Socionics is BAD

[KDude]

That's different. But she wanted it to be used for career decision-making. I agree that it doesn't have to lock me into a set of similar professions. It's just a method for helping decide on a general career path that's been blown way out of proportion.

Fair enough.

That said, I don't think Jung is ISTP either. I could be wrong, but didn't he say himself that he identified with Ni (or whatever the German word for it is) and some Thinking process? I would assume INTJ. I don't think many in Socionics would type him SLI/ISTp either. But there are some intellectuals typed as ISTp sometimes.

 

[Mal12345]

Fair enough.

That said, I don't think Jung is ISTP either. I could be wrong, but didn't he say himself that identified with Ni (or whatever the German word for it is) and some Thinking process? I would assume INTJ. I don't think many in Socionics would type him SLI/ISTp either. But there are some intellectuals typed as ISTp sometimes.

I don't know if he typed himself as Ni, but it would sure help greatly to have a cite to that effect.

 

[KDude]

I don't know if he typed himself as Ni, but it would sure help greatly to have a cite to that effect.

I suck with citations. lol. I know that he used two words for Intuition. Einfall and Anfang. Einfall is Ne... I think it was sort of compared to rain pouring down (an external act), while Anfang was the more detached, mystical, introverted Intuition. I thought he identified with Anfang.

 

[Ginkgo]

It might make a little sense, but people aren't gimped just because of a type. We're all human beings, first and foremost.

 

[Mal12345]

yay.

Whenever it comes time for these conversations, someone always brings up the OBVIOUS. Unfortunately, we're typing personalities, and in fact, you could say that about typing your pets.

"My pet isn't an ISTJ, my pet is first, and foremost - A DOG."

Well isn't that wonderful. yay.

 

[Mal12345]

Ok. Now that we've established the fact that we're dealing with humans first and foremost, the topic is really not about humans or their personalities or any other red herrings, but typological nomenclature.

So what if Socionics uses VI. It's more than that, it's a huge complex system. And it is right to call me an INTj and not an INTP.

 

[Ginkgo]

yay.

Whenever it comes time for these conversations, someone always brings up the OBVIOUS. Unfortunately, we're typing personalities, and in fact, you could say that about typing your pets.

"My pet isn't an ISTJ, my pet is first, and foremost - A DOG."

Well isn't that wonderful. yay.

I don't think it's obvious to some what a human being really is.

 

[Mal12345]

I don't think it's obvious to some what a human being really is.

Sometimes it is questionable whether or not a thread on this forum can stay on topic for more than 3 pages.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Fe is another function botched by MBTI.. it always seems to be associated with "groupthink" or status quo morality.

In Socionics, Fe is accomodating, but it's more about visible intensity, expressiveness, effusiveness, and in some cases, theatrics.

These are all ways Fe may manifest in a person, according to the Jungian description and IMO. The problem is when these systems focus on one or a few ways it manifests & ignores the core thinking behind it, because there are always several ways it can manifest. A mindset which is about affecting the "object" (other people, the emotional atmosphere, etc) & adapting to the object in order to create & promote values is Fe, whether the person is theatrical or polite. It all boils down to externalizing values so as to keep them connected to the object, which is reality for the person.

But when you get to Fi, Socionics loses any resemblance to Jung's definition, because it also paints an outward focus, and it starts sounding like Fe in an introvert (a Fe-aux), not a Fi-dom.

 

[Mal12345]

These are all ways Fe may manifest in a person, according to the Jungian description and IMO. The problem is when these systems focus on one or a few ways it manifests & ignores the core thinking behind it, because there are always several ways it can manifest. A mindset which is about affecting the "object" (other people, the emotional atmosphere, etc) & adapting to the object in order to create & promote values is Fe, whether the person is theatrical or polite. It all boils down to externalizing values so as to keep them connected to the object, which is reality for the person.

But when you get to Fi, Socionics loses any resemblance to Jung's definition, because it also paints an outward focus, and it starts sounding like Fe in an introvert (a Fe-aux), not a Fi-dom.

That resemblance has already been lost.

Do you mean this Socionics description of the Fi? "Fi is responsible for understanding the quality, nature, and proper maintenance of personal relations; makes moral judgments; and aspires to humanism and kindness. Fi has a strong understanding of the social hierarchy and how people feel about each other, their attitudes of like or dislike, enthrallment or disgust, repulsion or attraction, enmity or friendship."

 

[lunalum]

Is the Ti type really perceptive?

Not in itself. But both INTP/ISTP and LII/LSI are outwardly perceptive.

It was just a little technique called 'reductio ad absurdum.' If Jung was an ISTP, then why was he such an NT type of writer and not an ST type of - you tell me. But professions listed for the ISTP include things like graphical design, which makes sense.

Are you saying that ISTPs cannot write like that or is this hypothetical?

Agreed, it gets simpler with a little effort. It would be easier to say that the I/E always goes last, as in LII being Logical Intuitive Introrim. And you messed up on the Extrorim.

Okay fair enough...erased... an actual correction would've been nice though

A universal typology language: who knew?

Yes... because what do these mess of letters mean to someone for whom the letters can stand for nothing in their own language?

 

[OrangeAppled]

That resemblance has already been lost.

Do you mean this Socionics description of the Fi? "Fi is responsible for understanding the quality, nature, and proper maintenance of personal relations; makes moral judgments; and aspires to humanism and kindness. Fi has a strong understanding of the social hierarchy and how people feel about each other, their attitudes of like or dislike, enthrallment or disgust, repulsion or attraction, enmity or friendship."

