• 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?

G

Ginkgo

Guest
When I first arrived at this website, I noticed an alternate personality matrix - Socionics. Something about unnerved me to no end, as the descriptions for the archetypes were less than palatable, brimming with double-standards and irrelevancies that just screamed "We want you to experience the Forer effect. Happy fucking birthday, sunshine".

Now, MBTI becomes more questionable the more you process it, but Socionics is just blatantly stupid and inferior as observed. Why are we even using it?

At least when you look at the MBTI matrix, everything is neat, formatted, and comprehensive. At least as a theory, it stands to reason because of its structure (be it by flimsy reasoning or not).

P / J Divide
IST - Ti-Se-Ni-Fe / Si-Te-Fi-Ne
ISF - Fi-Se-Ni-Te / Si-Fe-Ti-Ne
INT - Ti-Ne-Si-Fe / Ni-Te-Fi-Se
INF - Fi-Ne-Si-Te / Ni-Fe-Ti-Se
EST - Se-Ti-Fe-Ni / Te-Si-Ne-Fi
ESF - Se-Fi-Te-Ni / Fe-Si-Ne-Ti
ENT - Ne-Ti-Fe-Si / Te-Ni-Se-Fi
ENF - Ne-Fi-Te-Si / Fe-Ni-Se-Ti​

The archetypal descriptions found in various sights superficially describe behavior patterns found in people of the archetypes, while the functions expound upon a detailed analysis of why they so. The functions then analyze the cognitive "orientations" of the archetype, describing the aftermath of the brain and its various processes.

The archetypal descriptions pertain to personality, while the functions are more pertinent to psychology.

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. It's gratuitously trying to be separate from MBTI). Why are we attempting to describe the same things with different nomenclatures? It's illogical. It's like we're trying to describe gravity by scientific means, but then on the side we say that it's also caused by invisible space worms or telekinetic pig people or some alternate shit.

Now, Enneagram is only excused because it illustrates various unique behaviors at an even more detailed level, so it can be used as a facet of MBTI. (Though, I think its utility is marginal, only revealing itself when we integrate it with typology). However, when we attempt to fuse MBTI with Socionics, it's like we're trying to fuse Western Religion with Eastern Religion, or contemporary medicine with voodoo. They both claim to do the same, founded on the same premise of understanding, but they establish different outputs. We either need one or the other, and I would go with MBTI only because it is less vapid, more straightforward and more organized, though its premises are still highly questionable... as Victor chimes, there has never had a double-blind test.
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
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.
 
G

garbage

Guest
Under Socionics, all rational types--introverted and extroverted--lead with a rational function, and all irrational types lead with an irrational function. Under MBTI, a judging/perceiving type is characterized by which tendency type extroverts. So, they're both consistent, but they have different 'rules'. Socionics is only 'ass-backwards' because you're used to how MBTI characterizes things.

Four-letter notation is highly discouraged under Socionics because it leads to confusion, and the only reason it exists is to serve as a bridge to help MBTI users understand it.

Only thing Socionics does "wrong" in my eyes is the ridiculous VI assertions.

A couple more things, in my eyes:
  • Socionicists are trying to come up with a thorough, workable theory for subtypes when the main type theory hasn't even been rigorously tested
  • Under Socionics, you are a huge baby incapable of surviving in this world without your dual

The two systems are not meant to be fused. Trying to do so will only lead to confusion.

Oh, God, yeah. Socionics Demystified seemingly uses MBTI definitions for its functions--especially noticeable in Si and Se--and these bleed all over into the type descriptions. For example, it describes Socionics Si as "anchoring one's self internally to what is known in a reality that is inherently irrational or chaotic." And then the type descriptions involving Si are bent and almost broken in an attempt to match that definition. The book is terrible for other reasons, but that in particular is just.. ughh! :doh:
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
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.
Can you explain your position as to why it is better? Or perhaps a couple of books or links that you found to have better information.

I never investigated Socionics in depth beyond online reading, but the use of body shapes to type people seemed about as enlightened as phrenology.
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
Can you explain your position as to why it is better? Or perhaps a couple of books or links that you found to have better information.

I never investigated Socionics in depth beyond online reading, but the use of body shapes to type people seemed about as enlightened as phrenology.

Yeah the body typing [VI] is pretty silly, but wikisocion.org was good until their server died and took 3 years of data with it, so it's pretty incomplete, but still the best online source I've found.

BlackCat or whatever the hell Lemons is calling himself now is probably far better at giving you a good breakdown of primary differences, but I do like how it incorporates all 8 cognitive functions within a type's psychology, and I also like how the intertype relations work. Instead of NT, NF, SP, and SJ you have Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta "quadras" that separate you into similar interaction styles rather than just functional similarities, and do a great job of describing how conversation and interaction goes across the different groups.

It also seems a little closer to Jung's original work than MBTI adheres to.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
Why are we attempting to describe the same things with different nomenclatures?

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.

related thread
 

Kasper

Diabolical
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
11,590
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Now, MBTI becomes more questionable the more you process it, but Socionics is just blatantly stupid and inferior as observed. Why are we even using it?

It only looks that way if you use MBTI standards to attempt to understand it, they are not the same systems and you will not be able to understand it until you treat it as a different system. Learn about it, or not, but a good rule of thumb is to not judge something you don't understand as 'blatantly stupid and inferior'.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Your post doesn't make sense tater. You don't really know much about socionics. The function descriptions are tweaked a bit at their core, thus making the types fit within them in their theory (like INFp leading with Ni and having 2ndary Fe, etc). How is socionics stupid? You're just using MBTI's standards to judge socionics, which is ridiculous.

Most people who dismiss socionics are just MBTI enthusiasts who don't understand the theory and how it works. They dismiss it without first trying to understand how it works, with a simple "it's bullshit, MBTI says this" even though they are two different systems. Or they compare it to Jung, and socionics is more distant from Jung than MBTI is. It's not as based on Jung's definitions based on from what I've read, so it would be a fallacy to compare it to that too.

Besides, why do we reference Jung? In his theory, the tertiary is opposite in orientation to the dominant. Meaning, for example, INFJ's function order is Ni Fe Te Se, ENTJ's is Te Ni Si Fi, etc. The way he lays it out is totally different too, yet some people follow him religiously in their study of MBTI. It doesn't make sense.

I'm going to also agree with everything Jock has said. I think that it's more complete and I personally really enjoy how the system is generally laid out. When you understand the core of the relationships it's applicable and makes sense.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Socionics uses the same function names, but rearranges their definitions.

It is different, but only because the functions are altered from their original Jungian definitions. If ISFP and ISFp are the same archetype, but ISFP is Fi+Se and ISFp is Si+Fe, then obviously Fi, Se, Si and Fe mean different things in each system.

Socionics advocates are constantly foaming at the mouth about the vast superiority of their system, but despite altering the function definitions and redistricting some traits into other groups, it's still not really doing anything novel. It's still just 16 personality archetypes grouped into four-letter distinctions.

Personally, I find it kind of bizarre that Socionics uses Jung's function terms while completely ignoring his definitions of them. You'll find that their idea of Ne incorporates a number of Si traits, that their Se apparently doesn't do anything except territorial pissing, and that their Si is just a collection of the traits removed from the Se definition and needlessly shuffled into their own category.

You'll also find a number of body language-oriented perceptions listed erroneously under Fe, awareness of collective behavioral and moral standards erroneously listed under Fi, and various other bizarre categorizations.

Other than that, of course, is the most ridiculous aspect of Socionics--the absolute garbage about reading types based on facial/bodily structure. If that's not enough to convince you the entire system is a joke, then you may be lost forever.

If Socionics wants to stand on its own as an entirely separate personality theory, then that's fine, but they should drop the pretense of being based on Jung's theories. A quick read through his functional definitions in Psychological Types will reveal how out of sync the Socionics functions are with his ideas.


Your post doesn't make sense tater. You don't really know much about socionics. The function descriptions are tweaked a bit at their core, thus making the types fit within them in their theory (like INFp leading with Ni and having 2ndary Fe, etc). How is socionics stupid? You're just using MBTI's standards to judge socionics, which is ridiculous.

