Is MBTI better than Socionics?

[Hugo]

Despite what Ganin (socionics.com) says, INTP (MBTI) and INTj (socionics) are the same thing.

They both have as base function and as creative function. MBTI gives a much better description of my type than socionics. MBTI also allows me to know my type without any difficulties. There is no point to socionics if you can't find out your type - if you are looking for your dual in socionics, you could end up with your conflicting relation!

I think that intertype relations of socionics should be applied to MBTI, so that MBTI INTP and ESFJ are duals.

[indigoroom]

[trey]

yeah but if you do that we don't get to look down on MBTI users anymore

i like being snobby to other pseudoscientists, thank you very much

[CuriousSoul]

I would agree with Ganin: It is on and off compatibility. Sometimes you get your type right - sometimes not. Generally the problem seems to have mainly to do with the rather imprecise and misleading nature of the Judging/Perceiving scale. According to Ganin at least it is the most important dichotomy - yet why is it almost always the most difficult to determine? Something is rotten in Denmark and new concepts of testing are needed.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Hugo]

As I said before

I think that intertype relations of socionics should be applied to MBTI, so that MBTI INTP and ESFJ are duals.

Instead of typing on the basis of socionics, why not type on the basis of MBTI, and apply intertype relations to it. It seems a lot better and easier, ending the 'socionics typing headache'!

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Slava]

Intuitively socionics is definitly much more on point. It seems as if every time I read books about MBTI, they try to stay away from functions and sorta beat around the bush when it comes to them (except for "Dynamics of Personality Type"). I have met many INTj's and ENTp's and ISTj's and ESTp's and its damn clear which one has less feelings, but I guess MBTI can get away putting unconcious functions instead of the weak ones, since they are hard to see anyways if you aren't ENXp.

[Cone]

Sort of like this link, only for socionics, would be great:

http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/as...nt/survey.html

Damn thing typed me as an ENTj...

[science as magic]

The way you test in MBTI does have an on off correlation with socionics. In MBTI I tested INTP in the past now I test INTJ.

[metaiwan]

Based off this:
http://www.typelogic.com/intp.html
Socionics: MBTI
Duality: Anima
fits Dr. Beebe's description of the anima/anumus: each is the other's inferior (4th) function
Mirror: Pal
work and play well together: minimal natural type conflict
Activity: Supplement
like Pal, but functions are farther removed: each can add to the other's strengths
Quasi-identical: Complement
compatible strengths with opposite emphases
Beneficiary: Suitemate
a person one might be comfortable sharing an office. Prefer similar climates, but don't necessarily have much in common as far as goals or world view
Look-a-like: Companion
similar modes of expression: bear each other's company well
Super-ego: Enigma
a puzzle: totally foreign in nearly every facet
Supervisee: Tribesman
share a sense of culture, but with different interests and abilities
Conflict: Novelty
intriguingly different: interestingly so
Benefactor: Advisor
each has an area of insight that the other lacks
Comparative: Neighbor
arrive at the same place by variant processes
Contrary: Contrast
point and counterpoint on each function
Illusionary: Cohort
mutually drawn into experiential escapades
Semi-Duality: Pedagogue
each is both the other's mentor and student: has a "parent to child" feel
Supervisor: Counterpart
perform similar functions in totally different realms

(italics are from definations from that page)
They seem somewhat similar, well, suprisingly so, to socionics descriptions, although much more vague and no mention of lopsided relationships (although they don't enough aspects in their model to show or find this).
We have 8 aspects though, and that totally beats 4

[Ave]

Well I prefer socionics not so much to do the inner structure of the system but because of the mannner in which socionists tend to look at human beings. I agree with Ganin when he says that MBTI focuses too much on making a human being linear. This is very true. So I prefer socionics, not because it has 8 functions instead of 4, but because it focuses on the weak aspects and also the paradoxal aspects of the human being which means that it actually has some practical use in the real world, because the manufactured MBTI profiles do not reflect real human beings.

[MysticSonic]

The MBTI INTP has a functional order of Ti, Ne, Si, Fe, whereas the Socionic INTj has a functional order of Ti, Ne, Fi, Se, and the super-id; thus, simple reasoning can show you that the characterized structure of the two types will be different.

[discourse]

I like Socionics more and by everi bit of new information I get I will beocome to like it more. I like it caurse it has NT approach which is more clear and has a structure unlike the MBTI being NF typology saing those emotional things ever telling me where do those conclusions come from. Instead it tries to inffluence you and I fcking hate that. But both typologies need each other as I think and agree with Gulenko caurse Socionics is too logical and doesn't put it's eye on human factor all the time and it should co work with NF MBTI typologists to become more into peoples science. Bad that MBTI doesn't like Socionics all the time as I have heard.

[diamond]

I like Socionics more and by everi bit of new information I get I will beocome to like it more. I like it caurse it has NT approach which is more clear and has a structure unlike the MBTI being NF typology saing those emotional things ever telling me where do those conclusions come from. Instead it tries to inffluence you and I fcking hate that. But both typologies need each other as I think and agree with Gulenko caurse Socionics is too logical and doesn't put it's eye on human factor all the time and it should co work with NF MBTI typologists to become more into peoples science. Bad that MBTI doesn't like Socionics all the time as I have heard.

I fucking hate that too!

[science as magic]

Me fucking 2.

[Ave]

I like Socionics more and by everi bit of new information I get I will beocome to like it more. I like it caurse it has NT approach which is more clear and has a structure unlike the MBTI being NF typology saing those emotional things ever telling me where do those conclusions come from. Instead it tries to inffluence you and I fcking hate that. But both typologies need each other as I think and agree with Gulenko caurse Socionics is too logical and doesn't put it's eye on human factor all the time and it should co work with NF MBTI typologists to become more into peoples science. Bad that MBTI doesn't like Socionics all the time as I have heard.

Yeah the emotive attitude that MBTI and Keirsey take towards the people they type is annoying. But its ironic that in my experience socionics has more value in my life as a human being. MBTI and Keirsey only focus on the positive aspects of the person which means that their problems are never addressed. Healthy body parts dont need a doctor, sick body parts do. Which is why the MBTI's focus on "type dynamics" brings rather little because one doesnt need help with what one is dynamic at. I had a breakdown this weekend and when I looked at my problems I realized that the socionists are probably right that it stems from my weak F function. Ill spare you the details, but after reading about socionics I was able to put a finger on my problems and put them into words, whereas before I had just felt frustration without knowing where it stemmed from and always reverting back to my strong functions to deal with those problems. Im not saying my problems are solved, but socionics has helped but finger on them and I will probably use other methods to solve them. MBTI and Keirsey want people to understand each other, which is good, and they want all people to be happy with their systems, but they fail to really help people because they do not focus on the actual problems, and thus MBTI and Keirsey are nothing more then a random classification of human beings, which as Jung said, means nothing in itself.

So the fact that socionics digs deeper into people and focuses on their relations, makes it more of "people science" than MBTI and Keirsey.

[diamond]

Yeah, MBTI is great for helping you to understand and accept others, while socionics helps you to understand and work on yourself.

The other way around would be to use MBTI to focus on your strengths and socionics to focus on others' weaknesses a.k.a. rationalizing your position.

The full circle way is to fully apprehend everybody's strengths and weaknesses especially your own.

Socionics is essentially for T types I think, who might be "diplomatically impaired".