Gun to your face, which one of these theories would you say was the best and why?
Gun to your face, which one of these theories would you say was the best and why?
...kind of yeah. I'll take that as a vote for socionics.
they are all cool - just superimpose them on each other
@sar
there is no best theory. there is only the more appropriate theory in terms of context. also, an in-depth understanding of each theory and its roots allows for cross-referencing and inter-breeding of ideas that can produce new and useful insights.
I like both the Enneagram and Socionics, but I view MBTI as a worse version of Socionics because it doesn't have any advantages in my opinion. All in all, I'd probably say Socionics is the best because it's very complex and it's based on the 16-types-model which has proved to be successful. But this complexity is also one of the disadvantages. Because personal traits can be explained very differently, people in this forum often have very different type opinions of the same people. The Enneagram is much easier to comprehend and the types are often easier to identify, also because the system has less types. The question is: Are 9 types accurate enough to make adequate use of this typology, or is it too shallow and you need at least 16 or even more (with subtypes)?
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Yes![]()
I don't currently have a use for MBTI, though I find it interesting; I'm more interested in trying to get Socionics to play nice with the Thoth tarot... I think I tried this from aapproach, I'll keep at it to see what happens if/when I shoehorn my thought patterns into a more-or-less Beta mold...
There an eastern thing I need to get into more which has to do with water, fire, earth, wood, steel, and their interplay with each other; water puts out fire, fire melts metal, metal chops wood, wood parts earth, and earth drinks water; water feeds wood, wood feeds fire, fire creates earth, earth creates metal, and metal contains water... it holds together in a pentagram shape:
![]()
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
^
I've read about these chinese elements (opposed to the classic greek ones), but do they have anything to do with personality typology?
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Fuck them all. Do Personal Construct Psychology instead.
MBTI is used for societal purposes. Its not specifically for this realm.
Socionics and Enneagram can overlap to the point that using both together aids in cross-sectioning someone to negate any false recognitions in either system.
As an easy example, an ESTj 5w(anything) is not plausible. However, an ESTj 6w5 is. Similarly, an ESTj 7w(anything) is not plausible. However, an ESTj 6w7 is. Different rational for each scenario exists, though. Si creatives are not found in 7s, and extroverts are not found in 5s.
As another easy example, an ENTp 3 is far more like than an ISFp 3. Yet, both are possible. So this is more of an example of a sliding hierarchy of possibility, rather than the absolute examples in the above paragraph.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
The enneagram isnt vague. The descriptions and information for it is often very, very awful and very, very misleading.
Socionics describes relationships like no other theory does, so if you're questing for the potentially best relationship, it's a fair choice. Enneagramm can be better for self-discovery and self-actualization, since socionics is mostly a descriptive theory as far as types go.
MBTI is just wrong. Their functional ordering for introverts is inexcuseable, completely messed up. However, type descriptions have a tendency to collimate with socionics' ones.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit