti (introverted thinking)-Se (extraverted sensing). Again knowing basic function hierarchy a reader will know that in MBTI you can only be talking about ISTP, and in Socionics ISTj.

The four letter codes are different in Socionics which has no relevance to do with rudimentary dichotomies. For this reason a side-by-side comparison is futile. I am not SLI in Socionics because that implies I prefer Si-Te. I am Ti-Se plain and simple. I don’t need a test or to read a description of the type to know that. I can read the work of the person that both systems purport to have established their theories from to determine my preferences. Although a test and/or description may confirm my type, honest introspection and self-analysis does better. It seems like these little tit-for-tats on the two systems comes out every few years and sorry Nanook you are merely giving an encore of the same old song and dance that has been repeated for now since I have been studying type. You are not saying anything that previous enthusiasts of Socionics have attempted to convey.

There is nothing complicated about that system(s) if anyone takes the time to review and understand it based on basic principles. So let’s not start the shell games, they don’t work. BASIC TYPE 101 when it comes to cognitive functions: Ti-Se in Socionics is Ti-Se in MBTI. Whatever you choose to believe that I-S-T-P or I-S-T-j represents is meaningless since both MBTI and Socionics can only hook a reader into their way of thinking if the reader only learns by using basic dichotomies.