• 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.

Socionics? WTF?

Andy

Supreme High Commander
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
1,211
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
I'm not arguing for MBTI. I'm arguing for a Jungian interpretation as described by most modern authors on the topic. See Berens, Beebe, Thomson, Grant, etc. Myers believed that the tertiary function was opposite in orientation to the dominant. That is clearly not the popularly held belief on this forum.

This is Neo-Jungian typology, not MBTI. Not many people here actually use MBTI! Socionics distorts all of Jung's definitions and is riddled with nonsensical claims (like the VI typing, wtf?) that have no support beyond the fact that Socionics advocates insist that they're superior.

Your metaphor would work great if Jung's theory weren't blatantly superior to Socionics...unfortunately it is.

My appologies for the confusion, I was doing the typical INTJ thing of not bothering to be specific enough for other peoples needs when I myself knew what I was talking about! When I said MBTI, I was really talking about "those theories most firmly decended from the ideas of Jung", including all of Beebe and co. I guess I was using the term MBTI in the loose sense it often gets used/abused in.

Anyway, what I was fundamentally trying to say was that I agree if you that socionics isn't as good as it is made out to be!
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
simW, I kind of think you're smart enough to get what nanook is saying so...I don't think I need to substantiate anything, it's all written in his post. If you want to change your mind for good, do it, otherwise, it doesn't matter.

Yes, I do understand what he's saying, and it's my contention that he's largely incorrect. I didn't say anything about not understanding what he meant. I said his argument is based on arbitrary redefinition of the functions + insistence that the Jungian definitions are "wrong" based solely on the standards of the newly invented definitions.

It's like taking political theory and saying, "No way, all the people who want less economic regulation are liberals, not conservatives! Everyone who calls them conservatives is WRONG!" Why? Because you'd rather arbitrarily assign the term "liberal" to that belief system? That's what nanook and Socionics are doing. They're just arguing that Jung's definitions are "wrong" because...they've made up their own definitions for the same ideas. They've just rearranged the definitions of functions and declared themselves right, citing their own definitions as proof of their correctness. It's circular logic, get it?

So of course it seems like the ISFP must be using Si+Fe...when you've arbitrarily decided to change the meanings of those terms to suit whatever you want. Problem is, that renders your distinctions meaningless because you're using your own definition as proof of its correctness! All I seem to hear time and time again is, "Socionics is better because it follows Socionics functional definitions more closely." Well, of course it does, but that's not really the point, is it?

If you care to refute this position, I'm all ears.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
MBTI concerns itself with observing and categorizing surface behaviors...

Never imply that all people of a certain type behave in the same way;

type should not encourage stereotyping or be used to put people in rigid categories.


MBTI is about preferences. That's it.
If I prefer vanilla ice cream, it doesn't mean I behave in a particular way because of that preference.

Source:
Ethical Guidelines for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Instrument
MBTI


Edit: If you still don't get the basics and are too lazy to do research, here's more for you:

  • [*]True personality type is hidden
  • Jung's theory of types is not based on observable traits or behavior.
  • A person's "Type" may be something we can infer from traits and behaviors, yet we cannot directly observe it.

Source:
Myers-Briggs Personality Types Development Dynamics: Myers, Briggs & Carl Jung
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
POLAAAAR%20BEEEEEEAR.gif
 

VagrantFarce

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,558
As far as I can tell, Socionics and MBTI are pretty much describing the same thing - one is just far more complex and stylistically detached in its writings and construction, giving the illusion of being more accurate. If you connect enough dots, it's fairly easy to see how little the types differ between the two systems.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
never mind the territory, just study the maps. rofl. irony!
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
As far as I can tell, Socionics and MBTI are pretty much describing the same thing - one is just far more complex and stylistically detached in its writings and construction, giving the illusion of being more accurate. If you connect enough dots, it's fairly easy to see how little the types differ between the two systems.

+a billion

Why does nobody see this?
 

Ezra

Luctor et emergo
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
534
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.

+1
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Well socionics can seem more accurate for me in some of the tests I've taken but it could be, as a result, more about me at work or my vocation than me my self. Not decided yet.

