A huge mess to clean up: Jungian functions & Myers-Briggs

[Nico1e]

I went over to PersonalityCafe because it's one of the biggest forums about the Myers-Briggs. I've become a socionics 'convert,' and when I look at them, I feel like they are 'hopelessly lost' and they 'need to be saved.' They're struggling to work with a mess of logical contradictions and disorder, without using the tool of the intertype relations to help them figure out their types. They think that an ISTP's functions are TiSeNiFe, for instance, and as far as I understand, all introverts' functions are set up that way, with a reversal of the perceiving and judging functions, and the opposite in terms of extraversion/introversion than what they should be, and... it's a mess. Help! I'm not very good at evangelizing. I just want to tell them 'But wait! There's hope! Go here and read about socionics instead of wading through all this contradictory crap!'

If someone started teaching socionics in the United States, there would be an obstacle: the existing belief system. If, for instance, you put up a sign or an advertisement inviting people to learn about socionics, a system of personality types, a large number of people would say, 'But I already know my personality type - I took the Myers-Briggs - what else is there to know? Why should I learn some other "wrong" belief system?' You'd have to catch people who had never heard of any personality typing systems at all, rather than people who already know the Myers-Briggs.

[Ave]

Well the problem with MBTI is that its used by large corporations to appeal to the average person, who by definition isnt very smart. If socionics becomes as big in the west as MBTI is I think democracy could turn into a useless tool, rather than the cutting edge science which it is at this point. You see, Stalinist Russia has turned science into a an idealogy to serve the Soviet government rather than an objective and honest search for Truth, which is why today's Russians are so skeptical of "political" correctness used in MBTI; it reminds them of the communist regime. This could be why socionics emerged as a cutting edge science and MBTI did not; its also why noone in the socionics community likes political correctness(in all areas of life, not just socionics), I think.

[Ave]

No, not socionics.us. Socioninko.net or Socionics.com.

[Raver]

MBTI wouldn't bother me so much if it had the order of functions right for introverts and if it had an inter-type relations system with quadras. The only plus side of MBTI is that it doesn't have the unnecessary over bloated technical jargon of Socionics. In my opinion, MBTI over simplifies and is inaccurate at times and Socionics over complicates even if it is more accurate than MBTI. I just see the two typology systems as polar opposite extremes.

[717495]

Well, as far as MBTI goes I relate to the type description it gives me pretty darn well, and it makes sense to me to call INTP an Ne user, for instance, in their system because they're P type intuitives, which is the speculation of possibilities without decisiveness. Though it's not good for finding out your intertype relations and has rather uneven type distribution, it seems pretty accurate in of itself as does Keirsey. It's known that in MBTI, N types usually get along a lot better with one another in the long run, and same for Ss.

[Ave]

No, not socionics.us. Socioninko.net or Socionics.com.

Why? I thought socionics.us was pretty good.

mmm I dont recomment it to my friends and such, personally.

[pianosinger]

I came over to Socionics after having spent a good deal of time on PersonalityCafe. I know at least one other person who has done the same (he was actually pretty vocal about Socionics on the PerC forums, which is how I got involved).

There is hope...

[Anglas]

MBTI is a good thing, I think it's the first step to socionics.

[Absurd]

I found this site by accident laughing my arse off on some horoscope forum.

[Ave]

I found this site by accident laughing my arse off on some horoscope forum.

No you didnt. Dont lie.

[717495]

A good Socionics site needs

a) a test
b) a set of descriptions

Www.socionics.com has both of those things (new people can take the test, then read about types). However, not sure how good quality his test and descriptions are. I would rather read some Filatova descriptions or Gulenko information element descriptions or something, because many of the "general" "behavior" ones fit me, like INTJ INTP ENTP, and are difficult to interpret as different types unless there is some easy contrast. This is why Model A is cool because the descriptions will say "versus an INTJ, the INTP doesn't value and this is what he thinks of it, as well as, this is what he thinks of and his dual," but the very beginning talks about his main view . These can be pretty short and sweet, doesn't have to overcomplicate.

