User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: Socionics? WTF?

  1. #31
    Luctor et emergo Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SLE Ti
    Posts
    534

    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. Only thing Socionics does "wrong" in my eyes is the ridiculous VI assertions.

    The two systems are not meant to be fused. Trying to do so will only lead to confusion.
    +1

  2. #32

    Default

    Well socionics can seem more accurate for me in some of the tests I've taken but it could be, as a result, more about me at work or my vocation than me my self. Not decided yet.

    They all have their strength and I tend to think that personality theory is like a lot of other things, comparative theorising is good, the comparisons and even the whole thing should be about self-reflection and awareness and how you use it anyhow.

    At least that's my thinking and I tend to think that Jung thought the same way when he suggested that ancient religions should be examined anew with insights from psychology.

  3. #33
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    ^ good point
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #34
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Yeah, I know what you are saying SimulatedWorld. But when you get right down to it, both systems use the same functions and have 16 types. It's true that they are both thusly inspired by Jung in it's basic architecture (i.e. the functions even though they may mean slightly different things in each system), but Socionics seems to take a completely different approach by analyzing relationships. Yes, you can say they both focus on behavior, but MBTI seems to put too much focus on how the individual views them-self. And although that's also an important part of understanding yourself, it's a lot more subjective. Socionics looks at it in terms of how a person relates to other people and categorizes based on your relationship strengths and weaknesses with other types; it attempts to categorize more on concrete relations with other people. Maybe the basic principle to analyze relationships doesn't sound objective, but I believe it becomes a lot more complex to understand yourself when greatly introverted and using a system that focuses more on the self. And I'm not too keen on the J and P differences between the systems. It's the behavior descriptions between types in socionics that I find most intriguing and improving over MBTI.

    And it's fine if you think I'm totally wrong on this. I'm not going to pretend I understand everything completely and correctly about both systems like most people seem to do. Let me know what you think I'm being stupid about and I'll clarify and go from there.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    But you see, the Socionics system claims to do the exact same thing using the same methods, but with a disorderly orientation analysis and frivolous archetypes. The introverted archetypes have an ass-backwards J-P divide because the function orientations are are inconsistent, but then we label the functions with shapes (somehow this clarifies things? Yeah, I just happen to have a fucking geometry function of my keyboard.
    Bump (LOL).
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  6. #36
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    I don't think it's a good point.

    If you read Myers' book, she says herself in the introduction that she departs from Jung about Ji doms and suggested to not go by it. She suggested that Ji, being introverted, is cloistered, and that the main thing you'd notice how Introverted Judgers interacted with the world was their auxiliary, the Perceiving function. In essense, she transformed a Jungian rational/J type into a Perceiver. Additionally, she did the same with Introverted Perceivers - that their first point of contact was Extraverted Judgement. Making them the rational/J types.

    This is nothing like Jungian Ji and Pi. His Pi types are the more fluid, perceiver/Irrationals. Socionics doesn't tamper with this, like Myers did.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I don't think it's a good point.

    If you read Myers' book, she says herself in the introduction that she departs from Jung about Ji doms and suggested to not go by it. She suggested that Ji, being introverted, is cloistered, and that the main thing you'd notice how Introverted Judgers interacted with the world was their auxiliary, the Perceiving function. In essense, she transformed a Jungian rational/J type into a Perceiver. Additionally, she did the same with Introverted Perceivers - that their first point of contact was Extraverted Judgement. Making them the rational/J types.

    This is nothing like Jungian Ji and Pi. His Pi types are the more fluid, perceiver/Irrationals. Socionics doesn't tamper with this, like Myers did.
    I know. On the other hand, I still think his point is funny, even if wrong. And he's right about the geometrical symbols. I sympathize with his being turned off by it.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  8. #38
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    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.
    Wow. Just wow.

    I don't believe that ISFJs are tasteless individuals, i.e., people with poor aesthetic sense. But I do agree with this: "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." (I somehow get the impression that nanook is an INTJ because of he is completely closed-minded on the subject, like my Mormon INTJ friend is closed-minded about his religion.)

    The ISFP/ESFP distinction can be summed up quite nicely: intensity versus superficiality in experience. Overall I think his post was well done (not rare, medium, etc.).
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  9. #39
    All Natural! All Good!
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    886

    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. Only thing Socionics does "wrong" in my eyes is the ridiculous VI assertions.

    The two systems are not meant to be fused. Trying to do so will only lead to confusion.
    Agreed


    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I don't think it's a good point.

    If you read Myers' book, she says herself in the introduction that she departs from Jung about Ji doms and suggested to not go by it. She suggested that Ji, being introverted, is cloistered, and that the main thing you'd notice how Introverted Judgers interacted with the world was their auxiliary, the Perceiving function. In essense, she transformed a Jungian rational/J type into a Perceiver. Additionally, she did the same with Introverted Perceivers - that their first point of contact was Extraverted Judgement. Making them the rational/J types.

    This is nothing like Jungian Ji and Pi. His Pi types are the more fluid, perceiver/Irrationals. Socionics doesn't tamper with this, like Myers did.
    Except I think Jung had it right, so I think Myers fucked with it in a bad way. Socionics has fucked with it in a good way.
    Strychnine is all-natural,
    So strychnine is all good.
    It's Godly and righteous,
    So eat it, you should.
    Who are you to refuse nature's will?


    Don't use the multiquote; it was planted by the devil to deceive us.

    Social Role: Asscrack/Piece of Shit/Public Defecator/Spiteful Urinator


    A different type everyday - so no need to type me anymore. But feel free to enjoy the sound of your own asscrack.
    Likes Kheledon liked this post

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