User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 36 of 36

  1. #31
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raskolnik View Post
    After having considered the Reinin dichotomies, Gulenko's cognitive styles, and model A, I've reached the conclusion that Socionics must be forcefully separated from MBTI, which in turn must be kept at a distance from Beebe's and Berens' function stacks and axes, temperament indicators, and interaction styles.

    The inconsistencies are best noted by the vast chasm separating the in-depth descriptions of the respective types, not to mention the "archetypal" representations permeating Socionics. Anyone who tries to link the types, such as the "Sherlock Holmes" administrator LSE with ESTJ/TeSi, or the "Jean Gabin" craftsman SLI with ISTJ/SiTe, is in for a major disappointment, as Te and Si have properties that do not overlap between the respective theories. It is not that Socionics is wrong, it just necessitates a complete reinterpretation and revaluation of Jungian nomenclature.

    In other words, consistent typologists must pick a side, and I'm going with Berens' elaboration on Jung.
    I was roughly following until that last line. Why must someone pick a side? If the two systems are incompatible, couldn't it be that they describe different aspects of people, with "INTP"etc. referring to cognition, and "INTj/LII"etc referring to social dynamics?

    (or, given that socionics speaks of "information metabolism", each system could be referring to cognition analysed from different angles)

    My side is just... whatever I happen to have pieced together from various sources. As I mentioned, I haven't yet been able to make sense of socionics.

  2. #32
    failed poetry slam career chubber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    4,370

    Default

    I'll quote this:

    Translator's note : the meaning of "rationality-irrationality" in colloquial language is somewhat different from the original Jung's (and socionic) understanding of this term. The colloquial meaning of this word pair should be attributed rather to another dichotomy, logic-ethic (or T/F in the Myers-Briggs theory).

    Although the J/P dichotomy in Myers-Briggs theory resembles rationality-irrationality by its description, they are not the same. As it has been proven by Gregory Shulman, J/P is not dichotomy i.e. it does not split the 16 types into two equal parts. It is a pseudo-dichotomy that represents two poles with multiple transitional options; in other words, one or two types in socionics may be called "super-J", and another one or two types "super-P", while other types will be in between these poles. This explains, for example, why ENFp or ENFj in socionics may both get scored ENFP according to MBTI, etc.

    One more remark: according to I.Myers' hypothesis, rationals correspond to EJ and IP types, while irrationals - to EP and IJ types. However, socionic statistics disproves her hypothesis and speaks rather in favor of identification of J/P with rationality/irrationality (although not 100%, as it was said above).
    Saying that Socionics and MBTI is completely different is like saying, well an African is completely different from Caucasian. And we all know how that argument goes today. We are all the same fundamentally, deep down in the core, but now to go and argue that we are different is like sticking your head in the sand and denying that we have the same cores although slight exterior "noticeable" attributes.

    Besides, the fact that we use terms like NF and SP, from a system that was introduced by Keirsey, expanded on the ancient study of temperament by Hippocrates and Plato, is ironic, since Keirsey distances himself from MBTI and calls his own system completely separate from MBTI. This simply perpetuates the whole argument that it "must be different" even though today nobody seems to make a distinction of it.

    You cannot be an ENFx in MBTI and then state to be a SLI in Socionics.
    Fyodor Dostoyevsky “A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.”

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I was roughly following until that last line. Why must someone pick a side?
    We do it for the sake of sustaining cohesive explanations. Sooner or later, we reach a point where we are forced to consider the priority and hierarchy of available analytical tools. And for a theory to be sustainable, it must be predictive. That's where socionics goes too far, shoehorning character traits and qualities that don't hold up to scrutiny. The Reinin dichotomies and Gulenko's cognitive styles become a bed of Procrustes, as they simply don't fit when applied practically.

    If the two systems are incompatible, couldn't it be that they describe different aspects of people, with "INTP"etc. referring to cognition, and "INTj/LII"etc referring to social dynamics?
    Next to romantic style, social dynamics constitute the worst aspect of socionics. The LII "Robespierre" analyst, which is exemplified by e.g. Vladimir Putin, is jokingly referred to as a type that applies the guillotine to whatever falls out of favor. Meanwhile, this is an "emotivist" and "merry" type, which is simultaneously cold-blooded and experiences the world through holographic-panoramic cognition.

    The more traits you add and the deeper you dive into the type description, the greater the chaos. In the end, the analysis is so far-reaching that it can only be applied to that one subject (be it Robespierre, Hamlet, Zhukov, or any other avatar).