[Jarno]

I went over to PersonalityCafe because it's one of the biggest forums about the Myers-Briggs. I've become a socionics 'convert,' and when I look at them, I feel like they are 'hopelessly lost' and they 'need to be saved.' They're struggling to work with a mess of logical contradictions and disorder, without using the tool of the intertype relations to help them figure out their types. They think that an ISTP's functions are TiSeNiFe, for instance, and as far as I understand, all introverts' functions are set up that way, with a reversal of the perceiving and judging functions, and the opposite in terms of extraversion/introversion than what they should be, and... it's a mess. Help! I'm not very good at evangelizing. I just want to tell them 'But wait! There's hope! Go here and read about socionics instead of wading through all this contradictory crap!'

If someone started teaching socionics in the United States, there would be an obstacle: the existing belief system. If, for instance, you put up a sign or an advertisement inviting people to learn about socionics, a system of personality types, a large number of people would say, 'But I already know my personality type - I took the Myers-Briggs - what else is there to know? Why should I learn some other "wrong" belief system?' You'd have to catch people who had never heard of any personality typing systems at all, rather than people who already know the Myers-Briggs.

yeah, these are my thoughts for the last 5 years or so...

[Cuddly McFluffles]

They think that an ISTP's functions are TiSeNiFe, for instance,

ISTP's functions are TiSeNiFe. SLI's functions are SiTeNiFe.

Also, maybe you should step back a little. It's concerning to hear you utter phrases like "hopelessly lost [and] need to be saved", and "I'm not very good at evangelizing". This is personality theory, not religion. No one is going to burn for adhering to MBTI, nor are they destined to "forever wander in outer darkness". If you think Socionics is superior and that everyone should learn it, fine. Just try to dial down the fanaticism a few notches.

[Aleksei]

I went over to PersonalityCafe because it's one of the biggest forums about the Myers-Briggs. I've become a socionics 'convert,' and when I look at them, I feel like they are 'hopelessly lost' and they 'need to be saved.' They're struggling to work with a mess of logical contradictions and disorder, without using the tool of the intertype relations to help them figure out their types. They think that an ISTP's functions are TiSeNiFe, for instance, and as far as I understand, all introverts' functions are set up that way, with a reversal of the perceiving and judging functions, and the opposite in terms of extraversion/introversion than what they should be, and... it's a mess. Help! I'm not very good at evangelizing. I just want to tell them 'But wait! There's hope! Go here and read about socionics instead of wading through all this contradictory crap!'

ISTP functions are TiSeNiFe, and often they aren't when making the conversion (they're about as likely to be though -- my observations so far point to ISTP corresponding best to SLI, with Harmonizing SLE as a very close runner-up). This is because in MBTI, the functions are set up in a manner such that Rational attitudes correspond to the extrovert function, which is the one that's shown to the external world (plus a myriad of other differences in the MBTI and Socionics models of the psyche -- the basic four functions aren't even bloody defined the same). There's no "contradiction" there -- it's just a separate model that happens to use the same nomenclature.

[Jarno]

It's funny, a lot of the kind of people that Nico1e would like to save, are actually responding to her in her thread claiming that she herself is wrong. This is actually what she is so mad about.

It's simple, there should be an MBTI2 system, in which the functions of the types are the same as in socionics. Then everything is perfect again, no misunderstandings, no discussions.

[Absurd]

I found this site by accident laughing my arse off on some horoscope forum.

No you didnt. Dont lie.

I did. First it was MBTI, then socionics, I just clicked on the links.

[Aleksei]

It's funny, a lot of the kind of people that Nico1e would like to save, are actually responding to her in her thread claiming that she herself is wrong. This is actually what she is so mad about.

It's simple, there should be an MBTI2 system, in which the functions of the types are the same as in socionics. Then everything is perfect again, no misunderstandings, no discussions.

It's called "Socionics."

[silke]

They think that an ISTP's functions are TiSeNiFe, for instance, and as far as I understand, all introverts' functions are set up that way, with a reversal of the perceiving and judging functions, and the opposite in terms of extraversion/introversion than what they should be, and... it's a mess. Help!

That is because MBTI does not assign P/J letters the same way that Socionics does, so trying to correlate them letter for letter makes no sense.

