Truth about MBTI and Socionics

[Hitta]

Well theres a truth about socionics and MBTI, though its more like whats not true. Its a truth that some people fail to grasp. Socionics and MBTI is a system of thought, an isolation. It is something that is based completely on assumptive logic. God did not come down from the heavens and present this system to us. There is no divine law in this. Socionics and MBTI are completely idealistic systems. Most people out there in the MBTI and Socionics community are searching for an answer or something in this. They think they will find their type, their absolute prophecy. They think there is a type that is made just for them, and they are supposed to fit in it perfectly. There is sort of a psychological attachment to the concept of actually finding something that completely understands us, some type of perfect system that defines everything that we are. Perfection is not something that we will ever reach. This isn't saying that perfection isn't something that we should try to reach, because I believe that we should. Its just everyone seems to be placing their trust in something that never will work to absolution instead of actually placing trust in their own uniqueness. People should express whats inside themselves, not what some categorizational system tells you you are.

The truth is, a person probably fits into multiple different types. Hell, a real person probably fits into something that types do not represent. Yet, people have turned a theoretical system into something that stereotypes people. Some of you think that they understand other people before they even open their mouths. Its a epic failure. Instead of using socionics as a tool, socionics is using us as tools.

[tcaudilllg]

I agree. You have type, but are not type. Still, having a typological relationship between yourself and another definitely represents a deep sort of bond, because you know that at least in part, that person can understand you.

[aestrivex]

Well theres a truth about socionics and MBTI, though its more like whats not true. Its a truth that some people fail to grasp. Socionics and MBTI is a system of thought, an isolation. It is something that is based completely on assumptive logic. God did not come down from the heavens and present this system to us. There is no divine law in this. Socionics and MBTI are completely idealistic systems. Most people out there in the MBTI and Socionics community are searching for an answer or something in this. They think they will find their type, their absolute prophecy. They think there is a type that is made just for them, and they are supposed to fit in it perfectly. There is sort of a psychological attachment to the concept of actually finding something that completely understands us, some type of perfect system that defines everything that we are. Perfection is not something that we will ever reach. This isn't saying that perfection isn't something that we should try to reach, because I believe that we should. Its just everyone seems to be placing their trust in something that never will work to absolution instead of actually placing trust in their own uniqueness. People should express whats inside themselves, not what some categorizational system tells you you are.

all of this goes without saying. nonetheless, socionics is in a number of ways a very good and very descriptive manner of classification, and your attacks on it do not really take this into account at all because it's sort of not perfect.

clearly, nothing is perfect. while you have a sufficiently antagonistic stance towards Te not to agree with me, socionics is a very good approximation and is of significant practical use (IMO).

[consentingadult]

all of this goes without saying. nonetheless, socionics is in a number of ways a very good and very descriptive manner of classification, and your attacks on it do not really take this into account at all because it's sort of not perfect.

clearly, nothing is perfect. while you have a sufficiently antagonistic stance towards Te not to agree with me, socionics is a very good approximation and is of significant practical use (IMO).

For once, I fully agree with Niffweed here. Of all pseudo- and proto-scientific theories on personality, ranging from astrology to Socionics, Socionics is the one that comes closest to the understandings reached in mainstream personality psychology (which is a far more complex body of knowledge than Socionics is), and, as far as I can tell, the only one that is not fundamentally in conflict with insights on personality pathology, although different terminology is often used.

Hitta, the deal is that Socionics will not solve your problems for you, but it will give you some tools that will allow you to work towards a more fulfilling life. Ultimately, nobody is coming to save you, you have to do it yourself. Despite your claim, I and others have been and are using Socionics as a tool (and with satisfying results), not the other way around

[Hitta]

Socionics is an overly idealized theory. There is not a person on this forum that fits solely into one type. Hell, theres not a person in reality that fits into one type. People are not gonna figure out their absolute selves with this theory, though it might trigger something that may cause that, I really don't know).

When I hear quotes like "Omg Beta Fe" or something that is talking about a characterization of something, I get thoroughly annoyed. The thing with the relationships is the worst. When people say that they don't get along because one person is a certain type. Its fucking retarded stereotypes. A lot of people make decisions of people based just on their types. They automatically decide that they don't like someone because they have conflicting types. Types are abstract concepts that do not precisely fit reality, its not like we have some stamp on your brain that says ESTp or ISTp. We are all individuals with complex emotions and thought patterns. People don't get along, or people do things because of who they are, not because they have little black squares and white triangles coming out of their mouths.

[Phaedrus]

There is not a person on this forum that fits solely into one type. Hell, theres not a person in reality that fits into one type.

Utterly stupid and false statements like these are nothing but pukeworthy. They reveal that the person behind them understands nothing.

Types are abstract concepts that do not precisely fit reality, its not like we have some stamp on your brain that says ESTp or ISTp.

Types are real, objective structures that exist independent of any theory or model, including Socionics. Whether you are an ESTp or an ISTp is determined by your brain's structure.

[Hitta]

Utterly stupid and false statements like these are nothing but pukeworthy. They reveal that the person behind them understands nothing.


Types are real, objective structures that exist independent of any theory or model, including Socionics. Whether you are an ESTp or an ISTp is determined by your brain's structure.

Are you mentally retarded? That is the dumbest thing I think I've ever heard. You are attached to something that isn't provable. Its like a religion or something to you. A way of life.

[consentingadult]

Socionics is an overly idealized theory. There is not a person on this forum that fits solely into one type. Hell, theres not a person in reality that fits into one type. People are not gonna figure out their absolute selves with this theory, though it might trigger something that may cause that, I really don't know).

When I hear quotes like "Omg Beta Fe" or something that is talking about a characterization of something, I get thoroughly annoyed. The thing with the relationships is the worst. When people say that they don't get along because one person is a certain type. Its fucking retarded stereotypes. A lot of people make decisions of people based just on their types. They automatically decide that they don't like someone because they have conflicting types. Types are abstract concepts that do not precisely fit reality, its not like we have some stamp on your brain that says ESTp or ISTp. We are all individuals with complex emotions and thought patterns. People don't get along, or people do things because of who they are, not because they have little black squares and white triangles coming out of their mouths.

well, from what you are writing, I can only conclude that it is you who is trying to get too much out of Socionics, like it is a theory of personality. It is not a system of personality, but of psychological type. That's what is so good aboutclassical Socionics: that it, contrary to MBTI, tries to stick with the essences of psychological types, and tries not to add unrelated bull shit, such as 'ENFPs usually have a wide circle of friends', which are theoretical fabrications. Also contrary to all those logical types on this forum who invent stuff such as dual-type theory, supersocion theory etc.etc. If you realize that Socionic type is just a small part of personality (but an important part anyway), that there are many other complicated factors, such as culture, pathology, situational circumstances etc.etc., involved, you're fine.

[suoko]

Everyone fits to some of the 16 personality types, and if one understands the functions and their directions, one also understands there is no other way. Socionics also offers pictures to us, that additionally helps, and both together will give the complete understanding.

What Socionics produced to the top of the MBTI, was at least the correction when it comes to the functions at the IP and IJ categories, where the MBTI has a wrong functional theory. And the pictures are top quality, just a couple of mistakes (like two) there these days (as they have been adding them).

Then there's something else too correct in Socionics, but that's it (most of the texts, I do not agree), but that's enough, the theory itself is now complete, has been a long time, but not too many has a complete enough understanding of it yet, of the theory that's actually more simple than you think, it just having been made complex and half nonsense by people who do not understand it well enough. The understanding of it is not complete even in Socionics, and the texts are pretty horrible at many places.