• 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.

Sell me on Socionics

whateverr

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2020
Messages
60
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Why isn't Pe gathering collective facts/concepts, and Pi gathering facts/concepts viewed by the self? It makes no sense to stick "organising" on Pi if Pe was "gathering" (i.e. perceiving), with Je and Ji there is consistency that they are both about values/reasons (i.e. judging) with E being collective oriented and I being self-oriented.
And now I'll add what I thought. Tough competitiveness (and especially social status oriented competitiveness) is Te in mbti but Se in socionics? How the fuck does that work?
About the 1st paragraph of the quote, it could be a way. But it would still be, instead of a more "mindless gathering" approach, it's more directed to how it makes sense with your subjectiveness. Kinda like the same thing in different words. But i rather use organizing in the nomenclature because it is portrays a more clear distinction between the two in my pov.
Se= Fire exists
Si= Fire burns me

E is gathering the sensory, I organizes it. Perception is not simply a "taking in the world" activity, may i add. Is also about putting what you take in into perspective.

About the second paragraph, i would advise not to correlate functions with adjectives. I find it is a common way to shoot yourself in the foot. "Competitiveness" could happen for a bunch of reasons. Don't associate it with functions. Otherwise, the next time you see a competitive guy, you will put him in a box, instead of trying to figure out why he would do such a thing. Maybe he is competitive because he hates the idea of being undervalued. That's Fe. Maybe he hates the idea of his actions not being as functions as he thought they would be (Ti). Maybe there is a secret and unconscious social status undertone to the Ti competitive. That would actually be, Ti dom with inf Fe behavior, IxTP. Look for the why in the action, not the action it self. Anyone can do anything in any situation. Yet they chose to do this. Why did they choose to act the way they did? That's where the money is. What drives them to act, instead of what the action was by itself.
Be careful with that.
 

Meowcat

New member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
209
About the 1st paragraph of the quote, it could be a way. But it would still be, instead of a more "mindless gathering" approach, it's more directed to how it makes sense with your subjectiveness. Kinda like the same thing in different words. But i rather use organizing in the nomenclature because it is portrays a more clear distinction between the two in my pov.
Se= Fire exists
Si= Fire burns me

E is gathering the sensory, I organizes it. Perception is not simply a "taking in the world" activity, may i add. Is also about putting what you take in into perspective.

As for your last couple sentences I agree yeah, but organisation makes me think of intentional ordering and direction that only J functions are supposed to have so hardly just a perspective seen in a perception. Perception to me seems pretty much "mindless gathering", because it does not have a direction. (You can tell how I am all about direction, lol)


About the second paragraph, i would advise not to correlate functions with adjectives. I find it is a common way to shoot yourself in the foot. "Competitiveness" could happen for a bunch of reasons. Don't associate it with functions. Otherwise, the next time you see a competitive guy, you will put him in a box, instead of trying to figure out why he would do such a thing. Maybe he is competitive because he hates the idea of being undervalued. That's Fe. Maybe he hates the idea of his actions not being as functions as he thought they would be (Ti). Maybe there is a secret and unconscious social status undertone to the Ti competitive. That would actually be, Ti dom with inf Fe behavior, IxTP. Look for the why in the action, not the action it self. Anyone can do anything in any situation. Yet they chose to do this. Why did they choose to act the way they did? That's where the money is. What drives them to act, instead of what the action was by itself.
Be careful with that.

If you notice, I emphasised the motivation: social status. This in MBTI is said to be Te, but Se in Socionics.
 

Infinite Metamorphosis

A little intense.
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
4,529
MBTI Type
ESI
Enneagram
826
Instinctual Variant
sx
And now I'll add what I thought. Tough competitiveness (and especially social status oriented competitiveness) is Te in mbti but Se in socionics? How the fuck does that work?
Aushra Augustinavichute decided to create the coalescence of Carl Jung's work and Information Metabolism Theory by Antoni Kempinski. Unlike this system, the MBTI does not include Information Metabolism Theory, it's just Jung and then all the things Myers' and Briggs' did with Jung's work. The end result? A system that is different, but similar enough to trick everybody who doesn't read enough about it to realize it. There are some similarities, but they are still rather different on a literally foundational level. Socionics deals with information exchange between someone (something). Socionics has blocks.

