Does there exist any strong case for the subtypes? I like the idea but I haven't seen any compelling arguments in favor of them. I am referring to the 2 subtype system, not the DCNH subtypes.
I don't understand what you are saying by 2 subtype systems and not dcnh, I thought they were the same. Anyway, subtype system is pointless. Are you an ESTJ who likes Si better or are you an ISTJ who likes Te better... come on
Actually this is a criticism I have of socionics in general. I've noticed that a lot of the hard core proponents use a kind of circular logic in their justification of socionics as more scientific than MBTI--when you ask someone to prove their assertions, they revert to theory to prove their theory.
I don't think hardcore proponers take the subtype system too seriously and I don't think socionics is more scientific, I just think it's closer to jung and jung is more respectable 'cause he was a professional and myers was just an enthusiast. When Jung typed people, it was based off over 20 years of observation and working with real patients. Furthermore myers briggs descriptions over the internet got overshadowed by stereotyped description made by even more amateur people who sort of pull it out of their imaginations. example: ESTPs are jocks, ENFPs are gay, INTJs are psychopaths, ISTJ are working drones, ESFJ is your mom, ESTJ is your boss..I mean, come on
I don't really care what Gulenko or some other "expert" says, since they're really just presenting a model based on their very subjective understanding.
1st: Gulenko is the most mbtier of all socionist, his model very much differs from augusta who has dropped socionics some time ago. 2nd: everyone have their own subjective understanding of things, so I don't know what was your point there exactly. Are you saying someone like Dario Nardi has a less subjective understanding of typology? cause if you are I'm gonna start laughing.
So convince me the subtypes are real, and while you're at it, convince me socionics is not just pseudo science dressed up with a lot of nice graphs and charts to make it appear more science-y than MBTI or other typological systems.
Ok, so here is the thing: 1st subtypes are BS, when Jung typed people, say a Ti dom. Let's say a Ti dom with a mild preference for Ne as auxiliary (INTP). Then mbtiers/socionists go and say "ah that's very similar to an ENTP" cause of Ne dom and Ti aux. Well, no it's not. An introverted rational type is very much different from an extraverted irrational, at least in this sense socionics go "oh let's call this one INTj then, makes more sense" and it does. Jung believed your main type is the very first function, mbti and modern socionics kinda give too much importance to the 2nd function.
So you take some of the original descriptions and compare:
Jung Si: subjective perception through sensing (artists: Si-Fe, weird people Si-Te)
socionics Si: bodily sensations, homeostasis, etc (ISFp, ISTp)
mbti Si: doing things by the book(???), being conservative (???), having nostalgia about the past (???)...ISFJ, ISTJ
jung Te: objective reasoning, science, conclusion
socionics Te: objective logic, pragmatism, efficiency, mcgyverism
mbti Te: efficiency, leadership qualities (???), achievement orientation(???)
jung Ni: prophetic vision, surreal inclination, sixth sense (mystic artist:Ni-Fe, mystic thinker: Ni-Te)
socionics Ni: intuition of time(?), perception of development of things over time, dynamic perception
mbti Ni: daydreaming(??? wait, didn't mbtiers say that was Fi also?), evil look (???), conquering the world(???)
So you see, I'm sure both systems ended up going their own ways, I prefer socioncis for reasons of making more sense and the only times it doesn't is when enthusiasts (as in mbti) start to make stuff up. Reinin for instance is a guy who made a lot of stuff up with those asking vs declaring, strategizing vs making tactics, etc. Whenever I see things go off, I go back to the roots and try to get what was the main principle, 'what was actually observed that we can say it is a difference in personality and it is related to that specific function or psyche state?'
So how scientific are these systems overrall? Taking the example of Ti again. So imagine you're Jung back then trying to figure out what is wrong these crazy bastards then you start to find a pattern. He sees that whenever the person was using too much of this function (Ti), the psyche sort of compensated by extraverted feeling in an archaic manner, that grabs the user somewhat subconsciously (meaning, he/she don't realize they are doing it), then this person who is usually very calm and collected and introverted starts to throw a child tantrum, which he called "inferior function", in this case inferior Fe. And he figure that by "balancing" the person out, instead of overly using that onesided Ti, balancing their perspective by making them consciously experience feeling judgment makes them go back to normal. But since there is an hierarchy in the psyche of each particular type, he had to go through the steps (make the person aware of (overly)thinking, then intuition then sensing and only then feeling, if he jumps immediately to feeling it's too hard on the person's psyche, they feel uneasy because it's unusual territory in a way.
Jung believed, in fact he told a story where opposite types naturally attract, about the Se guy who was fishing and his Ni girlfriend who was a noob ended up fishing better than him, anyway it's on one of his interviews you can find on youtube. In this sense socionics and their intertype relations are also close to Jung, the concept of duality etc. Mbti on the other hand either don't use it or it does in that other weird system where all the supposed unconscious functions are your "go to" type, for ex: INFP and ENFJ. Or the even stranger keirsey method INTJ-ENFP (socionics types these as supervision relations and I agree because I can observe the same, the ENFP (usually female) is on a disadvantageous psychological position compared with her INTJ partner and it doesn't seem like an ideal realation.
But at the end of the day, Jung said type wasn't static, it can change over time and later on he even came up with the "transcendent function" with the idea of breaking out of your type, similar to what Ichazo was originally doing with enneagram, trying to break the fixation. Of course nobody followed that and instead preffered to take pride on their type but whatever...
Anyway going back to the scientific aspect, they say the only scientific system accepted by the "scientific community" is the big five. They pick random characteristics (some of them even overlap with mbti) and go with it. My main problem is with the "neurotic" aspect. They figured in today society this is kinda of a personality trait, while Jung perceived neuroticism as what I told you above the inbalance between antagonistic functions (Ti-Fe, Si-Ne, etc). And if big five is going to include neuroticism, why not narcissism?, psychoticism? This trait seems to be a bit random IMO but I guess they were trying to fix the problem with the over generalization between T and F that mbti had, for instance thinkers who are sensitive and feelers who are more thick-skinned, so they came up with neuroticism, and having high levels of it means you are thin-skinned and low levels means you are more chill.
Not to sound condescending, I just have yet to see a good explanation. Every "expert" seems to have a drastically different explanation of socionics.
This is a problem with every system, mbti, enneagram, etc. Enthusiast who haven't gone deep start pulling things out of their a%¨¨ and making strange stereotypes and assessments. So, not trying to appeal to authority, in fact I love when people have their own thoughts and opinions but at least try to understand it more deeply before deciding. I recommend Bukalov, if you can find some interviews, he worked with Augusta and as far as he explained the theory on quadras was actually put to test many times between groups and is not just random theory. Gulenko is the most popular but I think he's gone a bit far off, like I said before I think he is the most mbtier of the known socionists. Oh and definitely stay away from World Socionics Society, they don't know what they're doing, the guy even reads off from wikisocion while making videos, pretending he is an expert. At least change one or two lines to make it more believable, Jeez! Hey I'm an expert in dinosaurs, wanna see?
Dinosaurs are a diverse group of reptiles[note 1] of the clade Dinosauria. They first appeared during the Triassic period, between 243 and 233.23 million years ago, although the exact origin and timing of the evolution of dinosaurs is the subject of active research. They became the dominant terrestrial vertebrates after the Triassic–Jurassic extinction event 201 million years ago; their dominance continued through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.
Source: Me, I swear