Can someone help me understand socionics easier?

[SigningBeast]

Simple.. I don't understand it haha
I have interest in learning though

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Wikisocion - Socionics Wiki - Соционика Вики

 

[Betty Blue]

So basically you have to take everything you know about MBTI, and throw it out the window. The systems have similar names but the focuses are different along with the definitions for the functions. So if you try to compare when you only know one system it will boggle you mind.

Start from scratch, a good starting point is learning about the quadras, then the types within each quadra.

 

[ducks]

Yeah, it's kind of like this

 

[GavinElster]

You will run into two schools of thought about socionics: one is it's the same essentially as Mbti and the other that they're totally separate systems.

I tend to take the following view: AS DEFINED, they are clearly different -- but then, MBTI as also different from Jung's stuff.

However, that isn't to say they should be seen as different in the sense of getting at different things. When I scan the systems, I see little *reason* given to define socionics one way and define mbti another way. It seems like they're just two takes on the ideas of introverted-X and extraverted-Y. Yes they have different applications in mind, eg socionics has this intertype thing, but I'm not sure that means the theories themselves aren't getting at the same thing.

So my view is generally to say that we might as well try to learn them as they are first and then, as knowledge of the general ideas of the typologies improves, we can build the best version of both combined.

 

[raskol]

When I scan the systems, I see little *reason* given to define socionics one way and define mbti another way. It seems like they're just two takes on the ideas of introverted-X and extraverted-Y. Yes they have different applications in mind, eg socionics has this intertype thing, but I'm not sure that means the theories themselves aren't getting at the same thing.

Beyond diverging definitions, the two approaches are strikingly different in structure. Socionics involves a return to repression, which is avoided in MBTI, and expresses two conscious functions (ego block) instead of four. Beyond that, following model A, socionics makes use of three sets of shadow functions, involving the Jungian concepts shadow, anima, and the Self or collective unconscious. These are nevertheless renamed in pseudo-Freudian nomenclature as id, super-id, and super-ego respectively. Beebe and Berens have attempted similar models, restoring repression at the core of personality theory, but they still rely on contrasting four conscious with four unconscious functions.

There are also striking incompatibilities relating to type equivalence between MBTI and socionics. Following model A, ESI/FiSe is a guardian or conservator, designating a balanced, unemotional, neat, traditional, and strongly familial personality prone to "tough love." Meanwhile, SEI/SiFe is the mediator or peacemaker, a charming yet pretentious personality who is drawn to literature and the fine arts, yet prone to gossip and bragging. Then, with SLI/SiTe, we have the proud, haughty craftsman or artisan who is shrouded in pessimism, suspicion, jealousy, and dark humor. Juxtapose this type with LSI/TiSe, the inspector, a strong-willed, dutiful, diligent, sober realist, and you have more or less inverted the MBTI type description.

In sum, there is no golden mean to be applied between the two theories. For all in-depth purposes, stick with one and abandon the other.

 

[GavinElster]

In sum, there is no golden mean to be applied between the two theories. For all in-depth purposes, stick with one and abandon the other.

So yes, I also think, as you do, that they differ in structure -- to be clear, as you might have gathered, when I say there's no reason to use one set of definitions for one and another set for the other, I certainly don't think we should view the differences are limited to a difference in definitions. It certainly seems to be the various theorists differ on things like how much the unconscious plays in, e.g. Jung a lot, Myers less it seems (this is what you likely mean by repression) Rather, my aim is to say the difference in definitions is certainly there, but that it's not clear we can just use the different definitions for different purposes and say the systems can just coexist harmoniously.

Rather, I think both aim at describing the psyche, but divide it up in different ways (as you say, that can be done in a more Jungian or Freudian way), and assign different ways in which the functions/IE/etc develop roles based on how they see the psyche as structured, and we ought to figure out which divisions are well-motivated and reasonable.

My general idea is neither the structure-of-psyche differences nor the differences of definitions of functions is suggestive that we can use one compartmentalized for one purposes and the other for others -- rather, they seem to be different theories of the IE/functions and their roles. So, if anything, not only do I also, like you it seems, think we shouldn't find a balance between them, but rather think we should probably take the good ideas (if any exist) from each and find out the truest theory without believing either necessarily.

I think they're getting at the same thing not in the sense that they're saying the same thing so much as they're both theories of the roles of introverted-X and extraverted-Y in the psyche... but they can differ in nearly every way besides that (what exactly they think introverted-X/extraverted-Y mean, and what roles they should play AND what roles are available to play based on the way the psyche is divided), and that's a matter for us to sort out and find out the best theory from, potentially discarding large parts of both.