User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: Socionics? WTF?

  1. #11
    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 JocktheMotie View Post
    It also seems a little closer to Jung's original work than MBTI adheres to.
    I would love to see some citations from Jung to support this claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    Funny you say that, as I'd argue Socionics is a tad more complete system and does better in describing inter-type relationships than MBTI, which MBTI doesn't even attempt to do.
    MBTI doesn't do that because there aren't any consistent enough patterns regarding interaction between different types to establish any sort of model for it. Go through your relationships with everyone you know (and their relationships to each other, if you want) and see how often the type relations models actually hold up.


    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    Instead of NT, NF, SP, and SJ you have Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta "quadras" that separate you into similar interaction styles rather than just functional similarities, and do a great job of describing how conversation and interaction goes across the different groups.
    The NT/NF/SP/SJ temperaments are not part of MBTI; they're purely Keirsey's invention. MBTI itself doesn't even have a temperament system.

    I can agree that the idea of quadrants based on which four functional orientations are preferred is a good way of looking at type relationships, but the same principle works just as well from an MBTI standpoint.

    Group 1: NTPs & SFJs (Si, Ne, Ti, Fe)
    Group 2: STPs & NFJs (Se, Ni, Ti, Fe)
    Group 3: SFPs & NTJs (Se, Ni, Te, Fi)
    Group 4: NFPs & STJs (Si, Ne, Te, Fi)
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #12
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I would love to see some citations from Jung to support this claim.
    You're right, I shouldn't have said that. Socionics works best when fully divorced from any typology system, including Jung's, and the functional definitions are different enough to make the connection weak at best.

    I will say that most Socionics information I've read did stress a more philisophical and psychological approach to typing than MBTI systems do [aside from the horrid VI typing] which may contribute to me finding Socionics closer in style, approach, and language to Jung than MBTI, but that might have to do with how much more popular MBTI is than Socionics in the US, and some core concepts being watered down.

    BlackCat actually says it's farther away than MBTI is too, and he knows far more about it than I do, so I guess I have to shove my foot in my mouth for that one.


    MBTI doesn't do that because there aren't any consistent enough patterns regarding interaction between different types to establish any sort of model for it. Go through your relationships with everyone you know (and their relationships to each other, if you want) and see how often the type relations models actually hold up.
    This actually does hold up for me, so in my limited experience the intertype relations are quite accurate. But, like MBTI, they're not perfect. There definitely is enough variation within types to make these fuzzy at times so I can see if this is why MBTI avoids them.



  3. #13
    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 Little_Sticks View Post
    Mr. Tater, I was once as confused as you about it, but I promise if you give it a chance that you will find your type faster and easier in socionics than in MBTI. It's strange, but what Jock says is true. It basically takes the core of MBTI and expands it, but more from a behavioral position. It uses all of the eight functions and attempts to explain how each of them affect a given type. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty robust theory for understanding where you fall and what your weaknesses are.
    Most modern theories in this vein offer 8-function models too, and they actually stay true to the Jungian functional definitions instead of making up new ones and inexplicably using the same Jungian names for them. 8-function models are not at all unique to Socionics.

    Also, as Socionics advocates constantly remind everyone, Socionics is not an expansion of the core of MBTI because it developed independently from MBTI.

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    And Although the theory does use the same 16 type arrangement of MBTI, their perceiving and judging analysis is entirely different, making it a completely different system, one that really has no correlation between the MBTI types. MBTI is less about behavior and relies on more questionable assessments such as ethics, emotion, and sensitivity than about how you inherently interact and show yourself to the world. But I'm also no expert so I'm not going to say anymore than what I have found about it myself. And yes, the VI is quite sketchy; most socionics experts seem to willingly admit this ;P
    That's entirely incorrect. MBTI is all about concrete, observable behavioral tendencies. Functional theory is the one that assesses internal motivations for those behaviors along the lines of ethics, emotion, sensitivity, etc.

