Introduction into SocionicsOriginally Posted by Jarno
Keywords are mentioned but then they talk of "descriptions". No numbers are given.
No.
INTJ = INTj. Straightforward. MBTI just uses a wrong order of functions.
INTJ = INTp. MBTI just uses a wrong definition of the j/p dichotomy.
INTJ = INTj or INTp. Depends on subtype!
INTJ = INTj or INTp or ENTj or ENTp. MBTI uses different definitions for I/E and p/j.
INTJ = ???. MBTI uses different definitions for all dichotomies.
Other opinions...?
Introduction into Socionics
Keywords are mentioned but then they talk of "descriptions". No numbers are given.
No.
thanks.
They are keirsey descriptions btw. Now I happen to have the book of him, in which he doesn't use standard MBTI type descriptions, but rather proffesion descriptions. That might explain a part of the confusion.
If MBTI and Socionics had such a succinct match-up, then why have the theories not merged yet? They both have the Jungian system in common, but MBTI used that as its basis while Augusta adopted it later as it seemed to be a useful vessel for communicating her already-formed conclusions. The two systems have some weak correlations, but only weak ones. The IMs/functions are entirely different breeds between the two.
Although there's no direct correlation, MBTI J/P seems to correlate more with static/dynamic than rational/irrational. It's a difference on what each system thinks to be important for understanding a person. MBTI places more focus on what a person's strongest extraverted function is, regardless of it's position in MBTI functional ordering. (which isn't anywhere near as rigid as in Socionics; you can hear "My Te is stronger than my Ti" statements in casual MBTI discussions, which aren't commonplace around here)
Just as certain types tend to often have a certain "range" of E-types, the same works for MBTI. Some pairings occur more than others, but there isn't a smooth dichotomy-for-dichotomy comparison between the two.
yeah, the only discovered 16 different types among humans. I guess the theories have nothing in common.
Look man, if one system discovered 14 different types based on 7 dichotomies, only then would I talk about weak correlation.
Jarno, please don't waste your time with discussions like that. There is a 1:1 correlation, period.
You are almost my only hope for getting an interlocutor concerning the IE subtype system. Have you already tried to
- arrange your ESFp sample by using the IE subtype system?
- arrange it by using the pattern I discovered (shape of face)?
- compare the first with the second method?
oh no? where's your proof.
What about introvert extravert.
I read on an mbti site that they like to call extraverts initiators and introverts responders.
What do I read on socionics sites? Exactly the same.
That's a skewed understanding of the introtim/extrotim dimension.
In MBTI introversion is defined as "energized when alone, being around people is draining", extroversion - the reverse. This is inconsistent with socionics understanding, as far as I know.
yes those thing are true; that's why I types tend to need long hours of sleep.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 04-23-2010 at 09:19 PM.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
yes that is 'MBTI step I' theory.
I was talking about 'MBTI step II' theory.
No. It is the original Jungian definition and certainly not inconstistent with anything. The only difference is that MBTI extraverts are described as outgoing, socioncs extraverts not necessarily. Nevertheless, extraverts are more often than not outgoing, of course. There are just some exceptions: Some Harmonizing and Normalizing subtypes. Gulenko calls them "introverted extraverts" or distant extraverts in his DCNH system.
The main problem concerning socionics in the English-speaking world is that there is not even one reliable source. Even wikisocion is misleading in many cases because there are not enough people who try to improve it.
Ironically, I changed the article about Extraversion and Introversion some weeks ago. It was marked with "needs work" and the description was obviously misleading so I thought "Let's improve it a bit". I even included the Jungian definition and nobody changed it since then so it can't be completely wrong - or nobody cares if it is completely wrong...
But what is the official definition of extraversion/introversion in socionics?! There is no! Ganin and DeLong describe this dichotomy differently. If you ask Gulenko, Bukalov and Filatova you will certainly get three different answers...
Last edited by JohnDo; 04-23-2010 at 11:44 AM.
Socionics interprets many of Jung's functions completely differently to MBTI. This means that although there are overlaps between corresponding types, there are also many differences and one cannot say that to be an ENTP is to be an ENTp. (And ENTp is perhaps the MOST like it's MBTI cousin out of all the types). If you look at the Sensing functions and Feeling functions, you see a drastic difference in interpretation, which combined with the differences in opinion on I/E and J/P proved two different frameworks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
