User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 47

  1. #1
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,657

    Default MBTI vs Socionics

    I just read an article where they stated that the founder of Socionics differed in his approach from the founders of MBTI in that he focused on the behavior, the way people acted and how it impacted society and contributed to it, whereas MBTI specifically focuses on explaining the way people actually think, and not so much what they do.

    That in an of itself could definitely explain the different interpretations of the Jungian functions in developing these systems. I wonder how it would manifest concretely though, so those that know both socionics and mbti, how do you feel it concretely differs from each other, and do you feel that much can be gained in terms of complimentary information in getting acquainted with both systems? Or do you have a clear favorite? And does the bias mentioned above have anything to do with that preference?
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  2. #2
    Transient Faceless Beauty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    ENTj Ni
    Posts
    177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    I just read an article where they stated that the founder of Socionics differed in his approach from the founders of MBTI in that he focused on the behavior, the way people acted and how it impacted society and contributed to it, whereas MBTI specifically focuses on explaining the way people actually think, and not so much what they do.

    That in an of itself could definitely explain the different interpretations of the Jungian functions in developing these systems. I wonder how it would manifest concretely though, so those that know both socionics and mbti, how do you feel it concretely differs from each other, and do you feel that much can be gained in terms of complimentary information in getting acquainted with both systems? Or do you have a clear favorite? And does the bias mentioned above have anything to do with that preference?
    Really? I find that more often than not, many things that try to explain MBTI end up relying on behaviors and general personality traits rather than actual thought processes. This is especially the case for those that rely on the dichotomies alone without delving into the functions that make the dichotomies.

    Personally, I prefer socionics because it accounts for all the functions more or less, and explains how people operate in terms of decision making and in interactions. Also I think Keirsey's temperaments and the stereotypes associated with them lead to glorification of intuitives and thinkers over feelers and sensors. That's something that you don't really see in socionics. I also find that socionics descriptions of the functions are more strongly correlated to Jungian types compared to MBTI, and there is less emphasis on the strongest extroverted functions. Because Ni dominants and Si dominants are truly perceivers, while Ti and Fi dominants are really judgers. Not watered down versions of their extroverted counterparts.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."-Roger Kint, The Usual Suspects
    "You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."- Tyler Durden, Fight Club
    ENTJ, LIE-Ni, 9w8-6w5-3w2

  3. #3
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Faceless Beauty View Post
    Really? I find that more often than not, many things that try to explain MBTI end up relying on behaviors and general personality traits rather than actual thought processes.
    This is true.

    But that's just bad typology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faceless Beauty View Post
    This is especially the case for those that rely on the dichotomies alone without delving into the functions that make the dichotomies.
    And this is just about the worst of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faceless Beauty View Post
    Personally, I prefer socionics because it accounts for all the functions more or less...
    How do Beebe, Berens, and Thomson not account for all of the functions?

    This is one of the falsest arguments made from the Socionics-preferring people.

    I seriously discussed the Socionics model with a Socionics proponent once, and found it extremely similar to Beebe's model.

    And you can't say that Beebe, Berens, and Thomson don't fall under the MBTI label, since you imply in your post that Keirsey does, and, well, of all of them, Keirsey least deserves to fall under that umbrella, considering his idiotic approach to typology (i.e., ditching the cognitive functions, going solely to the dichotomies [which are fucking derivatives of the cognitive functions in the first place], and focusing on types' supposed behaviors). I see a tendency for Socionics proponents to act like MBTI only considers the 4 regular functions. Yeah, maybe that's what Isabel Myers focused on, but other later theorists (who either deserve to fall under the MBTI umbrella, or, more appropriately, show that there are not just two simple umbrellas to fall under [MBTI vs Socionics], but many [Isabel Myers, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, John Beebe, David Keirsey, Linda Berens, Lenore Thomson, et al] different Jungian theorists, all of whose thought should be considered independently, with the false Socionics and MBTI labels deserving to be thrown to the wayside), who tend to fall under the MBTI label (mostly because they're American), have focused on all eight functions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faceless Beauty View Post
    ...and explains how people operate in terms of decision making and in interactions.
    I don't really see how the non-Socionics theorists don't do the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faceless Beauty View Post
    Also I think Keirsey's temperaments and the stereotypes associated with them lead to glorification of intuitives and thinkers over feelers and sensors. That's something that you don't really see in socionics.
    Ok, can we all just agree on "Fuck David Keirsey"?