Most people who dismiss socionics are just MBTI enthusiasts who don't understand the theory and how it works. They dismiss it without first trying to understand how it works, with a simple "it's bullshit, MBTI says this" even though they are two different systems. Or they compare it to Jung, and socionics is more distant from Jung than MBTI is. It's not as based on Jung's definitions based on from what I've read, so it would be a fallacy to compare it to that too.

Then why does it purport to be based on Jungian psychology? It's not. It just borrows Jung's terms and then changes the definitions of most of them, which makes things awfully confusing. I wouldn't really care to critique Socionics if it didn't falsely claim to align with Jung's function definitions.

Look at Nanook's post up there, ranting about how the ISFP's sense of aesthetics can "clearly be explained only by introverted perception." Sure, whatever. That's not a very meaningful distinction when you've already thrown out Jung's definition of what "introverted perception" actually is and just made up your own definition for it. I could make up my own system where INTJs are dominant in extroverted feeling, but it'd be kind of silly of me to use the same terms as Jung, but make up my own definitions for them and then complain when people don't understand what I'm talking about.

Besides, why do we reference Jung? In his theory, the tertiary is opposite in orientation to the dominant. Meaning, for example, INFJ's function order is Ni Fe Te Se, ENTJ's is Te Ni Si Fi, etc. The way he lays it out is totally different too, yet some people follow him religiously in their study of MBTI. It doesn't make sense.

Because his function classifications make a lot more sense and apply in practice far better than the made up Socionics ones that pretend to be based on Jung (but aren't really.)

We reference Jung not because we arbitrarily find MBTI superior (you've heard my numerous criticisms of MBTI and type testing in general), but because as students of Jung we consider his insights into the inner working of personality to be an excellent basis for the study of personality typology. Socionics doesn't really bring anything new to the table besides chopped up and rearranged functional definitions which most students of Jung find inferior and far less applicable to reality.

And by the way, there's debate among Jungian scholars as to whether he intended to say that the tertiary function is opposite the dominant in orientation:

Wiki said:
Myers interpreted Jung as saying that the auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions are always in the opposite attitude of the dominant. In support of Myers' (and/or Briggs') interpretation, in one sentence Jung seems to state that the three inferior functions of an (extreme) extravert are introverted. The "most differentiated function is always employed in an extraverted way, whereas the inferior functions are introverted" (Jung, [1921] 1971:par. 575).

Many, however, have found Jung's writing to be ambiguous, and those who study and follow Jung's theories (Jungians) are typically adamant that Myers is incorrect. Jungians interpret Jung as explicitly stating that the tertiary function is actually in the same attitude as the dominant, providing balance. More recently, typologists such as John Beebe and Linda Berens have introduced theoretical systems in which all people possess eight functions -- equivalent to the four functions as defined by Jung and Myers but in each of the two possible attitudes -- with the four in the opposite attitude to that measured known as the "shadow functions," residing largely in the unconscious.

I'm going to also agree with everything Jock has said. I think that it's more complete and I personally really enjoy how the system is generally laid out. When you understand the core of the relationships it's applicable and makes sense.

I'm sure it has some sort of use, but it should probably pick its own functional terms instead of borrowing Jung's and changing the meanings. That's where most of the confusion is coming from. (It should also immediately drop the ridiculous nonsense about facial/body structure being an effective way to read type!)

The inter-type relations (duality, etc.) are kind of silly, too. They occasionally describe relationships accurately but not with enough frequency to garner any particular use from them.
 

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
Mr. Tater, I was once as confused as you about it, but I promise if you give it a chance that you will find your type faster and easier in socionics than in MBTI. It's strange, but what Jock says is true. It basically takes the core of MBTI and expands it, but more from a behavioral position. It uses all of the eight functions and attempts to explain how each of them affect a given type. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty robust theory for understanding where you fall and what your weaknesses are.

And Although the theory does use the same 16 type arrangement of MBTI, their perceiving and judging analysis is entirely different, making it a completely different system, one that really has no correlation between the MBTI types. MBTI is less about behavior and relies on more questionable assessments such as ethics, emotion, and sensitivity than about how you inherently interact and show yourself to the world. But I'm also no expert so I'm not going to say anymore than what I have found about it myself. And yes, the VI is quite sketchy; most socionics experts seem to willingly admit this ;P
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
It also seems a little closer to Jung's original work than MBTI adheres to.

