Which personality typology is closest to Jung's original work?
Which system, mbti or socionics, is closer to jungs original function descriptions? AND/OR do both systems slightly deviate from the original descriptions? This would require you to have read or have some knowledge of the original 8 types...Also, what do you guys make out of this? "While Augusta based her socionic model of the psyche on Jung's, she was creative in her interpretation and introduced some new "twists." Most importantly, her goal was to find objective causes of different varieties of relationships between people. As far as we know, Jung thought little about this, besides comments on interviews that extraverts and introverts seemed to be mutually most compatible. " I thought it was interesting...
Depends on which system of Socionics you're referring to.
I personally use them, I think they're the best. But half of the battle is gaining realistic knowledge about these types.
Both socionics and mbti use the same dichotomies as Jung did.
However only Socionics uses the right functions like Jung did.
MBTI made a mess by using a wrong formula to convert from dichotomies to functions.
Jung explicitly stated the difference in functions between irrational and rational. MBTI places the Introverted Irrationals with Introverted Rational functions, hence it is an enormous departure from Jung's original theory.
At best the Introverted Irrationals represent their Rational counterparts and vice-versa.
As for socionics, Jung was clear that certain functions were repressed by the psyche in accordance to their dominant function. One need only strain logic just a little to extend this to outward displays of other peoples psychic functions. For this reason, if we assume Jung has merit- then this proposition put forth by Socionics holds merit as well. Likewise, I think it was wise to include all the functions working in the psyche for if there were an absence of such there would be people that we simply could not comprehend.
Actually, I would say that Augusta's are quite a bit more concrete, and that's exactly what people are critical about with her. She's the one who came up with the idea that Si is related to comfort, Ni to sensing the passage of time, Te to planning of work, and so on. Often when people complain about "stereotypes" related to the IM elements, they're talking about someone directly or indirectly quoting Augusta.
Originally Posted by Ashton
As to the OP's original question, it's not as simple as to say that Socionics is true to Jung and that MBTI is not. MBTI regards Jung's definitions as accurate; Russian Socionics replaces Jung's definitions with Augusta's.
This idea, commonly mentioned on Socionics forums, is actually not true. Quite simply, Jung did not describe "irrational" and "rational" types in such a way that it's unambiguously equivalent to the "J/P" scale in MBTI. Indeed, MBTI does not ever refer to "P" types as "irrational" or "J" as "rational." MBTI is based on the idea that having an extraverted rational function makes one more scheduled. It simply is not clear that being more "scheduled" would have anything at all to do with being rational.
Originally Posted by Uncle Rob
Nevertheless, it seems that generally the position of Russian Socionists who follow Augusta's definitions closely that rationals are indeed the more scheduled, and irrationals the more spontaneous (hence, the tendency for people who are ISFP, i.e., FiSe in MBTI, to come out ISFp, i.e., SiFe in Socionics).
In my experience, I find the position that rationals are more scheduled and irrationals more spontaneous less commonly held by people who go based on Jung's definitions.
And then there are people who have come up with theories that equate various other Reinin dichotomies to the J/P concepts (e.g., decisive/judicious, etc.)
Tags for this Thread