    MBTI concerns itself with observing and categorizing surface behaviors, not the psychological motivations for them.

    Also, the Perceiving/Judging qualities of Socionics are hardly different from MBTI at all. The only difference is that in Socionics, P/J refers to the dominant function, and in MBTI it refers to the strongest extroverted function. That's really not a significant difference at all.

    Yes, Socionics defines the functions somewhat differently, but it doesn't really accomplish anything special that you can't do with Jungian analysis alone. I can't help feeling like most of the people claiming that Socionics is some fantastic new invention are the same people who watch Hollywood movies with the same old plots that have been repeated hundreds of times and insist that they're totally original because the characters have different names.

    The only thing different about Socionics is the redistricting of some functional attributes, and the P/J denotion of which function is dominant rather than which is extroverted. Read the Socionics type descriptions--the archetypes they describe align almost perfectly with MBTI's archetypes. Ignore the way they're labeled and you're talking about essentially the exact same 16 categories.

    What is so special about this system that you can't get from Jung and other more modern typology authors?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #14
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    we are not describing the same things with different nomenclatures. we are explaining the same things (people) who go by the same names with different theories. in my mind it is most easy to see in the case of ISFp, especially since i am neither ISFp nor ISFj, so i am not biased by identification in the matter. it is obvious that ISFp and ISFP are the same people, the same archetypes. they are the artists and individualists who hang out in less affaire groups, unless they are alone, whereas ISFj and ISFJ are the good society people who do earnest work and stay in organized private circles like family or one time "going out" events. now socionics understands that the artistic quality, the very individualistic taste and the smart sensitivity of the ISFP can only be explained by Introverted Perception and that his private histrionic exhibitionist behavior, which is seeking for approval which is alternating with consideration and social anxiety in more alien situations, can only be explained by extroverted feeling. but the mainstream world of mbti believers is so fucking incompetent (or just inexperienced and mislead, as i used to be) to believe, that ISFP have the same functions that ESFP have, even though ESFP are tasteless sensation seekers, going for quantity and intensity, because their perception is extroverted not introverted, and they are private and demanding and possessive and fearless (i know what i want and i have the right to want), possibly alternating with depression rather than fear, underneath their sensory persona, like ISFj people, because their feelings are introverted. then you have some, very few, people who use introverted feeling and fake their test results and who are silly enough to believe that they are ISFP, even though they are not individualistic and they are fairly tasteless and they are possessive and stubborn and have weak perception, because they are truly ISFJ, orderly duty-full people of society. and the truth is, that mbti is not based on function analysis, so the function theory of the mbti is a complete myth and lie that is unrelated to mbti and it is plain wrong. and mbti is testing for dichotomies, producing the same results that socionics produces, for the majority of people who are unbiased, who are not influences by the insanity of mbti message boards and some custom internet tests from anonymous mad scientists.

    related thread
    this should be stickied!
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  5. #15
    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 FDG View Post
    this should be stickied!
    Ugh, don't encourage him.

    1) ESFP and ISFP do have the same functions. The ISFP's "private histrionic exhibitionist behavior" is driven by Se, not Fe. Se leads us to make an immediate sensory impact on others and set ourselves apart in ways that reflect the cutting edge of current popular culture. This is obviously what ISFPs are doing when in extroverted mode. They are not using Fe; Fe is not even remotely about histrionic exhibitionism; it's about identifying with others through the generalized standards of behavior that form social and cultural expectations to build networks of interpersonal responsibility. It is not about impulsively showing off and doing whatever you can to draw attention to yourself. That is clearly the domain of Se.

    2) The "individualistic taste and smart sensitivity of the ISFP" is easily and obviously explained by Fi+Se, and has nothing to do with introverted perception (except when occasionally bolstered by tertiary Ni.) Sensitivity is clearly associated with Fi (not Si), and the strong desire for freedom of individualistic expression is, again, classic Fi. Combine this with the ISFP's Se-oriented awareness of what makes the most powerful immediate impact on others--hence your descriptions of exhibitionist behavior--and it's obvious how similar ISFP and ESFP are.