Socionics Si is also about things like comfort, but Se in Socionics is about things like force. They are designed to be opposites of each other within the same system instead of being designed to be an exact replica of a completely separate system, so them being different than MBTI cognitive functions is not bizarre.

See more differences here:
Model of the Type of Information Metabolism (TIM) | School of System Socionics

If you want my opinion though, this shit doesn't make sense from the very start. Why did someone bother to waste their time combining two theories that are unsupported by scientific evidence when either one, or both, may be entirely false or even just partially false and send the entire system crumbling down? Shouldn't they have solidified the foundations they were building on first? What, now you have to try to hope to just somehow get lucky and have both of them AND your new pretzel theory proven? Or was it all just intended to be one big nerd fest to pass the time anyway? As for MBTI...why did people decide to make incomplete work easily accessible by the public? Issues within the typology community are explained.
 

Meowcat

New member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
209
Aushra Augustinavichute decided to create the coalescence of Carl Jung's work and Information Metabolism Theory by Antoni Kempinski. Unlike this system, the MBTI does not include Information Metabolism Theory, it's just Jung and then all the things Myers' and Briggs' did with Jung's work. The end result? A system that is different, but similar enough to trick everybody who doesn't read enough about it to realize it. There are some similarities, but they are still rather different on a literally foundational level. Socionics deals with information exchange between someone (something). Socionics has blocks.

Socionics Si is also about things like comfort, but Se in Socionics is about things like force. They are designed to be opposites of each other within the same system instead of being designed to be an exact replica of a completely separate system, so them being different than MBTI cognitive functions is not bizarre.

See more differences here:
Model of the Type of Information Metabolism (TIM) | School of System Socionics

If you want my opinion though, this shit doesn't make sense from the very start. Why did someone bother to waste their time combining two theories that are unsupported by scientific evidence when either one, or both, may be entirely false or even just partially false and send the entire system crumbling down? Shouldn't they have solidified the foundations they were building on first? What, now you have to try to hope to just somehow get lucky and have both of them AND your new pretzel theory proven? Or was it all just intended to be one big nerd fest to pass the time anyway? As for MBTI...why did people decide to make incomplete work easily accessible by the public? Issues within the typology community are explained.

Thanks for the reply/input. I figure they picked the parts of the two systems that made sense to them, so it's not necessarily like just taking the two systems as is, but creating a new one and it can be better just fine. But I'm not saying Socionics is better than Jung or Kempinski, I'm just saying that technically this is also a possibility. I don't really see how they would be supposed to solidify Jung's system or the other system: it would already be a new system at that point. And likely that was their goal with building the Socionics system.

But yeah, it seems like navel gazing beyond a point. My original question was about how it doesn't make sense to me to take one thing (competitiveness of a type/motivation) and completely re-label it in another system. Makes it look like the reasoning behind is completely arbitrary. And not just solidifying or fixing an existing system. Even if that may have been the original goal. ...

I didn't understand your last sentence, sorry. Any typo there, or?
 

Infinite Metamorphosis

A little intense.
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
4,529
MBTI Type
ESI
Enneagram
826
Instinctual Variant
sx
Thanks for the reply/input. I figure they picked the parts of the two systems that made sense to them, so it's not necessarily like just taking the two systems as is, but creating a new one and it can be better just fine. But I'm not saying Socionics is better than Jung or Kemfpinski, I'm just saying that technically this is also a possibility. I don't really see how they would be supposed to solidify Jung's system or the other system: it would already be a new system at that point. And likely that was their goal with building the Socionics system.

But yeah, it seems like navel gazing beyond a point. My original question was about how it doesn't make sense to me to take one thing (competitiveness of a type/motivation) and completely re-label it in another system. Makes it look like the reasoning behind is completely arbitrary. And not just solidifying or fixing an existing system. Even if that may have been the original goal. ...

