What makes socionics better than MBTI?

[Azeroffs]

Hi! I'm new to the site and have only recently started taking an interest in socionics over MBTI.

I think the title is self explanatory, but just in case...
I just want to hear some of the reasoning why you feel that socionics is a better system than MBTI.

edit: what's your general view of MBTI?

[Mediator Kam]

to me, socionics is much more far-ranging and explains human relations better.

MBTI is cool and all, but to me socionics is so much cooler.

[xyz]

MBTI is cool and all, but to me socionics is so much cooler.

If we all went by coolness factor there would be no happy garbagemen (and trust me, they exist!)

Like Allie said, MBTI is more about the individual and his/her motivations and ways of functioning... although in reality, what you'll typically find though is mostly lots of vague descriptions (and some even contradict each other!) Most descriptions available on the internet are written by people with their own personal bias, so take heed when you stumble upon one that resonates with you and another that completely contradicts your very basic life values. Now, this could all be invalidated by doing a "professional" MBTI test with a counselor and everything, but, that costs money. Lots of money. Most of the time in the hundreds. So I'd advise against filling another company's coffers and them handing you the same test that another site gives out for free.

Socionics attempts to explain the relations between the different types, their correct level of comfort with one another, and the successful or unsuccessful results when 2 types DO interact. The rest of the forum goons can harp more about Socionics if they wish.

My point: MBTI = focused more on describing the individual, Socionics = focused more on describing the interactions of an arbitrarily chosen list of 16 types.

Both of them have very huge faults.No human ever existed in a vaccum, so MBTI is incredibly limited in it's accuracy of what it can tell you about yourself.

Socionics is a little better since it takes into account the fact that other people might exist, and how we each tend to act differently based on many factors. However, it's got falsifiability problems, no hard produced numbers , and that's not even mentioning the fact that humans and emotions are INCREDIBLY complex and hard to do a "control" test for.


So, yeah. Welcome to the forum Kid. You're better off finding solutions on your own and seeing it as an adventure than trying to rely on a hypothesis that tries to assume we can all fit into 16 molds.

[xyz]

Geez I sound like an asshole.

[meatburger]

I noticed a tendency in MBTI for people to say i have 60% "F" and 40% "T". Socionics actually broke down the functions for me, Fi vs Fe etc. This made my understanding of people that much better, the manifestations of Fi and Fe really are incredibly different. If i recall MBTI does describe the functions doesn't it? but the average MBTI person doesn't seem to use them at all.

As has been said, intertype relations is really the biggest advantage to me. I was dating an INFp at a young age when i first read MBTI and a website claimed that this was one of the most ideal relations. Now that i understand socionics and think i can see things clearer, i see how misguided it was. When i read the MBTI literature it seemed like pop psychology and innacurate somehow. What is hilarious is that i was dating an ESFp after this and she wanted us to do a personality test together. I told her that its not a good idea because i took them too seriously. She insisted and i discovered socionics, then i dumped her. It highlighted exactly what i could see was going wrong with that relationship at the time and i was addicted ever since.

@ LokiV - I think socionics is probably highly testable, it just doesn't seem like many people have ever tried. I would consider designing experiments testing different elements of socionics one day and i am convinced they would produce significant findings.

[Creepy-male]

I like to think of them as circles with ever-decreasing radii...

Socionics is appealing to me because it's both broad enough to cover *most* of everything, and still be highly accurate; but then specific quirks can be explained by the enneagram, instinct stackings and Jung (I really like Keirsey for this over Jung/Myers-Briggs, though. Jung still has merits).

I wouldn't really use one over the other... but then again, that's my Jungian Ni and Socionics Ti making me want to knit them all together as a an all-encompassing network to plumb people from a variety of angles.

EDIT

NeFi. I'm retypan EII.

[xyz]

@ LokiV - I think socionics is probably highly testable, it just doesn't seem like many people have ever tried. I would consider designing experiments testing different elements of socionics one day and i am convinced they would produce significant findings.

Well, I'm a big "i'll believe it when I see it... or when it's been rigorously tested" type a guy, so I'll wait till then. Although it would be nice to have a good systematic answer to see if Socionics... you know...actually worked

[meatburger]

Well, I'm a big "i'll believe it when I see it... or when it's been rigorously tested" type a guy, so I'll wait till then. Although it would be nice to have a good systematic answer to see if Socionics... you know...actually worked

I totally agree. Surely the Russians have done some actual tests!?