    (or, given that socionics speaks of "information metabolism", each system could be referring to cognition analysed from different angles)
    If that is the case, then we are dealing with esotericism and not a perspicuous theory.

    My side is just... whatever I happen to have pieced together from various sources. As I mentioned, I haven't yet been able to make sense of socionics.
    I appreciate your contributions, and find that you are consistently able to motivate your conclusion. Even if you fully rely on intuition, and only trace the necessary steps after the fact, you remain flexible and open to argue your case. If you were to rely on socionics, it would turn your approach to typing inside out, from assessment of function to that of shoehorning.

    Quote Originally Posted by chubber View Post
    Saying that Socionics and MBTI is completely different is like saying, well an African is completely different from Caucasian. And we all know how that argument goes today. We are all the same fundamentally, deep down in the core, but now to go and argue that we are different is like sticking your head in the sand and denying that we have the same cores although slight exterior "noticeable" attributes.
    That's a poor analogy, as we humans share 60% of our DNA with bananas and fruit flies, and 90% with cats. And as far as humans are concerned, my 4% Neanderthal DNA is enough to set me (and most Eurasians) apart from sub-Saharan Africans, while my Ashkenazi ancestry significantly raises the risk of developing Crohn's disease and other unpleasantries.

    With that in mind, typology does not require the exactitude of genetics and genomics. But if we are looking to draw meaningful conclusions, we shouldn't muddy the waters by merging incompatible theoretical outlooks that don't even rely on the same definitions.

    Besides, the fact that we use terms like NF and SP, from a system that was introduced by Keirsey, expanded on the ancient study of temperament by Hippocrates and Plato, is ironic, since Keirsey distances himself from MBTI and calls his own system completely separate from MBTI. This simply perpetuates the whole argument that it "must be different" even though today nobody seems to make a distinction of it.
    Expanding on that dimension, I appreciate the ancient Greek distinctions, such as Dionysian (SP) and Apollonian (NF). But they are playful and expansive and, as such, do not constrain the types. Furthermore, I am not defending MBTI. I am embracing Berens' expansion of MBTI through the lens of Jungian analytical psychology.

    You cannot be an ENFx in MBTI and then state to be a SLI in Socionics.
    I agree that it's unlikely, considering the function stack, but that via negativa still doesn't tell us anything about the person in question. The problem occurs when, e.g., ISFP is equated with the ESI "guardian," which is described as a highly ethical and family-oriented stoic, someone who'd consistently choose duty over love. The moment you try to merge them, you realize that one will have to give.
    Likes kittenke liked this post

  4. #34
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raskol
    If you were to rely on socionics, it would turn your approach to typing inside out, from assessment of function to that of shoehorning.
    Socionics for me would mean seeing things from a perspective whereby different functions are allocated to the 3rd-8th positions, and different cognitive functions would energise each other.

    Interestingly, it would still be the 5th and 6th functions that are the energising ones.

    (that probably wouldn't ever happen because I don't even know where to begin to look given how pervasive I've found the function order I generally mention (Beebe's, except not the same archetype for each position) to be)

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1/3
    Posts
    148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GavinElster View Post
    @kittenke -- yes, that's what I cover

    What I'm saying is that the colloquial definition of forceful involving being aggressive, power-oriented, or whatever, misses the point. Se could manifest that way, but it needn't.
    Sorry I only looked at the forum now. I guess what one sees as aggressiveness is relative : p

  6. #36
    Member Drunkstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeego View Post
    (notably Victor Gulenko, Dario Nardi, and the author of the post itself) believe that Socionics and MBTI can be merged with each other, and if you are a certain type in one system (e.g. INTP) then you must be the corresponding type in the other system (INTj)
    The problem is, mbti describes the types by letters, so they describe an INTj as an INTJ and not an INTP, they describe it simmilarly and somewhat accurately but they got the functions wrong. So people typed in mbti as INTPs will often think they are introverted thinkers in socionics too, it's not the case.

    Robespierre for instance, the poster boy for INTj in socioncis. Ask in mbti forums, they will often type him as INTJ because of the letters and then they will try to justify his functions to fit the letters.

Similar Threads

  1. Socionics vs MBTI
    By Azseroffs in forum Socionics
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 08-17-2019, 05:47 AM
  2. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 09-16-2013, 05:53 PM
  3. Understanding People with MBTI
    By Ravenetta in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-17-2009, 10:35 AM
  4. difficulty with MBTI tests
    By jnick1972 in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-13-2008, 06:49 AM
  5. Is it reasonable to compare Socionics with MBTI?
    By Athenian200 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-15-2007, 09:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO