Results 1 to 40 of 96

Thread: Both MBTI and Socionics are Correct?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,682
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Both MBTI and Socionics are Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Myers and Briggs added another dimension to Jung's typological model by identifying that people also have a preference for using either the judging function (thinking or feeling) or their perceiving function (sensing or intuition) when relating to the outside world (extraversion).
    MBTI tests are all based on extraversion then. So that means All IPs will be represented with JiPe functions and all IJs will be represented with PiJe functions. These are the function pairs that they relate to with in the world. So then when relating to the inside world, or introversion, all IPs are PiJe and all IJs are JiPe.


    MBTI persona:
    Id-Superego

    Socionics persona:
    Ego-Super Id
    Last edited by EyeSeeCold; 11-16-2010 at 05:31 PM.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  2. #2
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,624
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Both MBTI and Socionics (and the concepts backing them up) are artificial and arbitrary. The correct question to ask is not whether they are correct, but whether they 1) have explanatory power, and 2) are useful.
    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor DarkAngelFireWolf69, Dmitri Lytov

  3. #3
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,072
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksei View Post
    Both MBTI and Socionics (and the concepts backing them up) are artificial and arbitrary. The correct question to ask is not whether they are correct, but whether they 1) have explanatory power, and 2) are useful.
    +38

    The functions weren't discovered by Jung. They are, like everything else, a human system, a creation of the mind, imposed onto reality. They are partially real, insofar as they are based in reality, and partially nonreal, insofar as they are not perfectly accurate to reality.

    All convention is based on nature; all convention fails nature.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  4. #4
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    MBTI tests are all based on extraversion then.
    MBTI functions are flawed. I can think of many more ways of ordering functions, and they would all be flawed. Because only socionics functions are correctly ordered.

    conclusion: ignore mbti functions

  5. #5
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,682
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    MBTI functions are flawed. I can think of many more ways of ordering functions, and they would all be flawed. Because only socionics functions are correctly ordered.

    conclusion: ignore mbti functions
    Lol. Yes, I think because the test was originally geared for extraverts, the functions have been, over time, contorted. As they were implied based on behaviors of Jung's observed types, they became kind of meshed together.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksei View Post
    Both MBTI and Socionics (and the concepts backing them up) are artificial and arbitrary. The correct question to ask is not whether they are correct, but whether they 1) have explanatory power, and 2) are useful.
    Agreed.
    Last edited by EyeSeeCold; 11-16-2010 at 05:24 PM.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  6. #6
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,009
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ... according to Myers, the type was the result one got on the original test. Over time, she realized introverts usually test the reverse of what she predicted, as in, dominant function determining rationality/irrationality. By then the typology was in commercial use and was never fixed. I don't recall a source for it, and the supposed excerpts there could have been made up, but it's not very likely. Anyway, this got twisted into "p/j swap", whereas it should be function swap, if not a complete redesign. Instead descriptions, functions included, were adjusted to fit the people who tested as types they weren't. Or at least that's how it appears to me.

    There's no way to call any typology "correct", but original MBTI assignment, apart from focusing on increasingly superficial traits, doesn't even work within that system. Whereas in socionics, Jungian functions and dichotomies match. That was a good enough reason for me to give up on MBTI as soon as I've realized it.

  7. #7
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,624
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not entirely sure Jungian functions and dichotomies match, actually. In Socionics I'm living proof that they don't match -- I always test ENFp, and I despise . In MBTI tertiary creep/temptation/loops severely fuck with dichotomous arrangements. As for P/J matching better in one system than the other, I actually tried to test that out... for Jungian functions (as interpreted by MBTI analysts), matching a Rational temperament to a Ji dominant function doesn't work in most cases.

    Now, I would suggest myself that for both systems to be more precise they need some modification. Particularly Socionics -- it is much too complicated. For every type trait defined by Socionics to be true of every type all the time you need to cut down some.

    Socionics is the better of the two though, in terms of usefulness. Intertype relations theory in particular is beautiful, though inapplicable to MBTI functions.
    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor DarkAngelFireWolf69, Dmitri Lytov

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    /
    Posts
    7,038
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    why do either have to be "correct"?

  9. #9
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,871
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default x

    MBTI focus on "apparent, changing, external" traits
    Socionics focus on "permanent, real, internal" traits
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  10. #10
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,624
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1981slater View Post
    MBTI focus on "apparent, changing, external" traits
    Socionics focus on "permanent, real, internal" traits
    Bullshit. MBTI properly applied focuses on even more deeply internal traits than Socionics does. So deeply internal in fact, that it has almost no explanatory power. That's why I lost interest in it.
    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor DarkAngelFireWolf69, Dmitri Lytov

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •