Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: socionics compared to other personality theories

  1. #1
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default socionics compared to other personality theories

    How do you think socionics rate if you compare them against other personality or typology theories. For example on accuracy, completeness or usefulness

    I'm especially interested in which personality theories score better on these criteria than socionics does.

    Let's hear your opinions!

  2. #2
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I would say that socionics is fairly accurate in that what it truly attempts to define is actually relevant to how people work. I wouldn't say it's particularly 'complete' because its purpose isn't to describe a person in his or her entirety; just the basic brain functions/patterns that a person undergoes. If you want to go into a more complete, readily visible/understandable schema of a person's psychology I would say enneagram is the way to go.
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  3. #3
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics rules, MBTI drools.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  4. #4
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    If you want to go into a more complete, readily visible/understandable schema of a person's psychology I would say enneagram is the way to go.
    hmm enneagram is not even mentioned in any serious personality book.

    enneagram is for women who read the cosmopolitan :-d

  5. #5
    Nothing in the cage of my ribcage
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,704
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is interesting, but I don't think that it's all that useful. I pretty much have found no use for it in a practical sense...

    I don't want to sound snobbish, but if you really want to learn about the mind then learn actual psychology, and not wannabe psychology like Enneagram/MBTI, lol.

  6. #6
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    hmm enneagram is not even mentioned in any serious personality book.

    enneagram is for women who read the cosmopolitan :-d
    lol, probably
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  7. #7
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    Socionics is interesting, but I don't think that it's all that useful. I pretty much have found no use for it in a practical sense...

    I don't want to sound snobbish, but if you really want to learn about the mind then learn actual psychology, and not wannabe psychology like Enneagram/MBTI, lol.
    As a practice, I think Socionics is the greatest of help you can find for interpersonal and intrapersonal conflict.

    But true, if you really want to understand the mind in an objective sense, psychology / neuroscience is where you want to go.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  8. #8
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    How do you think socionics rate if you compare them against other personality or typology theories. For example on accuracy, completeness or usefulness

    I'm especially interested in which personality theories score better on these criteria than socionics does.

    Let's hear your opinions!
    I don't have time for a thorough report/comparison... but I personally prefer the whole line of personality theories contingent from Jung.

    MBTI is too simplistic and variable, Socionics is more robust and consistent.

    Other personality theories like the Big 5 for example seem very clinical and lack a degree of practical implementation.

    I think Socionics is a great model because it has that practical implementation and wide focus of directly observable characteristics but it is also capable of going deep and focusing in on a detailed, consistent, and robust model to explore the deeper reasons for why those traits exist.

    I think its greatest triumph is once the theory is understood it allows people with relative ease to go from directly observable characteristics to a deeper explanation of their psychology rather instantaneously. It also allows people to make connections between aspects of behaviors (for example relating Exxp temperament and thinking dichotomy to Fi-PoLR).... these attributes without socionics would be difficult to describe with common language and would be very difficult to understand the connection between them.

    That said I think Socionics could be developed more.

  9. #9
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    Socionics is interesting, but I don't think that it's all that useful. I pretty much have found no use for it in a practical sense...

    I don't want to sound snobbish, but if you really want to learn about the mind then learn actual psychology, and not wannabe psychology like Enneagram/MBTI, lol.
    I don't think any of those are "wannabe" psychology.

    What is "real" psychology? What you learn in school? I took a couple of psychology classes, they seemed more like "history of ideas in psychology" than direct information or consistent theories. At best you study the writings of various "psychologists", you study results of particular experiments, and you learn some semantics you can use to discuss ideas.

    In grad school I'm guessing you're expected to do you own studies and writings, mine for more recent information, and program your ideas to be consistent with current terminology. Usually with the goal of being a practical asset to being in human services and mental health.

    "Wannabe" psychology as you put it seems more practical to me... it attempts to connect these ancient ideas of the originators of the school of thought now know as "psychology" to what people observe in others as "personality"... it approaches this view with models based on other psychological principles which can be implemented practically. It's not just regurgitating definitions from handbooks to become a foot soldier in the mental health profession.

    That said, "want to be" psychology suffers, but not because its a weak prospect. It's because of what people use it for. People aren't dedicated to developing sophisticated and accurate models, they are dedicated to stupid things like "the self-help industry" or pitching their assets to "companies" or "schools" and things. MBTI has gone down the shitter because its now a diagnostic for counselers and the self-help industry.

    What these theories could be is a bridge between direct observation and deeper psychological concepts. The model allows for a consistent language so that concepts can move from observation to deeper concepts at a rapid pace. If the model or theory is logically consistent then its simply a matter of making the observation and then almost instanteously arriving at deeper conclusions. Which is extremely practical... it also work in reverse. Say you wish to know what some directly observable characteristics of narcissism are? If the semantics and model are sufficient to this end, you identify what narcissism is in the language of the model and then identify how this connect to direct observation... and almost instanteously you arrive at a methodology.

    Now imagine the benefit that would have to counseling, the more accurate the model is developed, the more it is taken seriously, and the more development and growth and scrutiny and verification it is put to, the more robust the technology. The stronger the diagnostic tool.