    This forum is more "MBTI"-oriented than Socionics, and that's pretty much the consensus opinion here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faceless Beauty View Post
    I also find that socionics descriptions of the functions are more strongly correlated to Jungian types compared to MBTI...
    Perhaps.

    Could you provide some examples?

    Mostly this seems to derive from the j/p labeling difference, which derives from Socionics/Jung putting more emphasis on the dominant function, with Isabel Myers putting more emphasis on the strongest extroverted judging function. Is there anything significant beyond this difference that supports your claim here? (and, if it seems like it, I assure you, this is not simply a rhetorical question)

    Also, all of the theorists I mentioned above are, at root, basing their work off of Jung. I think that's the most important point to keep in mind. There's one root, and then each has kinda taken that root in their own direction, based on their own personal perspectives, interpretations, biases, judgments, and valuations. I think this Socionics vs MBTI conflict is false and absurd. There are various Jungian theorists -- Isabel Myers, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, John Beebe, David Keirsey, Linda Berens, Lenore Thomson, et al -- and we should consider the merits of each theorists' contributions to our understanding of (Jungian) psychological types, not engage in some fruitless pissing contest between "Socionics" and "MBTI" (which, frankly, is probably largely existent for just two stupid reasons: geographic separation, and, with that, certain forums being more devoted to one or the other).

    Quote Originally Posted by Faceless Beauty View Post
    ...and there is less emphasis on the strongest extroverted functions. Because Ni dominants and Si dominants are truly perceivers, while Ti and Fi dominants are really judgers. Not watered down versions of their extroverted counterparts.
    This I agree with.

    I think there is lots of value to Socionics' j/p labeling system.

    At the same time, tho, there is also values to MBTI's (i.e., Isabel Myers').

    I do think Jung put more emphasis on the dominant functions, which is what Socionics' j/p labeling system also does, and which, actually, Dario Nardi's empirical work using EEGs on various psychological types has seemingly bolstered. That being said, as I said above, I do think there is value to also considering the importance of a type's strongest extroverted function, because, as an Ni-dom, while I certainly can feel the similarity between me and INFJs (and NJs, in general), I also feel a damn strong connection with TJs, in general. The shared dominant or auxiliary Te is very apparent, and creates a strong similarity between all of us.

  4. #4
    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 Amargith View Post
    I just read an article where they stated that the founder of Socionics differed in his approach from the founders of MBTI in that he focused on the behavior, the way people acted and how it impacted society and contributed to it, whereas MBTI specifically focuses on explaining the way people actually think, and not so much what they do.
    Yes, and no. I think quadras and intertype are more about behavior but Gulenko's cognitive thinking styles is hardly an example of a theory that focuses on behavior. Then again however, quadra and intertype while it could be improved make a lot of sense. I found my type more easily using Reinin than just looking at functions alone, although a bit red flash light was also the fact that I'm clearly Te-seeking. But I mostly relied on Reinin dichotomies when self-typing myself.

    so those that know both socionics and mbti, how do you feel it concretely differs from each other, and do you feel that much can be gained in terms of complimentary information in getting acquainted with both systems? Or do you have a clear favorite? And does the bias mentioned above have anything to do with that preference?
    Clear favorite and it's socionics. It feels overall more organic and natural as a system. I definitely see some overlap but I think it's easier typing people in socionics than the MBTI. While the system is rigid I find that it's not as rigid as MBTI in some ways, especially if you look at theorists such as Beebe that I don't like at all.

    Also, socionics kind of already incorporates some of his views but does it better in my opinion, same with Lenore Thomson who on the one hand, has great ideas (I do like her function descriptions, Jung's rosery prose is SO hard to digest for me), on the other hand, some absolutely terrible in that she cannot back anything up e.g. trying to map functions to brain hemispheres. I also find that socionics correlates much better to Jung than it the MBTI does overall. In many ways it feels like MBTI tries to account for too many things e..g. the I/E axis but it does so in a very messy manner which ultimately ends up being completely meaningless when it comes to actually saying something about people.

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

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

  5. #5
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    While the system is rigid I find that it's not as rigid as MBTI in some ways...
    In what ways is MBTI more rigid?

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    ...especially if you look at theorists such as Beebe that I don't like at all.
    What do you not like about Beebe?

