• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Sell me on Socionics

Merced

Talk to me.
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
3,599
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
28?
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I honestly can't defend the system anymore. What does Socionics do that MBTI + Enneagram doesn't?
 

Merced

Talk to me.
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
3,599
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
28?
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Seriously though, can anyone defend Socionics?
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
A major thing that makes socionics different from similar models is its hypothesis of intertype relations. It says that, for example, Ni and Se attract each other, rather than Ni and Ne.

If that hypothesis turns out to be true then it has a lot going for it. I don't think it is true, though.

Also socionics has some cool mathematical aspects when it comes to things like Reinin dichotomies. It might be worth incorporating into the overall understanding of type, or it might just look nice in theory.

(that's the best I can do in terms of defending it, since I don't pay much attention to socionics)
 

Vendrah

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,947
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
Seriously though, can anyone defend Socionics?

Sorry if I help derailed your thread.

My answer is that, from all typology systems, I never really got interested in Socionics. Perhaps the only interesting thing is their cognitive function stacks, when they are different.

EDIT: I confused myself. Socionics use the same stacks.
I advocate that their j/p is very correct in Jung terms.
However, as I measured in cognitive function tests, most people doesnt really have a Jung j/p dimension, meaning that Jung j/p isnt useful as a dichotomy.
 

whateverr

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2020
Messages
60
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Sorry if I help derailed your thread.

My answer is that, from all typology systems, I never really got interested in Socionics. Perhaps the only interesting thing is their cognitive function stacks, when they are different.

EDIT: I confused myself. Socionics use the same stacks.
I advocate that their j/p is very correct in Jung terms.
However, as I measured in cognitive function tests, most people doesnt really have a Jung j/p dimension, meaning that Jung j/p isnt useful as a dichotomy.

As far as i know, the jp dichotomy in MBTI is based off the first extraverted cognitive function in the stack. So, what the world "sees first", defines the jp (example, an INFJ would have Ni as dom, which is perceiving, but the aux/2nd function is Fe, which is a judging function, therefore it is a judging type). In socionics it's based on the first function on the stack, so the socionics INTj (LII) has Ti dom, because the first function of the stack is a judging function. So an INTJ in MBTI would probably be a INTp in socionics. So, the nomenclature, would be more congruent to Jung's original work. However, i find that in practical terms, socionics is way more convoluted and very unnecessary. I think that everything bad about MBTI, socionics does it worse, and everything good about it, well, is pretty much the same in both. So i find it that, except for the nomenclature, it's just a more convoluted take to MBTI.
OP, i also don't really get why socionics is a thing. I genuinely came here to see if someone could wrap my mound around why it exists in the first place.
 

Vendrah

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,947
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
Im starting to get curious, it seems that the majority of people actually agree with OP!
 

whateverr

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2020
Messages
60
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I most certainly do. If anyone has an authentic practical view of Socionics, please express it here. I always shrug when i see socionics mentions, because, msot of the times, it doesn't really make that much of a difference.
 

???

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
107
MBTI Type
?
Enneagram
954
/My experience

The nice thing about Socionics is that it seems to attract people more interested in delving into type and getting a good understanding of the Jungian theory that underpins it. The discussions seem to end up being a lot more meaningful from a psychoanalytic standpoint where people can relate theory with life without the need for over-generalization and taking it at face value or assuming everyone of a given type must have certain predilections. It seems a lot more open to interpretation and analysis. MBTI on the other hand seems to have two major problems - a lot of people take its generalizations and profiles at face value (and especially those that are against it) and a large amount of people want it to be removed from Jung for some reason. :shrug:

But the intertype relations that distinguishes Socionics from MBTI has some merit, but there are a lot of theoretical caveats. For instance, while types have two ego functions (extroverted and introverted), people can be extreme introverts or extroverts which relates more with Jungian extreme thinking and thus neuroticism. I'm pretty sure that neurotic people will not have relatively stable intertype relations. There's also the fact that Jungian psychoanalytic theory is predicated on people having both a conscious and unconscious influence, so there's a dualism between dominant and inferior and the goal of psychoanalytics is to understand that connection, as well as represent repression as a factor in the unconscious. So the Socionics idea that two duals will be a good match depends a lot on their own overall psychological growth. And of course, other compatibility factors can cause problems too, such as politicial affiliation, religious beliefs, social status, etc. So it's just one factor of many anyway.
 

