Hey Everyone INTJ here

[UnadulteratedAwesome]

Hello everyone. I've joined this site in an attempt to further expand my knowledge on how other types function and how I can best relate to them. I'm somewhat of an MBTI afficionado, but all of these shapes and type add-ons have me a little confused...

For example, how would I, an INTJ, relate with an ENFP according to this?

Feel free to pick my brain on anything pertaining to INTJs.

[UnadulteratedAwesome]

This is so odd O..o'

Are the borders of socionics less defined than MBTI? It seems to be enigmatic vs. the clear-cut MBTI.

Also, I have Introverted iNtuition as my primary function, followed by Extraverted Thinking as my auxiliary function, Introverted Feeling as my tertiary function, and Extraverted Sensing as my inferior function. My type is almost identical to the type described by www.typelogic.com

So... is socionics all about "feel", or is there an actual test I can take? I'll check out that wiki at some point. Gotta get back to work!

Thanks

[Suomea]

Forget MBTI functions. They don't equal socionics ones.

[UnadulteratedAwesome]

Forget MBTI functions. They don't equal socionics ones.

You have both told me how socionics and MBTI functions are different, however, you've yet to tell me HOW they are different.

What is the focus of these socionics types? MBTI focuses on the function of the individual and how he views and relates to the world. What does socionics focus on?
How much of socionics typing is guesswork?
How can there be an INTJ in socionics that is different from the INTJ in MBTI?

If you want me to understand, you're going to have to teach me a lil' somethin' somethin'.

EDIT: From what I gather, MBTI types and socionic types do very much relate, as an LII (me) is pretty much an INTJ. Socionics is kind of mess organizationally... What are the benefits of it vs. MBTI?

[Phaedrus]

How can there be an INTJ in socionics that is different from the INTJ in MBTI?

There can't be such a creature. If you are correctly typed in MBTI (which I will call MBTT from now on -- Myers-Briggs Type Theory -- since MBTI is only a typing method), you are also an INTj in Socionics. But you will have to relearn what you have been told about the functions. The truth is that MBTT has got the functions wrong, at least if we compare with Jung's descriptions of the functions. The INTps (ILIs) and the INFps (IEIs) are the real introverted intuitives, whereas the INTj has introverted thinking as leading function. MBTT is simply a false theory in this respect.

From what I gather, MBTI types and socionic types do very much relate, as an LII (me) is pretty much an INTJ.

Yes, you are perfectly right about that. Both MBTT and Socionics are describing the same group of real people when they talk about INTJs and LIIs respectively. Empirically speaking, it's the same type. The only difference is that they are explained differently theoretically. And only the socionic explanation is the correct one.

Socionics is kind of mess organizationally... What are the benefits of it vs. MBTI?

1. Socionics is a true theory, MBTT is a false theory.

2. Socionics is more "deep". You will learn more aspects of your person if you study Socionics.

3. Socionics is focused on the relations between the types. You can analyze and understand your relations with other types much better and in much more depth than in MBTT.

4. Socionics has access to more refined and, if combined, more accurate typing methods. One such method is visual identification (V.I), which is not yet incorporated in MBTT. You can sometimes tell a person's type by the person's look -- facial structure, body type, etc.

There are other benefits too, but that could do for a start.

[Suomea]

Don't listen to him by the way..... at least not fully. Will reply later.

[UnadulteratedAwesome]

Don't listen to him by the way..... at least not fully. Will reply later.

I vow to only partially listen!

<..<'

[UDP]

Welcome, novice

[web:d6479a601d]http://socionics.us/intro.shtml[/web:d6479a601d]

[munenori2]

This is so odd O..o'

Are the borders of socionics less defined than MBTI? It seems to be enigmatic vs. the clear-cut MBTI.

Also, I have Introverted iNtuition as my primary function, followed by Extraverted Thinking as my auxiliary function, Introverted Feeling as my tertiary function, and Extraverted Sensing as my inferior function. My type is almost identical to the type described by www.typelogic.com

So... is socionics all about "feel", or is there an actual test I can take? I'll check out that wiki at some point. Gotta get back to work!

Thanks

I can appreciate your concerns here. There are a few good sites where a more fully developed background can be found (the one Courage suggested I found to be particularly rigorous and incisive), but I'll try to summarize the main points (be warned that I'm kind of new to this).

Both the MBTI and socionics share common roots in the theory of Jung's thought regarding psychological types. Hence, the basic dichotomies (E-I, N-S, T-F, p-j) are the same (although the p and j are interpreted differently in socionics). For introverts, this typically means that their last letter switches, although this is not always the case.

Unlike the MBTI, socionics attempts to inject an element of predictive ability beyond the merely descriptive by claiming that the significance of one's type is due to that individual's particular capability and receptiveness to various forms of information taken in from their environment, as well as the particular position in the psyche of these functions (being the introverted and extraverted forms of the N, S, T, F information elements, which yields a total of 8 functions) some of which are the subject of our conscious mental life and some of which are unconsciously exerted.

Thus, socionics is a model of the psyche's strengths and weaknesses in processing information for the purposes of predicting trends in intertype relationships. The basic thesis is that the most 'natural', or easiest to maintain, relationships occur where the informational output of each partner corresponds to the type of inputs that the other both finds most suitable and desirable (in terms of a psychological need). In theory, these additional claims made by socionics should allow it to be testable scientifically (i.e. falsifiable) provided that one could devise a suitable means of testing the hypothesis.

However, due to the youth of the theory, it hasn't really been developed as rigorously as I think it has the potential to be. Thus, I would say that socionics is, at least in terms of a theoretical construct, a better theory than the MBTI. Unfortunately, the theory has yet to be adopted into the mainstream of academia, so there is a particular dearth of specialists of the theory (Russia boasts the most stringent circles of expertise, while the West relies a few, but very insightful, proponents).