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Also, socionics kind of already incorporates some of his views but does it better in my opinion...
    What views of Beebe's does Socionics incorporate?

    And in what ways does it incorporate them better?

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    ...same with Lenore Thomson who on the one hand, has great ideas, on the other hand, some absolutely terrible in that she cannot back anything up e.g. trying to map functions to brain hemispheres.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    I also find that socionics correlates much better to Jung than it the MBTI does overall.
    Well, why should Jung be the end-all, be-all?

    Perhaps "MBTI-theorists" have captured reality better than Jung.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    In many ways it feels like MBTI tries to account for too many things e..g. the I/E axis...
    What do you mean here by the I/E axis?

    And are there any other examples you can provide?

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    ...but it does so in a very messy manner which ultimately ends up being completely meaningless when it comes to actually saying something about people.
    How does it do so in a very messy manner?

    And why is it completely meaningless?

  6. #6
    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 Zarathustra View Post
    In what ways is MBTI more rigid?
    Beebe, how some people interpret it that you can only express 4 function attitudes.

    What do you not like about Beebe?
    Rigidity, that it goes from A-Z.

    What views, and in what ways does Socionics incorporate them better?
    For example Lenore's crow's nest idea is expressed in the super-ego block in socionics, or Beebe's puer archetype is expressed in the demonstrative function.

    Well, why should Jung be the end-all, be-all?
    Not saying he is. I am myself skeptical when people only cite Jung as the king of typology but I find that the way socionics reflects reality seems to do so more accurately in accordance with Jung's teachings, i.e. it correlates better to Jungian type. Which is why I think many people don't have an MBTI type that correlates well to their sociotype in all instances.

    Perhaps "MBTI-theorists" have captured reality better than Jung.
    Expansion of theory is inevitable and welcome.

    What do you mean hear by the I/E axis?
    You mean "here"? I mean how introversion-extroversion is on the one hand mixed up with the function attitudes i.e. an introvert is someone with a dominant introverted function but on the other hand is a person who is also socially introverted. There are overlaps yes, but I find that those overlaps correlate more strongly to enneagram than they do with our cognitive types. It just becomes a theoretical mess because people end up thinking that "I can't be an extrovert" (quite often this way, rarely the other way around) because "I don't like being around people" etc. It misses the point of the function attitudes and where our focus lies. There must be a stronger theoretical correlation between the two to explain the I/E axis better. For example, a person I know in real life and who is slightly interested in MBTI without me knowing typed me as an INFJ because when we meet I seem pretty social and outgoing and he thought my I/E axis was something like 60% introvert, 40% extrovert or similar. This entirely misses the point of how cognitive introversion and extroversion works. Socially perhaps this is true but I am clearly having a strong bias towards being a cognitive introvert because my thinking is subjective, not objective.

    And are there any other examples you can provide?
    The issues with the J/P axis has already been mentioned. I could also mention how even tests developed by Thomson herself for example doesn't seem to capture the reality of the functions well but mostly seem to be like stereotypes of them which is quite ironic considering that I do think that her work on function descriptions are great.

    How does it do so in a very messy manner?
    Read what I wrote in the above.

    And why is it completely meaningless?
    Because if it fails to reach the purpose then it is poorly implemented. In the case of the I/E axis, I am not even sure what the purpose is with it or what it is truly trying to say. Is it to determine cognitive dominance, social introversion-extroversion or both...? The purpose is unclear and thus the letter code itself feels meaningless.

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

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

  7. #7
    Transient Faceless Beauty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    ENTj Ni
    Posts
    177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    This is true.

    But that's just bad typology.
    I guess.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    How do Beebe, Berens, and Thomson not account for all of the functions?

    This is one of the falsest arguments made from the Socionics-preferring people.

