Reformulating socionics in MBTI terms.
Ever since I've read Thompson's description of her "introverted intuition" (in her model the INTJ's main function) I have been wondering to what extend it might be possible and perhaps even desirable to reformulate socionics' function model to fit that of the MBTI. Her description of the thought process is accurate to the point of intimidating.
So, consider the question raised... INTJ = NiTe or TiNe? What is the way to know? The complementarity of inverse functions seems to point in socionics' favor, but do we know that this principle is correct...? We know typology has a nasty habbit of throwing people's senses off and leading them to draw false conclusions... How real is the possibility that socionics' most basic of assumptions are incorrect?
Re: Reformulating socionics in MBTI terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by labcoat
How real is the possibility that socionics' most basic of assumptions are incorrect?
That depends on what you're talking about. What are socionics' most basic assumptions? I see that as simply that people have different priorities and motivations in how they process information and carry out their work or spend their time and effort, and that affects how they interact with other people. That, to my satisfaction, is correct.
If you refer to the existence or not of 16 types, or of the functions, or the quadras *shrug* I don't know. To me those are simply a way to put the above into a consistent model.
Re: Reformulating socionics in MBTI terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by labcoat
So, consider the question raised... INTJ = NiTe or TiNe? What is the way to know?
To compare both models with each other and with Jung -- from as many angles as possible. If we do that, we realize that both Socionics and MBTT think that their 16 types are based on Jung's 8 types and that both models describe the same 16 groups of people (= the same 16 types). But we also realize that MBTT is wrong about the functions, since Jung's introverted thinking type is a Subjectivist whose behaviours and thinking process is most similar to an LII's, and that for example an ILI's behaviour is most similar to Jung's introverted intuitive type.
There is a clear pattern there, and once you see it, it becomes obvious that an INTP can't correspond to Jung's introverted thinking type, and that an INTJ can't correspond to Jung's introverted intuitive type. The basic and most relevant dichotomy here is the J/P -- the differences in behaviours, attitudes, and thinking processes between rationals and irrationals. All three models -- Jung's, MBTT, and Socionics -- agree on how to group people according to that dimension, and they use the same criteria for the typical behaviours of each group. They describe the same empirical phenomenon, but MBTT has misunderstood and confused the meaning and the ordering of the functions.
This is most likely (beyond reasonable doubt) the truth of the matter. I have investigated this very thoroughly, and if you do the same, you will agree with me.
Re: Reformulating socionics in MBTI terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
If we do that, we realize that both Socionics and MBTT think that their 16 types are based on Jung's 8 types
Not quite. Let us be clear about this, since it's a source of confusion all the time. Socionics authors acknowledge Jung as the father of this kind of typology and his functions, or types, as the starting point for Augusta's functions and types. So, to that extent, yes, of course Socionics's types are based on Jung's.
But that must not be understood as meaning that socionics's functions are Jung's, and that one will understand socionics by understanding his functions. That is not correct. I don't think any "mainstream" socionist refers to Jung's functions except as historical reference. I demonstrated how Jung's types can be typed according to socionics, and FWIW Rick and (at least partly) Lytov agreed.
To use Jung's types description directly for typing, or explain types, in the context of socionics, leads to nothing but confusion. The most recent example was in my Nelson Mandela thread as per my discussion with Rocky.
Those who keep referring to Jung's original type descriptions as the "true" socionics types, or functions, will never understand socionics accurately. That may work for MBTT, no idea. I don't care.