In Socionics P/J letters are assigned according to whether the type is rational or irrational - whether it is dominant in rational F/T functions or irrational S/N functions. So ISTj is a j because it is dominant in a judging Ti function. In MBTI P/J letters are assigned differently, according to the highest order extraverted function. So ISTP is a P because its highest order extraverted function is Se, perceiving one. MBTI P/J assignments are done according to what is known as Static/Dynamic dichotomy in Socionics. MBTI's Perceiver corresponds to socionics Static type. MBTI's Judger corresponds to socionics Dynamic type. That's all there is to it. If you're coming to Socionics from MBTI you'll know that there is a lot of discussion on MBTI boards about Perceivers (Ji-ego) vs Judgers (Je-ego) and it's really just discussion about differences between socionics Static types vs Dynamic types.

MBTI wouldn't bother me so much if it had the order of functions right for introverts ...

That's actually not a problem with MBTI's assignment of functions, but with Socionics profile assignments. They got them wrong. Dostoyevsky was Ni-Fe ego IEI, Esenin was Fi-Ne ego EII, Balzac was ego Ti-Ne LII, and Robespierre was Fi-mobilizing. Socionics has it assigned the other way around with Dostoyevsky being EII, Esenin IEI, Balzac ILI, and Robespierre LII. So in Socionics the introverted quasi-idneticals have been mixed up, hence the profiles drawn from these historical figures are wrong and don't match the functions that they have been assigned. Whenever socionists try to set up some empirical studies, selecting people according to these mis-matched profiles, often this leads to incongruent results. This periodically leads Socionics community to panic and proclaim that that Socionics is borked, that Model A doesn't work. Compare this with MBTI that has many more empirical studies supporting it.

[Jarno]

I prefer the function ordering in Socionics—at least for the 1st two functions—since they preserve the corresponding Jungian temperaments; though I'd rather the tertiary and quaternary functions be ordered more like MBTI, such that ISTp (SLI) = SiTeFiNe.

And are the SLI's Fi an Ne, conscious or subcounscious functions according to you?

[The Ineffable]

I prefer the function ordering in Socionics—at least for the 1st two functions—since they preserve the corresponding Jungian temperaments; though I'd rather the tertiary and quaternary functions be ordered more like MBTI, such that ISTp (SLI) = SiTeFiNe.

I also feel in a way more natural to group all valued functions together, but it is irrelevant how you arrange the other three blocks while you keep the same rules of the Model. However if you consider that FiNe is conscious or strong in SLI, then that is not consistent with Socionics.

[Ave]

I prefer the function ordering in Socionics—at least for the 1st two functions—since they preserve the corresponding Jungian temperaments; though I'd rather the tertiary and quaternary functions be ordered more like MBTI, such that ISTp (SLI) = SiTeFiNe.

I also feel in a way more natural to group all valued functions together, but it is irrelevant how you arrange the other three blocks while you keep the same rules of the Model. However if you consider that FiNe is conscious or strong in SLI, then that is not consistent with Socionics.

He doesnt beleive in Model A.

[Jarno]

He doesnt beleive in Model A.

Weird, that's usually a noob thing.

[Creepy-bg]

I also feel in a way more natural to group all valued functions together, but it is irrelevant how you arrange the other three blocks while you keep the same rules of the Model. However if you consider that FiNe is conscious or strong in SLI, then that is not consistent with Socionics.

He doesnt beleive in Model A.

[Marie84]

That's actually not a problem with MBTI's assignment of functions, but with Socionics profile assignments. They got them wrong. Dostoyevsky was Ni-Fe ego IEI, Esenin was Fi-Ne ego EII, Balzac was ego Ti-Ne LII, and Robespierre was Fi-mobilizing. Socionics has it assigned the other way around with Dostoyevsky being EII, Esenin IEI, Balzac ILI, and Robespierre LII. So in Socionics the introverted quasi-idneticals have been mixed up, hence the profiles drawn from these historical figures are wrong and don't match the functions that they have been assigned. Whenever socionists try to set up some empirical studies, selecting people according to these mis-matched profiles, often this leads to incongruent results. This periodically leads Socionics community to panic and proclaim that that Socionics is borked, that Model A doesn't work. Compare this with MBTI that has many more empirical studies supporting it.

