Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: MBTI vrs Socionics

  1. #1
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default MBTI vrs Socionics

    What are your thoughts on the differences between the two systems?

  2. #2
    Word Definition Warrior – WDW Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    dispersed into the cosmos
    TIM
    H-ILE-Ne 7w6-2w1-1w9
    Posts
    1,971
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ti creative bent is very clear in socionics. If we assume that MBTI was created by Fi based individual I can see some Ti role in it and Te suggestive (businesses seeking aspects). Socionics is much more academic than MBTI. MBTI is business and meant for understanding relations without mental systematic masturbation. Just accept others because we think in different ways.

  3. #3
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,240
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    MBTI is 4 noobz. Socionics master race.




  4. #4
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,421
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unsuccessfull Alphamale View Post
    Ti creative bent is very clear in socionics. If we assume that MBTI was created by Fi based individual I can see some Ti role in it and Te suggestive (businesses seeking aspects). Socionics is much more academic than MBTI. MBTI is business and meant for understanding relations without mental systematic masturbation. Just accept others because we think in different ways.
    I agree that Socionics is very Ti. Alpha NT more specifically. The whole system is TiNe (and especially Model A which is supposed to show us how our minds function with oh-so-exact estimations and measures), while Intertype Rel. are Ti creative business.

    However MBTI stuff is mostly Je imo >> Te-Fe combo. I would limit myself to Te if it weren't so full of errors that come in the form of stereotypes and ready-made (preconceived) notions about people that are supposed to tell you everything about anyone who belongs into a type. It goes far beyond a functional approach into pure "profiling". Plus some mbti descriptions are so low quality and pathetic ... Imo Socionics has a more scientific bent and with some folks who write you even get artistic flair (even Strats). It's not super-predictable repetitive lingo meant for mastrurbation. And I say that without being a Socionics fan ...I'm aware of its limitations. Nyway in mbti I dunno if I can stand reading anything except for TypeLogic ...which is prolly written by a relatively smart LII.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,489
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    MBTI is better because it gives you a bunch of descriptions which applies fairly well to people engaged in the external world whereas socionics gives you a bunch of hoo doo concepts of styles of thinking and whatnot which leaves one wondering if it's the best thing since sliced bread or just a huge troll-a-thon. By the time you've figured it out you don't want to let it go. MBTI is more suck it and see and you move on with the floorshow.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    398
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree w/ words. MBTI is superior. It's also more easily correlated to other theories like big 5. http://www.dec.co.th/mbti_explanation.htm has some correlations, & while not absolute, still pretty much show the way. Big five isn't the only "system of fives" either, there's the alternative five & HEXACO & MOTIV system for instance which might show stronger correlation to MBTI then big five. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alterna...of_personality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEXACO_...lity_structure http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...596-MOTIV-Test

  7. #7
    nefnaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zap View Post
    I agree w/ words. MBTI is superior. It's also more easily correlated to other theories like big 5. http://www.dec.co.th/mbti_explanation.htm has some correlations, & while not absolute, still pretty much show the way. Big five isn't the only "system of fives" either, there's the alternative five & HEXACO & MOTIV system for instance which might show stronger correlation to MBTI then big five. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alterna...of_personality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEXACO_...lity_structure http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...596-MOTIV-Test
    Big 5 and lexical models are not "theories," they are statistical overindulgence with no theoretical basis whatsoever. The American tradition of academic psychology has accomplished nothing of note in the past 100 years while adhering zealously to statistical methods in a pathetic bid to imitate real science. What they ignore is that before natural sciences progressed to the point where statistical methods could be fruitful, they first had to create extensive theoretical frameworks.