    I seriously discussed the Socionics model with a Socionics proponent once, and found it extremely similar to Beebe's model.
    That's actually a valid point, though model A doesn't exactly explain the functions in terms of shadow vs conscious. And rather than finding it easier to use and value the first four functions, difficulty, value, and use varies with each individual function. For example, the demonstrative function in your id block is the second easiest to use other than your leading function, but it's subconscious and undervalued. But now that you've pointed this out, I will start to look for more similarities between Beebe's model and Model A.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    And you can't say that Beebe, Berens, and Thomson don't fall under the MBTI label, since you imply in your post that Keirsey does, and, well, of all of them, Keirsey least deserves to fall under that umbrella, considering his idiotic approach to typology (i.e., ditching the cognitive functions, going solely to the dichotomies [which are fucking derivatives of the cognitive functions in the first place], and focusing on types' supposed behaviors). I see a tendency for Socionics proponents to act like MBTI only considers the 4 regular functions. Yeah, maybe that's what Isabel Myers focused on, but other later theorists (who either deserve to fall under the MBTI umbrella, or, more appropriately, show that there are not just two simple umbrellas to fall under [MBTI vs Socionics], but many [Isabel Myers, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, John Beebe, David Keirsey, Linda Berens, Lenore Thomson, et al] different Jungian theorists, all of whose thought should be considered independently, with the false Socionics and MBTI labels being deserving to be thrown to the wayside), who tend to fall under the MBTI label (mostly because they're American), have focused on all eight functions.
    More valid points, and Lenore Thompson has pretty good explanations of the functions as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I don't really see how the non-Socionics theorists don't do the same thing.
    They do I suppose. I'm not sure how they would respond to all of the other aspects of socionics, such as Gulenko's cognitive styles and Reinin dichotomies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Ok, can we all just agree on "Fuck David Keirsey"?

    This forum is more "MBTI"-oriented than Socionics, and that's pretty much the consensus opinion here.
    PREACH! Lol.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Perhaps.

    Could you provide some examples?

    Also, all of the theorists I mentioned above are, at root, basing their work off of Jung. I think that's the most important point to keep in mind. There's one root, and then each has kinda taken that root in their own direction, based on their own personal perspectives, interpretations, biases, judgment, and valuations. I think this Socionics vs MBTI conflict is false and absurd. There are various Jungian theorists -- Isabel Myers, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, John Beebe, David Keirsey, Linda Berens, Lenore Thomson, et al -- and we should consider the merits of each theorists' contributions to our understanding of (Jungian) psychological types, not engage in some fruitless pissing contest between "Socionics" and "MBTI.
    I tell people something like this all the time, and in all honesty, I view a minimal difference between the functions in all systems. Once you get past the fluff to the common themes and such, you will see the roots that lie in Jung. But to provide an example of ways I could see more of a correlation between socionics descriptions and Jung's functions as outlined in Psych types I will use Se as an example (And I'll provide links to my sources and what not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    Sensation
    Sensation, in the extraverted attitude, is most definitely conditioned by the object. As sense-perception, sensation is naturally dependent upon the object. But, just as naturally, it is also dependent upon the subject; hence, there is also a subjective sensation, which after its kind is entirely different from the objective. In the extraverted attitude this subjective share of sensation, in so far as its conscious application is concerned, is either inhibited or repressed. As an irrational function, sensation is equally repressed, whenever a rational function, thinking or feeling, possesses the priority, ie. it can be said to have a conscious function, only in so far as the rational attitude of consciousness permits accidental perceptions to become conscious contents; in short, realizes them. The function of sense is, of course, absolute in the stricter sense; for example, everything is seen or heard to the farthest physiological possibility, but not everything attains that threshold value which a perception must possess in order to be also apperceived. It is a different matter when sensation itself possesses priority, instead of merely seconding another function. In this case, no element of objective sensation is excluded and nothing repressed (with the exception of the subjective share already mentioned). Sensation has a preferential objective determination, and those objects which release the strongest sensation are decisive for the individual's psychology. The result of this is a pronounced sensuous hold to the object. Sensation, therefore, is a vital function, equipped with the potentest [sic] vital instinct. In so far as objects release sensations, they matter; and, in so far as it lies within the power of sensation, they are also fully accepted into consciousness, whether compatible with reasoned judgment or not. As a function its sole criterion of value is the strength of the sensation as conditioned by its objective qualities. Accordingly, all objective processes, in so far as they release sensations at all, make their appearance in consciousness. It is, however, only concrete, sensuously perceived objects or processes which excite sensations in the extraverted attitude; exclusively those, in fact, which everyone in all times and places would sense as concrete. Hence, the orientation of such an individual corresponds with purely concrete reality. The judging, rational functions are subordinated to the concrete facts of sensation, and, accordingly, possess the qualities of inferior differentiation, i.e. they are marked by a certain negativity, with infantile and archaic tendencies. The function most affected by the repression, is, naturally, the one standing opposite to sensation, viz. intuition, the function of unconscious perception.

    The Extraverted Sensation Type
    No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation-type in realism. His sense for objective facts is extraordinarily developed. His life is an accumulation of actual experience with concrete objects, and the more pronounced he is, the less use does he make of his experience. In certain cases the events of his life hardly deserve the name 'experience'. He knows no better use for this sensed 'experience' than to make it serve as a guide to fresh sensations; anything in the least 'new' that comes within his circle of interest is forthwith turned to a sensational account and is made to serve this end. In so far as one is disposed to regard a highly developed sense for sheer actuality as very reasonable, will such men be esteemed rational. In reality, however, this is by no means the case, since they are equally subject to the sensation of irrational, chance happenings, as they are to rational behaviour.
    Such a type—the majority arc men apparently—does not, of course, believe himself to be 'subject' to sensation. He would be much more inclined to ridicule this view as altogether inconclusive, since, from his standpoint, sensation is the concrete manifestation of life—it is simply the fulness [sic] of actual living. His aim is concrete enjoyment, and his morality is similarly orientated. For true enjoyment has its own special morality, its own moderation and lawfulness, its own unselfishness and devotedness. It by no means follows that he is just sensual or gross, for he may differentiate his sensation to the finest pitch of æsthetic purity without being the least unfaithful, even in his most abstract sensations, to his principle of objective sensation. Wulfen's Cicerone des r¨cksichtlosen Lebensgenusses is the unvarnished confession of a type of this sort. From this point of view the book seems to me worth reading.
    Upon the lower levels this is the man of tangible reality, with little tendency either for reflection or commanding purpose. To sense the object, to have and if possible to enjoy sensations, is his constant motive. He is by no means unlovable; on the contrary, he frequently has a charming and lively capacity for enjoyment; he is sometimes a jolly fellow, and often a refined æsthete.
    In the former case, the great problems of life hinge upon a good or indifferent dinner; in the latter, they are questions of good taste. When he 'senses', everything essential has been said and done. Nothing can be more than concrete and actual; conjectures that transcend or go beyond the concrete are only permitted on condition that they enhance sensation. This need not be in any way a pleasurable reinforcement, since this type is not a common voluptuary; he merely desires the strongest sensation, and this, by his very nature, he can receive only from without. What comes from within seems to him morbid and objectionable. In so far as lie thinks and feels, he always reduces down to objective foundations, i.e. to influences coming from the object, quite unperturbed by the most violent departures from logic. Tangible reality, under any conditions, makes him breathe again. In this respect he is unexpectedly credulous. He will, without hesitation, relate an obvious psychogenic symptom to the falling barometer, while the existence of a psychic conflict seems to him a fantastic abnormality. His love is incontestably rooted in the manifest attractions of the object. In so far as he is normal, he is conspicuously adjusted to positive reality—conspicuously, because his adjustment is always visible. His ideal is the actual; in this respect he is considerate. He has no ideals related to ideas—he has, therefore, no sort of ground for maintaining a hostile attitude towards the reality of things and facts. This expresses itself in all the externals of his life. He dresses well, according to his circumstances ; he keeps a good table for his friends, who are either made comfortable or at least given to understand that his fastidious taste is obliged to impose certain claims upon his entourage. He even convinces one that certain sacrifices are decidedly worth while for the sake of style.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikisocion
    Extroverted sensing () is an extroverted, irrational, and static information element. It is also called Se, F, volitional sensing, or black sensing.
    includes the ability to know how much power, force, or influence is latent or required.
    Types that value are much more comfortable with direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact. This may at times be perceived as abrasive, particularly by types who do not value . There is usually a competitive edge to this style of group interaction, resulting in a more intense atmosphere than that of introverted sensing (Si)-valuing quadras. They appreciate contemplating possibilities only if they feel like they stand to gain something from it, or it has a perceived potential impact on "the real world".
    Unlike , which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), (Se) is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in.