I didn't understand your last sentence, sorry. Any typo there, or?
Hmm, I wasn't saying it'd solidify Jung's system, quite opposite...building a new system out of a system that isn't solid gives you a new system that is just as lacking in solidity. As for "socionics being a new system..." it's really not though, lol. It's close enough for the originals to have to be true in order for Socionics to be true. If someone disproved one of those guys' work it'd make the Socionics system crumble apart.

Personally, I don't like Socionics. I see it as too restricting. Like why are those the only PoLRs? What if mine isn't any of the ones on the list? What if I don't relate to any of the information metabolism elements as they are in the 1st position of the ego block and I only start relating to any of them at position 3, in the Super-ego block, which is lower dimensional? What if I relate more to something like Si in position 1 and Ti in position 2, both of which would be in the Ego Block, and I can't relate well to my options to have both of those as 4D/high-dimensional in the system because I relate less to both Ne and Fe than those two?

bUt ThaT'S aGAiNsT tHe sOcIOniCs SyStEm's rUUuLeS bECaUsE--
The division of information metabolism into two phases is loosely based on the analysis of the orienting response. Information metabolism is initiated by the perception of a change in the internal or external environment of the organism. In the first phase, the organism seeks to obtain direct information about the perceived phenomenon. Because of that, it must turn its attention 'outside' to the reality. The perceived phenomenon is then subconsciously evaluated.
Yes. Exactly though. It's against the rules...and why shouldn't it be? What evidence suggests that there is an extroverted IE and an introverted IE (Information Metabolism Element--those things most people call "functions") in the Ego Block? Why can't someone have two introverted IEs or two extroverted IEs other than bECaUsE sOcIOniCs sAYs sO? What science supports this nomothetic theory? Oh, right...nothing, because it's only derived from yet more psychological theories that are unsupported by empirical data. My views on this are probably only unpopular because people find it fun to dig around and play with the puzzle so they'd like to believe they have a type.
 

Infinite Metamorphosis

A little intense.
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
4,529
MBTI Type
ESI
Enneagram
826
Instinctual Variant
sx
I didn't understand your last sentence, sorry. Any typo there, or?
No, I just didn't fully write out my thoughts and said things in a way that required dots to be connected between the two last sentences.

Issues within the typology community are explained by the fact that people decided to make incomplete work easily accessible by the public. That's why everyone is arguing about definitions and other information within the nomothetic theories. The Big 5 is backed up the most, but nobody ever even uses it.
 

Meowcat

New member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
209
Hmm, I wasn't saying it'd solidify Jung's system, quite opposite...building a new system out of a system that isn't solid gives you a new system that is just as lacking in solidity.

Yeah I wasn't saying you were saying that. But where I was said something different from you is that the new system can be more solid, depending of course. I'm not saying Socionics is more solid, just that in general it is entirely possible. Since the new system is reorganised compared to the old and has new elements, and all that can be more solid. It's not like just copypasting the old system(s).


As for "socionics being a new system..." it's really not though, lol. It's close enough for the originals to have to be true in order for Socionics to be true. If someone disproved one of those guys' work it'd make the Socionics system crumble apart.

Tbh I see Socionics as having gone so far from the original that I don't see them as closely connected any more beyond a point.

But as far as they are still connected - If some things in the originals are refuted that Socionics did not copy "as is", but enough fundamentals are not disproven, then Socionics can still be true (technically - if you go on with my post you can see I'm not claiming that Socionics must be true whatsoever, as it is really not proven as it is now), but if those fundamentals that Socionics took out of these theories are disproven, then yes Socionics will be disproven too.


Personally, I don't like Socionics. I see it as too restricting. Like why are those the only PoLRs? What if mine isn't any of the ones on the list? What if I don't relate to any of the information metabolism elements as they are in the 1st position of the ego block and I only start relating to any of them at position 3, in the Super-ego block, which is lower dimensional? What if I relate more to something like Si in position 1 and Ti in position 2, both of which would be in the Ego Block, and I can't relate well to my options to have both of those as 4D/high-dimensional in the system because I relate less to both Ne and Fe than those two?