    Now imagine if functions could be related to brain physiology... if Fe could even loosely be correlated to the biochemistry of certain brain systems, then say identifying the neurotransmitter and exciting it temporarily in a strategic and intelligent manner could be used for therapy as a result of Fe-PoLR induced mental problems. You could use this language bridge it to physiology and better medical practices and develop surgically pinpoint accurate cures for people with problem the better you understand the way behavior is related to deep psychological issues. I think Jungian Functions are better to correlate to brain systems than whole problems like "schizophrenia"... it may not be an absolute perfect correlation with functions but its a step forward.

  10. #10
    Nothing in the cage of my ribcage
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,704
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well things like Enneagrams to me just sound like rehashing of both the old and new psychology. Just my opinion, well, when I'm reading about Enneagrams I'm often like, "Well, this shit has already been covered by psychology/psychiatry many years/decades ago".

  11. #11
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by siuntal View Post
    Examples: linking Jung's functions to neurology of the brain - http://www.benziger.org/articlesIng/?p=34 and video presentation on MBNI, combination of MBTI and neurology - http://blip.tv/file/557221.
    This is very interesting stuff.

    An interesting conclusion that I read:

    "Jung’s assertion that each of us has one Natural Lead Function is the result of a neuro-chemical – physiological fact that each person has one area which is 100 times more efficient than their remaining three areas."

    I think we should stop talking about psychological types, but rather talk about brain types. (like some authors are already doing)

  12. #12
    KazeCraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    105
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you are interested in brain types, certain aspects of Pod'Lair might be worth looking into. The maker has linked the cognitive functions to brain quadrants as follows:
    -Frontal Left: Te/Fe (Benzinger - more or less MBTI Te; declared as Jungian Thinking)
    -Basal Left: Si/Ni (Benzinger - MBTI Si and general MBTI J'ness; declared as Jungian Sensing)
    -Frontal Right: Ne/Se (Benzinger - basically Ne from either system; declared as Jungian Intuition)
    -Basal Right: Fi/Ti (Benzinger - hyper-sensitivity and some aspects of MBTI Fi; declared as Jungian Feeling)
    It reeks of New Age psychobabble and is basically MBTI in new clothes, but they use a VI system similar to Socionics and redefine the dichotomies to be a bit more accurate. Note that he makes no comparison to Benzinger; I just added that for comparison as they are somewhat related.

    In other news, I have found Socionics most useful for understanding others and the Enneagram most useful for self-discovery.

  13. #13
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KazeCraven View Post
    If you are interested in brain types, certain aspects of Pod'Lair might be worth looking into. The maker has linked the cognitive functions to brain quadrants as follows:
    -Frontal Left: Te/Fe (Benzinger - more or less MBTI Te; declared as Jungian Thinking)
    -Basal Left: Si/Ni (Benzinger - MBTI Si and general MBTI J'ness; declared as Jungian Sensing)
    -Frontal Right: Ne/Se (Benzinger - basically Ne from either system; declared as Jungian Intuition)
    -Basal Right: Fi/Ti (Benzinger - hyper-sensitivity and some aspects of MBTI Fi; declared as Jungian Feeling)
    It reeks of New Age psychobabble and is basically MBTI in new clothes, but they use a VI system similar to Socionics and redefine the dichotomies to be a bit more accurate. Note that he makes no comparison to Benzinger; I just added that for comparison as they are somewhat related.

    In other news, I have found Socionics most useful for understanding others and the Enneagram most useful for self-discovery.
    I googled Pod'Lair, but access to site articles seems to be heavily closed. Already it reminds me of scientology.

    John Beebe and Lenore Thomson also write about right/left brain correlations often (correlations with Jung and MBTI, that is).

  14. #14
    KazeCraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    105
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just googled Lenore Thomson. Yeah, that Pod'Lair guy probably ripped this from him, as it is the same.

  15. #15
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol Pod'Lair.

    INTPf has been housing debates(mostly from me), for some months now.

    It's clearly an MBTI based theory.

    The new JCF movement is also MBTI-based as they don't know Pe = P and Je = J was arbitrary.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default

    I rather like Socionics, at least compared to the other available options. The Enneagram is interesting, but... hm. I don't know. I doubt any of the current systems truly penetrate the depth of the human mind or portray it entirely accurately, but I suppose much of this could also be related to semantics.

    I have not, however, ever used any of these systems practically, though I am sure it is possible.

  17. #17
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    The new JCF movement is also MBTI-based as they don't know Pe = P and Je = J was arbitrary.
    What I like about Thomson is that she doesn't make the typical J/P distinctions seen in MBTI... although I would say she's still in the MBTI camp than not. She's an MBTI INTJ herself, and her writings on Ni doms aren't all that different than Socionics INp. Generally speaking, she centers a lot of her type descriptions around the dominant function.

  18. #18
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I like Socionics the most. The other typologies are more incomplete, and they are also somewhat different. Like I think MBTI somewhat correlates, but I'd rather show people Socionics type descriptions and examples of famous people. My dad for instance types ISTP in MBTI, and the description fits him because hes a craftsman, spontaneous, lives more in the moment, independent, realistic and such, but then I showed him and my mom the ENFj description from Filatova and examples of famous ENFjs, and we thought it was a much better fit for him, and also explains his values and relations really well. I don't completely ignore MBTI, I think it describes stereotypes pretty well dichotomally, but it is oversimplified. I haven't really gotten into enneagram, I think it's interesting, but I don't have much of a use for it personally.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •