User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 47

  1. #11
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7
    Posts
    2,319

    Default

    I haven't read very much on the more in depth books on mbti. I'd like to.

    I think I read berens about the differences between Ti and Te. And those more or less equated to the same understanding I have of socionics Te and Ti.

    I'm fairly certain the systems are the same. If you take 2 people and observe humans over a long period of time to develope a typology system, how different will they really be?

  2. #12
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sulfit View Post
    They don't account for the synergy of functions. Basically, all functions are working together in concert, and their combinations produce higher order effects that follow the principle of strong emergence i.e. these effects can no longer be decomposed into their singular functional components. This is what MBTI and most of the MBTI researchers fail to take into account, while in socionics they at least attempt to cover it somehow. This is what things like Reinin dichotomies and thinking styles are all about.

    Thus if you stick with MBTI, continue studying separate functional components whilst ignoring dichotomies, and don't realize that "mixin'-n'-matching" of functions results in more evolved cognitive effects, then you only have the most basic view and understanding of jungian theories. Not that socionics covers it all, but in this sense they are way ahead of MBTI.
    This is a more "MBTI-focused" forum, and, frankly, we do this shit all the time.

    I'm not saying Socionics doesn't do this, but, honestly, I haven't seen anything they've produced that was so mind-startlingly brilliant that I had to put down everything I was doing and read all the rest of their material because it was so obviously saturated with truth that it would be a huge mistake for me to do anything but. That's how I get when shit is absurdly accurate and insightful. When I read most Socionics stuff, I think it's turgid, written in broken English, and unnecessarily convoluted to the extent that it just starts seeming ridiculous. I'm open to the possibility that I'm seeing it incorrectly; it just has yet to pass the sniff test (and I've tried many times).

  3. #13
    Senior Member sulfit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/so
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    This is a more "MBTI-focused" forum, and, frankly, we do this shit all the time.
    Yes, I understand that this is mostly an MBTI-focused forum. I've been a member here for several years. This fact has not escaped me. And no, I haven't seen much equivalent done on MBTI forums that would entail seriously investigating the synergistic combinations of functions.

    I'm not saying Socionics doesn't do this, but, honestly, I haven't seen anything they've produced that was so mind-startlingly brilliant that I had to put down everything I was doing and read all the rest of their material because it was so obviously saturated with truth that it would be a huge mistake for me to do anything but. That's how I get when shit is absurdly accurate and insightful. When I read most Socionics stuff, I think it's turgid, written in broken English, and unnecessarily convoluted to the extent that it just starts seeming ridiculous. I'm open to the possibility that I'm seeing it incorrectly; it just has yet to pass the sniff test (and I've tried many times).
    People say it can be a useful addition to MBTI. MBTI frankly seems too bare-bones and simplistic. This simplicity bores me, which is why I've decided to take up socionics, so to each his own. I've always liked solving puzzles and various other kinds of mental challenges, and socionics presents a worthy puzzle to be solved.

  4. #14
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,657

    Default

    Ive personally found socionics so far to be a valuable addition to mbti myself. It explains parts of me that MBTI hasn't, and vice versa.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  5. #15
    FRACTALICIOUS phobik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,370

    Default

    I personally believe, that typology models, such as the socionics, ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly.
    To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
    ~ Elbert Hubbard

    Music provides one of the clearest examples of a much deeper relation between mathematics and human experience.

  6. #16
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    I prefer MBTI to Socionics simply because Socionics is a needlessly inelegant system. It's like someone took a look at MBTI's admitted failings, and was like "WE SHALL FIX ALL THE THINGS!!!!!!1111" And what they got instead was a clusterfuck.

    I wish it were a bit more accessible. I presently rely on a combination of MBTI and enneagram. I have definitely been tempted by the intertype relations business, though, but I get a couple minute into it and I see one multi-colored shape too many and that's pretty much all she wrote.

    Socionics to me is a house that Ne built. Taking just a cursory glance at the thread, it's not surprising that peoples' preference for or objections against the system seem to coincide with their preference for Ne or Ni.

