User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 39

Thread: Socionics? WTF?

  1. #1
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Thumbs down Socionics? WTF?

    When I first arrived at this website, I noticed an alternate personality matrix - Socionics. Something about unnerved me to no end, as the descriptions for the archetypes were less than palatable, brimming with double-standards and irrelevancies that just screamed "We want you to experience the Forer effect. Happy fucking birthday, sunshine".

    Now, MBTI becomes more questionable the more you process it, but Socionics is just blatantly stupid and inferior as observed. Why are we even using it?

    At least when you look at the MBTI matrix, everything is neat, formatted, and comprehensive. At least as a theory, it stands to reason because of its structure (be it by flimsy reasoning or not).

    P / J Divide
    IST - Ti-Se-Ni-Fe / Si-Te-Fi-Ne
    ISF - Fi-Se-Ni-Te / Si-Fe-Ti-Ne
    INT - Ti-Ne-Si-Fe / Ni-Te-Fi-Se
    INF - Fi-Ne-Si-Te / Ni-Fe-Ti-Se
    EST - Se-Ti-Fe-Ni / Te-Si-Ne-Fi
    ESF - Se-Fi-Te-Ni / Fe-Si-Ne-Ti
    ENT - Ne-Ti-Fe-Si / Te-Ni-Se-Fi
    ENF - Ne-Fi-Te-Si / Fe-Ni-Se-Ti

    The archetypal descriptions found in various sights superficially describe behavior patterns found in people of the archetypes, while the functions expound upon a detailed analysis of why they so. The functions then analyze the cognitive "orientations" of the archetype, describing the aftermath of the brain and its various processes.

    The archetypal descriptions pertain to personality, while the functions are more pertinent to psychology.

    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. It's gratuitously trying to be separate from MBTI). Why are we attempting to describe the same things with different nomenclatures? It's illogical. It's like we're trying to describe gravity by scientific means, but then on the side we say that it's also caused by invisible space worms or telekinetic pig people or some alternate shit.

    Now, Enneagram is only excused because it illustrates various unique behaviors at an even more detailed level, so it can be used as a facet of MBTI. (Though, I think its utility is marginal, only revealing itself when we integrate it with typology). However, when we attempt to fuse MBTI with Socionics, it's like we're trying to fuse Western Religion with Eastern Religion, or contemporary medicine with voodoo. They both claim to do the same, founded on the same premise of understanding, but they establish different outputs. We either need one or the other, and I would go with MBTI only because it is less vapid, more straightforward and more organized, though its premises are still highly questionable... as Victor chimes, there has never had a double-blind test.

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

    Default

    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.



  3. #3
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Under Socionics, all rational types--introverted and extroverted--lead with a rational function, and all irrational types lead with an irrational function. Under MBTI, a judging/perceiving type is characterized by which tendency type extroverts. So, they're both consistent, but they have different 'rules'. Socionics is only 'ass-backwards' because you're used to how MBTI characterizes things.

    Four-letter notation is highly discouraged under Socionics because it leads to confusion, and the only reason it exists is to serve as a bridge to help MBTI users understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    Only thing Socionics does "wrong" in my eyes is the ridiculous VI assertions.
    A couple more things, in my eyes:
    • Socionicists are trying to come up with a thorough, workable theory for subtypes when the main type theory hasn't even been rigorously tested
    • Under Socionics, you are a huge baby incapable of surviving in this world without your dual


    The two systems are not meant to be fused. Trying to do so will only lead to confusion.
    Oh, God, yeah. Socionics Demystified seemingly uses MBTI definitions for its functions--especially noticeable in Si and Se--and these bleed all over into the type descriptions. For example, it describes Socionics Si as "anchoring one's self internally to what is known in a reality that is inherently irrational or chaotic." And then the type descriptions involving Si are bent and almost broken in an attempt to match that definition. The book is terrible for other reasons, but that in particular is just.. ughh!