Anyway, I hope this helps you out, good sir!

[Phaedrus]

Both the MBTI and socionics share common roots in the theory of Jung's thought regarding psychological types. Hence, the basic dichotomies (E-I, N-S, T-F, p-j) are the same (although the p and j are interpreted differently in socionics). For introverts, this typically means that their last letter switches, although this is not always the case.

This is the first trap you must try to avoid. It is never the case that the last letter switches. The four basic dichotomies are the same, and the p and j stands for the same typical behaviours and attitudes in both Socionics and MBTT. As I said, they only interpret the theory differently, because MBTT has got the functions order incorrect for the introverted types.

[munenori2]

Both the MBTI and socionics share common roots in the theory of Jung's thought regarding psychological types. Hence, the basic dichotomies (E-I, N-S, T-F, p-j) are the same (although the p and j are interpreted differently in socionics). For introverts, this typically means that their last letter switches, although this is not always the case.

This is the first trap you must try to avoid. It is never the case that the last letter switches. The four basic dichotomies are the same, and the p and j stands for the same typical behaviours and attitudes in both Socionics and MBTT. As I said, they only interpret the theory differently, because MBTT has got the functions order incorrect for the introverted types.

Alright, help me to understand this more fully. Under both systems, perceiving and judging represent the same general traits, but some interpretation differs between them that causes them to assign the functions in some alternate order? It seems that the the j and p in socionics code for the demonstrative function's respective rationality or irrationality. Do you know how the convention differs in Meyers-Briggs?

[Suomea]

Both the MBTI and socionics share common roots in the theory of Jung's thought regarding psychological types. Hence, the basic dichotomies (E-I, N-S, T-F, p-j) are the same (although the p and j are interpreted differently in socionics). For introverts, this typically means that their last letter switches, although this is not always the case.

This is the first trap you must try to avoid. It is never the case that the last letter switches. The four basic dichotomies are the same, and the p and j stands for the same typical behaviours and attitudes in both Socionics and MBTT. As I said, they only interpret the theory differently, because MBTT has got the functions order incorrect for the introverted types.

Don't listen to him. If he wants to make a theoretical argument that the j and p never switch and that either people in MBTI mistype themselves or whatever then by all means let him. But in practice I'd say that around 40% of introverts have their j and p switch from MBTI to socionics. This is the true MBTI type and not just some type that was gotten out of one quick test. (My first test I got INTP.... all the rest ENTP which is both my MBTI and socionic type). I came to socionics from MBTI so I know a little about the MBTI functions but forget a lot. Basically MBTI functions are descriptions of the behviour of people who tested one way or another. In my opinion this created some mistakes in the MBTI world based on people being mistyped specifically in the introverted functions. I remember that Introverted Thinking in MBTI involves getting information from reliable sources..... which is pseudo what Extraverted Thinking is in socionics. Anyway reading up on socionic functions is not a bad place to start.

[Phaedrus]

Under both systems, perceiving and judging represent the same general traits, but some interpretation differs between them that causes them to assign the functions in some alternate order? It seems that the the j and p in socionics code for the demonstrative function's respective rationality or irrationality. Do you know how the convention differs in Meyers-Briggs?

They say in MBTT that for the introverted types it is your first extraverted function that determines whether you are a P or a J type. Since the first extraverted function for INTJs is supposed to be Te, and since Te is a judging function, the INTJ is a judging type. But since they also assume that INTJs has a leading perceiving function, they say that the INTJ is an irrational type.

As you can see, this leads to a lot of confusion. A mistake was made at the beginning, when the Myers-Briggs Type Theory was developed. All the introverted types in MBTT have the functions order wrong, and now it is probably too late to fix it, because MBTI has become such a big business. But a theoretical mistake it is anyway.

Don't listen to him.

You will probably hear some idiots on this forum say things like that. And my advice to you is to judge for yourself who is most right in their claims -- me or them. Be critical, don't take anything for granted, and study, study, study. Most people here don't bother to do the latter.

[Suomea]

Don't listen to him.

You will probably hear some idiots on this forum say things like that. And my advice to you is to judge for yourself who is most right in their claims -- me or them. Be critical, don't take anything for granted, and study, study, study. Most people here don't bother to do the latter.

Obviously not an idiot.....:) Also notice how he editted out the "At least not fully" from my quote. Anyway there have been previous threads and claims by Phaedrus which everyone on the site disagrees with and just wants him to stop talking. He makes overarching claims without any support by real logic or real evidence. It's ironic that I might be one of the one's who is the closest to actually suporting his claims on the issue of the similarities between the two systems.... much more than some others. And if he thought out his claims with legitimate arguments and even remotely close evidence I would listen to him more. Anyway, just thought I'd respond since he is now calling me an idiot as well......: )

[mustachio]

get out while you still can! and don't turn back for fear of being turned into a pillar of salt. although Courage has a shitty way of welcoming noobs :wink: the site he refered to is a pretty good start. but if you wish to get a deeper understanding of your type (once you're relatively sure of it!) and others, the articles you'll find on the forum are irreplaceable. hope you enjoy long-drawn-out paragraphs of barely legible english.

[Phaedrus]

It's ironic that I might be one of the one's who is the closest to actually suporting his claims on the issue of the similarities between the two systems.... much more than some others. And if he thought out his claims with legitimate arguments and even remotely close evidence I would listen to him more.

I have already done that on countless occasions in many, many posts on this forum. I will not repeat myself more than I already do. This has been discussed too many times, and I have explained in depth my reasonings and the arguments supporting them. You will have to do a research yourself if you are interested.