    What on earth makes you think exhibitionism results from Fe? It's clearly and obviously an Se thing!

    I doubt very seriously that nanook will bother answering this, but--why is the ISFP's taste and sensitivity only explained by introverted perception? For that matter, what does it even have to do with introverted perception in the first place?

    Citations from non-Socionics sources would be great.

    (Oh wait, I forgot...everything you're writing about function theory is based on arbitrary Socionics distortions of Jung's functions.)
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #16
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Ugh, don't encourage him.
    No, you should listen to him, because he's totally right and knows what he's talking about. There isn't much to add, any further weird rationalization is just...kind of nonsensical.

    Citations? Lol, we're not writing an academic paper...
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  7. #17
    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 FDG View Post
    No, you should listen to him, because he's totally right and knows what he's talking about. There isn't much to add, any further weird rationalization is just...kind of nonsensical.

    Citations? Lol, we're not writing an academic paper...
    Can you substantiate any of this? His whole premise is based on Socionics' non-Jungian function definitions. He's declaring every other system wrong based on function definitions that only exist in Socionics.

    Could you provide any kind of reference whatsoever (outside of Socionics literature) to suggest that his functional definitions are correct?

    Because they sure don't jive with the Jungian definitions.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #18
    Supreme High Commander Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Socionics uses the same function names, but rearranges their definitions...
    MBTI and socionics remind me of the heliocentric and ptolemaic modles of the universe. The idea that the planets rotate round the earth had been in place for a long time, and a lot of work had gone into it. So much so in fact, that when the heliocentric model came out (with circular, rather than elipsical orbits) the ptolemaic model actually gave better predictions, despite tha fact that it was further removed from reality than the heliocentric idea. It wasn't until they made that small switch to eliptical orbits that it became superior.

    There has been so much more work on socionics then MBTI that it often throws up ideas, like the quadrants, that it is currently superior... but put most of my concentration in to MBTI. The differences in funbctions descriptions leads me to think it is fundamentally closer to reality... I just need to work out which of those circles need to be elipses!

  9. #19
    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 Andy View Post
    MBTI and socionics remind me of the heliocentric and ptolemaic modles of the universe. The idea that the planets rotate round the earth had been in place for a long time, and a lot of work had gone into it. So much so in fact, that when the heliocentric model came out (with circular, rather than elipsical orbits) the ptolemaic model actually gave better predictions, despite tha fact that it was further removed from reality than the heliocentric idea. It wasn't until they made that small switch to eliptical orbits that it became superior.

    There has been so much more work on socionics then MBTI that it often throws up ideas, like the quadrants, that it is currently superior... but put most of my concentration in to MBTI. The differences in funbctions descriptions leads me to think it is fundamentally closer to reality... I just need to work out which of those circles need to be elipses!
    I'm not arguing for MBTI. I'm arguing for a Jungian interpretation as described by most modern authors on the topic. See Berens, Beebe, Thomson, Grant, etc. Myers believed that the tertiary function was opposite in orientation to the dominant. That is clearly not the popularly held belief on this forum.

    This is Neo-Jungian typology, not MBTI. Not many people here actually use MBTI! Socionics distorts all of Jung's definitions and is riddled with nonsensical claims (like the VI typing, wtf?) that have no support beyond the fact that Socionics advocates insist that they're superior.

    Your metaphor would work great if Jung's theory weren't blatantly superior to Socionics...unfortunately it is.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #20
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    simW, I kind of think you're smart enough to get what nanook is saying so...I don't think I need to substantiate anything, it's all written in his post. If you want to change your mind for good, do it, otherwise, it doesn't matter.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

Similar Threads

  1. Socionics
    By Ezra in forum Socionics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-18-2007, 11:26 AM
  2. MBTI vs Socionics
    By Urchin in forum Socionics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 07:19 PM
  3. 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