Why MBTI sucks

[snowyc]

MBTI is to Bill Gate's QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System that became MSDOS and the rest they say is history) as Socionics is to the niche world of MLM (Multi-Level Marketing).

How did i work that out?

Well, it's simple really, MBTI is more aimed at pigeonholing people unfairly by what they're are good for in terms of those Corporations. It nearly always focuses on what job you should be doing. This can be a source of much pleasure and pain.

On the other hand, Socionics from the good Russians (who got a man in space first i may add) have gone back to Jungian roots and done things better and more justly. There's little subjective suggestions of what is your best job as a certain type. Socionics is more of a neutral system that encourages your own self-evidence. In other words, it helps you to realise the obvious. The truth is not important; honesty is.

[Creepy-pokeball]

On the other hand, Socionics from the good Russians (who got a man in space first i may add) have gone back to Jungian roots and done things better and more justly. There's little subjective suggestions of what is your best job as a certain type. Socionics is more of a neutral system that encourages your own self-evidence.

This makes no sense. There are multiple biases within your statement yet your conclusion is that it is neutral lol. Not that MBTI does not have its issues but blanketing like this is silly. BTW it is really easy to prove Jung biased so dont go there Smart dude but not perfect.

[snowyc]

Oh, maybe next time i won't give my opinions. I wasn't trying to say one system was "right" or "wrong". I simply meant to imply that Socionics is far more ethical system i.e. fairer for self-discovery, it's less of a pigeonholing tool used by corporate america that is the MBTI. Enough said.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Then say that lol otherwise youre creating a bandwagon scenario. Sigh.

In that new light, at what length are physical attributes in socionics okay (proposed as ethical) with the community as a whole. This phrenological-like usage is pigeon-holing as well. Ive noted that some think it is bullcrap and some fully support it. The question concerning this is, "Why does it matter if one can ID another through facial feature patterns if it is even partially valid?" There is obviously an element of prejudgement if used-- a very ethical issue.

[snowyc]

Socionics could be a discovery from post-commonist russia i.e. a social model that could make Socialism (one-step back from communism) a reality . MBTI on the otherhand was developed in the good old USA and thus capitalised on as perhap the premier tool for deciding on your career.

It's all falling in to place, from an early age when i took some kind of career choosing software, it had to be shrewedly and transparently based of MBTI.

Socionics does not directly encourage you to assume specific roles based on your type. It is more ethical in my opinion because it allows individuals to have that "awe" and "wow" moment at it's seeming accuracy of describing them but then where MBTI keeps you in the box, Socionics perhaps opens your mind to the fact that you're nothing special and your role is society is self-evident.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Oh wow. You edited what I quoted. Good bye to you and your manipulation. On that note I leave you with:

I agree that there are elements of capitalism in MBTI-- a definite flaw (or not, depending on your veiw which most likely has to do with your current power/options available). I do not agree with the conclusion about Socialism.

If Socionics does not assume specific roles then it wouldnt use titles for temperament--it does. In fact it uses multiple titles for the same temperament. The only thing Socionics opens one's mind to are the likely patterns of preference (ie. with the grain/not against the grain pattern, ease of usage, etc) in action/reaction to other temperaments or preferences. It is not the end all. It is just another part within the whole.

[stevENTj]

meh...

I like MBTI because it's very useful and easy to understand. I don't like it because of all of the short-cutting in the theory, the stereotyping of functions, the introverted J/P issue, and how it can inaccurately type people so frequently.

I like socionics because it's much more detailed, true to Jung, and also has intertype relationships down to a science which is *highly* useful. I don't like socionics though because it's very cryptic, there are not many English language reference materials, and due to all of that there is a bit of a learning curve. I say it's worth the effort though.

I wouldn't say "MBTI sucks" though. I would say that I definitely like socionics better.

[snowyc]

Fair comment. Again, "sucks" only implies it's partially "wrong", i'm not saying it's completely "wrong", that's another matter entirely.

[Creepy-]

I never had any trouble trying to type myself in MBTI, due to there is much more material on the subject that I can study while for Socionics most of the material is in Russian, which I do not know... this makes it very difficult to really get a fundamental understanding of the system.

[cjcoldmine]

Take Russian like I am. I'm in the second level, so I don't know much right now. Perhaps I could undertake a project to translate some of the webpages to English?

[Ms. Kensington]

meh...

I like MBTI because it's very useful and easy to understand. I don't like it because of all of the short-cutting in the theory, the stereotyping of functions, the introverted J/P issue, and how it can inaccurately type people so frequently.

I like socionics because it's much more detailed, true to Jung, and also has intertype relationships down to a science which is *highly* useful. I don't like socionics though because it's very cryptic, there are not many English language reference materials, and due to all of that there is a bit of a learning curve. I say it's worth the effort though.

I wouldn't say "MBTI sucks" though. I would say that I definitely like socionics better.

nice

I understand MBTI as behavioral and not useless. Isn't that true of the whole of social science?