  4. #4
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,595

    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.
    Can you explain your position as to why it is better? Or perhaps a couple of books or links that you found to have better information.

    I never investigated Socionics in depth beyond online reading, but the use of body shapes to type people seemed about as enlightened as phrenology.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

  5. #5
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    Can you explain your position as to why it is better? Or perhaps a couple of books or links that you found to have better information.

    I never investigated Socionics in depth beyond online reading, but the use of body shapes to type people seemed about as enlightened as phrenology.
    Yeah the body typing [VI] is pretty silly, but wikisocion.org was good until their server died and took 3 years of data with it, so it's pretty incomplete, but still the best online source I've found.

    BlackCat or whatever the hell Lemons is calling himself now is probably far better at giving you a good breakdown of primary differences, but I do like how it incorporates all 8 cognitive functions within a type's psychology, and I also like how the intertype relations work. 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.

    It also seems a little closer to Jung's original work than MBTI adheres to.



  6. #6
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    Why are we attempting to describe the same things with different nomenclatures?
    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

  7. #7
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tater Typhoon View Post
    Now, MBTI becomes more questionable the more you process it, but Socionics is just blatantly stupid and inferior as observed. Why are we even using it?
    It only looks that way if you use MBTI standards to attempt to understand it, they are not the same systems and you will not be able to understand it until you treat it as a different system. Learn about it, or not, but a good rule of thumb is to not judge something you don't understand as 'blatantly stupid and inferior'.

  8. #8
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,004

    Default

    Your post doesn't make sense tater. You don't really know much about socionics. The function descriptions are tweaked a bit at their core, thus making the types fit within them in their theory (like INFp leading with Ni and having 2ndary Fe, etc). How is socionics stupid? You're just using MBTI's standards to judge socionics, which is ridiculous.

    Most people who dismiss socionics are just MBTI enthusiasts who don't understand the theory and how it works. They dismiss it without first trying to understand how it works, with a simple "it's bullshit, MBTI says this" even though they are two different systems. Or they compare it to Jung, and socionics is more distant from Jung than MBTI is. It's not as based on Jung's definitions based on from what I've read, so it would be a fallacy to compare it to that too.

    Besides, why do we reference Jung? In his theory, the tertiary is opposite in orientation to the dominant. Meaning, for example, INFJ's function order is Ni Fe Te Se, ENTJ's is Te Ni Si Fi, etc. The way he lays it out is totally different too, yet some people follow him religiously in their study of MBTI. It doesn't make sense.

    I'm going to also agree with everything Jock has said. I think that it's more complete and I personally really enjoy how the system is generally laid out. When you understand the core of the relationships it's applicable and makes sense.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  9. #9
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Socionics uses the same function names, but rearranges their definitions.

    It is different, but only because the functions are altered from their original Jungian definitions. If ISFP and ISFp are the same archetype, but ISFP is Fi+Se and ISFp is Si+Fe, then obviously Fi, Se, Si and Fe mean different things in each system.

    Socionics advocates are constantly foaming at the mouth about the vast superiority of their system, but despite altering the function definitions and redistricting some traits into other groups, it's still not really doing anything novel. It's still just 16 personality archetypes grouped into four-letter distinctions.

    Personally, I find it kind of bizarre that Socionics uses Jung's function terms while completely ignoring his definitions of them. You'll find that their idea of Ne incorporates a number of Si traits, that their Se apparently doesn't do anything except territorial pissing, and that their Si is just a collection of the traits removed from the Se definition and needlessly shuffled into their own category.

    You'll also find a number of body language-oriented perceptions listed erroneously under Fe, awareness of collective behavioral and moral standards erroneously listed under Fi, and various other bizarre categorizations.

    Other than that, of course, is the most ridiculous aspect of Socionics--the absolute garbage about reading types based on facial/bodily structure. If that's not enough to convince you the entire system is a joke, then you may be lost forever.

    If Socionics wants to stand on its own as an entirely separate personality theory, then that's fine, but they should drop the pretense of being based on Jung's theories. A quick read through his functional definitions in Psychological Types will reveal how out of sync the Socionics functions are with his ideas.