    In my view psychology should try to imitate another cognitive science that actually has accomplished something in the 20th / 21st centuries, namely linguistics. Linguists are in the habit of building theoretical models based on their intuitions and then testing those models to see how well they explain the data or make predictions -- no statistical nincompoopery required. With this method linguists have advanced our understanding of human languages tremendously within the past 60 years.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    398
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Nefnaf, idk if you think socionics can somehow be proven thru linguistics or if you consider socionics as a good example of what can be done w/ a more linguistic framework (i.e. if you consider socionics to be linguistic, after all, there's that list of words associated w/ fxns) or what exactly you're getting at. But what I know for sure is that big five, etc can be correlated to real things like genes. The warrior gene MAOA prolly correlates to lower agreeableness, as might the ruthlessness gene http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0804....2008.738.html

    Those on the worrier side of warrior/worrier dichotomy prolly have higher neuroticism. http://selfhacked.com/2014/12/24/wor...mt-v158m-gene/ Personality disorders are said to be related to genes, & big five make ups have been suggested for each personality disorder, you can such correlations at ptypes.com, for one. http://www.apa.org/topics/personalit...rs-causes.aspx http://www.ptypes.com/borderlinepd.html

    As far as linguistics goes, idk about that field much but seems like it's somewhat subjective. Here's the list I mentioned earlier http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Vocabulary while it can be correlated that way, it still doesn't give us an objective basis for socionics. Ppl don't really agree on anything in socionics or if it even exists so this list can prolly be contested, if not in one way, then another.

    I don't consider MBTI all that good either but it's okay for what it is. Socionics wastes a lot more time w/ it's complexity. It's like it exploits the tendency in humans to want everything to make sense so ppl just keep trying to make everything fit but never really get anywhere, and so it goes on & on. Socionics is Sisyphean.

  9. #9
    nefnaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zap View Post
    Nefnaf, idk if you think socionics can somehow be proven thru linguistics or if you consider socionics as a good example of what can be done w/ a more linguistic framework (i.e. if you consider socionics to be linguistic, after all, there's that list of words associated w/ fxns) or what exactly you're getting at. But what I know for sure is that big five, etc can be correlated to real things like genes. The warrior gene MAOA prolly correlates to lower agreeableness, as might the ruthlessness gene http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0804....2008.738.html

    Those on the worrier side of warrior/worrier dichotomy prolly have higher neuroticism. http://selfhacked.com/2014/12/24/wor...mt-v158m-gene/ Personality disorders are said to be related to genes, & big five make ups have been suggested for each personality disorder, you can such correlations at ptypes.com, for one. http://www.apa.org/topics/personalit...rs-causes.aspx http://www.ptypes.com/borderlinepd.html

    As far as linguistics goes, idk about that field much but seems like it's somewhat subjective. Here's the list I mentioned earlier http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Vocabulary while it can be correlated that way, it still doesn't give us an objective basis for socionics. Ppl don't really agree on anything in socionics or if it even exists so this list can prolly be contested, if not in one way, then another.

    I don't consider MBTI all that good either but it's okay for what it is. Socionics wastes a lot more time w/ it's complexity. It's like it exploits the tendency in humans to want everything to make sense so ppl just keep trying to make everything fit but never really get anywhere, and so it goes on & on. Socionics is Sisyphean.
    There are certainly a lot of ideas floating around in socionics that are wrong. As the famous quote goes "all models are wrong, but some are useful." Simply the fact that many hypotheses are wrong is no reason to get discouraged. The whole project has two components: 1) generating plausible ideas, and 2) separating the incorrect / non-useful ideas from the correct / useful ones, and then refining and building upon the latter in a way that feeds back into step 1. Carl Jung gave us a theoretical framework that we can work with. Socionics refined it to the point where it can be readily applied in many if not all contexts.

    Think of college freshmen beginning to learn about a particular discipline. What do they learn in introductory biology classes? Chemistry? Physics? In all of these they start of learning theory -- the basic theoretical backgrounds of their respective fields. Only psychology eschews theory in favor of doting over statistics. And it has failed so spectacularly, the explanation for why they keep trying would make for an excellent psychological case study in itself.

Posting Permissions

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