They all have their strength and I tend to think that personality theory is like a lot of other things, comparative theorising is good, the comparisons and even the whole thing should be about self-reflection and awareness and how you use it anyhow.

At least that's my thinking and I tend to think that Jung thought the same way when he suggested that ancient religions should be examined anew with insights from psychology.
 

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
Yeah, I know what you are saying SimulatedWorld. But when you get right down to it, both systems use the same functions and have 16 types. It's true that they are both thusly inspired by Jung in it's basic architecture (i.e. the functions even though they may mean slightly different things in each system), but Socionics seems to take a completely different approach by analyzing relationships. Yes, you can say they both focus on behavior, but MBTI seems to put too much focus on how the individual views them-self. And although that's also an important part of understanding yourself, it's a lot more subjective. Socionics looks at it in terms of how a person relates to other people and categorizes based on your relationship strengths and weaknesses with other types; it attempts to categorize more on concrete relations with other people. Maybe the basic principle to analyze relationships doesn't sound objective, but I believe it becomes a lot more complex to understand yourself when greatly introverted and using a system that focuses more on the self. And I'm not too keen on the J and P differences between the systems. It's the behavior descriptions between types in socionics that I find most intriguing and improving over MBTI.

And it's fine if you think I'm totally wrong on this. I'm not going to pretend I understand everything completely and correctly about both systems like most people seem to do. Let me know what you think I'm being stupid about and I'll clarify and go from there.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.

Bump (LOL).
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
I don't think it's a good point.

If you read Myers' book, she says herself in the introduction that she departs from Jung about Ji doms and suggested to not go by it. She suggested that Ji, being introverted, is cloistered, and that the main thing you'd notice how Introverted Judgers interacted with the world was their auxiliary, the Perceiving function. In essense, she transformed a Jungian rational/J type into a Perceiver. Additionally, she did the same with Introverted Perceivers - that their first point of contact was Extraverted Judgement. Making them the rational/J types.

This is nothing like Jungian Ji and Pi. His Pi types are the more fluid, perceiver/Irrationals. Socionics doesn't tamper with this, like Myers did.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I don't think it's a good point.

If you read Myers' book, she says herself in the introduction that she departs from Jung about Ji doms and suggested to not go by it. She suggested that Ji, being introverted, is cloistered, and that the main thing you'd notice how Introverted Judgers interacted with the world was their auxiliary, the Perceiving function. In essense, she transformed a Jungian rational/J type into a Perceiver. Additionally, she did the same with Introverted Perceivers - that their first point of contact was Extraverted Judgement. Making them the rational/J types.

This is nothing like Jungian Ji and Pi. His Pi types are the more fluid, perceiver/Irrationals. Socionics doesn't tamper with this, like Myers did.

I know. On the other hand, I still think his point is funny, even if wrong. And he's right about the geometrical symbols. I sympathize with his being turned off by it.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.

Wow. Just wow.

I don't believe that ISFJs are tasteless individuals, i.e., people with poor aesthetic sense. But I do agree with this: "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." (I somehow get the impression that nanook is an INTJ because of he is completely closed-minded on the subject, like my Mormon INTJ friend is closed-minded about his religion.)

The ISFP/ESFP distinction can be summed up quite nicely: intensity versus superficiality in experience. Overall I think his post was well done (not rare, medium, etc.).
 

strychnine

All Natural! All Good!
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
895
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.

Agreed


I don't think it's a good point.

If you read Myers' book, she says herself in the introduction that she departs from Jung about Ji doms and suggested to not go by it. She suggested that Ji, being introverted, is cloistered, and that the main thing you'd notice how Introverted Judgers interacted with the world was their auxiliary, the Perceiving function. In essense, she transformed a Jungian rational/J type into a Perceiver. Additionally, she did the same with Introverted Perceivers - that their first point of contact was Extraverted Judgement. Making them the rational/J types.

This is nothing like Jungian Ji and Pi. His Pi types are the more fluid, perceiver/Irrationals. Socionics doesn't tamper with this, like Myers did.

Except I think Jung had it right, so I think Myers fucked with it in a bad way. Socionics has fucked with it in a good way.
 
Top