The Cat

Just a Cat who hangs out at the Crossroads
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
23,553
Ladies and gentlemen, attention, please!
Come in close where everyone can see!
I got a tale to tell, it isn’t gonna cost a dime!
(And if you believe that,
we’re gonna get along just fine.)
 

Amberiat

Infinity
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
1,233
 

Red Memories

Haunted Echoes
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Messages
6,315
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
215
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
[MENTION=30122]Amethyst Archon[/MENTION] Cat this is your thread.
 

Pioneer

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
58
It goes deeper into types than MBTI does. I always found MBTI superficial and thus unsatisfying in aiding self-understanding. Plus Socionics has a theory of intertype relationships, which is the whole point.
 

hjgbujhghg

I am
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
3,333
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'm honestly not sure how right or wrong the theory is, but it definitely studies the type in more depth than MBTI does. I like that the dichotomies are only of secondary importance and what really matters are the functions. The idea of valuing some functions, while devaluing others is pretty interesting as well. It gives you much more freedom and creativity when putting your type together, 'cause the combinations of what you can value are pretty wast, when you mix it with the different placement of the functions within the ego, super ego and the id, I think it's something pretty challenging for typists. I also quite enjoy the idea of different quadras, it adds an extra dimensions to the whole thing.
 

whateverr

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2020
Messages
60
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm honestly not sure how right or wrong the theory is, but it definitely studies the type in more depth than MBTI does. I like that the dichotomies are only of secondary importance and what really matters are the functions. The idea of valuing some functions, while devaluing others is pretty interesting as well. It gives you much more freedom and creativity when putting your type together, 'cause the combinations of what you can value are pretty wast, when you mix it with the different placement of the functions within the ego, super ego and the id, I think it's something pretty challenging for typists. I also quite enjoy the idea of different quadras, it adds an extra dimensions to the whole thing.

I see that, however, it still is a little convoluted though.
Because if the whole point is to go more into depth and expand the limitations of the MBTI, isn't it simpler and neater to just take the MBTI model and add more typing variables and redefining the misused terms though? The intention behind Socionics is definitely "respectable" in my opinion. However, i get the impression that the founder got too carried away in their Ti and forgot to use their Te lol And also, Socionics sill maintains a problem that the MBTI insists on not correcting it: misdefining terms. The MBTI and Socionics (as far as i remember, i could be wrong about this) try to associate functions with specific behaviors that may or may not actually happen in real life. I get that if you prefer Fe over Fi, there might be a cluster of behavior patterns that could be associated with this set-up. However, it's not necessarily true. Or even realistic. A person has way too many dimensions for these behavioral specifications. That's why you either get convoluted or way too simplified and stereotypical.

If we use J as Judging functions and P as Perceiving functions, then we can state, according to Jung, that:
Je= Collective values/reasons
Ji= Self values/reasons
Pe= Gathering facts/concepts
Pi= Organizing facts/concepts

That's it. Then, if we map out some sort of subtypes to include the manners in which certain functions are expressed and/or stacked and the possible reasons on why the functions would behave like that, then we'd have a perfectly functional spin of the MBTI. In this way, we can still maintain the original MBTI types, but add more dimension to them. Because, wanting or not, what Isabel Myers-Briggs got right, is the original concept behind her system. So, this improved system actually works, it's accurate and it's simple enough so that everyone could understand it. It's specific enough so that we can get the original theory right and not fall into any sort of logical fallacies, and it's open ended enough so that you can fill in the gaps with your own life story and your own behaviors. With that, you can identify and figure out the reasons on why you probably do the things you do, process the world in the way you do and actually work on self-improvement, self-awareness and all these things in a more personal and accurate way, without getting confused, stereotyped and without the need of having to study the system in depth to actually understand it.
The model of Socionics pursues this, however, i still find it convoluted in it's approach and presentation. Making it more difficult to comprehend and to actually use it irl.
 