    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    Your post doesn't make sense tater. You don't really know much about socionics. The function descriptions are tweaked a bit at their core, thus making the types fit within them in their theory (like INFp leading with Ni and having 2ndary Fe, etc). How is socionics stupid? You're just using MBTI's standards to judge socionics, which is ridiculous.

    Most people who dismiss socionics are just MBTI enthusiasts who don't understand the theory and how it works. They dismiss it without first trying to understand how it works, with a simple "it's bullshit, MBTI says this" even though they are two different systems. Or they compare it to Jung, and socionics is more distant from Jung than MBTI is. It's not as based on Jung's definitions based on from what I've read, so it would be a fallacy to compare it to that too.
    Then why does it purport to be based on Jungian psychology? It's not. It just borrows Jung's terms and then changes the definitions of most of them, which makes things awfully confusing. I wouldn't really care to critique Socionics if it didn't falsely claim to align with Jung's function definitions.

    Look at Nanook's post up there, ranting about how the ISFP's sense of aesthetics can "clearly be explained only by introverted perception." Sure, whatever. That's not a very meaningful distinction when you've already thrown out Jung's definition of what "introverted perception" actually is and just made up your own definition for it. I could make up my own system where INTJs are dominant in extroverted feeling, but it'd be kind of silly of me to use the same terms as Jung, but make up my own definitions for them and then complain when people don't understand what I'm talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    Besides, why do we reference Jung? In his theory, the tertiary is opposite in orientation to the dominant. Meaning, for example, INFJ's function order is Ni Fe Te Se, ENTJ's is Te Ni Si Fi, etc. The way he lays it out is totally different too, yet some people follow him religiously in their study of MBTI. It doesn't make sense.
    Because his function classifications make a lot more sense and apply in practice far better than the made up Socionics ones that pretend to be based on Jung (but aren't really.)

    We reference Jung not because we arbitrarily find MBTI superior (you've heard my numerous criticisms of MBTI and type testing in general), but because as students of Jung we consider his insights into the inner working of personality to be an excellent basis for the study of personality typology. Socionics doesn't really bring anything new to the table besides chopped up and rearranged functional definitions which most students of Jung find inferior and far less applicable to reality.

    And by the way, there's debate among Jungian scholars as to whether he intended to say that the tertiary function is opposite the dominant in orientation:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    Myers interpreted Jung as saying that the auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions are always in the opposite attitude of the dominant. In support of Myers' (and/or Briggs') interpretation, in one sentence Jung seems to state that the three inferior functions of an (extreme) extravert are introverted. The "most differentiated function is always employed in an extraverted way, whereas the inferior functions are introverted" (Jung, [1921] 1971:par. 575).

    Many, however, have found Jung's writing to be ambiguous, and those who study and follow Jung's theories (Jungians) are typically adamant that Myers is incorrect. Jungians interpret Jung as explicitly stating that the tertiary function is actually in the same attitude as the dominant, providing balance. More recently, typologists such as John Beebe and Linda Berens have introduced theoretical systems in which all people possess eight functions -- equivalent to the four functions as defined by Jung and Myers but in each of the two possible attitudes -- with the four in the opposite attitude to that measured known as the "shadow functions," residing largely in the unconscious.
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    I'm going to also agree with everything Jock has said. I think that it's more complete and I personally really enjoy how the system is generally laid out. When you understand the core of the relationships it's applicable and makes sense.
    I'm sure it has some sort of use, but it should probably pick its own functional terms instead of borrowing Jung's and changing the meanings. That's where most of the confusion is coming from. (It should also immediately drop the ridiculous nonsense about facial/body structure being an effective way to read type!)

    The inter-type relations (duality, etc.) are kind of silly, too. They occasionally describe relationships accurately but not with enough frequency to garner any particular use from them.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?
    Likes Hypernova liked this post

  10. #10
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    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.

    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

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