I would love to see some citations from Jung to support this claim.


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.

MBTI doesn't do that because there aren't any consistent enough patterns regarding interaction between different types to establish any sort of model for it. Go through your relationships with everyone you know (and their relationships to each other, if you want) and see how often the type relations models actually hold up.


Instead of NT, NF, SP, and SJ you have Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta "quadras" that separate you into similar interaction styles rather than just functional similarities, and do a great job of describing how conversation and interaction goes across the different groups.

The NT/NF/SP/SJ temperaments are not part of MBTI; they're purely Keirsey's invention. MBTI itself doesn't even have a temperament system.

I can agree that the idea of quadrants based on which four functional orientations are preferred is a good way of looking at type relationships, but the same principle works just as well from an MBTI standpoint.

Group 1: NTPs & SFJs (Si, Ne, Ti, Fe)
Group 2: STPs & NFJs (Se, Ni, Ti, Fe)
Group 3: SFPs & NTJs (Se, Ni, Te, Fi)
Group 4: NFPs & STJs (Si, Ne, Te, Fi)
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
I would love to see some citations from Jung to support this claim.

You're right, I shouldn't have said that. Socionics works best when fully divorced from any typology system, including Jung's, and the functional definitions are different enough to make the connection weak at best.

I will say that most Socionics information I've read did stress a more philisophical and psychological approach to typing than MBTI systems do [aside from the horrid VI typing] which may contribute to me finding Socionics closer in style, approach, and language to Jung than MBTI, but that might have to do with how much more popular MBTI is than Socionics in the US, and some core concepts being watered down.

BlackCat actually says it's farther away than MBTI is too, and he knows far more about it than I do, so I guess I have to shove my foot in my mouth for that one.


MBTI doesn't do that because there aren't any consistent enough patterns regarding interaction between different types to establish any sort of model for it. Go through your relationships with everyone you know (and their relationships to each other, if you want) and see how often the type relations models actually hold up.

This actually does hold up for me, so in my limited experience the intertype relations are quite accurate. But, like MBTI, they're not perfect. There definitely is enough variation within types to make these fuzzy at times so I can see if this is why MBTI avoids them.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Mr. Tater, I was once as confused as you about it, but I promise if you give it a chance that you will find your type faster and easier in socionics than in MBTI. It's strange, but what Jock says is true. It basically takes the core of MBTI and expands it, but more from a behavioral position. It uses all of the eight functions and attempts to explain how each of them affect a given type. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty robust theory for understanding where you fall and what your weaknesses are.

Most modern theories in this vein offer 8-function models too, and they actually stay true to the Jungian functional definitions instead of making up new ones and inexplicably using the same Jungian names for them. 8-function models are not at all unique to Socionics.

Also, as Socionics advocates constantly remind everyone, Socionics is not an expansion of the core of MBTI because it developed independently from MBTI.

And Although the theory does use the same 16 type arrangement of MBTI, their perceiving and judging analysis is entirely different, making it a completely different system, one that really has no correlation between the MBTI types. MBTI is less about behavior and relies on more questionable assessments such as ethics, emotion, and sensitivity than about how you inherently interact and show yourself to the world. But I'm also no expert so I'm not going to say anymore than what I have found about it myself. And yes, the VI is quite sketchy; most socionics experts seem to willingly admit this ;P

That's entirely incorrect. MBTI is all about concrete, observable behavioral tendencies. Functional theory is the one that assesses internal motivations for those behaviors along the lines of ethics, emotion, sensitivity, etc.

MBTI concerns itself with observing and categorizing surface behaviors, not the psychological motivations for them.

Also, the Perceiving/Judging qualities of Socionics are hardly different from MBTI at all. The only difference is that in Socionics, P/J refers to the dominant function, and in MBTI it refers to the strongest extroverted function. That's really not a significant difference at all.

Yes, Socionics defines the functions somewhat differently, but it doesn't really accomplish anything special that you can't do with Jungian analysis alone. I can't help feeling like most of the people claiming that Socionics is some fantastic new invention are the same people who watch Hollywood movies with the same old plots that have been repeated hundreds of times and insist that they're totally original because the characters have different names.