I do think it's a big rabbithole at first sight. I know that's disregarding OP, heh sorry to OP.


bUt ThaT'S aGAiNsT tHe sOcIOniCs SyStEm's rUUuLeS bECaUsE--

Yes. Exactly though. It's against the rules...and why shouldn't it be? What evidence suggests that there is an extroverted IE and an introverted IE (Information Metabolism Element--those things most people call "functions") in the Ego Block? Why can't someone have two introverted IEs or two extroverted IEs other than bECaUsE sOcIOniCs sAYs sO? What science supports this nomothetic theory? Oh, right...nothing, because it's only derived from yet more psychological theories that are unsupported by empirical data. My views on this are probably only unpopular because people find it fun to dig around and play with the puzzle so they'd like to believe they have a type.

Afaik Ego block is the ego block not simply because the ego IEs or functions or whatever are strong but because the processing of them is also conscious and not just its results.

This wasn't part of Jung, or Kempinski, otoh it is hard to prove as it is now. It's not delineated properly, the above idea. So, it's a theory where you can explain anything with any reasoning - unfalsifiable.



No, I just didn't fully write out my thoughts and said things in a way that required dots to be connected between the two last sentences.

Issues within the typology community are explained by the fact that people decided to make incomplete work easily accessible by the public. That's why everyone is arguing about definitions and other information within the nomothetic theories. The Big 5 is backed up the most, but nobody ever even uses it.

Ah gotcha. As for incompleteness...A scientific theory is never complete. I think the issues here are explained by how the theories become unfalsifiable rabbitholes if you go too deep in them. The function dichotomies (the "letters") correlate with Big 5 pretty neatly though.

... But then Socionics takes that, and changes the related reasoning completely even for such fundamentals. (Hence my original issue I brought up in the thread)
 

Merced

Talk to me.
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
3,591
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
286
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Reviving this thread too while I'm at it.

I view MBTI and Enneagram as self improvement tools, how could Socionics be used in a fashion that can't be done through its counterparts?
 

chickpea

perfect person
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
5,640
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
socionics seems like something i would love, and i have tried so hard to get into it for many years and it just never sticks. i still don't really understand why the functions are different and don't translate between systems, despite being inspired by the same source material and called the same thing.

the filatova portraits are fantastic though
5024efb08cde07549631b8c18a6d51ae.png
 

Doctor Anaximander

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
19,155
Enneagram
5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I can’t get into it. Something about it is “thin” to me; vague definitions and fake technobabble under a veneer of science.

It doesn’t help that the online communities just feel like glorified dating sites.


Enneagram and big 5 all the way
 

Tilt

New member
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
2,586
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Socionics can be a bit fanatical... obsessed with the idea of "duality as the ideal match". It's quite interesting to observe. Ex. ENFj-Ni goes best with ISTj-Se, which loosely translates to ENFJ and ISTP. LOL, it's a mixed bag...I would much rather end up with an INTP.

And the vast majority of the socionics community tends to believe that MBTI is just for simpletons.... it's highly amusing. A different perspective to ponder but some people really take it too seriously as if it were legit science. :fpalm:
 

infinityaurora

New member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
5
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sp
MBTI is poorly constructed and doesn't describe people as well as Socionics.

In MBTI an introverted perceiver's primary function is somehow a judging function, which makes zero sense.

I have observed things about people that were truly as Socionics described them; the way they think/relate to the world matches the cognitive functions. I cannot say the same about MBTI.

It's annoying if the only reason someone doesn't like Socionics is because it's "too complicated". It's not too complicated because at its core it is about 8 cognitive functions, simple as that. Everything else is stuff that people further made up or observed and can be taken with a grain of salt, even if you adhere to the cognitive function model.

And no, that duality doesn't translate to ENFJ-ISTP, it translates to ENFJ-ISTJ, which is perfectly realistic. You shouldn't use the cognitive functions when translating because a) they aren't similar between the two theories, and b) MBTI cognitive functions make no sense to begin with.
 
Top