User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Socionics? WTF?

  1. #21
    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
    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.
    My appologies for the confusion, I was doing the typical INTJ thing of not bothering to be specific enough for other peoples needs when I myself knew what I was talking about! When I said MBTI, I was really talking about "those theories most firmly decended from the ideas of Jung", including all of Beebe and co. I guess I was using the term MBTI in the loose sense it often gets used/abused in.

    Anyway, what I was fundamentally trying to say was that I agree if you that socionics isn't as good as it is made out to be!

  2. #22
    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
    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.
    Yes, I do understand what he's saying, and it's my contention that he's largely incorrect. I didn't say anything about not understanding what he meant. I said his argument is based on arbitrary redefinition of the functions + insistence that the Jungian definitions are "wrong" based solely on the standards of the newly invented definitions.

    It's like taking political theory and saying, "No way, all the people who want less economic regulation are liberals, not conservatives! Everyone who calls them conservatives is WRONG!" Why? Because you'd rather arbitrarily assign the term "liberal" to that belief system? That's what nanook and Socionics are doing. They're just arguing that Jung's definitions are "wrong" because...they've made up their own definitions for the same ideas. They've just rearranged the definitions of functions and declared themselves right, citing their own definitions as proof of their correctness. It's circular logic, get it?

    So of course it seems like the ISFP must be using Si+Fe...when you've arbitrarily decided to change the meanings of those terms to suit whatever you want. Problem is, that renders your distinctions meaningless because you're using your own definition as proof of its correctness! All I seem to hear time and time again is, "Socionics is better because it follows Socionics functional definitions more closely." Well, of course it does, but that's not really the point, is it?

    If you care to refute this position, I'm all ears.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #23
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    MBTI concerns itself with observing and categorizing surface behaviors...

    Never imply that all people of a certain type behave in the same way;

    type should not encourage stereotyping or be used to put people in rigid categories.


    MBTI is about preferences. That's it.
    If I prefer vanilla ice cream, it doesn't mean I behave in a particular way because of that preference.

    Source:
    Ethical Guidelines for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Instrument
    MBTI


    Edit: If you still don't get the basics and are too lazy to do research, here's more for you:
    • True personality type is hidden
    • Jung's theory of types is not based on observable traits or behavior.
    • A person's "Type" may be something we can infer from traits and behaviors, yet we cannot directly observe it.


    Source:
    Myers-Briggs Personality Types Development Dynamics: Myers, Briggs & Carl Jung

  4. #24
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default


  5. #25
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    As far as I can tell, Socionics and MBTI are pretty much describing the same thing - one is just far more complex and stylistically detached in its writings and construction, giving the illusion of being more accurate. If you connect enough dots, it's fairly easy to see how little the types differ between the two systems.
    Hello

  6. #26

  7. #27
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    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.
    Relationship Pairs: Definitions
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  8. #28
    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 VagrantFarce View Post
    As far as I can tell, Socionics and MBTI are pretty much describing the same thing - one is just far more complex and stylistically detached in its writings and construction, giving the illusion of being more accurate. If you connect enough dots, it's fairly easy to see how little the types differ between the two systems.
    +a billion

    Why does nobody see this?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #29
    Senior Member The Outsider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    2,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tater Typhoon View Post
    She's totally asking for it.

  10. #30
    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 nanook View Post
    never mind the territory, just study the maps. rofl. irony!
    Can you explain why your map is a more accurate representation of the territory?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

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