    Se as a base (1st) function (SLE and SEE)

    The individual feels at home among people who are actively doing something and interacting with each other directly (visibly), and is able to organize people, move them around as necessary, and guide them in achieving a specific goal. He or she likes obedience and even subservience in others, since it allows him to "make things happen" more effectively.
    He is keenly aware of territorial conflicts and confrontational behavior occurring around him. He very quickly becomes confrontational when others try to make him move or get him to do something in an aggressive or confrontational way. He quickly recognizes when people are trying to get each other to do something or are trying to organize him for some purpose. He also spontaneously uses aggression to achieve his own goals.
    He wants to make all decisions himself about what he will do, wear, eat, look like, etc., and resents any attempts by others to make these decisions for him. However, he is willing to make use of other peoples' ideas, advice, and creativity, as long as he plays the most visible role.
    He enjoys testing his will in challenging situations and views life as a sort of obstacle course, full of adversity and challenges, that must be weathered and conquered.
    If you look at what Jung is saying about the primary focus of the Se type being the sensations elicited from the object, his description and the one that Socionics has for basic aspects of Se and Se lead types show the behaviors that manifest from the focus on sensations derived from objects and the world around them. I think that socionists responsible for the creation of Model A and information elements viewed the focus on sensations derived from the environment as ways that Se base and creative (lead and aux) types gauge the amount of impact that actions have on something, despite some of the descriptions coming with an air of unconscious intuition supporting the actions that are described.

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ological_Types
    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...verted_sensing

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    This I agree with.

    I think there is lots of value to Socionics' j/p labeling system.

    At the same time, tho, there is also values to MBTI's (i.e., Isabel Myers').

    I do think Jung put more emphasis on the dominant functions, which is what Socionics' j/p labeling system also does, and which, actually, Dario Nardi's empirical work using EEGs on various psychological types has seemingly bolstered. That being said, as I said above, I do think there is value to also considering the importance of a type's strongest extroverted function, because, as an Ni-dom, while I certainly can feel the similarity between me and INFJs (and NJs, in general), I also feel a damn strong connection with TJs, in general. The shared dominant or auxiliary Te is very obvious, and creates a strong similarity between all of us.
    Nardi has good works too, and I like how he actually incorporates observations of brain activity with this. And I think that a lot of subcategorizations of types based on shared temperaments and functions are quite useful as well. It accounts for a lot of similarities between types that people view as "vastly different," due to differing temperaments and other things(e.g: introverted judging domninats, IxxPs).
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."-Roger Kint, The Usual Suspects
    "You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."- Tyler Durden, Fight Club
    ENTJ, LIE-Ni, 9w8-6w5-3w2

  8. #8
    Senior Member sulfit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/so
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    I just read an article where they stated that the founder of Socionics differed in his approach from the founders of MBTI in that he focused on the behavior, the way people acted and how it impacted society and contributed to it, whereas MBTI specifically focuses on explaining the way people actually think, and not so much what they do.
    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.

    Socionics profiles tend to be more detailed than MBTI ones, but I think that's explainable if you think about the origins of socionics. It was incepted in Eastern Europe, in 70s and 80s during Soviet time, when cultural homogeneity was encouraged and reinforced in the soviet bloc. The profiles based on such culturally and ethnically homogeneous population go into a lot more specifics in describing types. Of course right now that socionics is reaching the rest of the globe many of these details are inapplicable and become useless clutter on their profiles. This turns some people away from socionics, since they think it's only about describing appearance and behaviors of types, and don't study the theory behind the system.

  9. #9
    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 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.

    Socionics profiles tend to be more detailed than MBTI ones, but I think that's explainable if you think about the origins of socionics. It was incepted in Eastern Europe, in 70s and 80s during Soviet time, when cultural homogeneity was encouraged and reinforced in the soviet bloc. The profiles based on such culturally and ethnically homogeneous population go into a lot more specifics in describing types. Of course right now that socionics is reaching the rest of the globe many of these details are inapplicable and become useless clutter on their profiles. This turns some people away from socionics, since they think it's only about describing appearance and behaviors of types, and don't study the theory behind the system.
    I agree with this so much. I am uncertain about the true applicability of Gulenko's cognitive styles though, but for most of the part they actually seem to hold true which is interesting. I also agree with tht people who dislike socionics tend to do it for superficial reasons such as being turned off by the profile descriptions and VI which is funny considering that MBTI is hardly much better in this regard.

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

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

  10. #10
    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
    How do Beebe, Berens, and Thomson not account for all of the functions?

    This is one of the falsest arguments made from the Socionics-preferring people.
    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.

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