[Jarno]

Socionics outperforms MBTI on nearly all aspects.

- Socionics has corrected the bug in introverted MBTI functions,
and also completed the function model.
- Socionics has developed a relationship theory between the types.
- Socionics has (slightly) more accurate type descriptions.

MBTI however has done lot of research and has fairly good written tests.

[717495]

NeFi. I'm retypan EII.

Can I have your old brain?

- Socionics has corrected the bug in introverted MBTI functions,

One can't really say that for certain, since I don't think MBTI had the right idea of introversion and extroversion in the first place.

[717495]

Well I shouldn't say MBTI didn't have the "right idea." But can you agree that MBTI has a different idea of introversion and extroversion than socionics? If I were to type people using both systems, often times the same person will come out E in one and I in the other.

[JuJu]

Well, I'm a big "i'll believe it when I see it... or when it's been rigorously tested" type a guy, so I'll wait till then. Although it would be nice to have a good systematic answer to see if Socionics... you know...actually worked

If you know the system, and have some people correctly typed, you can try it for yourself... You know?

I am skeptical of anything until I experience it working... I have seen and felt and experienced Socionics working EXACTLY as predicted...

Which is why I am writing here... This is a truly amazing theory... Which could revolutionize the way people interact.

And everyone here is at the very beginning of it.

[Jarno]

If you know the system, and have some people correctly typed, you can try it for yourself... You know?

I am skeptical of anything until I experience it working... I have seen and felt and experienced Socionics working EXACTLY as predicted...

Which is why I am writing here... This is a truly amazing theory... Which could revolutionize the way people interact.

And everyone here is at the very beginning of it.

As usual I relate to what you are saying.

Though, some of the catagory that you adress as 'beginners' there are people who take a strange (unpractical) approach to socionics. And unfortunately, they will never change...

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[ragnar]

I always thought introversion was when you were exhausted by groups/too many people/social interaction and got energy from being alone, and extroversion was the opposite.

The word "extraverted" has a different meaning in socionics than in the MBTI/Keirsey models. The latter use a person's observed behavior preferences as a basis for classification, while socionics focuses on how people's mind is structured and the resulting patterns of communication between persons with various types of mind structure.

I think. I've been wondering too about the relationships between Keirsey, mbti and socionics.

I think that as a rule, a person with a socionics irrational extraverted main function is expected to be a Keirsey Extravert. So a Socionics SeFi would very likely show preferences of behavior that corresponds to Keirsey ESFP, for example.

Correlations seem a little more complicated with other types of socionics main functions.

[Azeroffs]

What IS the right idea of introversion vs. extroversion? I always thought introversion was when you were exhausted by groups/too many people/social interaction and got energy from being alone, and extroversion was the opposite. What is the reality though? I'm happy to be wrong, if I can get an intelligent answer full of clarity.

The way I think of introversion and extroversion in socionics is based off the function. Extroverted functions are related to direct contact with one's surroundings.

What can this be used for?
What are they feeling?
What does that mean?
What is that?

The extroverted function's focus is quickly answered, therefore dominant extroverts tend to be impulsive because they don't spend as much time making connections. Introverts tend to be less impulsive because the introverted functions require making connections rather than making quick interpretations.

How can X be used with Y?
How does X feel about Y?
How will X lead to Y?
How comfortable will X be to Y?

Information elements - Wikisocion

Conventional extroversion/introversion varies from moment to moment and depends on which function you are using most.

[Creepy-male]

Introverts are subjective, because the point of reference is "through" themselves. (Because all introverted elements are field elements )

Si

Me: "Those prawns smell foul."
*LSE looks at me like I'm crazy*

Extraverted elements are object-focused, so extraverts tend to act on those objects.

Fe

Me: "HWAAAAAAAARGH"
ESE: "HWAAAAAAAAARGH"
Me: "Let's sing songs about Dave!"
ESE: "Yeah!"

(Actually, that's a really terrible example.)

I like Rick's idea of this: introtims (socionics introverts) are socially introverted, but switch into socially extroverted behaviour when "in" their extraverted creative; likewise for extratims and their introverted creative function.

</jargon dump>