I highly disagree with Dostoyevsky being IEI>EII (I see the Te seeking in his quotes and can't imagine his self-righteous judgements being appeasing to Fi PoLR's)
Robespierre as LII was rather surprising to me at first, but after watching a series about the Revolution on Youtube a year or so ago, it revealed his Se PoLR (btw search "French Revolution 1/9" on Youtube if you're interested)
Esenin and Balzac I have no idea about (haven't looked into it really), but I could see how Esenin having been a lyricist poet would stereotype him as IEI alone

[Galen]

He doesnt beleive in Model A.

Weird, that's usually a noob thing.

And if you don't believe in European tonality then you're not a musician.

[InvisibleJim]

I went over to PersonalityCafe because it's one of the biggest forums about the Myers-Briggs. I've become a socionics 'convert,' and when I look at them, I feel like they are 'hopelessly lost' and they 'need to be saved.' They're struggling to work with a mess of logical contradictions and disorder, without using the tool of the intertype relations to help them figure out their types. They think that an ISTP's functions are TiSeNiFe, for instance, and as far as I understand, all introverts' functions are set up that way, with a reversal of the perceiving and judging functions, and the opposite in terms of extraversion/introversion than what they should be, and... it's a mess. Help! I'm not very good at evangelizing. I just want to tell them 'But wait! There's hope! Go here and read about socionics instead of wading through all this contradictory crap!'

If someone started teaching socionics in the United States, there would be an obstacle: the existing belief system. If, for instance, you put up a sign or an advertisement inviting people to learn about socionics, a system of personality types, a large number of people would say, 'But I already know my personality type - I took the Myers-Briggs - what else is there to know? Why should I learn some other "wrong" belief system?' You'd have to catch people who had never heard of any personality typing systems at all, rather than people who already know the Myers-Briggs.

Yes but also no.

Both socionics and MBTI follow directly from Jung; there isn't any real confusion other than the poor 'fuzzy' descriptions MBTI provides. The briggs typing is based on the 'dominants opposite' being the inferior on jungs conclusions. This is actually a fair summary in terms of how the ego and id are separated in socionics but ignores the projection aspects of the super-ego/id that are elevated in the psyche.

The most tragic error is in the belief that the cognitive style models are mutually exclusive and thus one can believe they are 'MBTI' INFJ whilst being socionics SEI for example; socionics is a much more clear typing mechanism and it supercedes the analysis that MBTI performs; therefore one can go back and correct the erroneous typing.

But yes, the typology in PerC is of a very low quality.

[Jarno]

Yes but also no.

Both socionics and MBTI follow directly from Jung; there isn't any real confusion other than the poor 'fuzzy' descriptions MBTI provides.

I wonder if you are aware of the fact that MBTI switches functions for introverts.

This is exactly what the OP is complaining about that people don't get, and you seem to be one of them, like most people...

[InvisibleJim]

Yes but also no.

Both socionics and MBTI follow directly from Jung; there isn't any real confusion other than the poor 'fuzzy' descriptions MBTI provides.

I wonder if you are aware of the fact that MBTI switches functions for introverts.

This is exactly what the OP is complaining about that people don't get, and you seem to be one of them, like most people...

INTp vs INTJ. It doesn't switch functions it switches dichotomies.

[aestrivex]

Weird, that's usually a noob thing.

And if you don't believe in European tonality then you're not a musician.

are you calling harry partch a musician? truly, i scoff at you; he was a far superior hobo, and on the seventh day petals fell in petaluma; lewis, be dead.

[Ave]

I wonder if you are aware of the fact that MBTI switches functions for introverts.

This is exactly what the OP is complaining about that people don't get, and you seem to be one of them, like most people...

INTp vs INTJ. It doesn't switch functions it switches dichotomies.

You'e both talking about the same thing.

Really though, it needs to be said that the functions in MBTI are not always the same as the functions in socionics, either.

[InvisibleJim]

INTp vs INTJ. It doesn't switch functions it switches dichotomies.

You'e both talking about the same thing.

Really though, it needs to be said that the functions in MBTI are not always the same as the functions in socionics, either.

That's a very fundamental issue regarding that they are supposed to be regardless of whatever certain sources say.

[Ave]

That's a very fundamental issue regarding that they are supposed to be regardless of whatever certain sources say.

