Some observations.
Having grappled with certain questions for quite a while now, I am finally ready to come out with certain things I believe are important issues with Socionics and MBTI in general.
First, how was the data gathered? Which methods? Case study? Were people observed without knowing? Were the functions uncovered by employment of bare-bones rationalism? My theory is that Mr. Jung was a very intuitive person who sat around at home and thought this system up using his own personal logic. I see nothing wrong with this, but what it means is that Socionics and MBTI are naturally vague and abstract. The mind is a hazy, diffucult-to-define concept which cannot be fully explained. It is self-evident to many people familiar with the system that there are various problems/disagreements associated with it (e.g., j/p, VI, Intertype Relations, and temperament theory).
If you read any Socionics or MBTI website, you will see a plethora of information on each of the 16 types, but what you will not see is proof. Even what Socionics.com uses as arguments is laughably ineffective when used as empirical data. This is all just intuitive theory. And it's great. It's wonderful. But most importantly, it's malleable. It is something Intuitives can use as a sort of clay to sculpt their understanding of others for themselves to see. We don't understand Intuition, so there needs to be some sort of vague, hazy system for people who are driven by it to be creative in, and this is that system.
Think about this, what need is there for S types to understand the system? All they need is for a Counselling Psychologist to tell them to act a certain way to realize improvement in their relationships, and they will follow the advice, because "doc knows best." If they read the profiles they will probably take them literally, and not see the patterns and principles underneath the words, which may have untold consequences. Additionally, wouldn't S types be perfectly content explaining away some social/personal/psychological dilema with a "concrete" explanation? "Some people just ain't right." I think this system is by intuitives, for intuitives. The S's who dabble in it are only contributing observations, which don't work well here because trying to explain human behavior with reasoning based entirely on observations would be one hilarious endeavor.
I believe that there is an "underground" level of human communication that only certain people strongly participate in. It cannot be fully expressed in words, nor can it be justified with empirical evidence. But the people who share in it know its merits and are drawn together whenever a well-made system created from it appears. I believe Carl Jung may have had a conscious intent when he began his journey into the human mind, but it was his intuition that started him off and guided him along, and unless I am wrong and there is some way to scientifically verify that type theory is more than theory, what is Socionics if not simply "Club Intuition?"
Also, I believe that I am an ENTp, although only my intuition has had a say.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Blaze