The only thing different about Socionics is the redistricting of some functional attributes, and the P/J denotion of which function is dominant rather than which is extroverted. Read the Socionics type descriptions--the archetypes they describe align almost perfectly with MBTI's archetypes. Ignore the way they're labeled and you're talking about essentially the exact same 16 categories.

What is so special about this system that you can't get from Jung and other more modern typology authors?
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
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.

related thread

this should be stickied!
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
this should be stickied!

Ugh, don't encourage him.

1) ESFP and ISFP do have the same functions. The ISFP's "private histrionic exhibitionist behavior" is driven by Se, not Fe. Se leads us to make an immediate sensory impact on others and set ourselves apart in ways that reflect the cutting edge of current popular culture. This is obviously what ISFPs are doing when in extroverted mode. They are not using Fe; Fe is not even remotely about histrionic exhibitionism; it's about identifying with others through the generalized standards of behavior that form social and cultural expectations to build networks of interpersonal responsibility. It is not about impulsively showing off and doing whatever you can to draw attention to yourself. That is clearly the domain of Se.

2) The "individualistic taste and smart sensitivity of the ISFP" is easily and obviously explained by Fi+Se, and has nothing to do with introverted perception (except when occasionally bolstered by tertiary Ni.) Sensitivity is clearly associated with Fi (not Si), and the strong desire for freedom of individualistic expression is, again, classic Fi. Combine this with the ISFP's Se-oriented awareness of what makes the most powerful immediate impact on others--hence your descriptions of exhibitionist behavior--and it's obvious how similar ISFP and ESFP are.

What on earth makes you think exhibitionism results from Fe? It's clearly and obviously an Se thing!

I doubt very seriously that nanook will bother answering this, but--why is the ISFP's taste and sensitivity only explained by introverted perception? For that matter, what does it even have to do with introverted perception in the first place?

Citations from non-Socionics sources would be great. ;)

(Oh wait, I forgot...everything you're writing about function theory is based on arbitrary Socionics distortions of Jung's functions.) :doh:
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
Ugh, don't encourage him.

No, you should listen to him, because he's totally right and knows what he's talking about. There isn't much to add, any further weird rationalization is just...kind of nonsensical.

Citations? Lol, we're not writing an academic paper...
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
No, you should listen to him, because he's totally right and knows what he's talking about. There isn't much to add, any further weird rationalization is just...kind of nonsensical.

Citations? Lol, we're not writing an academic paper...

Can you substantiate any of this? His whole premise is based on Socionics' non-Jungian function definitions. He's declaring every other system wrong based on function definitions that only exist in Socionics.

Could you provide any kind of reference whatsoever (outside of Socionics literature) to suggest that his functional definitions are correct?

Because they sure don't jive with the Jungian definitions.
 

Andy

Supreme High Commander
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
1,211
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Socionics uses the same function names, but rearranges their definitions...

MBTI and socionics remind me of the heliocentric and ptolemaic modles of the universe. The idea that the planets rotate round the earth had been in place for a long time, and a lot of work had gone into it. So much so in fact, that when the heliocentric model came out (with circular, rather than elipsical orbits) the ptolemaic model actually gave better predictions, despite tha fact that it was further removed from reality than the heliocentric idea. It wasn't until they made that small switch to eliptical orbits that it became superior.

There has been so much more work on socionics then MBTI that it often throws up ideas, like the quadrants, that it is currently superior... but put most of my concentration in to MBTI. The differences in funbctions descriptions leads me to think it is fundamentally closer to reality... I just need to work out which of those circles need to be elipses!
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
MBTI and socionics remind me of the heliocentric and ptolemaic modles of the universe. The idea that the planets rotate round the earth had been in place for a long time, and a lot of work had gone into it. So much so in fact, that when the heliocentric model came out (with circular, rather than elipsical orbits) the ptolemaic model actually gave better predictions, despite tha fact that it was further removed from reality than the heliocentric idea. It wasn't until they made that small switch to eliptical orbits that it became superior.

There has been so much more work on socionics then MBTI that it often throws up ideas, like the quadrants, that it is currently superior... but put most of my concentration in to MBTI. The differences in funbctions descriptions leads me to think it is fundamentally closer to reality... I just need to work out which of those circles need to be elipses!

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.
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
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.
 
Top