Yes, I think the Socionics description of Fi is far from Jung's. I think Fe misses the mark also, but I see more connection than with Fi (and some other functions which are quite different as well). This is not the worst socionics Fi description, as it could be tweaked a bit to be closer to Jung, but it would need to be tweaked a lot to be in-line with it. I've seen quite a few that sound much more Fe-esque, describing someone focused on social protocol and interpersonal dynamics. The "social hierarchy" bit here is an example of how Socionics paints Fi in that manner.

 

[KDude]

Fi in Socionics isn't very external at all. All of the Fi "quadras" (the 4 groups of types) are cooler or a bit more held back because of it. Fe quadras display the outward liveliness or participatory attitude (err.. for lack of a better way of putting it). What Socionics would call the "merry" quadras (Alpha and Beta).

 

[Mal12345]

Not in itself. But both INTP/ISTP and LII/LSI are outwardly perceptive.

Aren't we all?

Are you saying that ISTPs cannot write like that or is this hypothetical?

Do you know any ISTPs who can write even remotely like Carl Jung. And even if any CAN, do they WANT to do it for a living?

http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/istp/

"ISTPs have an adventuresome spirit. They are attracted to motorcycles, airplanes, sky diving, surfing, etc. They thrive on action, and are usually fearless. ISTPs are fiercely independent, needing to have the space to make their own decisions about their next step. They do not believe in or follow rules and regulations, as this would prohibit their ability to 'do their own thing'."
- Portrait of an ISTP (The Personality Page)

"Like their fellow SPs, ISTPs are fundamentally Performers, but as Ts their areas of interest tend to be mechanical rather than artistic like those of ISFPs, and unlike most ESPs they do not present an impression of constant activity."

Do these quotes even remotely describe Carl Jung? Now you see why I like to describe them archetypically as "motorcycle mechanics." Yes that is somewhat in joke, but not entirely.

Does typology have ANY meaning in reality? Is it so vague and therefore flexible that anybody can be any type?

Okay fair enough...erased... an actual correction would've been nice though

Didn't I?

Yes... because what do these mess of letters mean to someone for whom the letters can stand for nothing in their own language?

Learn English!

 

[KDude]

I kind of break/crash motorcycles myself. Not fix them. I'm better off with cars, skateboards, string instruments, and round objects that bounce.

 

[Mal12345]

I kind of break/crash motorcycles myself. Not fix them. I'm better off with cars, skateboards, string instruments, and round objects that bounce.

In fact, I think in the very first conversation I had about Jung's alleged ISTP type (which wasn't on this forum) I half-jokingly asked if Jung was into rollerblading, or something along those lines. (I think maybe my example was skateboarding.)

But usually, if they're into riding motorcycles, then they also learn how to fix them.

 

[INTP]

It's all explained in the OP.

No its not..

 

[KDude]

In fact, I think in the very first conversation I had about Jung's alleged ISTP type (which wasn't on this forum) I half-jokingly asked if Jung was into rollerblading, or something along those lines. (I think maybe my example was skateboarding.)

But usually, if they're into riding motorcycles, then they also learn how to fix them.

I guess I could be into bikes, but it was never something I had to just do, other than riding a friend's dirtbike occassionally. So I barely ride them, therefore don't fix them. I'm probably a better car driver than any of my friends though. I've even played a good getaway driver. When we were younger, there used to be creeks and rockbeds and fields to just go crazy in, and everyone always deferred to me to give them a fun ride. Heh. So maybe I make up for lack of cool biker status.

 

[ICUP]

Such confusion has arisen from this function talk that even an intellectual such as Carl Jung is considered by some - an ISTP, as if he were some motorcycle mechanic or something.

Carl Jung said he was istp himself at one time, pretty much. There is evidence that he believed he was istp, and there is evidence that he believed he was intp. He has insinuated both.

I think it would take someone who is stoned to believe istp's are all motorcycle mechanics. I've never touched a motorcycle or a car, or anything else mechanically until the last couple of years, when I started repairing and building my own computers. Some ISTP's enjoy observation and description. I could see Jung results coming from an istp. Some istp's also write manuals.

I'm also not athletic and have never been very athletic. I was the smallest, wimpiest kid in the class when I was in grade-school through junior high, and I hated PE. Just never got into it after that..... The most I have done is light weightlifting/aerobics for a year or so.

 

[KDude]

Carl Jung said he was istp himself at one time, pretty much. There is evidence that he believed he was istp, and there is evidence that he believed he was intp. He has insinuated both.

I think it would take someone who is stoned to believe istp's are all motorcycle mechanics. I've never touched a motorcycle or a car, or anything else mechanically until the last couple of years, when I started repairing and building my own computers. Some ISTP's enjoy observation. I could see Jung results coming from an istp.

Interesting.. Do you know where he said that? (yeah, yeah, maybe you suck at citations as much as I do.. . Just wondering).

I think as far as famous intellectuals go, I think a better case can be made for Darwin being an ISTP. Not to say he is, but I can see it more than Jung. Jung said he spent his whole early life in a state of detachment, trying to make sense of all of these ideas he finally put words to later. At least Darwin was out and about, exploring the world - and then his theoretical models came later (edit: This could very well be INTP too though, of course).