Smilephantomhive

Active member
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
3,352
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I like the quadras, dimensionality, and the idea of the polr function.
 

Meowcat

New member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
209
I'm honestly not sure how right or wrong the theory is, but it definitely studies the type in more depth than MBTI does. I like that the dichotomies are only of secondary importance and what really matters are the functions. The idea of valuing some functions, while devaluing others is pretty interesting as well. It gives you much more freedom and creativity when putting your type together, 'cause the combinations of what you can value are pretty wast, when you mix it with the different placement of the functions within the ego, super ego and the id, I think it's something pretty challenging for typists. I also quite enjoy the idea of different quadras, it adds an extra dimensions to the whole thing.

Can I ask what combinations are there for example? Not just 16 types?


I see that, however, it still is a little convoluted though.
Because if the whole point is to go more into depth and expand the limitations of the MBTI, isn't it simpler and neater to just take the MBTI model and add more typing variables and redefining the misused terms though? The intention behind Socionics is definitely "respectable" in my opinion. However, i get the impression that the founder got too carried away in their Ti and forgot to use their Te lol And also, Socionics sill maintains a problem that the MBTI insists on not correcting it: misdefining terms. The MBTI and Socionics (as far as i remember, i could be wrong about this) try to associate functions with specific behaviors that may or may not actually happen in real life. I get that if you prefer Fe over Fi, there might be a cluster of behavior patterns that could be associated with this set-up. However, it's not necessarily true. Or even realistic. A person has way too many dimensions for these behavioral specifications. That's why you either get convoluted or way too simplified and stereotypical.

If we use J as Judging functions and P as Perceiving functions, then we can state, according to Jung, that:
Je= Collective values/reasons
Ji= Self values/reasons
Pe= Gathering facts/concepts
Pi= Organizing facts/concepts

Why isn't Pe gathering collective facts/concepts, and Pi gathering facts/concepts viewed by the self? It makes no sense to stick "organising" on Pi if Pe was "gathering" (i.e. perceiving), with Je and Ji there is consistency that they are both about values/reasons (i.e. judging) with E being collective oriented and I being self-oriented.


/My experience

The nice thing about Socionics is that it seems to attract people more interested in delving into type and getting a good understanding of the Jungian theory that underpins it. The discussions seem to end up being a lot more meaningful from a psychoanalytic standpoint where people can relate theory with life without the need for over-generalization and taking it at face value or assuming everyone of a given type must have certain predilections. It seems a lot more open to interpretation and analysis. MBTI on the other hand seems to have two major problems - a lot of people take its generalizations and profiles at face value (and especially those that are against it) and a large amount of people want it to be removed from Jung for some reason. :shrug:

But the intertype relations that distinguishes Socionics from MBTI has some merit, but there are a lot of theoretical caveats. For instance, while types have two ego functions (extroverted and introverted), people can be extreme introverts or extroverts which relates more with Jungian extreme thinking and thus neuroticism. I'm pretty sure that neurotic people will not have relatively stable intertype relations. There's also the fact that Jungian psychoanalytic theory is predicated on people having both a conscious and unconscious influence, so there's a dualism between dominant and inferior and the goal of psychoanalytics is to understand that connection, as well as represent repression as a factor in the unconscious. So the Socionics idea that two duals will be a good match depends a lot on their own overall psychological growth. And of course, other compatibility factors can cause problems too, such as politicial affiliation, religious beliefs, social status, etc. So it's just one factor of many anyway.

Do you know more on the bolded?


***

And now I'll add what I thought. Tough competitiveness (and especially social status oriented competitiveness) is Te in mbti but Se in socionics? How the fuck does that work?
 

Smoke

New member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
9
MBTI Type
IsFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Socionics is far from perfect, but at least it got the fundaments of jungian cognitive functions right. Only thing that matters is discarding all the Myers-Briggs bs. Study Jung's original works, and that of his first followers. If you want, use socionics as a framework and find inspiration in it, but keep a sceptic outlook while studying it.
 
Top