Suppossed to be what, the same? The way you write things is hard to get but I think I understand you; there is only one Truth regarding the nature of the functions, since they exist on some level of reality(and I use that word loosely).

[InvisibleJim]

That's a very fundamental issue regarding that they are supposed to be regardless of whatever certain sources say.

Suppossed to be what, the same? The way you write things is hard to get but I think I understand you; there is only one Truth regarding the nature of the functions, since they exist on some level of reality(and I use that word loosely).

That's right.

[Crispy]

You'e both talking about the same thing.

Really though, it needs to be said that the functions in MBTI are not always the same as the functions in socionics, either.

That's a very fundamental issue regarding that they are supposed to be regardless of whatever certain sources say.

Wow be thankful, for you are one of the few on this forum who have openly realized this. If only you can convince the rest of the recent MBTI transfers of this fundamental issue. 95% of newcomers have a crazy tendency to think that just because two different authors don't write the same exact definitions, it means their respective functions are MEANT to be different.

[InvisibleJim]

That's a very fundamental issue regarding that they are supposed to be regardless of whatever certain sources say.

Wow be thankful, for you are one of the few on this forum who have openly realized this. If only you can convince the rest of the recent MBTI transfers of this fundamental issue. 95% of newcomers have a crazy tendency to think that just because two different authors don't write the same exact definitions, it means their respective functions are MEANT to be different.

What can you say? I must be a rocket scientist. Or I must simply be able to think and read at the same time! It's pretty evident regardless of perspective, quite simply there are no major step-outs or breaks, merely slightly different perspectives of the same cognitive actions.

Its due to a single factor, over-label-invested amateur typologists, mostly wearing NT name badges who are mostly in the beta quadra. If they lose the label they fear the loss of an imaginary invested hierarchy surrounding the labels they have chosen. Convincing themselves of very complex 'its clearly different 'solution helps them to ignore a simple, elegant and more to the point 'technical' pragmatic solution due to sentimental attachment.

[Ave]

What would this technical pragmatic solution be?

[RoadPaveMent]

I went over to PersonalityCafe because it's one of the biggest forums about the Myers-Briggs. I've become a socionics 'convert,'

I'm...so proud of you! *sniff*

and when I look at them, I feel like they are 'hopelessly lost' and they 'need to be saved.' They're struggling to work with a mess of logical contradictions and disorder, without using the tool of the intertype relations to help them figure out their types. They think that an ISTP's functions are TiSeNiFe, for instance, and as far as I understand, all introverts' functions are set up that way, with a reversal of the perceiving and judging functions, and the opposite in terms of extraversion/introversion than what they should be, and... it's a mess. Help! I'm not very good at evangelizing. I just want to tell them 'But wait! There's hope! Go here and read about socionics instead of wading through all this contradictory crap!'

If someone started teaching socionics in the United States, there would be an obstacle: the existing belief system. If, for instance, you put up a sign or an advertisement inviting people to learn about socionics, a system of personality types, a large number of people would say, 'But I already know my personality type - I took the Myers-Briggs - what else is there to know? Why should I learn some other "wrong" belief system?' You'd have to catch people who had never heard of any personality typing systems at all, rather than people who already know the Myers-Briggs.

Yes...socionics offers far more than MBTI. When I got into socionics, I realized what I had commonly looked to MBTI to explain could be explained more thoroughly and helpfully in socionics.

Plus, there's a lot more prejudice among MBTI fans than socionics fans. Socionics gives you functions you have and functions you seek. It also shows you that others are really just different--not inferior. MBTI, though, doesn't give you functions you seek. The intuitive superiority complex is the most common one. But there are superiority complexes for all dichotomies and all functions.

Which is another weakness--the dichotomies. You should type yourself based on functions. People spend way too much time fussing over the dichotomies.

[RoadPaveMent]

I came over to Socionics after having spent a good deal of time on PersonalityCafe. I know at least one other person who has done the same (he was actually pretty vocal about Socionics on the PerC forums, which is how I got involved).

There is hope...

Did anyone start with TypologyCentral or am I the only one?

At least it lets you edit posts, unlike PerC...

[RoadPaveMent]

Have you been here before?

Shhh!

[EyeSeeCold]

Did anyone start with TypologyCentral or am I the only one?

Make a poll.