    Quote Originally Posted by phobik View Post
    I personally believe, that typology models, such as the socionics, ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly.
    This is exactly the kind of shenanigans I'm talking about.
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

  7. #17
    #KUWK Kierva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    2,494

    Default

    Socionics is a glorified MBTI system with more detail. It includes groups that which the type belong to, as well their respective attitudes (i.e. merry/serious) and also function subtypes (i.e. SLE-Ti). There's many more that I haven't listed here, but if you do want to find out more I suggest you go to socionics.us. There's lots of beginner friendly stuff on that site.

    Personally, while I think each system has its merits, I prefer socionics. I'll quote @sulfit as to why:

    synergy of functions
    C#2-C#5-F#5
    3 octaves, 2 notes and 1 semitone
    Supported range: F#2-F#4-C#5

  8. #18
    Honor Thy Inferior Such Irony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INtp
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    5,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sulfit View Post
    In my research into socionics I've found this to be largely untrue.

    Socionics goes further than MBTI into explaining the different thinking styles of different types. One such work is an article by Victor Gulenko Form of Cognition, which lays the foundation for rings of supervision analyzing their existence from the point of view of cognition of different types.
    Interesting article with lots to digest. I can see all four of the styles in myself to some extent. I think I relate to holographical-panoramic and dialetical-algorithmic the most. Holographic is consistent with INTj (LII) and dialectical algorithmic is consistent with INTp (ILI), both types I've considered for myself.
    INtp
    5w6 or 9w1 sp/so/sx, I think
    Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff
    Neutral Good
    LII-Ne




  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    spso
    Posts
    130

    Default

    I am not well-versed on the theory, but I much prefer to leave the ambiguity in type as opposed to rigidly defining how each function is utilized within a type. It seems a bit presumptuous to me that this theory delves into the usage of all functions and how each differs with type/quadra. It tries to be far too exact and in doing tenuously describes people "better" than the MBTI. Better is just more verbose from what I've read.

    I much prefer the four function preferences and ambiguity to the rest of functions as they are servile; trying to not only define them for each type, but how they work for each seems too entrenched in subjective appraisal to be useful. Also, the documentation is translation, so I have no idea what idiomatic and bias-errors are pronounced in these works without the official documentation. Without an official translation, its overarching stance in conjunction with attempting to use facial features/gestures is a turnoff for me.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elocute View Post
    I am not well-versed on the theory, but I much prefer to leave the ambiguity in type as opposed to rigidly defining how each function is utilized within a type. It seems a bit presumptuous to me that this theory delves into the usage of all functions and how each differs with type/quadra. It tries to be far too exact and in doing tenuously describes people "better" than the MBTI. Better is just more verbose from what I've read.

    I much prefer the four function preferences and ambiguity to the rest of functions as they are servile; trying to not only define them for each type, but how they work for each seems too entrenched in subjective appraisal to be useful. Also, the documentation is translation, so I have no idea what idiomatic and bias-errors are pronounced in these works without the official documentation. Without an official translation, its overarching stance in conjunction with attempting to use facial features/gestures is a turnoff for me.
    But some MBTI theorists have attempted to develop an 8 function model which is pretty much the same as socionics in some ways (Beebe, Thomson, I also think Berens?). Also, the way we relate to people around us is already laid out by Jung. Socionics just develops this idea further e.g. Ti tends to oppose Fi and Fi opposes Fe. The logic behind this is pretty obvious since Ti and Fi evaluate internal judgements in a very different manner and Fi has a different way of evaluating (introverted) compared to Fe (extroverted). This is what the quadra values and to a degree, intertype system is based on.

    Obviously, if we do not share perceptions of the world and how to arrive at conclusions there will be communication problems. Socionics describes this pretty well in my opinion, even though it can be better.

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI vs socionics j/p
    By Poki in forum Socionics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-10-2014, 06:33 PM
  2. Socionics Online Meetup #2: MBTI vs. Socionics
    By HandiAce in forum Socionics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-10-2013, 03:12 PM
  3. MBTI vs. Socionics: Which one is better?
    By Idontcare in forum Socionics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 02:13 PM
  4. MBTI vs Socionics
    By Athenian200 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 12:56 PM
  5. MBTI vs Socionics
    By Urchin in forum Socionics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 07:19 PM

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